Saints and our Saviour tells us that of such is the Kingdom of Heaven and they are to be no other then Saints and we are warranted by a Divine Testimony to look upon them as such which in their present Infant-state they cannot be liable to any suspicion of defeating by Hypocrisie as grown persons may The Author brings in Dr. Taylor whom he looks upon as his dear friend and he hath reason for it having helpt him to a great part of his Book The said Dr. saith he tells us very elegantly in his Lib. of Prophecy pag. 242. That this is truly to be Baptized whatsoever is less then this is but the Symbole only a meer Cere mony an opus operatum a dead Letter an empty shadow an Instrument without an Agent to manage or force to actuate it Repl. The Dr. wants not words but this signifies nothing against Infant-Baptism for all this may be as truly said of those that are Baptized when grown up that have not truth of grace But because I observe with what Reverence this Doctor is mentioned as if all were Canonical which he saith in their behalf and I find the Authors Book to swell with his Sesquipedalia verba I shall for prevention of delusion inform the Reader with some news which may be worth his hearing Know therefore that the said Doctor put forth a Book about 20. years since entituled The Lyberty of Prophecy in which he pleads for a Toleration as for others so also for those that dissent from Infant-Baptisme There he personates an Anabaptist and tells us he will draw up a Scheme or Plea for them and saith he though they be deceived yet they have so great excuse of their side that their Error is not impudent lib. of Proph. p. 223. and therefore may be tolerated Then doth he shew what they may say for themselves and concludes Thus far the Anabaptists may argue and they have been incouraged in their Error more by the accidental Advantages we have given them by our weak arguings then by any Truth of their cause or excellency of their wit The Doctor therefore having a mind it seems to shew the excellency of his own wit A worthy Testimony to be brought against Infant-Baptisme hath said more for them then ever they could before or since say for themselves so that his strong arguings for them hath eventually proved a greater encouragement to them then ever any of our weak arguings did before And yet after all the goodly Harrangue he makes in their behalf he at last shuts up with this viz. The use I make of it never dreaming what use H.D. would make of it is That since there is no direct impiety in their opinion they are by all means Christian fair and humane to be convinced and instructed but if they cannot be perswaded they must be left to God and I am of his mind And lastly adds for his own part he believes Infant-Baptism to be a truth but because some have thought the Doctor had spoke more in their behalf then he himself could well answer as Conjurers sometimes raise spirits they cannot lay he hath since put forth an Excellent piece stiled A Consideration of the practice of the Church in Baptizing Infants of Believing Parents and the Practise justified Printed by J. Elesher for R. Royston at the Angel in Ivy-lane M. DC L. II. in the Preface to which we have this account That as for those Arguments which in The Liberty of Prophecying Sect. 18. are alleadged against Paedobaptisme and in the opinion of some do seem to stand in need of answering he had it once in thought to have answered them but upon these considerations he forbore 1. Because those Arguments are not good in themselves or to the question precisely considered but only by relation to the preceeding Arguments there brought for Paedobaptisme they may seem good one against another but those in the Plea for the Anabaptists have no strength but what is accidental as he conceives 2. Because in this Discourse for Infant-Baptisme he hath really laid such grounds and proved them that upon their supposition all those arguments in the Liberty of Prophecy and all other which he ever heard of will fall of themselves 3. Because those Arguments to his sense are so weak and so relying upon failing and deceitful Principles that he was loath to do them so much reputation as to account them worthy the answering 4. Because he hath understood that his very worthy friend Dr. Hammond Dr. Hammonds Letter of Resolution to 6 Quaeties Printed by J. Elesher for R. Royston at the Angel in Ivy-lane 1653. hath in his Charity and Humility descended to answer that Collection I have transcribed all this that the Reader may mind this Information when ever he meets with any thing quoted out of Dr. Taylor as he shall at least eighteen times and sometimes very largely whole pages nay two pages and more at a time by our Antagonist in his Treatise of Baptisme And truly a man would wonder at his weakness that since the Doctor in his Lib. of Proph. doth profess himself for Infant-Baptisme notwithstanding all that he says against it personating an Anabaptist as he confesseth and since he doth so villifie them for their error and weakness the Author should undervalue his cause so much as to make use of such fallacious reasonings as the Dr. himself calls them Next we have him again at Mr. Baxter wronging both him and his Reader in what he citeth out of his Disputation with Mr. Blake as formerly Mr. Baxter saith the Author in his 10 Argument pag. 117 118. speaks to the same purpose viz. Christ hath instituted no Baptisme but what is to be a sign of present Regeneration c. Here he curtailes Mr. Baxters words on purpose to blind the Reader for Mr. Baxter adds at least to men of age The 4. End is signally to represent the Covenant and promise that the Believer enters into hereby viz. to dye to sin and live to Christ for which he cites Mr. Perkins Baxter and Dr. Taylor the two former we have spoken enough of in the first Chapter where we find them most professedly for Infant-Baptisme and have condemned the Author for wresting their sence they speaking of Adult persons or Aliens and not in opposition to the Baptisme of Believers children and for that of Dr. Taylor That Baptisme is called the answer of a good conscience towards God 1 Pet 3.21 which saith he can by no means be applyed to the Infant since they are not capable thereof till they know to refuse the evil and choose the good Repl. I. To this Dr. Hammond answers namely This is as true of that Baptisme which belongs to children as to any other only the duty of it is not required till they come to years and ability to perform it and then if they keep not a good conscience it will be little available And if this be of any force
Infant-Baptism ASSERTED VINDICATED By SCRIPTURE And ANTIQUITY IN ANSWER To a Treatise of Baptism lately published by Mr. HENRY DANVERS Together with a full Detection of his Misrepresentations of divers Councils and Authors both Ancient and Modern WITH A Just Censure of his Essay to Palliate the horrid Actings of the Anabaptists in Germany AS ALSO A Perswasive to Unity among all Christians though of Different Judgments about Baptism By OBED WILLS M. A. Vt Christus Infantes ad se venire jussit ità nec Apostoli eos excluserunt à Baptismo quidem dum Baptismus Circumcicisioni aequiparat Paul Col. 2. apertè indicat etiam Infantes per Baptismum Ecclesiae Dei esse inserendos c. Magdib Cent. 1. l. 2. c. 4. p. 354. LONDON Printed for Jonathan Robinson at the Golden Lyon in St. Paul's Church-yard 1674. THE PREFACE THere is a New Treatise come forth concerning Baptism the Design whereof is to prove the Baptism of Believers and to disprove that of Infants There is great Cracking about it and some cry it up for a None-such that it is unanswerable and as I hear the Author himself Ixion-like falls in love with his own shadow and being Philautia nimis inflatus puffed up with the excellency of his performance glories much and pretends that he hath not only proselyted many of the Vulgar sort but some also of the Ministry And it is very certain that at its first appearance last Summer divers persons were Dipped in these parts and as I have been informed 7 or 8 in a day in the City of Bristol and in all likelyhood we may hear of many more this Summer for those who are inclinable to the Way are now grown so politick as not to profess their Faith till warm Weather This I do assure the Reader that the Book as to any thing material in it hath been many times answered before ever it came forth and that 's the reason belike we have heard of no Reply since it hath seen the light which is now about twelve Months All the Mediums he useth to maintain his Opinion are such trite and out-worn things that they have been in effect trampled upon and confuted again and again Nevertheless such is the Clamorousness of some men that they affect to have the last word when in modesty they ought to be silent and consider that it is their duty to unlearn a darling Errour and no dishonour to strike sail to convincing Reason Great Endeavours have been used to undeceive the Antipaedobaptists and 't is the unhappiness of many Godly and Learned Divines instead of meeting with answerable success to have their Pains contemned and their Persons loaded with Aspersions The Author of the Treatise I am to examine hath only affixt H. D. to the Title-page that is as appears by a Second Edition lately come forth Henry Danvers although in regard of the principal Materials the Book hath more reason to pretend to J. T. that is John Tombes for its Author For although H D. hath for some years lived a solitary contemplative Life and hath had opportunity for study yet owneth he not so much Scholarship if they say true that know him as to compose such a Piece nor is he so well acquainted with Fathers Councils Schoolmen had not most of it been prepared to his hand Indeed I find he is somewhat vers'd in the Magdiburgensian