Cor. 7. 14. of infants Covenant-holinesse in his sense before Luther and Zuinglius and then askes is this irue I answer I think it is and if he can produce any one me thinks he should have done it in his book If he do he will do more then Mr. Ms. friend better versed as I conceive in Antiquity then Mr. B. hath done though attempting it page 21. of Mr. Ms. Defence of his Sermon Two places he cites one in Tertullian which I have answered in my Apology page 85. The other in Athanasius qu. 114. ad Antiochum as teaching infant-baptisme by vertue of federal holinesse from 1 Cor. 7. 14. But 1. The Author is confessedly spurious by Rivet Critic sac l. 3. c. 6. Scultetus part 2. Medul Patr. l. 1. c. 42. Perkins Preparat to the Demonstr of the probleme The works falsely imposed on Athanasius are these The book of divers questions of the Holy Scripture unto King Antiochus for therein great Athanasius is cited Yet Mr. M. or his friend hath these words ubi supra These wordes then which are safe and sound grounded upon tho same Scripture which I have much insisted on are read in the works of Athanasius where the question is about infants dying requiring a resolution that might clearely set whether they go to be punished or to the Kingdome The answer is seeing the Lord said Suffer little children to come unto-me for of such is the Kingdome of heaven And the Apostle sayes Now your children are holy observe the Gospel-ground the same that I build upon it is manifest that the infants of believers which are baptized do as unspotted and faithfull enter into the Kingdome This assertion is owned by all the reformed Churches But had Mr. M. or his friend recited the words fully then it would have appeared how impertinently the words are alleadged to prove the baptizing of infants by vertue of federal holines from 1 Cor. 7. 14. that none of the Reformed Churches would own the doctrine of that Author being built on no Gospel-ground but Popish opinion of Limbus infantum For the entire words are these Qu. 114. ad Antiochum Whither go dying infants to punishment or the Kingdome and where are the infants of believers dying unbaptized disposed with the believers or unbelievers Answ. The Lord saying Suffer little children to come for of such is the Kindome of heaven and again the Apostle saying But now are your children holy it is manifest that the infants of believers baptized go into the Kingdome as unspotted and believing but the unbaptized and Heathenish neither go into the Kingdome nor into punishment for they have done no sin Which answer plainly determines that infants of believers if baptized enter into the Kingdome but neither the unbaptized infants of believers or Heathens enter into the Kingdome or punishment for they have done no sin Not a word of federal holinesse but the plain Popish doctrine that infants dying unbaptized go to limbus infantum but the baptized into the Kingdome of heaven which is the same with the doctrine father'd on fustin Martyr qu. 56. ad orthod Now this is contrary to what the reformed Churches assert even from 1 Cor. 7. 14. that the children of believers are federally holy afore baptisme and go into the Kingdome though they die unbaptized Nor doth the alleadging 1 Cor. 7. 14. prove that the Author observed the Gospel-ground more truly Antievangelical or Jewish which Mr. M. buildeth on For the holinesse in that Author is meant either of holinesse in possibility in being likely to be baptized because believing parents would likely breed them up in Christianity and they be baptized in which sense Tertull. de anima c. 39. expoundes the Apostle as calling them holy not in act barely by descent from a believer but because designati sanctitatis or as Hierome Epist. 153. ad Paulinum alledging Tertullian de monogamia quod candidati sint fideiet nullis idololatriae sordibus polluantur which Erasmus in his glosse on Hierom renders thus quodvelut ambiunt et exspectant baptismum or else of actual holinesse in being baptized believers being wont to baptize their infants when neare danger of death not by reason of Covenant-holinesse but the giving of grace by baptisme and the necessity of it to save an infant from perishing I am still confident that neither Father nor Interpreter preceding the sixteenth century did interpret 1 Cor. 7. 14. of holinesse of separation to God as visible Church-members by Gods Covenant to them Nor doth Chamier panstras Cathol tom 4. l. 5. cap. 10. bring any though he purposedly sets down the various opinions about the holinesse there meant and sayes omnes complecti conabor examinare sententias Sure I am Augustin tom 7. l. 2. de pecc mer. remis c. 26. saith Ac per hoc illa sanctificatio cujuscunque modi sit quam in filiis fedelium esse dixit Apostolus ad istam de baptismo de peccati origine vel remissione omnino non pertinet nam conjuges infideles in conjugibus fidelibus sanctificari dicit eo ipso loâ—o c. Unto which I think good to adde that whereas Mr. M. in his Defence page 10. 58. brings in the Pelagians acknowledging that infants were baptized secundum sententiam Evangelii which he imagines to be the Gospel-ground as he calls it of federal holinesse from the Covenant to the believer and his seed in Aug. tom 7. l. 2. contra Pelag. Coelest c. 5. That he hadadded the next words quia Dominus statuit regnum Coelorum non nisi baptizatis posse conferri it would have appeared that the Gospel he meant was John 3. 