professing of such a believing by which both he and his houshold might be saved as is before shewed And so of all others in those times Pag. 163. Argum. 19. If we once admit men to baptism without their own personal profession we shall be utterly confounded and not be able to give any satisfactory resolution whose profession may be a sufficient qualification to entitle to baptism and so never be able to practice the Doctrine of Paeâ—obaptism as being utterly uncertain what Infants to baptize This might be manifest by considering the several conceits of Paedobaptists some whereof make the faith of the Church sufficient some the faith of albelieving Nation some of any ancestors some of the sureties some of the next Parents some of the Parent inchurched some of the Parent or Proparent and this they claim by a covenant which they can extend to no other then the Parent who is believer not onely by Profession but also really before God which can be known to no administrator of baptism ordinarily Paedobaptists speak so much and purposely of this point particularly Master Baxter of baptism Part. 1. chap. 29. that one would think we may expect an exact resolution of this point from him if from any man and yet he is uncertain what to fix upon and if he resolve on any thing it is without proof as is shewed by Master T. Review Part. 1. Sect. 35. 37. Exercit. Argum. 9. 11. Review part 2. Sect. 10. 12. 17. Part. 3. Sect. 50. c. And I perceive that the stress of the differences between Master Baxter and Master T. did rest much in this and no wise man will leave his grounds till he see where he may have better especially when the grounds are so plain as those of the Antipaedobaptists are from Christs institution Matth. 28. 19. Mark 16. 15 16. and the Apostles practice which Master Baxter hath here so amply proved to be of the baptizing onely of persons who themselves profess a saving faith unless he mean to be for nothing or of no Religion No man can tell where to fix nor what we must consent to to procure a title if we once forsake the present ground of the Persons own profession of saving faith who is to be baptized What is said to the contrary is answered in the books forenamed and it is not meet to be still writing for those lazie Readers that had rather erre then be at the pains of reading what is already written None are Disciples upon the account of your other faith but of either saving faith or the profession of it none are Christians on the account of your lower kind of faith but onely of saving faith or the profession of it Once for all I let you know that I take saving faith to be the constitutive or necessary qualification of a real or mystical member and profession of that faith to be the qualifying condition of visibility of membership I confess still that the sealis to others besides believers but though the promise be conditional we must not seal to any but those that profess consent to the conditions and therefore not to any but those that profess to be true believers Pag. 190. I find by sad experience to my sorrow that a considerable part of some Parishes or Villages are ignorant of the Fundamentals I have spoken with abundance that that know not Christ is God or man or either but they say he is a Spirit nor that the Holy Ghost is God nor why Christ died nor that any satisfaction is made for our sins or any thing done or necessary to their pardon but our own repentance and amendment and with some that know not that the soul goes to heaven before the resurrection nor that the body shall ever rise again Now I would know of Master Blake whether all the children of these Parents must be baptized again or not For certainly these have not a Dogmatical faith which is the thing that he saith entituleth to baptism And then what certainty have we that any of our ancestors had a true Dogmatical faith And I would know of Master Baxter whether such children are not to be baptized agian Sure if he say no how can he allow that baptism which is without a Profession of saving faith If he say yea how can he assure himself that any of our ancestors had right baptism Me thinks few that hold Master Baxters Tenets should allow of the baptism of the greatest part of English People who are no better then those Master Baxter mentions and yet neither Master Baxter nor other Paedobaptists do baptize such when they come to profess understandingly the faith of Christ Pag. 195. My Twentieth and last Argument is drawn from the constant practice of the universal Church of Christ It hath been the constant practice of the Catholick Church from the Apostles practice till now to require that profession of saving faith and repentance as necessary before they would baptize therefore it must be our practice also But it is otherwise in Infant baptism as experience shews therefore the practice of it is not right For the proof of the Churches practice 1. I have already said enough about the Apostles own practice and the Church in their days 2. The constant practice of the Church since the Apostles to this day is