History though he hath made very ill use of it But for the Argumentative part especially the Opposition made against Infant-Baptism both the Method and Matter of his Treatise declares where he hath been fishing for I find very little in it besides what is borrowed from Mr. Tombes his Exercitation and Examen long since answered by M. Marshal Dr. Homes Mr. Gerce Mr. Blake Mr. Baxter But forasmuch as the Contest hath taken a Nap for about 20 years it was thought fit to give it one lusty jog more and awaken it again And in regard those Polemical Discourses are rarely found in Vulgar hands but are thrown aside into Corners and lie solitary as neglected things in Studies and Booksellers Shops the Author and his Coniederates out of their dear love to their Darling Opinion thought meet to make some good improvement of the late Liberty granted by his Majesty's gracious Declaration and to take up the Gantlet again and fall to the old Trade of Wrangling For some men are of a restless Spirit and if their Hands be tied up from fighting they will do it with their Tongues and Pens The Preface is made up of Invectives against the Assertors of Infant Baptism but mostly against Mr. Baxter by reason of some Passages of his in a late Book called The Christian Directory against which he seems to have a very great zeal but I fear his envy against his Person doth exceed it For do but compare the Preface with the Epilogue of our Authors Treatise and you will find he seems to entertain a better opinion of John of Leyden then of him I understand Mr. Baxter will speedily write something for his own Vindication and I long to see it that so nothing that he hath said in his Christian Directory may prove a Stumbling-block to the Weak and more confirm the Antipaedobaptists in their Errour The truth is those people are very sensible how much he hath wounded their Cause and are glad with an occasion of wounding his Reputation But I profess I could not but smile to observe how he seems to bewail the Indiscretion of Mr. Baxter and rebukes him for Printing his Judgement in some Points that refer to Baptism and other things at such an unseasonable time as if he had hit upon the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or the fittest opportunity to declaim against Infant Baptism But doth he take this to be a fit time of the day to use his own Phrase to widen Differences and set us at farther distances when we are almost sinking under fears and daily expectations of troubles Is it a fit season for us to be wrangling when Gods Rod is shaking over all our Heads Must he at such a time enter upon the old Obfolete Controversie and inveigh against Childrens Baptism which evermore hath occasioned heart-burnings and fruitless contendings especially when 't is disputed against with a lofty bitter and disdainful Spirit of which we perceive too much in this last attempt Ah! what a restless Genius is there attending some Opinions and how careless of the Churches Peace are the Abettors of them What the Author himself speaks pag. 308. from Clopenburg's Epistle of the Anabaptists heretofore in Germany is too true of some of those in England viz. That they suffer not the pure Reformed Churches to be edified without daily conflicts For not only heretofore in times of Liberty but even now under restraint some hot-spirited Persons publish their Tenents with such a rigid and condemning Spirit that it proves the greatest hinderance of Union and Conjunction amongst us in this Nation The
saved and consequently our Children cannot be saved because they cannot believe The same condition being required to precede Baptism that is required to precede Salvation You see whether the Argument may be carried and what little ground of comfort such doctrine affords in the death of our children To conclude then whereas they argue from this place of Mark we must believe and be baptized but Infants cannot believe therefore may not be Baptized will it not as directly follow that since they can't believe they must be damned let them frame an answer to the one and then they have answered both for look saith Mr. Marshall by what distinction they will maintain the Salvation of Infants against this Argument by the same will I more clearly justifie the Baptism of Infants against this Argument Having thus cleared the Texts from the false glosses Antipaedobaptists put upon them we shall next examine the passages out of Authors which my Antagonist quotes for his opinion The first he brings is Mr. Baxter who having so notably wounded their cause in his plain Scripture proof for Infant Church-Membership and Baptisme is become the man of their indignation and Indeed I fear the Author with whom I have to do is possest with a malevolent spirit against that Learned and Godly Divine and is glad of any occasion to wound his reputation as appears by his dealing with him in his Preface and divers other places in the Treatise Mr. Baxter saith he doth fully acknowledge in his Book called the second Disputation of Right to Sacraments pag. 149 150. Where he saith This speaking of the Commission of Christ to his Disciples is not like some occasional mentioning of Baptisme but it is the very Commission it self of Christ to his Disciples and purposely expresseth their several works in their several places and orders Their first Task is to make Disciples which are by Mark called Believers The second work is to baptize them whereto is annext the promise of their Salvation The third work is to teach them all other things which are after to be Learned in the School of Christ to contemn this order saith he is to contemn all Rules of Order for where can we expect to find it if not here I profess my Conscience is fully satisfyed that the Minister must expect a profession of Faith before Baptism To discover the Craft and Sinister dealing of our Opponent I must first acquaint the Reader that Mr. Baxter disputing with Mr. Blake who was for a large Admission to the Sacraments explains the Thesis in his second disputation thus viz. That Ministers must not Baptize the Children of those that profess not saving faith upon profession of any Faith that is short of it these are his very words pag. 53. And after it nine lines lower that he might not be mistaken hath this by way of caution viz. That he would have the Reader to understand that all along in the discourse of the whole Book the dispute is about the aged themselves whether they may be baptized so that it is none of our work at this time saith he to defend the Subjects as to their age against the Anabaptists but our present business is to enquire what that faith is that quallifieth persons to be just subjects of Baptism or to be such whose children may receive it upon the account of their faith or profession Disp 2. p. 4. Moreover in his fourth Disputation he hath this passage We take it for granted that the Right of Infants is upon the account of their Parents Faith therefore we manage this discourse with respect to the Adult P. 351. What could any man in the World say more to prevent the Cavils of unworthy persons And certainly he had not said so much unless he had known how our opposites lye at the Catch and yet we see this would not do for we have found a man of so much dis-ingenuity as to traduce and pervert the sayings of this worthy person to countenance his errour I have been the larger in setting down Mr. Baxters words that it may leave some impression on the Readers Memory when he finds any thing quoted out of Mr. Baxters Disputations about the Right to Sacraments that so it might be as a Key to open his meaning in all those numerous passages the Author hath pikt up out of that Dispute which indeed fills up many pages of his Book Next we have Mr. Calvin introduced as speaking something in favour of their opinion Ergò ut se ritè ad Baptismum offerant homines peccatorum confessio ab illis requiritur alioqui nihil quam inane esset ludicrum tota actio Notandum est de Adultis his verba fieri Calv. in Mat. 3.6 Verùm quia docere prius jubet Christus quam baptizare tantum credentes ad Baptismum vult recipi videtur non ritè administrari baptismus nisi fides praecesserit c. Eos qui fide in Ecclesiam Dei ingressi sunt videmus cum sua sobole censeri in Christi membris in salutis haereditatem simul vocari Nec modò seperatur hoc modo Baptismus a fide Doctrina quia licet pueri Infantes nondum per aetatem fidem babent Deus tamen eorum parentes compellans c. whereas few ever wrote so smartly against them it is from that same passage of his on Mat. 6. c. Therefore that men may rightly offer themselves to Baptisme Confession of sin is required otherwise the whole action would be but Sport The words indeed are Mr. Calvins so that I confess my Antagonist speaks truth but he should have done well to have spoken the whole truth For Mr. Calvin also cauteously adds It is to be Noted that these words are spoken of Adult persons And that we may see his judgement fully take notice of his Paraphrase upon the 28. of Mat. 19. and that other Text Mark 16.16 But because saith he Christ commandeth us to teach before he commands us to Baptize and he would have believers only admitted to Baptism it seems Baptism is not rightly administred unless faith goeth before From this place saith Calvin the Anabaptists oppose Infant Baptism To which he presently answers That those whom we see by a Profession of their Faith to be admitted into the Church we are to look upon them together with their off-spring as the members of Christ and to be jointly called to the inheritance of the Saints neither is Baptism hereby separated from Faith and Teaching because though children have not yet faith by reason of their Age. Nevertheless God taking their Parents into Covenant they themselves are also to be imbraced in the same Covenant After Calvin comes Piscator to as little purpose whose words on Mark 1.4 are these It is called the Baptisme of Repentance because John Preached remission of sins to the penitent Believers But why should this worthy Author be thus curtail'd whenas he farther expresseth himself thus Baptismus