5. which with Rom. 5. 12. was elleadged in those dayes as a reason of the Churches tradition of infant-baptisme and no other reason can I finde for infant-baptisme nor in any the exposition of 1 Cor. 7. 14. in Mr. Ms. or Mr. Bs. sense till Zwinglius his dayes The eighteenth absurdity is that I said the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is taken many hundred times for authority and askes is that true To which I answer This was spoken in the dispute when I had not time or means to collect the number of times wherein 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used for authority in Scripture and therefore spake at adventure and if I did Hyperbolize it might be neitheir absurdity nor untruth so to speak as is frequent in speakers writers without imputation of falshood Nevertheless I find it used above an hundred times in the New Testament in Matthew 10. and 6. of them it is traslated authority and in most places where it is translated power it might be translated authority and if it be used for liberty in any of these places yet it is no where used for a veile but one 1. Cor. 11. 10. and I doubt not but it is used for authority or power or liberty many hundreds of times in the Lxx Greek of the old
the third conclusion and had some purpose of printing a part of it by it self because of the difficulty in printing and sale of large things Yet afore I did it by reason of the neighbour-hood of Mr. B. I imparted some sheetes about 1 Cor. 7. 14. to him out of which he took notes as he pleased and quickly returned them to me without animad versions on them which I hoped he would have done of his own accord as the manner of Schollers of acquaintance is in such cases After some of my Auditors beginning to enquire after the duty of being baptized it was propounded by one to have recourse to Mr. B. and by me if they did so to get his arguments in writing for infant-baptism but our endeavours not succeeding I yielded to a dispute though much against my mind presaging from the knowledge I had of Mr. Baxters quicknesse and my own slownesse in answering an argument not under my eye the favour of the most to Mr. Bs. tenet and a verseness from mine and other accidents Mr. B. likely to gain the fame of a victory and to put back the work of reformation of that corruption yet hoping Mr. B. would after have imparted to me his arguments in writing that I might as Dr. Raynolds permitted Hart mend my answers afore printing But Mr. B. denying it and venting the passage in his Saints everlasting rest wherein he speaks of grosse absurdities I was driven to I was forced to print my Antidote since which he hath printed a large book in which he hath raised much dust to darken the truth and to asperse my person which I am necessitated to answer and to stay or order the review of the dispute between my self Mr. M. and others as there shall be cause SECT II. That the title of Mr. Baxters book is a mock-title MR. Bs. Book is intituled Plain Scripture-proof of Infants churchmembership and baptism which is true only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the contrary and might have been moretruly intituled no plain Scripture-proof for infants baptism Let any man but view his texts which are these Mat. 28. 19. Acts 15. 10. Levit. 25. 41 42. Luke 9. 47 48. with Mat. 18. 5. Mark 9. 41. Rom. 11. 17 19 20 24 25 26. Mat. 23. 37 38 39. Revel 11. 15. Heb. 8. 6. 7. 22. Deut. 29. 10 11 12. Rom. 4. 11. Exod. 20. 6. Josh. 7. 25 26. Deut. 13. 12 13 14. Exod. 20. 5. Num. 31. 17. Dan. 6. 24. Deut. 20. 16 17. Deut. 28 4 18 32 41. Mal. 2. 15. 1 Cor. 7. 14. Mark 9. 36 37. 10. 13 14 15 16. being not prepossessed with his Chymical extractions but using his own wit or ancient Commentators yea or modern except about three or four of these texts and I should as soon expect he should conclude a new world in the moon as Infant-baptisme from them The very first and only text which speaks a word of baptism is so plain against infant-baptisme that Paedobaptists in their Commentaries and disputes think it enough if they can avoid the force of it against them Yea is not Mr. Bs. own confession contradictory to the title of his book page 3. posit 1. He tells us of some things plainly determined in Scripture others have no such determination And saith Such is the case of infant-baptisme And page 301. If the very baptisme of infants it self be so darke in the Scripture that the controversie is thereby become so hard as we finde it c. And if it be so dark in Scripture and found so hard by him me thinks that he might not be thought to delude people he should have altered the title and forborne to talke as he doth in his book of bringing plain Scripture-proof to them that call for them If I might be allowed to passe my censure on him as he doth on me I would not stick to say that laying aside his Rhetorick his exclamations interrogations admirations expostulations misapprehensions of my actions and answers invectives against Anabaptists and two or three quirkes of wit there 's as little matter to his purpose that hath the likenesse of solidity in his book as I have met within a book so specially set forth and