undoubtedly known 1. by the very form of words in baptism and 2. by the history of their proceedings therein 1. It is certain that the Church did ever baptize into the name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost And as I have proved before the voluntary seeking and reception of that baptism containeth the actual profession of saving faith 2. It is certain that the persons to be baptized if at age did profess to believe in the Father Son and Holy Ghost 3. It is also certain that they did profess to renounce the Flesh the World and the Devil 4. And it is certain that they promised for the future to live in new obedience and thus they publickly entered the three stipulations Credis credo Abrenuncias abrenuncio Spondes Spondeo Doest thou believe I believe Doest thou renounce I renounce Doest thou promise I promise It was the constant doctrine of the Fathers and the Church then that faith and repentance given in vocation did go first and that Justification Adoption and Sanctification followed after And so they took this justifying faith and repentance to be prerequisite to baptism therefore they ever required before hand whether they believed in God the Father Son and Holy Ghost and renounced the Flesh the World and the Devil as is aforesaid and caused them to profess this before they would baptize them And as it is true of the ancient Church that they never baptized any without the profession of saving faith and repentance so it is true of all the Christian Churches in the world that I can hear of to this day The Papists themselves do use the same words in baptism as
are before expressed and require a profession And though their false doctrine force them to misexpound their own words yet custom hinders them from changing them and for the reformed Churches it is past all question by their constant practice that they require the profession of a saving faith The practice of the Church of England till the late change may be seen in the Common prayer book wherein all that is fore-mentioned is required even from the infant to whom the question is propounded doest thou renounce doest thou believe wilt thou be baptized although they took the answer of the sureties as if it were the childes and say in the Catechism they now promise and perform faith and repentance by their sureties In the confession of faith of the Assembly at Westminster cap. 28. and again in the shorter Catechism profession of faith in Christ and obedience to him is the thing required They add also in the Directory that all who are baptized in the name of Christ do renounce and by their baptism are bound to fight against the Devil the world and the flesh Calvin in Acts 8. 37. saith Quod non admittitur Eunuchus ad baptismum nisi fidem professus hinc sumenda est universalis regula non ante recipiendes esse in Ecclesiam qui ab ea prius fuerant alieni quam ubi testati fuerint Christo se credere Est enim baptismus quasi fidei appendix ideoque ordine posterior est Deinde si datur sine fide cujus est sigillum impia nimis crassa est prophanatio That the Eunuch was not admitted to baptism till he professed faith Hence this universal rule is to be gathered that those are not to be received into the Church who before were strangers from it till they first testifie they believe in Christ for baptism is as it were an Appendix to faith and therefore is later in order then if it be given without faith of which t is the seal t is a wicked and too gross a prophanation Here note 1. That baptism as received is the seal of our faith how much soever denied by Master Blake as it is the seal of Gods promise as administred 2. That the constant order is that baptism follow faith 3. And that it is no better then an impious profanation of it if it go without faith that is 1. if the party seek it without the presence of faith 2. if the Pastor administer it without the profession of faith To like purpose speak many more but to salve Infant baptism they say that Gods promise to an Infant whom they imagiâ—â—â— be born in the Church is instead of profession that for it they by a judgement of charity are taken to be regenerate and that it is as much as we have of persons of age and is sufficient warrant to baptize them But 1. they prove none of these 2. nor are they true 3. nor were they true would they warrant Infant baptism when the Institution is as they confess to baptize them who believe by the Preaching of the Gospel to them Matth. 28. 19. Mark 16. 16. whereby the inadvertency of the generality of Protestant Divines in this point may be discerned and by the reading of this book all intelligent persons may perceive Master Baxters deceitfulness or heedlesness and if he perfist in defending Infant baptism his unreasonable pertinacie in his conceit and if he do not declare his forsaking his Doctrine in his book of baptism his impenitencie and unrighteous dealing with the Church of God which he hath injured