will amount unto in this Chapter His first Testimony is from Luther de Sacrament Tom. 3. fol. 168. where he saith Luther hath these words viz. That in times past it was thus that the Sacrament of Baptism was Administred to none except it were to those that acknowledged and confessed their faith c. The which when I read I was not well assured but that my Antagonist might be guilty of Forgery knowing Luther to be a most fierce and zealous opposer of their way wherefore I did very carefully examine the third Tome of Luther concerning Sacraments I read the 168. pag. and read it again with a friend and do profess that there is not one syllable to the purpose for which the Author brings him no nor in any page thereabout The next that he Cites is Bullinger who it â—â—ns hath such words as these in his houseâ—â—k 48 Sermon Baptism hath no prescribed â—e by the Lord and therefore it is left to the â— choice of the Faithful I have not the book by me to examine the â—â—th of this but however I am certain there â—othing in that passage against Infant-Baptism â—hat this testimony can do us no hurt and we â—â—w very well how large a book Bullinger hath 〈◊〉 Contra Anabaptistas against the Anabaptists â—hat I wonder the Author should bring him 〈◊〉 The Reader may observe how zealous an â—rtor of Infant-Baptisme this Learned and â—â—ly Divine was by that one passage of his in 〈◊〉 Compendium of the Christian Religion de â—cto Baptismo ac de Infanâ—s Baptizandis lib. 8. pag. 〈◊〉 viz. Quoniam autem Christianorum liberi in faedere Dei suni Christus etiam Infantium salvator est cumque ad ipsos pertineat ut veteris ac novi Testamenti literae testentur-Baptismus Faeperis figillum iis negari non debet That because the â—dren of Believers are in â—â—nant with God and 〈◊〉 is their Saviour and â—romise also belongs to 〈◊〉 as both the Old and 〈◊〉 Testament do witâ—â—â—â— Baptisme which is the 〈◊〉 of the Covenant is not to be denyed them 〈◊〉 And after this concludes Hortor autem â—â—omnes pios ac verè Christianos ut studiose â—â—terque sibi a contentiosa venenata Anaâ—â— arum sectâ caveant quae externa specie quiâ—â— Hypocrisi splendet reverà autem paestilenâ—â— est haeresis atque plurimas baereses quibus oâ—â—te aliquot secula Ecclesia Chrsti turbata lacerata fuit in se complectitur illisque plurimos homines inficit I forbear to English it out of respect to some which I believe are Godly and yet opposite to the Baptisme of believers Children Lastly The Author quotes a great deal out of Mr. Baxters Disputations with Mr. Blake about Right to the Sacraments but we have before spoil'd his Market by giving the Reader a Key out of the same Book by which he may understand him So that all those Examples from John the Samritans the Eunuch Paul Lydia the Jaylor Crispus c. doth but mind us again of the Authors dis-ingenuity in traducing that Worthy Divine CHAP. IV. Wherein he labours to prove Believers the only Subjects of Baptisme from the Spiritual ends of the Ordinance where he gives us an Induction of the particular ends of Baptisme as follows 1. THe first end of Baptisme saith he is that the Baptized might have that represented in a Sign or Figure and Preached to his Eye in the Ordinance which had been Preacht to his Ear and Heart by the word and Spirit respecting the whole Mystery of the Gospel and his duty and obligation therein A Sign being as Paraeus observeth some outward thing appearing to the sence through which some inward thing is at the same time apprehended by the understanding Repl. I. I deny this to be the primary end of Baptism For not to insist upon that which hath given too great advantage to Antipaedobaptists That the first end of Baptisme is to give a solemn entrance or admission into the Church I conceive it to be more true to affirm That the first and chief end of Baptisme is to be the Initiatory sign or seal of Gods Covenant and favour to us in Christ For as Dr. Ames observes in his Bellarminus enervatus Tom. 2. lib. 2. unless persons are to be reputed Members of the Church Nisi habendi tales essent viz. fidelium infantes pro membris ecclesiae non deberent Baptizari Baptismus enìm suâ naturâ est sigillum insitionis jam factae in Christum atque adeò in Ecclesiam Act. 10.47 48. they ought not to be Baptized for Baptism in its own nature is the seal of our being already ingrafted into Christ and so consequently into the Church Acts 10.47 48. He speaks concerning the Baptism of the Children of Believers and affirms they ought not to be Baptized but under this consideration that they are members of the Church which we shall hereafter make good in its proper place 2. I acknowledge that to Adult persons Baptisme reprefents in a sign that to the eye which is Preacht to the eare respecting the Mysteries of the Gospel c. Although I see not how it can be so in the way of Dipping for how can persons under water see apprehend or hear any thing during that time when and whereby the Sences and Understandings of men are so confounded that they have no power to exercise their faith or reason as they should and since plunging over head and ears puts people into such an amazing condition not without frights especially in the more tender Sex some being neer throtled or drown'd it is to be susspected to be none of Christs appointments for one would think that at such a juncture of time especially when an Ordinance is celebrated representing so many Gospel Mysteries it is requisite the mind should be in a more omposed posture then theirs are like to be in whose heads are under Water We grant Baptism to be a sign of spiritual Mysteries represented to the eye of such as are grown up and rightly Baptized As Circumcision was a sign of the same import to Abraham and it is of present and immediate use to the aged Rom. 4. Abraham reeived the sign of Circumcision as the Seal of the righteousness of Faith and we acknowledge also both the Sacraments are of immediate and present use to the aged and in this sence we are to understand Paraeus speaking of Sacramental Signes but let it be considered that the children of Abraham received the sign of Circumcision as well as Abrabam and yet they were void of understanding and judgment and knew no more of the spiritual Mysteries represented therein then our Infants do in the Ordinance of Baptism Circumcision represented the same Mysteries that Baptism doth and yet those poor Israelitish Babes that were Circumcised knew not that the cutting-off the fore-skin shadowed out the corruption of nature and the nature of Mortification the blood shed in the act also held
we should have given precedency upon Acts 22.16 Eos qui fide in Ecclesiam Dei ingressi sunt videmus cum sua sobole in Christi Membris c. The Episcopal Divines fall in with the rest I will name but one instà r omnium and that is the famous Doctor Vsher in his Body of Divinity pag. 415. The outward Elements saith he are dispensed to all who make an outward profession of the Gospel for Infants their being born in the Church is instead of an outward profession c. Lastly the Author is at Mr. Baxter again quoting something out of his tenth Argument to Mr. Blake as if he had intended those words against Infants Church-Membership when he clears himself so fully in the point as when he stated the Thesis in the said Book of Disputations and hath written particularly a large piece whose Title is Plain Scripture-proof of Infants Church-Membership and Baptism To conclude this I cannot but pitty the Author because of that self-conceited scornful Genius that appears in what follows altogether unbecoming a Christian and I think all modest and sober spirits cannot but be extreamly scandalized to see a man pretending to be for the truth of Christ so proudly to trample upon all that differ from him Surely he must needs be furnisht with more than an ordinary measure of self-conceit that doth so Magisterially condemn not only the Ancients but those of the Protestant Reformation of latter days sparing none neither Prelate Presbyter nor Independent Have patience Reader and thou shalt hear a little of it How childishly ridiculous it was in those first Inventors of Baptism for six hundred years c. Have a care Sir since you swell at this rate least you burst Austin tells you Ecclesia semper habuit semper tenuit The Church always had it always held Infant Baptisme And Doctor Taylor a person whom you seem to honour much says there is no Record extant of any Church in the World that from the Apostles days inclusively to this very day ever refused to baptize children excepting of late amongst your selves So well to observe the Order viz. first to Baptize and then to Communicate and yet so miserably to miss it in the Subjects applying the Spiritual Ordinances to ignorant Babes This of the six hundred years giving the Communion to Infants he hath taken from Master Tombes his sixth Argument against Infant-Baptisme Exercitation pag. 29. for there it is and Tombes as is conceived took it up from Maldonate the Jesuite who reports that the giving of the Communion to Infants continued six hundred years in the Church But Master Geree well òbserves that is not nor ought to be taken of the first six hundred years for it appears by Maldonate's expression calling it Sententiam the opinion of Augustin and Pope Innocent that it had if not its rise yet its force to become common from them Not only Protestants but Papists themselves condemn that of communicating Infants as an errour yea as I remember the Councel