so much cried up and that he doth onely magno caenatu nugas agere endeavour much to trifle much and that he had done better with the Oxford Convocatior Mr. Bedford as he cites him page 301. with many others to have rested on tradition unwritten then to bring such impertinent texts as he hath done for infant-baptisme But I must remember I am an Antagonist He saith he was constrained thereunto unavoidably by my importunity Answer Ti 's true I was importunate to have his arguments in writing but never that he should print them much lesse print my answers taken onely from my mouth either relying on anothers pen or his own memory Doctor Rainolds dealt not so with Hart the Jesuit nor will I think an ingenuous scholler conceive his dealing candid who knowes the difference of answering in verbal conference and writing where the argument is before the respondent If I were so importunate he might have conceived it was for my satisfaction which he denies to have been manifested to him page 281. or if it were onely for my neighbours there had been some love in it if we had had them without printing them specially with such asperity and foule descirptions of me as he makes But now he hath printed let 's look upon them SECT III. Mr. Baxters citations from Fathers advantage him not AFter he comes to the arguments which were desired 20. leaves in quarto are spent in sentences Epistles and History and 5. more in a very small letter in 10. positions and 3. propositions to usher in his arguments with state or rather to prepossesse his Reader First he sets down 2. texts which are alleadged in his 26. argument to prove his 2d main argument and there I shall meete with them Then sundry of the Ancients speeches The first of Origens is examined in my Examen part 1. sect 5. and my answer vindicated in my Apology sect 16. page 81. The speech of Augustin de bapt cont Donat. l 4. c. 23. it should be 24. shewes he found no Divine authority for infant-baptisme but the conceit he had that what the universal Church holdeth came from Apostolical authority and circumsion of infants The former is no good rule as appeares by the tenets of the ancients about Episcopacy Easter Millenary opinion infant-Communion I will recite some speeches of men very eminent Salmas appar ad libr. de prim Papae page 86. Eutychio idem usu venit quod omnibus fermè scriptoribus Ecclesiasticis Craecis Latinisque ut dum morem sui temporis spectant à principio sic semper fuisse existimârint Molin vates lib. 2. c. 13. page 133. Dâ—nique Satan jampridem orsus primula initia mysterii iniquitatis tam densas tenebras offudit Historiae Ecclesiasticae
so certain If by a seed of faith or holinesse without actual exercise the thing is more easie to conceive if by actual exercise extraordinarily and immediately wrought by the Holy Spirit then the speeches He that believeth not shall be damned and the like do exclude infants from salvation if not believing actually if by vertue of election without any work on them if by vertue of the Covenant their parents believing which some assert but I professe to know no such Covenant then the speeches He that believeth not shall be damnned with the like must be understood with this limitation He of those to whom the Gospel is preached that believeth not shall be damned For my part I do much in cline to that opinion which conceives Marke 16. 16. John 3. 18. and such like to be understood of belief unbelief of those of years who have the Gospel preached to them because the course of the context leads thereto Which being premised I answer to the question That infants are excluded from baptisme from Mat. 28. 19. Marke 16. 15 16. compared together because these texts shew that according to Christs institution they that are to be baptized are to be Disciples or known professed believers and baptisme belongs onely to whom Christ appoints it Yet these texts do not exclude infants from salvation because either it excludes professed unbelievers not non-believers negatively from incapacity or it excludes unbelievers that are in no sort believers neither in the seed nor fruite neither byordinary nor by extraordinary operation in one of which wayes infants are or may be believers and so not excluded by that text if belief and unbelief comprehend all these wayes in that place To his question What great comfort would follow this conclusion that all your infants are out of Christs visible Church that men should bend their wits so to prove it I answer The question might be retorted What great comfort would follow this conclusion that all our infants are by nature children of wrath that men should bend their wits so to prove it 2. The answer I suppose Mr. B. would give to the one will fit us that whether it be matter of comfort or discomfort we must maintain truth To another passage of his supposing That to be visibly in the Church is all one as to our judgement to belong to Christs Kingdome I answer by denying it and doubt not to shew how this mistake hath much misled Mr. B. when I examine the 27. chap. of the first part of his book We can prove that Christ will save his elect though no Christians in appearance nor disciples by profession nor visibly subjects of his Kingdome Mr. B. talkes vainly of the judgements of Gods Ministers and Churches in all