Felo de Se. OR Mr. RICHARD BAXTERS Self-destroying MANIFESTED In twenty Arguments against Infant-Baptism Gathered out of his own Writing in his Second Disputation of Right to SACRAMENTS BY John Tombes B. D. PSALM 64. 8 9. So they shall make their own Tongues to fall upon themselves all that see them shall flee away And all men shall fear and shall declare the work of God for they shall wisely consider of his doings LONDON Printed by Henry Hills next door to the Sign of the Peacock in Aldersgate-steeet 1659. To the Christian READER MAster Richard Baxter in his Second disputation of right to Sacraments begins thus It may seem strange that after 1625. years use of Christian Baptism the Ministers of the Gospel should be yet unresolved to whom it doth belong yet so it is And I observe that it is a question that they are now very sollicitous about and I cannot blame them it being not onely about a matter of Divine appointment but a practical of such concernment to the Church The true reason hereof seems to be that Ministers have for many Ages left the true Baptism of believers which Christ appointed and like Michal instead of it have substituted an Image or Idol of their own to wit Infant Baptism Which being quite besides the rule of Christ Matth. 28. 19. Mark 16. 15. and the Apostles practice throughout the Acts of the Apostles they have been at a loss about the ground of it and almost at Daggers drawing about the use of it As it happens to fellow-travellers when they are all out of the right way one conjectures this way they should go another that and sometimes they are at hot disputos and contentions about their way and many by-ways are attempted yet still the farther they go the more out of the way till they come into the Road again So it hath been with Baptizers of Infants they are fallen into many new devices to maintain Infant Baptism the ancients with the Papists imagining that by it Gods grace was given and that it was necessary to save the child from perishing the Lutherans that by Baptism a seed of faith and some relative grace was given to Infants to which Doctor Samuel Ward Bishop Davenant Doctor Cornelius Burges Master Thomas Bedford Master James Cranford and others have of late much inclined others opposing these have fallen into as bad conceits of the Covenant of Gospel grace as made to a believer and his seed Baptisms succession to Jewish Circumcision and fetching a rule from thence as others from the Jewish Baptism Master Baxter having found these unsafe to rest on sub they will bring the assertors to the avouching Jewish tenets hath devised another as he conceives more refined and subtile way making Infants Disciples of Christ mediately by the parents or proparents as his new term is faith which he never proves and an imagined ordinance or law of Infants visible Church-membership no where extant unrepealed and in following these by-ways they have been at variance among themselves Tertullian and Gregory Nazianzen onely allowing Infant Baptism in case of manifest danger of imminent death others to take away original sin Baptizing all weak or strong believers or unbelievers children which had almost quite thrust Baptism of believers out of the World and under colour of Christening as they fasly term their Infant Baptism and making Christian souls by throwing water on them they have so polluted the Churches of God with the dregs of the nations I mean innumerable ignorant scandalous prophane superstitious haters scorners and persecutors of Christianity that nothing but the mighty power of God is sufficient to purge the Churches of God of that loathsome and infectious filth which these have brought into it The Papists themselves do in a sort confess that Infant Baptism is an aberration from the first rule in that they count it not perfect till their Mimical and ludicrous Sacrament of Confirmation be added which was used with some reformation in respect of the right and disclaiming of some errours affixed to it and with the appointment of Catechizing by the late Bishops and from them termed Bishopping though without any remarkable emendation of the intrusion of ignorant ungodly unchristian persons into the society of Christians and the Lords supper Some of those who of late have sought reformation herein begin to devise how they may remedy this evil and yet keep the multitude in their Communion by refining that which is called Confirmation To this purpose lately is published by Master Jonathan Hanmer An exercitation or Confirmation to which Master George Hughes Master Richard Baxter and Master Ralph Venning have prefixed their Epistles concerning which how he is mistaken in the laying on of hands used by the Ancients and the application of Heb. 6. 