of Trent it self And yet Doctor Taylor doth profess in his discourse of Baptizing the Infants of Believers that page 59. certainly there is infinitely more reason why Infants may be communicated then why they may not be Baptized The Protestant Reformers are more blind and do worse in his opinion then those who gave Infants the Lords Supper And how much worse saith he in the Protestant Reformers that so lamentalby miss it both in the due Order and right Subjects also which the Prelate and Presbyter doe in admitting children to Baptism and Membership but not to the Supper A little more modestly would do the Author no hurt and let him know that neither their Baptism or Church-Membership are inconsistent with the Word but so is Infant-Communion not only because God requires a particular qualification to the Ordinance which Infants are not capable of namely the exercise of actual grace in examination discerning the Lords Body and remembring the death of Christ but because they are not capable in any certain way of the Elements used in that Sacrament as to take and eat the Bread and drink Wine Lastly this Hagio-Mastix lasheth the Independents which do worse than all the rest and doth more grosly erre in point of Order in admitting them to Baptism but neither to Membership nor the Supper But I find the Proverb is true Bernardus non videt omnia even that great Doctor called Saint Bernard is ignorant of some things Wherefore I crave leave of the Author tó tell him he is ignorant of the grounds or principles by which the Independents walk And for his better information I refer him to Doctor Nathaniel Holmes his Answer to Mr. Tombes his Exercitation and Examen where he shall find the Independents Judgment jump with Master Jesseys in his discourse upon Romans 14.1 you have it reprinted at the end of Master Bunians last piece in answer to a Book entituled Some serious Reflections on that part of Master Bunyans Confession of Faith touching Church-Communion with unbaptized Believers Consider saith Master Jessey whether such a practice hath a command or example that persons must be joyned into Church-Fellowship by Water-Baptism For John Baptized many yet he did not Baptize some into one Church and some into another nor all into one particular Church And then afterward into what Church did Philip Baptize the Eunuch or the Apostle the Jaylor and his house This he speaks in opposition to those who hold that a particular Church is constituted by Baptism and formally united as Master K. did many years since in his answer to Doctor B. and is no changeling as appears by his Epistle to Master Pauls sorry Reflections lately Printed So Master Tombes of old in his sixth Argument Exercitat where he inveighs against the Independents as the Author doth here and saith That by Baptism a person is exhibited a Member of Christ and that Church To which Doctor Holmes an Independent Pastor makes this reply viz. But what Church doth Master Tombes mean If he means of the Universal Church I yield that he is exhibited a visible Christian But if he means a Member of any particular rightly constituted Church according to the platform of those in the New Testament and ancient antiquity I altogether deny it for these reasons 1. Those Baptized Matthew 3. were in no particular Christian Church there being none gathered till a good while after that Christ had given the Holy Spirit to the Disciples 2. Cornelius his and the Jaylors Families after the gathering of Churches were not by that numbred to any particular Churches or thereby made particular Churches that we read Now that which exists afore or after a thing without that thing cannot be the form of that thing 3. That which is common cannot be proper and peculiar But Baptism is common to make men only visible Christians in General Therefore it is not proper and peculiar to make them of this or that particular Church And then
a Christian when he was born and for his Father Constantine every one knows he was none though he favoured the Christians Furthermore Mr. Marshal conceives the reason why he received not Baptism in his Infancy was thus as follows viz. Constantine his Father albeit a man of a sweet temper and tender of his Subjects first out of the mildness of his nature favoured the Christians seeing their unblameable Conversation and Faithfulness in all their imployments therefore he did not in a hostile way pursue their Religion as other Emperours did yea at length he grew to a good esteem of it especially towards the end of his life in this time his Son Constantine the Great lived in Dioclesian his Court from whence his life being twice in danger he suddenly escaping came to his Father then sick and presently upon his death was saluted Emperour These things considered it is no marvel if he were not Baptized in his Infancy when for ought we read neither of his Parents had then imbraced the Christian Religion When he was returned at his Father's Death he was thirty years of Age and whether ever his Father was Baptized the Story is silent Neither is Helena her affection to Religion in his Infancy related in the Story though afterward it is often mentioned Tombes Nazianzen saith Tombes for we have to deal with him almost every-where in H. D. 〈◊〉 Treatise was the Son of a Christian Bishop But how doth that appear faith Mr. Marshal there was a time when he was a Heathen whether he was Converted before his Son was born is not exprest whilst he was young he went with Basil to Athens to be bred in humane Literature and from thence to Antioch but not a word is mentioned of his being addicted to Christianity Having spent thirty years in the Study of Humane Literature he returns to his Father and if his Parents were Christian when he was born they shewed no good sign of it in sending him to Athens to be trained up among Idolatrous Heathens so it is aquestion whether Bazil's Father was achristian when he sent him likewise to Athens to be there bred in humane Literature though afterward he became Bishop of Nisen Tombes Then for the Story of Chrysostom 't is verbatim out of Tombes his Examen pag. 9. who saith out of Grotius upon Matt. 19. That he was born of Christian Parents and educated by Meletius a Bishop yet was he not Baptized till past 21 years of age It is well replyed by Marshal That this is taken up purely upon the credit of Grotius who gives no account from whence he fetcheth the relation which is the more to be suspected because the Magdeburgenses speak not a word of it And the Ecclesiastical Historians that set forth the place of his Birth and Parentage and likewise his Call to his Ecclesiastical Dignity are silent in this and give not the least hint of his Religion or Baptism Others speaking of him and of his Parents say they were both Heathens and his Father dyed within a very short time of his birth It appears saith Mr. Marshal from his own Writings that when he was twenty years of Age his Mother was a Christian but whether Father or Mother were so at his birth is uncertain and not likely because his Education in his younger-time was under Libanius a great Enemy of the Christians by which it appears that it is falsly suggested that he was Educated by Meletius Lastly for Austin for he is the last we will speak of and we may judge of the rest by these he was not Baptized saith Tombes Tombes Examen Pag. 14. Examen Pag. till about 30. though Educated as a Christian by his Mother Monica To which Mr. Marshal thus replys viz. I will not take upon me to determine what the particular reason was of his not being Baptized in his Infancy but from hence there is no cause to say that Children of Christians by profession in that Age were not Baptized in Infancy For first it must be proved that Austin's Parents were Christians at his Birth otherwise whatsoever is said of him is not to the Question Austin himself tells us in his Confessons That when he was Puer a Child he was extream sick like to dye and he and his Mother were both troubled for not being Baptized and for his Father he sayes at that time he was an Infidel c. But enough if not too much of this they that would know the full Story of his Fathers Conversion may find it in Austin's Confessions Lib. 2. c. 6. And Austin himself confesseth he put off his Baptism till about the 30th year of his Age being poysoned with the Manichean Heresie in which he continued nine years Confess Lib. 3. c. 11. and during which time he saith he derided Baptism Reader I am not willing to make Ostentation of greater skill in History than I have and therefore know I am beholding to Mr. Marshal who hath made these Relations ready to my hand After this we have a plausible Story of one Walfridus Strabo an Ecclesiastical Historian and what is brought from him the Author borrows from his good friend Mr. Tombes you shall have it in his very words that you may know where the Author hath been fishing Tombes in his Exercitation Printed 1646. Pag. 27. hath it thus Tombes his Exercitation Pag. 27. The words of Walfridus Strabo who lived about the year 840. in his Book De Rebus Ecclesiasticis Chap. 26. are these We are also to note that in the first times the grace of Baptism was wont only to be given to them who by integrity of body and mind were come to this that they could know and understand what profit is to be obtained in Baptism what is to be Confessed and Believed what lastly is to be observed of them that are born again in Christ and confirms it by Austin 's own Confession of himself continuing a Catechumenus long afore Baptized but afterwards Christians understanding Original Sin ne perirent parvuli Tombes hath it in Latin but the Author in English and lest Children should perish without any means of Grace had them Baptized by the Decrees of the Council of Africa and then adds how God-fathers and God-mothers were invented To this I Answer That Strabo is condemned by many Learned men for a false and heedless Writer and they have shewn his errors in diverse things Vossius chargeth him with no small faults in relating matters of Fact As First he said Austin in his Confessions tells us he continued a Catechumenus till he was 25 years old Tombes mentions not this as knowing Strabo was out in his reckoning Now Austin himself tells us in his Confessions that he was not converted till about the 30th year of his Age and after that continued a Catechized Person two years and in the 34th year of his Age he was Baptized at Millain by Ambrose Secondly whereas he makes as if Infant-Baptism were an Innovation
