Children of the Church of the Jews were some of those that were to be circumcised after the manner of Moses then some of those on whom they laid the yoke of Circumcision after the manner of Moses must be Children of Inchurched-Parents But Children of the Church of the Jews were some of those that were to be Circumcised after the manner of Moses Gen. 17.12 Therefore some of those on whom they laid that Yoke must be Children of Inchurched-Parents to wit Children of eight days old Hence it is plain â primo ad ultimum that Children of Inchurched-Parents one of them at least are Disciples and by our Lord's Commission should be Baptized The true order then is this 1. That Gentile Parents should attend to the preaching of the Gospel and be converted by it 2. That then they should enter into a Gospel-Church-Estate that is be Discipled 3. And upon that should be Baptized themselves 4. And that their Infants also being by the Lord's appointment received in with and by means of their Parents or Parent at least as mediate-Members and by the Lord called Disciples they also as well as their Parents should by his Commission be Baptized they being as truly and compleatly mediate-Members in their kind as their Parents are immediate Members in their kind I shall give one Argument more for the Disciple-ship of the Infants of Inchurched-Parents If to be one of Christ's Externally and Ecclesiastically as Matth. 26.73 Mar. 14.69 70. Luke 22.58 And to be with Christ Externally as Matth. 26.69 71. Mar. 14.67 Luke 22.56.59 be the same thing with being one of Christ's Disciples as appears John 18.17.25 Then Children of Inchurched-Parents being Externally and Ecclesiastically related to Christ and Externally with Christ and of his Kingdom the Church as Matth. 19.13 14 15.13 14 15.16 must of necessity be Disciples Dr. Worth To clear this distinction of Church-Members take what followes Church-Members called by the name Disciples are of two kinds or species 1. Immediate that do actually in their own persons having first approved themselves to the Church receive and lay hold of the Covenant of Grace held forth to them in a Church-way for themselves and their Seed and giving up themselves and their Seed to the Lord and to his Church Gen. 17.7 by the will of God This they do for their Seed as middle-persons by God's appointment and not as publick persons 2. Mediate by means of their Parent or Parents one or both And hence ariseth the Distinction of Immediate and mediate Church-Members distinct from each other in kind which may thus be proved Prop. Such as is the confederation of little Children such is their Church-Membership Assump But their confederation is Mediate Conclus Therefore their Church-Membership is mediate also This is the Argument of that reverend and accomplished servant of God Mr. John Davenport The Proposition is evident because Church-Confederation is the proper and formal-cause and reason of Church-Membership Et cui forma tribuitur vol adimitur eidem formatum The Assumption is also clear for it is plain that all such Childrens confederation is in and by their Parent or Parent 's confederating for them Mediante Parente And this makes their Membership Mediat Were this distinction generally held by them that hold Paedobaptism our dissenting Brethren that are against Infant-Membership and Infant-Baptism would be freed from a great Temptation For they see that if Children be Church-Members of the same kind and species equally with their Parents then when they are grown up they may by virtue of that Member-ship Relata enim non suscipiunt magis minus challenge a right to all other Church-Ordinances because they are Church-Members as their Parents were and stand in a right Estate in the Church having never been cast out I must confess that by such a succession of Members as this is the Church would be sadly corrupted But if this Distinction of Immediate and Mediate Members were held then might our Brethren easily see that the Membership of Children which is mediate would not entitle them to full Communion with the Church in all Ordinances proper to the Adult but they must become Immediate-Members by their own credible profession of Faith and Repentance to the satisfaction of the Church and laying hold of the Covenant solemnly themselves as their Parents have done before them And this would be a way according to God to maintain a succession of Infant-Members to whom there are divers Priviledges belonging tending to their Conversion and yet to keep the Church pure See Mr. Baxter's Book of Confirmation wherein he hath solidly proved the substance of what I here assert And now it will be requisite to recollect what hath been more largely discoursed and to apply it to the scope intended I have shewed that there are as many and as probable objections against both the Example and command that have been produced by H. D. for Womens receiving the Lord's Supper as are against the Baptism of Children of Inchurched-Parents And that there are if not clearer yet as clear Arguments out of Scripture for the latter as for the former and therefore as little reason to object against the latter as against the former My intent is not to quarrel but rather to compose this difference if the Lord see it good CHAP. II. AS to to the Baptism of Believers I know none that are for Infant-Baptism do oppose it provided 1. That they be Believers in a Gospel-Church-Estate 2. That they be such Believers as have not before been Baptized in their minority But the former part of your book tending to prove that only Actual Believers should be Baptized I cannot perceive that your proofs do confirm it either from Scripture or humane Testimonies The generality of them if I apprehend them rightly speak only of Adult persons and therein we agree with you that Adult persons ought to testifie their Faith and Repentance to the judgment of Rational Charity of the Church guided in judging by the Rules of God's Word before they are admitted to be Members and to Baptism And I believe you cannot but judge that the Testimonies you bring from Mr. Perkins Mr. Baxter Dr. Owen and some others were so intended and not at all against Infants I shall leave that to them that are concerned and are yet alive to explain and vindicate their own sence But as for some others who as you render them speak more punctually to your purpose which I have neither time nor Books to examine I look upon the case of Infant-Baptism as little concerned in them the sacred Scripture alone as you confess being the only Rule that can satisfie Conscience Yet were it not too tedious a task I could shew you many mistakes in your apprehensions of divers of them And you may see Answers to sundry of them in Dr. Homes and some others which yet you take no notice of I grant that all Adult Persons to be admitted to the Church