2. to Confirmation after Infant Baptism is perceptible by Sect. 23. of the second part of my Review and sundry passages in his own book in which many things besides are vented without proof about difference between the Church of Infants and Adult members of the effect of Confirmation of compleat and incompleat visible Church-members c. the errors of which it is unnecessary to refute there being no proof of them offered but his own and other Divines mistakes and the main of the design being to set up another humane inventiâ—n which hath no precept or promise of God that he may uphold or colour over an old corruption It pleased God lately to begin to bring the truth concerning Baptism of believers to light in this Nation which stirred up many to contend for Infant Baptism and having as they imagined though the three parts of my Review now published do sufficiently shew they are deceived made that sure they have of late fallen to dispute whose Infants are to be Baptized Mr. Thomas Hooker Mr. Cobbet Mr. Firmin and others pleading against the Baptism of the Infants of the national and parochial Church-members and some of them restraining it to Infants of inchurched Church-members and those who are judged to be real visible Saints have been opposed by Master Rutherford Master Cawdery Master Blake and others Master Blake to maintain his tenet hath asserted that a Dogmatical faith intitles to baptism to oppose which Master Baxter however in his Letter to me he pretends the unpleasantness and non-necessity of meddling any more about the point of Infant Baptism the want of time and health for work of greater moment that he might decline â—â—â—â—ing where his law of Infants visible Church-membership unrepealed is and thinks a man cannot justifie it to lay out the hundreth part or perhaps the thousandth part of his time study talk or zeal upon this question yet here he blames not them that are sollicitous about it being of Divine appointment and practical of such concernment to the Church and hath himself besides his Apology before this last year published a large Book of disputations concerning right â—o Sacraments the second whereof is against Master
Blake which though it was intended onely to overthrow his tenet yet indeed the middle terms and proofs of his Arguments do beat down his own tenet of Infant Baptism and direct into the right way of restoring believers Baptism To demonstrate which that those who have adhered to Mr. Baxter may see how ill Master Baxter hath dealt with them and may if God give them wisdom to discern the truth be brought into the right way of believers Baptism is this writing framed in which thou hast presented to thee a remarkable instance of Gods providence in clearing truth by the Pen of its most eminent adversary and of his heâ—â—â—leâ—â— writing not observing how his own Arguments against another sight against himself The urging thereof is that way which Logiciansâ—â—prove of and against the person is ever counted a good plea to Argue for his own condemnation out of his own mouth and in this matter is good as to the thing it being not onely asserted by him but also largely proved In the publishing hereof theâ—e is no more wrong done to him then was done by Bishop Morton in his Apology in aliedging the Romanists words in their writings as an Advocaâ—e for the Protestants against themselves but much right to the truth and Church of God nothing iâ—â—ere set down as his but his own words what is added be may discern'd by the different letor some other mark His caution that he means his propositions in the case of Baptism of adult persons and that he hath elsewhere proved Infant Baptism are without wrong to him left out sith his Arguments do as strongly prove there should be none but Adult Baptism as that none should be Baptized upon the profession of a bare Dogmatical Faith for though his aim be onely to prove that the faith professed which intitles to Baptism must be justifying yet his Arguments to prove this prove more that none but such as profess such faith are to be Baptized and that this profession is to be by each Baptized in his own person and no other to be Baptized Not one Text he brings proves that a Parents or Proparents profession doth intitle to Baptism what he hath disputed elsewhere for Infant Baptism is all now answered and published in the three parts of my Review no where doth he prove though that is it be should chiefly have proved that in order to Baptism a Parents or Proparents profession is by God allowed as the Infants own but still be supposeth it which is the main point to be proved which Logicians know is of all fallacies the grossest to wit the begging of the question Yet lately Master Baxter hath Printed a book about Confirmation in which he dictates many things which he should prove of Infant visible Church-members and their priviledges and repeats his olâ— Arguments for Infant Baptism and acknowledging onely his sorrow for provoking words saith he will give some account and in his preface to his book of Justification tells the Reader he shall yet vindicate his Papers written to me where he gives some reason also of Printing my Animadversions on his Aphorisms of Justification His sorrow for his provoking words is some good sign of Gods touching his heart and so far as belong to my person I heartily forgive him though they have been extreamly injurious to me to the trâ—th and Church of God And for my Animadversions he hath now Printed he may understand that I intend if God