34. 2. There needed no express Command in the New-Testament that Infants should be signed and sealed by Baptism when the Covenant is not abolished that took in the Seed with the Parent as there needs no express Command for the Lord 's Day or First-Day Sabbath in the New-Testament because the fourth Commandment for substance is still in force So there needs no new Command for Baptizing the Infant-seed of Believers because the Command for sealing such is for substance still in force It is also well noted by Mr. Gerce that there is a great difference between an Ordinance it self and some particular Circumstance or Subject to which that Ordinance is to be applied As for the Ordinance it self the setting up of Baptism as a Sacrament of the Gospel-Covenant renewed by Christ this requires express warrant in the Word of God but when we have such warrant for the Ordinance it self to whomsoever we find by grounds and principles in Scripture that it doth of right belong there we may apply it though we want express Command for it if we have none against it 3. We farther add what is well argued by some Divines That if the Children of Believers have a right to be Baptized by the word of Promise Mr. Stephens and Mr. Sydenham then they have a right to be Baptized by the word of Command but the Children of Believers have a right to be Baptized by the word of Promise therefore they have a right to be Baptized by the word of Command Now that Children have a right to be Baptized by the word of Promise appears from Act. 2.39 For the Promise is made to you and to your Children c. The exceptions which the Antipaedobaptists make against this Text shall be removed in its proper place Now for the other Branch there is no Example of Infants being baptized therefore it is no Ordinance of Christ The Consequence stands upon a lame Leg for as is before shewn a negative Argument in matters of Fact is not valid For Christ did many things that were not recorded and so did the Apostles whereof this was one for ought we know the Baptizing Infants and it is the more probable upon a twofold account First because we find such frequent mention of their Baptizing whole Families as Stephanus and his houshold Lydia and her houshold and divers others as soon as we read of the head of the Family to believe the whole houshold was baptized As when Abraham believed he and his whole Family were circumcised and so when the Head of a Family became a Proselyte ordinarily He and His were Circumcised Now in so many Families as were baptized it cannot rationally be supposed that there were no Children and if there were any they were baptized for they are a part of the Family or Houshold And secondly Because we never read in Scripture of any Children of Believing Parents who were Baptized afterwards Our Opposits will not believe the Apostles baptized Children because we can give no particular instances of it but this Negative Argument may be thus retorted against themselves The Children of Believing Parents were baptized in their Infancy for they cannot find in Scripture any of them that were baptized when they came to years of discretion and not before I urge not this as a concluding though probable Argument that in the Apostle's days Children were Baptized however I am certain that to say Infant-Baptism is no Ordinance of Christ because we have no examples in the Scripture of any that were Baptized is a pittiful Argument Next saith he That there is neither Precept nor Example for any such thing as Infant-Baptism in the Scripture we have the ingenuous Confession of the parties themselves The Magdeburgenses do say That concerning the Baptising the Adult both Jews and Gentiles we have sufficient proof but as to the Baptizing of Infants they can meet with no Example in the Scriptures Very good Sr. now you have learnt to set down things right but why did you say in the 56 page of your Treatise referring to the same place Cent. 1. L. 2. pag. 496. That the Magdeburgenses as to the Subjects of Baptism tell us that in this Age they only Baptized the Adult was that lapsus calami or mentis And do you not know that in the same place they tell us notwithstanding particular instances cannot be found as all the Paedobaptists confess yet 't is evident from the Writings of the Apostles that they did not exclude Infants from Baptism and then bring Arguments for the lawfulness of it as before For that of Luther in his Epistle of Anabaptism I have not the Book by me to Examine it yet I am sure by what the Author cites it hurts us not The Scriptures saith he do no where clearly and plainly with these or the like words say Baptize your Children for they believe and we must needs yield to those that drive us to the Letter This is still no more than what we all say we all acknowledg it is no-where written Children do believe as Lutherans hold they do and again we say as Luther did it is no-where written clearly and plainly with these words Baptize your Children for they Believe Nor have Antipaedobaptists any command in so many words Go and Baptize actual and visible Believers If they say such were Baptized we may reply with Mr. Sydenbam that is not to the purpose for it is a verbal command which they require to give warrant to an Ordinance and for ought we can learn from Christ's Commission Matt. 28.19 Whosoever are taught be the parties never so wicked they must be Baptized if they will for there is no mention made of their entertainment of the Gospel Next he Fathers that upon Erasmus which was never spoken by him in his Comment upon Rom. 6. Namely That Baptizing of infants was not in use in St. Paul's time There is no such word I assure thee Reader there Again in his 4th Book de Ratione Concionandi he saith That they are not to be condemned that doubt whether Childrens Baptism were Ordained by the Apostles But why Sir did you not speak out all You know Erasmus his words are these Probabile est tingere Infantes institutum fuisse ab Apostolis non damnaretur tamen qui de hoc dubitaret It is probable the Baptism of Infants was instituted by the Apostles nevertheless if one doubt thereof he should not be condemned In this Erasmus speaks like an honest moderat-Spirited man that would not have weak Christians Anathematized as the Papists use to do for their dissent in Circumstantial and Disputable points Calvin in his 4th Book of Institutes Chap. 16. confesseth that it is no-where expresly mentioned by the Evangelists that any one Child was by the Apostles Baptized to the same purpose are Staphilus Melancthon Zwinglius quoted to which I only say That whereas they all tell us there is no express Command or express Example an Implicite one is
and he might have learned the contrary from the Magdeburgenses Cent. 4. cap. 10. p. 1218 1219. where they say extant inter Origenis opera Latina facta quaedam quorum interpres fuit Hieronimus Erasmi judicio Divers of Origen's Works are Translated by Jerom. This is the judgment of Erasmus as his Homilies upon Jeremy Ezechiel his Homilies upon Luke and the Romans to both which Jerom affixeth his own Preface as Erasmus observes and in both these have we the point of Infant-Baptism asserted and so we see the Author might have spared the pains of telling such a Story of Ruffinus for we give the places which are for our turn out of Origen according to Jerom's version and if Ruffinus hath no credit with him I hope he will allow a little to Jerom 3. Lastly for that other ancient Father Cyprian he cannot let him pass without some exceptions such as they are though me thinks that of Vossius should silence all Cavils viz That the Testimony of Cyprian for Infant-Baptism both in his time and before is beyond all exceptions And Grotius likewise tells us that the Epistle of Cyprian to Fidus makes the matter plain that there was then no doubt of Infant-Baptism for Fidus did not deny their Baptism but only denyed they ought to be Baptized before the eight day But let us hear what he hath to except against Cyprian which is 1. Because he doth not urge the Practice from any Apostolical Tradition or Precept but from his own and the Council of sixty six Bishops Arguments Reply But what though no mention be made here of Apostolical-Tradition Origenes Cyprianus Authores sunt Apostolorum etiam tempore Infantes Baptizatos esse Magdeburg Cent. 1. Lib. 2. c. 6. p. 496. yet it follows not that he held it not as such and the Magdeburgenses have before told us that both Origen and Cyprian that lived near the Apostles affirm that even in the Apostles time Infants were Baptized But to see how inflexible and stiff this Antagonist is if saith he he had Asserted it for an Apostolical Tradition his word would have been no sooner taken than when he tells us that Chrysm was so To which I Reply And why then shall Tertullian's supposed Word against Infant-Baptism be taken and pass for currant who was as the Magdeburgenses inform us the first inventer of Chrysm and Cyprian 't is like learned it of him who was as the Author calls him his great Master Judg Reader whether this be fair and equal dealing 