2. I have not all the Authors at hand whose Testimonies you produce to examine them you may possibly misapprehend and mistake them 3. Some of the Authors you produce which you say are faithful impugners of Infants-Baptism as a humane and Antichristian Tradition and Invention whom you say we shall find by plentiful Evidence to be none of the least are expresly-contrary to what you affirm In particular the Waldenses whom you so highly extol for what they have said and practised against Infant-Baptism Which thing gives just cause of suspicion that you may have mist it in others as well as in them Take their own words out of John Paul Perrins History translated out of French by Sampson Leonard Printed Anno 1624. In Book 1. Chap. 4. He brings in objections and false Accusations laid upon that people And pag. 15. The 4th Calumny saith he was touching Baptism which it is said they denyed to little Infants but from this imputation saith he they quit themselves as followeth The Time and Place of those that are to be Baptized is not ordained but the Charity and Edification of the Church and Congregation must serve for a Rule therein c. And therefore they to whom the Children were nearest allied brought their Infants to be Baptized c. And then he renders the occsiaon of that Calumny True it is saith he that being constrained for some certain hundred years he tell 's us not how many to suffer their Children to be Baptized by the Priests of the Church of Rome they deferred the doing thereof as long as they could possibly because they had in detestation those humane inventions which were added to that Holy Sacrament which they held to be but pollutions thereof And for as much as their Pastors which they called Barbes were many times abroad in the service of their Churches they could not have the Sacrament of Baptism administred to their Infants by their own Ministers which the Priests perceiving charged them thereupon with this Imposture which not only their Adversaries have believed but divers others who have well approved of their life and Faith in all other points What can be more plain Again in Chapter 5. pag. 30.31 King Lewis the 12th being informed by the Enemies of the Waldenses dwelling in Provence of many grievious Crimes imposed upon them sent to make Inquisition in those places the Lord Adam Fume Mr. of Requests and a Doctor of Sorbon called Parvi who was his Confessor They visited all their Parishes and Temples and found neither Images nor so much as the least shew of any Ornaments belonging to their Masses and Ceremonies of the Church of Rome much less any such Crimes as were imposed upon them but rather that they kept their Sabbaths duly causing their Children to be Baptized according to the order of the Primitive Church teaching them the Articles of the Christian Faith and the Commandements of God To which the King replied they were better Men than he or his People Again Book 2. Chap. 4. pag. 60 61. We have but two Sacramental Signes the which Christ hath left unto us the one is Baptism the other the Eucharist which we receive to shew what our perseverance in the Faith is as we have promised when we were Baptized being little Infants See more Doctrine of the Waldenses and Albingenses Book 1. Chapter 3. pag. 43. implied line 6. and plainly asserted towards the end of the page Whereas Baptism is administred in a full Congregation of the Faithful it is to the End that he that is received into the Church should be reputed and held of all for a Christian-Brother and that all the Congregation might pray for him that he may be a Christian in heart as he is outwardly esteemed to be a Christian And for this Cause it is that we present our Children in Baptism It is also necessarily-implied Book 3. Chap. 4. pag. 99. Where they deny the Popish additions to Infant-Baptism but not the Baptism it self Hence I cannot but wonder that you should so peremptorily assert that the Waldenses were such faithful impugners of Infant Baptism as an Antichristian Tradition and Invention when these Testimonies are so expresly and Diametrically to the contrary Thus much of the third thing premised 4. The humane Authorities you produce though some of them were Godly Men yet it is manifest that the Authors admitted many other absurd things concerning Baptism and some of them as you confess deferred it a long time after they were converted out of a superstitious apprehension as Constantine himself did and others that you Enumerate p. 69. and their Baptizing Catechumens only at Easter and Pentecost And why might they not defer their Infants Baptism out of the like superstition It seems most probable that they did so and therefore their practice and Testimony is of little worth 5. That their silence in the first Centuries after Christ concerning the Baptizing of Infants is no considerable argument against it A non dici ad non esse non valet consequentia But indeed it seems rather an Argument for it It may rather be interpreted that there was no question concerning it nor opposition made against it in those Centuries therefore no mention made of it But afterwards when it came to be questioned and opposed in Century 4. and 5. then there stood up those that maintained it and much trouble there was about it It is not much that I shall say to particulars though I shall not be altogether silent To Century 1. I except against Baptizing by Lay-Men and Women as not regular Though some judicious persons who look upon it as irregular do not count it a Nullity if it be dispensed in the way of an Ordinance In the Name of the Father of the Son and of the Holy Ghost and not ludicrously fieri non debuit factum valet It should not have been so done but now it is done it is valid not a Nullity As for the manner of it by dipping I shall speak to that afterwards To Century 2. I see nothing in it but what is proper to grown persons which we do not deny Your Argument hence must be Here 's no mention of Infants-Baptized therefore none were Baptized which is answered a little before To Century 3. p. 63. The latter of the Testimonies you quote out of Mr. Baxter is plainly against you and not contrary to what is in the former but rather explains it You say Mr. Baxter saith that Tertullian affirms that in the Primitive-times none were Baptized without an express Covenanting which shew's that he speaks of Adult-persons in reference to other Adult-persons and not in reference to Infants As if he had said those Adult-persons were Baptized that did expresly-Covenant other Adult-persons that did not so were not Baptized What doth this make against Infants with whose parents God doth Covenant in reference to them Or if you will God Covenanteth with them and they with him mediately by their
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