vouchsafe me life and strength and leisure to shew the insufficiency of his answers If he give an account and vindicate his Papers I expect he should do it otherwise then he did in his Praefestinantis Morator and his usual fashion is Let him do that which becomes a Replicant set down mine own words to which he answer and answer them fully and distinctly without interrogations exclamations proving such distinctions definitions assertions expositions as I deny and making good by solid proof his Arguments which that learned man mentioned in my preface to the third part of my Review counted not like an Argument for Infant Baptism and allows me to tell him that if he will choose his best Argument he is ready to demonstrate his censure of his book to have been just In the mean time I judge it necessary that this book be Printed that if God shall vouchsafe him such mercy he may understand his error from his own writing and the Reader may judge whether the Lord doth not now abundantly refute Infant Baptism and require him to practise that command of Christ of being Baptized after believing which however now reproached was by all Christians observed heretofore with much zeal and conscience of their duty and honor and is commended to him from Christ and his Apostles Remember the words of Christ John 14 15. If ye love me keep my commandments Luke 6. 46. And why call ye me Lord Lord and do not the things which I say Matth. 15. 9. In vain do they worship me teaching for doctrines the commandments of men Farewel LONDON 12th Moneth the 21. day 1658. Thine in our Lord JOHN TOMBES Felo de Se. MAster Baxter of right to Sacraments disp. 2. pag. 53. Argum. 1. If we must not baptize any who profess not true repentance then must we not baptize any Infants but the antecedent is true Therefore c. The consequence of the major is manifest sith this proposition on which it depends Infants profess not true repentance is manifest by sense The antecedent is easily proved from Scripture and I know not whether any Protestant deny it I prove 1. that Repentance 2. and such as is proper to the effectually called is necessary to be professed by all that we may baptize I will joyn the proof of both together Argum. 1. If John Baptist required the profession of true repentance in men before he would baptize them then so must we but John did so therefore the consequence is clear 1. For either Johnâ— baptism and Christs were the same as most of our Divines against the Papists do maintain though Zanchy and some few more follow the judgement of the ancient Doctors in this or as Calvin Institut saith the difference seems to be but this that John baptized them into the Messiah to come and the Apostles into the name of the Messiah already come 2. Or if the difference be greater we may argue a fortiori from the more forcible if Johns baptism required a profession of repentance then much more Christs for certainly Christ required not less then John not did he take the impenitent into his Kingdom whom John excluded The antecedent I prove 1. From Mark 1. 3 4. He preached {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} the baptism of repentance unto the remission of sins And doubless that repentance which is in remissionem pecatorum unto the remission of sins is true special repentance One of our Divines and many of the Papists have sound another evasion That is that
considerate men then the too common pollutions of others which are meerly through negligence but not justified and defended Let Master Baxters own words judge him who makes the same foul work in the Ordinance of baptism by admitting Infants to it upon a Parents or Proparents as he terms them profession when all his proofs of the necessity of profession to go before baptism are of the profession of the party himself to be baptized and this device of a Parents or Proparents profession instead of the Infants is his own invention that hath not any intimation in Scripture and by his own proofs makes Infants capable of the Lords Supper and perverts the nature of Sacraments which his own words do fully express thus Pag. 123 124. The first Argument of Master Gillespies 20. is from the nature of Sacraments which are to signifie that we have already faith in Christ remission of sin by him and union with him The sense of the argument is That seeing Sacraments according to Christs institution are confirming signs presupposing the thing signified both on our part and on Gods therefore none should use them that have not first the thing signified by them Though I undertake not to defend all the Arguments that other men use in this case yet this doth so much concern the cause of baptism which I am now debating that I shall give you this reply to it What Divines are there that deny the Sacraments to be mutual signs and seals signifying our part as well as Gods And how ill do you wrong the Church of God by seeking to make men believe that these things are new and strange If it be so to you it is a pity that it is so but sure you have seen Master Gataker's Books against