2. His other Exception which he never learned from his great Master Mr. Tombes who was too wise to urge it when he opposed the Testimony of Cyprian Examen Sec. 7. pag. 10. is because there is good ground to question whether this was Cyprian's and sixty-six Bishops Conclusion And why so 1. Because we meet with no such Council and that is strange for one that hath launched as he hath done into the vast Ocean of Antiquity neither yet can it appear where it was held Something must be sayd though it be but meer wrangling Well I perceive the Ancient Fathers that lived next after Cyprian were dim-sighted and could not see what good ground there was to question whether ever Cyprian had such a Council Had they had the perspicacity of this Author they would never have retained so venerable an esteem of it as is evident they had in their frequent and respective quotations of it As Nazianzen Orat 3. in S. Lavacrum Chrysost Hom. ad Neophit Ambros in Luc. and Hieronimus Lib. 3. Dialog Contr. Pelag. and Austin in very many places and no less weakness is there in what follows viz. And if Austin's Argument before mentioned be good to prove an Apostolical Tradition because no Council had determined it it concludes against any such Council Reply A pittiful mistake or misunderstanding Austin's Words which are Quod universa tenet Ecclesia c. That which is universally received and practised in the Church and had not its first Institution from some Council The Author should have markt that but hath been ever retained may be believed to be an Apostolical Tradition which indeed is an undeniable Position and being applyed by Austin to the point in hand seems to be a Demonstration of the Apostolicalness of Infant-Baptism Austin therefore calls it an Apostolical Tradition because it was alwayes practised in the Church and had not its first Institution from Councils neither in Cyprian's Council nor any one else being of greater Antiquity than any of them Neither can any man name when it began since the Apostles and for that reason we cannot otherwise conceive rationally of it than that it had its first Original from them I shall only add those remarkable Words of Mr. Philpot the Martyr in his Letter to his fellow-sufferer that scrupled Infant-Baptism which with the Scripture-Arguments he used proved so effectual that as Mr. Fox in his Book of Martyrs tells us the dissatisfied Person came thereby to be established in the doctrine of Infant-Baptism and dyed in the Belief of its warrantableness I can declare saith Mr. Philpot out of Ancient Writers that the Baptism of Infants hath continued from the Apostles time unto ours and then cites Origen and Cyprian out of Austins 28th Epistle to Jerom where are these words viz Cyprian did not make any new Decree but firmly observing the Faith of the Church judged with his own fellow-Bishops that as soon as one was born he might be lawfully Baptized These Authorities saith that famous Martyr a little before his death I do alledg not to ty the Baptism of Children unto the Testimonies of Men but to shew how Mens 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 Pope's Commandment And so I shall leave the Author to his Boasting in what follows and the impartial Reader to judg whether our Testimonies from Antiquity be forged and fabulous as he would render them only I must not let pass an Objection which he starts and which is usually made by us which he had better have left Dormant than to give so slight an Answer to it Objection It is sayd That by Tertullian's opposing it it may seem that there were some that practised it in the 3d Century and can it be supposed that any did so except it had been warranted by such Apostolical Tradition Observe Reader the answer which he gives Answer It is granted Tertullian did oppose it But who it was that did assert it and whether upon any such account as supposed is not mentioned it will be on their part to prove the one and the other Reply 1. We gather from this Answer that the Author cannot have the face to deny it was practised in the 3d Century for if Tertullian did Oppose it it must be supposed it was Practised else
a Legitimat seed as Calvin and Camer and others inlarge upon it in opposition to Bastardy for so were Bastards to be esteemed Deut. 23.17 and so 1 Thes 4.3 4 5. This is the will of God even your Sanctification and that you abstain from Fornication c. Still Mr. Tombes word by word both Scriptures and Authors so that the Book might have well born the Title of Tombes redivivns but First For that in Malachy it hath no neerness to it for Godly or of God is not the same with Holy nor doth he say that all Seed begotten in lawful Marriage of one to one is a Godly Seed But that he might seek a seed of God that so he might have a Church proceeding from orderly and chaste marriage Mr. Gerre hath cleared this very well in his Vindiciae Paedobaptismi The place in Malachy saith he to Mr. Tombes doth not any thing countenance your conceit that Holy is taken for Legitimate not only because that place is capable of another sense then to import a Legitimate Seed but if it be taken for Legitimate it follows not that Holy and Legitimate are one Holy is a higher state then Legitimate both are from Gods Ordination Seed in both senses may be termed a Seed of God as the Original is there and yet they be different and so though a Seed of God be translated Legitimate yet it follows not that holy is taken for Legitimate Then for that place in Deuteronomy 23.17 This makes it more unlikely saith the aforementioned Author for though Bastards were once Legally unclean yet that was a Ceremonial thing that was abrogated when the Apostle wrote to the Corinthians and for the Apostle then in that sense to say Bastards were unclean was neither true nor safe for it were a reviving again the Ceremonial Law And for the other Text 1 Thes 4.3 4 5. where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sanctification is the same with Chastity Mr. Marshal did not fly to a shift when he told Tombes that Chastity among the Heathens is never called Sanctification but among Believers it is being a part of the New-Creation and one branch and part of their Sanctification wrought by the spirit of God for the Apostle here writes to the Saints to take heed of that sin to which whilst they were in their Infidel State they were much given up to Chastity indeed amongst Infidels we call a moral virtue but cannot properly be called a part of Sanctification Thirdly which is the last reason the Author brings I should have said Mr. Tombes Neither can Matrimonial holiness be said not to be a Separation to God Mr. Tombes Examen pag. 77. for it is no other then setting a part according to Gods Ordinance and which is called honourable or in this sense holy c. The Author had been ingenious if he had given us all that Mr. Tombes saith upon this for he flyes to the English Liturgy for help I may adde saith he that Marriage hath had the reputation of a holy estate as the Liturgy calls it In answer to which this may suffice it is a chaste estate but for the term holiness to be given to it it is to be susspected to be the Issue of a supposed Sacrament Mr Geree Vinditiae Paedollapt so esteemed by the Papists and this may occasion some Epethites given to it which are yet retained that ought to be laid aside There are two other petty objections which I let pass as not thinking them worthy of any more answers Vide Marshalls defence p 146. and Gerees Vindiciae Paedobapt p. 25. when both Mr. Marshal and Mr. Geree hath done it so well to whom I refer the Reader Exceptions against our Arguments for Infant Baptism from Gen. 17. Acts 2.39 removed In the next place he attempts to invalidate our great Argument for Infant-Baptism drawn from the connexion that is between the Covenant and the seal so that if the Infant seed of Believers are found to be within the Covenant of Gods Grace they ought therefore to partake of the Seal The Author sights most furiously against this Argument but all the Weapons he makes use of in this engagement are fetch'd out of Mr. Tombes his Armory whose edges were long since blunted in an encounter with Mr. Marshall and Mr. Geree yet hath he thought fit to whet and furbish them over again and to make a great flourish as if he would do some notable execution But thou wilt find Reader that he tenders nothings to the end of the Chapter but a nauseous Crambe a Repetition of the old routed Arguments and indeed the controversie hath been so much bandied too and fro that without a miraculous invention it is impossible to find out any thing New either Pro or Con and the utmost that can be done is but to improve the Old Arguments The foundation upon which we ground our practice is Gods Covenant Gen. 17.7 from whence saith he it is thus argued Those to whom the Gospel-Covenant belonged to them the Seal thereof appertained But to Believers and their seed the Gospel Covenant belonged as Gen. 17.7 I 'le be a God to thee and thy seed Acts 2.39 The promise is to you and to your children Therefore to them the seal thereof Circumcision so called Rom. 4.11 did appertain Gen. 17.10 For the Faederati were to be Signati those in the Covenant were to have the Seal thereof And therefore by consequence it naturally follows That if Circumcision the seal of the Gospel-Covenant belonged to the seed of Believers under the Law then doth the Gospel Seal Baptism much more appertain to the seed of Believers under the Gospel which comes in the place room and use of Circumcision otherwise the priviledge under the Gospel would be less then that of the law should Children be denyed such a benefit Repl. I do not find but the Author hath done us right in forming the Argument and do therefore own it as sound and good notwithstanding this quick-sighted man or rather he with Mr. Tombes his eyes hath espied many faults in it for First in general he tells us 't is fallacious and false reasoning and that there is no natural consequence at all from Scripture to inferr the Baptism of Infants nor any ground to build it on Circumcision and that divers things in the Argument are pre-supposed but cannot be proved Secondly He puts in his particular exceptions against it as Except 1. First because Circumcision was not the seal of the Gospel-Covenant to all Believers for 1. Mr. Tombes Examon pag. 36. some under the Gospel-Covenant were not sealed therewith as all Believers from Adam to Abraham neither do we find any of the Believers out of Abrahams family as Lot Melchesideck Job received any such Seal Well said Mr. Tombes They are his very words in his Answer pag. 36. and in his Exercit. pag. 4. and therefore to this there needs no other answer then what Mr. Geree gives him which is