ages of the world when as their judgement is proved by my writings to have been and to be at this day so various about infant-baptisme I have little hope to conceive Mr. B. by my writings which he sleights so much as to say That the best part of my bookes is Ink and Paper Men not inferiour to Mr. B. and one I am sure farre beyond Mr. B. in disputes judged otherwise Were not Mr. B. mounted to an height of disdainful pride me thinks he might have spied the clearing of some Scriptures and other things more worth then the Ink and Paper It is his uncharitable conceit of me if he imagine I write to have the last word it is to shew his grosse a buse of Scripture and his fallacies of reasoning If he out-live this answer I now am making any time he may have the last word if he will for me who am weary with meddling with such a distemper'd writer I blame not Mr. B. for printing but for printing my answers afore I had fitted them to his arguments in writing as Doctor Rainolds dealt with Hart which saith he in his preface to his conference with Hart learned men have thought to be most fit for trial of truth not by extemporal speaking but writing with advise the question argued of the arguments the answers the replies set down and sifted of both sides till each had fully said in fine the whole published that the Churches and the faithfull all may judge of it Such a rule was followed also in the conference at the Hague and in all other profitable Colloquies about points in controversie to all which Mr. Bs. dealing with me hath bin altogether unlike Nor is he excused by telling me he had a copy of my sermon and had conference with me For besides other exceptions this excuse takes not away it is very apparent that neither in the dispute nor in that conference his judgement about infants Discipleship and Church-visibility and other points in his book could be discerned so as to know determinately what to oppose Which makes me glad of the publishing of his book however though for the present I suffer much by it nothing doubting but I shall be able to shew the wickednesse of his writing so as that all that are willing may see that whosoever leanes on his arguments to justifie their infant-baptisme rests on a broken reed that will run into his hands SECT VII Many personall occurrences are cleered by relating of which Mr. B. hath in his History sought to create prejudice against me NExt to the two Epistles followes the History in which his designe seemes to be to vindicate himself from my accusations and to recriminate me I shall here very briefly answer him about personal matters in the History and elsewhere that the Readers may onely have to do with arguments and answers when they come to them He spends some leaves to prove he did not incosiderately and rashly take up his opinion as I accuse him Whereas I do not remember that any where I accuse him of rashnesse but Antidote sect 7. of inconsideratenesse and haste in that passage wherein he names Anabaptists in the plural meaning me onely Which whether he did or no it 's not material nor worth while to make reply to the descant of his Corrective on that passage in my Antidote The next thing in his History to which I am to answer is that he chargeth me with both there and in his answer to my Valedictory Oration page 209 210. with falsehood in telling them in the pulpit that I could never know his arguments till the dispute that he hid his weapons till he meant to strike that I was set upon at a sudden that I had the arguments concealed from me aforehand the contrary whereof was manifest in that he had urged the same argument at Col. Taylors house in London that I bad seen some notes of his in which the first was that which he urged at the dispute and therefore that I spake not truth and it 's an evidence his arguments are good in that I gave such feeble answers to them To which I say I do not think I said I could never know his arguments till the dispute
page 273. and said it was of dangerous consequence And indeed I think it so still For I think it will follow that except a Magistrate can shew his commission from Christ that he is an usurper and then none is bound to him but to suppresse him then no infidel is a lawfull Magistrate who denies Christ and it will be questionable whether this will not extend to a non-churchmember or an excommunicate person then a Magistrates doing of right to an infidel against a believer or to one believer against another as putting him to death is an act for Christ as Mediator and if because all power is given to him in heaven and in earth therefore magistracy so as that all power must be derived from Christ as Mediator then a Fathers power over his child but sure that is in a Father by nature nor do I think it any part of the curse then ruling Presbyters should do the acts of civil Magistrates as having plain title to rule under Christ. Nor do I think Mr. B. hath answered these arguments or the rest but that however he proves Magistracy to be from Christs appointment and to be subordinate to his laws and accountable to him and ought to act for him yet not that the commission of every lawful Magistrate is from him as Mediator I think it will follow if Mr. Bs. position be true that supposing Christ had not been Mediator there had been no lawfull Magistrate and that Dominium fundatur in gratia which was heretofore denied And sith Christ is heir of all things and believers onely are Christs and all theirs 1 Cor. 3. 