Doctor Ward and Davenant wherein you have multitudes of sentences recited out of our Protestant Divines that affiâ—m this which you call new It is indeed their most common Doctrine that the Sacrament doth presuppose remission of sins and our faith and that they are instituted to signifie these as in being It is the common Protestant Doctrine that Sacraments do solemnize and publickly own and confirm the mutual covenant already entred in heart as a King is Crowned a Souldier Listed a Man and Woman maried after professed consent So that the sign is causal as to the consummation and delivery as a Key or Twig and Turff in giving possession but consequential to the contract as privately made and the right given thereby so that the soul is supposed to consent to have Christ as offered first which is saving faith and then by receiving him Sacramentally delivered to make publick profession of that consent and publickly to receive his sealed remission Master Cobbet cited by you might well say that primarily the Sacrament is Gods seal but did he say that it is onely his and not secondarily ours And in the next words you do in effect own part of the Doctrine your self which you have thus wondered at as new and strange saying I confess it is a Symbol of our profession of faith If you mean as you speak taking profession properly then 1. you yield that the Sacrament is our symbol and so declareth or signifieth our action as well as Gods 2. And it is not onely a sign of our profession but a professing sign and therefore a sign of the thing professed for the external sign is to declare the internal acts of the mind which without signs others cannot know As therefore the words and outwards actions 〈◊〉 â—wo distinct signs of the same internal acts so are they two wayes of professâ—â—â— My signal actions do not signifie my words which are plainer signs the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and therefore need not darker to express them but they both expre 〈…〉 mind So that they are not only symbols of our professiâ—â— as you spea 〈…〉 t professing symbols 3. And if so then they must be signs and professions of those internal acts which correspond with them The Fourth Argument of Master Gillespy is from Rom. 4. 11. Circumcision was a seal of that righteousness of faith therefore so is baptism therefore it belongeth onely to justified believers He that maketh it the instituted nature or use of circumcision to be a seal of righteousness of faith which the person had before doth make his circumcision a proof of his foregoing righteousness of faith Pag. 133. You cannot shew where ever the wicked are commanded to communicate with the Church in the Sacrament but in this order First to be converted and repent and so baptized and so communicate Gillespy Aarons rod blossoming pag. 514 515. The assumption that baptism it self is not a regenerating ordinance I prove thus 1. Because we read of no Persons baptized by the Apostles except such as did profess faith in Christ gladly received the word and in whom some begun work of the Spirit of grace did appear I say not that it really was in all but somewhat of it did appear in all Baptism even of the aged must necessarily precede the Lords Supper Pag. 144. My Twelfth Argument is from Matth. 22. 12. Friend how camest thou in hither not having on a wedding garment and he was speechless To come in hither is to come into the Church of Christ By the wedding garment is undoubtedly meant sincerity of true faith and repentance so that I may hence argue If God will accuse and condemn men for coming into his Church or the communion of Saints without sincere faith and repentance then it is not the appointed use of baptism to initiate those that profess not sincere faith and repentance But Infants profess not sincere faith and repentance as is manifest by sense therefore it is not the appointed use of baptism to initiate Infants Pag. 145. The Thirteenth Argument is this We must baptize none that profess not themselves Christians But no Infants profess themselves Christians as is manifest by sense therefore we must baptize no Infants The major is certain because it is the use of baptism to be our solemn listing sign into Christs Army our initiating sign and the solemnization of our mariage to Christ and professing sign that we are Christians and we do in it dedicate and deliver up our selves to him in this relation as his own So that in baptism we do not onely promise to be Christians but profess that we are so already in heart and now would be solemnly admitted among the number of Christians the minor I prove thus 1. No man is truely a Christian that is not truly a Disciple of Christ that is plain Act. 11. 26. No man is truly a Disciple of Christ that doth not profess a saving faith and repentance therefore no man that doth not so profess is truly a Christian The minor I prove thus No man is truly a Disciple of Christ that doth not profess to forsake all contrary Masters or Teachers and to take Christ for his chief Teacher consenting to learn of him the way