the H. Ghost hath no intent ☜ to bind and determine our Practice to this or that for seeing the word he useth is indifferent for both he would have left us some light either from precept or example which way he would have Sacramental This Assumption is confirm'd by this that no-where is it expressed that it was done by Dipping yea in some it is more than probable that it was not viz. Act. 2.41 there being in one day 3000 Baptized which might well be done by Sprinkling but not by Dipping So Act. 10.47 there be many Baptized at a time and place when there could not be accommodation of water and other conveniences for total Dipping Yea Peters phrase can any Man forbid Water imports a bringing in of Water to the place for the use which might well be done for Sprinkling but not for Dipping Also Act. 16.33 There is a Man all his Family straight-way Baptized in a Prison and in the night at which time and place Water for Dipping so many could not be had but easily for Sprinkling CHAP. VII Wherein there is a pretence to some eminent Witness that hath been born against Infant-Baptism from first to last THe first that we shall mention saith the Author is that Excellent Testimony Tertullian bore against it upon the first appearance of it in the 3d Century Reply 1. It is acknowledged that Tertullian who was the first Writer of note in the Latin Church hath divers passages seemingly against Infant-Baptism but yet withal it must be considered that his Testimony such as it is is but the Testimony of one single Dr. in opposition to the general custom of the Church and even from this instance we may learn the great Antiquity of Infant-Baptism that it hath been in use above 15 hundred years as it appears upon record for Tertullian according to Helvicus wrote his Book of Prescriptions about the year 195. which was about 97 years after St. John's Death and 't is probable Mr. Baxter of Infant-Baptism when he wrote his Book he had arrived to the years of thirty or fourty so that according to this calculation he lived about sixty or seventy years after St. John and yet as early days as these were Children were then Baptized for else why should Tertullian be so earnest in disswading them not to be over-hasty in the doing it Cunctatio utilior praecipue circa parvulos he would have them defer the Baptizing of Infants aswel as those of riper years which shews that it was then the custom of the Church to Baptize Children aswell as grown Persons Reply 2. Whereas the Author saith Tertullian lived in the 3d Century Irenaeus contra Haeretic Lib. 2. c. 39. this is true but that the first appearance of Infant-Baptism was in this Age is certainly false for Irenaeus who lived in the second Century makes mention of it Reply 3. Tertullian's Testimony in this case is so far from being excellent that it is contemptible and not to be regarded as may appear by two Reasons First Because he was very corrupt and unsound in his judgment P. Martyr loc com Clas 4. Loc. 8. Sect. 5. It is observed by Peter Martyr in his Common places that when Tertullian wrote his book de Baptismo he was fallen from the Church and from the Orthodox-Faith into the foul error of Montanism Had he been sound in the Faith in all other points it had not been enough to scruple any one touching the point of Infant-Baptism because of his dissent because he only was the man we read of that seems to be against it how much less is this authority to be valued when so corrupt that Jerom counted him little less than a Heretick The Magdeburg Divines whom the Author makes so much use of give us a Catalogue of his Naevi or errors As 1. That he did Deo corpulentiam tribuere ascribe unto God Grosseness or Fleshiness 2. That he did speak concerning Christ incommode periculose unsafely and dangerously 3. That he condemned second marriages ut stupra as Whoredoms 4. That he brought in and augmented many filthy Ceremonies in the Church which he borrowed from the Montanists as anointing the body after Baptism c. 5. And lastly though they mention many other gross errors he affirms in his Book de Baptismo that it is the peculiar prerogative of the Bishop to Baptize Dandi Baptismum jus habet summus sacerdos qui est Episcopus and none must do it but by his leave Presbyters and Deacons he allows to Baptize but not without his Authority and in case of extremity that is when one is like to dye and in the want of a Minister it may be lawful for a layman to Baptize not excepting Women provided they did it privately and not in the Church by which passage it is more than probable he was for Baptizing Infants rather than that they should dye without it now let any indifferent Reader judge what a precious witness the Author hath singled out to lead the Van against Infant-Baptism A second Reason why Tertullian's Testimony deserves not to be stiled excellent is this because his arguments are so poor and weak that they will sooner administer occasion of laughter than conviction I acknowledg the Author hath drest them up very handsomly and shewed so much artifice herein leaving out somethings that are most gross that some who have weak heads and no very charitable thoughts towards the way of Infant-Baptism will think Tertullian and he were of one mind both against it and that on very good grounds 1. Because saith the Author out of Tertullian The practice of Baptizing Children was built upon the mistake of that Scripture Matt. 19.14 Suffer little Children to come unto me and forbid them not c. It is true saith Tertullian the Lord saith do not forbid them to come unto me let them come when they grow elder when they learn when they are taught why they come c. upon which the Magdeburgenses have this sentence seutit Tertullianus Mira opinione Cap. 3. Cap. 4. c. Tertullian was of a strange opinion then they repeate those weak passages before mentioned As before intimated in Chap. 7. according to which Dotage the Disciples did wisely in forbidding Children to come and Christ did weakely in rebuking them for it inviting them to come Let them come saith Christ though 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 little Children the wise men found 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the young-Child or Infant with Mary 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to Luke the exactest Historian new-born Babes or sucking Children that are carried in Arms and such wore those whom Christ invites to come unto him brought in all likelyhood by their Parents that did believe or made some profession of their Faith as appears by this because they brought their Children for a Spiritual end to receive some special favour or blessing from Christ and for this Christ would have them come
last being joyned together in History as the two first great Preachers of the Albigenses and Waldenses the first was a Priest the last a Monk hated and persecuted very much by the Romish-Church These being driven out of several places where they stoutly opposed the Popish errors were at last received at Tholouse in Provence and they that followed their Doctrine were called Petro-Brusians and Henricians Now to prove these to be against Infant-Baptism the Author in conformity to his old friend Mr. Tombes betakes himself to the Ecclesiastical Historians that have written of the State of the Church in the several Centuries since Christ for from them must we fetch our light touching matters of Fact in the Countries where they lived or from such who have made it their peculiar work to write the History of the Waldenses as Perin c. The Protestant Century-writers are either the Magdeburgensian Divines or Lucas Osiander I shall give a brief account of what they say of the Waldenses concerning the point under debate and so leave the Reader to judge on which side the truth lyeth whether on ours or our Opposites and shall premise this caution that the Reader do not mistake and take that to be the judgment of those Writers concerning Peter Bruis and Henricus which they transcribe out of the Popish Records Councils Edicts c. And what they relate of them they have it from two Popish Abbots viz. Bernard and Cluniacensis 1. Concerning Bernard the Magdeburgenses tell us Cent. 12. c. 5. that he in his 66th Sermon in Cantica flyes out against these men accusing them to be Hereticks he chargeth them 1. To be Manicheans 2. To deny the Lawfulness of Oaths 3. That 't is unlawful to Baptize Children 4. That it is unlawful to eat any thing quod ex coitu generatur and accordingly saith Bernard they denyed the lawfulness of eating Flesh and Milk These were then a terrible sort of Fellows if we may believe that old Superstitious though otherwise devout and some think Pious Abbot who is commonly known by the name of St. Bernard And certainly if these Petro-brusians were guilty in these things they were even Monsters in nature What to deny our little