22 23. it would be considered whether by parity of reason the Saints might not intitle themselves to all power and all mens estates which was charged on Anabaptists at Munster But I find I digresse and therefore stop till more liberty draw me to a fuller handling of it SECT XX. Many learned men with the Oxford Convocation of former and later times take Infant-baptisme onely for an unwritten tradition MR. B. proceeds to answer my Antidote termes it a Corrective for a circumforaneous Antidote but the Antidote will appear to be good if taken notwithstanding his disgraceful term of Corrective without vertue Page 299. He prints two passages of Dr. Whitakers for the late Oxford Convocation to reade and referres to the like in Davenant But whatever Doctor Whitaker thought yet that the Antients did take Baptism of Infants to have been an Apostolical tradition unwritten seemes to me from that which is said in my Examen part I. sect 5. not avoided by Mr. Ms Defence In the Council of Basil in the oration of the Cardinal of Ragusi it is asserted Item nusquam legitur in canone Scripturae S. quod parvulus recenter baptizatus qui nec corde credit ad justitiam nec ore confitetur ad falutem inter fideles crudentes computetur Et nihilominus Ecclesia it a determinavit et statuit c. And in principip hujus Sacramenti baptizabantur solum illi qui per se sciebant fidem interroganti respondere To which purpose Walafridus Strabo many hundred years before and Vives about that time whose words are alleged in my Exercitation the title page and sect 17. Erasmus resp Archiep. Hispal ad artic object 61. Sunt et alia innumera quae prisci non ausi sunt definire sed suspensae pronunciatione venerabantur quod genus est an parvuliessent baptizandi And commonly the learnedst Papists do instance in Infant-baptism as an unwritten tradition in force and whereas it is objected that Bellarm. and others do bring Scripture for it Becan manual lib. 1. c. 2. sect 24. answers aliqua possunt probariex Scriptura quando constat de vero legitimo Scripture sensu So he saith it is concerning Infan-baptism which is proved from John 3. 5. but that the sense whereby to prove it is onely manifest by tradition Which is confirmed in the Canon law and Schoolmen an Infants-baptism was not reckoned perfect till the Bishop laid on hands which act was called Confirmation to wit of the imperfect Baptism in infancy Molinaeus in his Vates l. 2. c. 7. cites the canon dist 5. de consecratione as determining that without the Sacrament of Confirmation no man is a full Christian. Can. omnes et Can. ut jejuni Thomas 3. parte summae q. 72. art 9. dicit hoc sacramentum esse perfectionâ—m Baptismi innuens Baptismum esse imperfectum nisi accesserit Confirmatio Lumb l. 4. sent dist 7. A. omnes fideles per manus impositionem Episcoporum post Baptismum accipere debent in Confirmatione Spiritum sanctum ut pleni Christiani inveniantur Bellarm. tom 3. de sacr confirm c. 12. confirmatio est complementum perfectio baptismi Lib. 2. de effec Sacram. c. 8. est Confirmatio quaedam perfectio consummatio Baptismi Jewel Defence of the Apolog. page 218. allegeth it as Caistans tenet that an Infant for that he wanteth instruction in faith therefore hath not perfect Baptism Consonant hereto is the conceit of the common people that they have not their full Christen dome all they be Bishopped But that it may appear even learned Protestants speak near the same I will cite some of their speeches Among which I will forbear to recite the speeches of the Lord Brook and Mr. Daniel Rogers alleged by me in my Exercit. sect 18. and cleered in my Apology from Mr. Rogers his latter glosse nor the opinion of Mr. Bedford who judged with the Romanists that the Scripture gives us proof onely of the reasonableness of Infant-baptisme as I gather by Mr. Bs. I answer to him page 305. Dr. Field of the Church fourth book chap. 20. The fourth kind of inadition is the continued practise of such things as are neither contained in the Scripture expressely nor the examples of such practise expressely there delivered though the grounds reasons and causes of the necessity of such practise be there contained and the benefit or good that followeth it Of this sort is the Baptism of Infants which is therefore named a tradition because it is not expressely delivered in Scripture that the Apostles did baptize Infants nor any expresse precept there found that they should so do Yet is not this so received by bare and naked tradition but that we find the Scripture to deliver unto us the grounds of it Doctor Prideaux fasci Controv. Theol. loc 4. sect 3. q. 2. Paedobaptism rests on no other Divine right then Episcopacy Doctor Jeremy Taylor in his Liberty of prophesying sect 18. num 34. after he had ventilated the point on both sides saies there is much more truth then evidence on our sides meaning Paedobaptists To all which I will adde the words of Theophilus Philakyriaco Loucardiensis that is Mr. Young as I am informed an eminent man in the late Assembly and Mr. Marshals friend that holp him in the first part of his Defence in his Dies Dominica lib. 1. c. 10.