ones both Milk and Water too O Cruelty But as these good men cleared themselves from these false imputations and calumnies so also do the Magdeburgenses in their History speak highly of them and that which is sufficient for their Vindication The other cited by the Author is Lucas Osiander Cent. 12 262. And I doubt some prejudice to his cause Osiander may arise from citing him Whatsoever Osiander saith concerning Peter Bruis and Henricus of their being against Infant-Baptism he taketh it out of the Works of Peter Cluniacensis another Popish Abbot and he doth Calumniari fortiter lay very many abominable errors to their charge and among others he accuseth them of this Venial one of denying Infant-Baptism Now if any credit may be given to this Abbot it must be per totum throughout in all or else in nothing And verily if his Testimony be valid as Mr. Tombes would have it accounted and the Author from him our opposites need not glory in such Waldenses that they comported with their opinion nor we be troubled at their dissenting from us Let us now look into the wicked and false Testimony or Account this lying Abbot gives of those two precious Ministers Peter Bruis and Henricus as Osiander takes it out of his own Writings Exorta est progressu temporis vires acquisivit haeresis Albigensium Ea Romae primo caepisse putant postea verò in comitatu Tolosato etiam intra viros Illustres longe lateque sparsa dicitur quin etiam in Angliam penetrasse scribitur Dogmata haec illis attribuuntur inquit Osiander 1. Baptismum abjiciunt 2. Corporum resurrectionem negant 3. Carnem comedi prohibent 4. Christum non esse Deum nec assumpsisse de Virgine sed de Caelo carnem duxisse 5. Ecclesiam non posse aliquid possidere nisi in communi c. There arose and in progress of time gathered strength the heresy of the Albigenses that is said to take its rise at Rome then dispersed far and wide over the Country of Tholouse that amongst men of quality moreover they say that it got into England They are charged to hold these Opinions saith Osiander They cast of Baptism meaning that of Infants They deny the resurrection They forbid eating Flesh as Bernard before They say Christ is not God neither took he flesh of the Virgin but brought it down from Heaven That the Church should possess all things in common By this time I suppose we may conclude that these Waldenses were vile persons or Cluniacensis a lying Abbot and this latter we do not in the least question Furthermore as if the Author had never enough of him he tells us that the Magdeburgenses set down the Assertions of Peter Bruis against Infant-Baptism Transubstantiation Tombe's Examen pag. 25. Worshipping of Images Purgatory which are distinctly and at large answered by Peter Cluniacensis But you must know he had never any personal conference or dispute with him But that I may not remain in the Author's debt for what he quotes out of the Magdeburgenses I shall requite him with what I find in Osiander who tells us that the said Cluniacensis doth profess twice in his Writings that he would not accuse the Waldenses upon uncertain report but from their own Writings nay farther he chargeth them that they denied the Divine Authority of the Old-Testament and all the New except the Gospels Evangelium creditis Epistolas Fauli cur non Suscipitis Respondetis quia non adeo certa nobis autoritas est earum i. e. You believe the Gospel why not also the Epistles of Paul your answer is because the Divine Authority of them doth not so certainly appear to us And upon that account saith Osiander Cluniacensis spends two whole Chapters to prove the Divine Authority of the Scriptures against them I shall conclude this with Mr. Marshal's words to Mr. Tombes upon his quoting Cluniacensis to the same end as my Antagonist doth He saith that Reverend Minister that reads that railing Book of Petrus Cluniacensis will find that he acknowledgeth most of what he layes to their charge to be upon the report of others Now me thinks the Author should blush at his indiscretion for introducing such a Popish Calumniator for an evidence in this matter and if he believe this Abbot slandred Peter Bruis and his followers in these things I hope he will excuse the Reader if he believe he did noless when he chargeth them to be against Infant-Baptism that Children who dyed before they could actually believe were damned which is another Article Cluniacensis brings in against them one as true as the other I see by this that when men are engaged in a cause and wedded to an opinion they will not
6.6 and alledgeth 't was God's Ordinance that the people of Israel should swear by his Name Deut. 16.53 And lastly for Infant-Baptism the matter in dispute Perin gives this account pag. 15. which I desire the Reader to observe it because we have so ancient a declaration of their faith in this particular That they being constrained for some hundred years 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 having in detestation those Humane inventions which were added to the Sacrament which they held to be but pollution thereof And forasmuch as their Pastors were many times abroad imployed in the service of the Churches they could not have Baptism Administred to their Infants by their own Ministers For this cause they kept them long from Baptism which the Priests perceiving charged them thereupon with this imposture viz. That they were against Infant-Baptism Which saith Perin not only their Adversaries have believed that is the Papists and from hence came all that Bedrole of Decrees Councils Decretal Epistles and Edicts against them but also others saith he who have well approved of their Life and Faith in all other points amongst the number of which we must reckon Mr. Tombes and the Author of this late Treatise of Baptism now under examination This ample account given by such an excellent impartial Historian so many years since before the World was so troubled with disputes about Baptism and from one of their own Country-men a man unconcerned as to interest or dissenting parties in this controversy and being so faithful in his relations of the Faith and sufferings of the Waldenses that he was never that I could hear of questioned or suspected will undoubtedly be credited by all ingenious Persons and is sufficient to dismount thousands of those Canons Edicts c. the Author brings Besides this that I may if possible undeceive the Antipaedobaptists who are hardly brought to believe any thing that is against them I will add two other Testimonies from whence we may conclude the Body of the Waldenses were not against Infant-Baptism one of them is Luther the other Bullinger both of which have written smartly against Anabaptists and would never have given such a large Encomium of the Waldenses had they apprehended them to be touched with the error of denying Baptism to the Children of Believers Luther professeth that he hated the Waldenses whilst a Monk as desperate men until he knew their piety and truth of their Belief by their own Confessions and Writings whereby be perceived that those good men were much wronged and that the Pope had condemned them for Hereticks being rather worthy of the praise that is due to the Martyrs And Bullinger that wrote a Book against the Anabaptists saith in his Preface to his Sermons upon the Revelations That above 400 years since the Waldenses have made Profession of the Gospel of Jesus Christ throughout France Italy Germany Poland Bohemiah and other Kingdoms 4. If this be not enough to cleer the Waldenses from what the Author would have us believe from the Testimony of their Enemies the Papists we are willing to give him full measure pressed down and running over and that is by the Testimony which they give of themselves in their Publick General Confessions of Faith We have before shewn the Author could find nothing in any of their Confessions against Infant-Baptism let us now see whether we can find any thing for it First they purge themselves from the imputation of denying Infant-Baptism Hist Wald. Lib. 1. c. 4. p. 15. So Lib. 1. c. 6. p. 43. and shew the reason why for some hundred years they forbore it as before he that writes the History professedly sets down in his 3d part of it the Doctrine of the Waldenses and Albigenses and particularly what their Faith was touching Baptism in these words of their own viz. And whereas Baptism is Administred in a full Congregation And for this cause it is that we present our Children in Baptism which they ought to do to whom the Children are nearest as Parents c. In the year of our Lord 1535 an Assembly of the Waldenses from all their Valleys met at Angrongne Perin Hist Wald. L. 2. Cap. 4. pag. 57. and there was signified what they understood of their Brethren of Provence and Daughine namely that they had sent into Germany their Pastors George Morell and Peter Mason to confer with Oecolampadius Bucer and Capito touching the belief which they had time out of mind Mark hereby the way how unworthily the Author Prevaricates and endeavours to blind the Reader pag. 329. of his Book as if all the Waldenses were declining or Apostatizing towards the Antichristian Abomination of being present at Mass if some of them of Provence were faulty yet this Assembly at Angrongne stood fast in the Truth where saith Perin when they had read certain Letters of encouragement sent from Oecolampadius both to those of Provence Dhugtony and to themselves Afterward concluded on certain Propositions and Articles of Faith which were read and approved signed and sworn to by all the Heads of the Families and their Pastors with one mind and consent to Conserve Observe Believe and retain amongst them inviolably without any contradiction as being conformable to the Doctrine which hath been taught them mark it from the Father to the Son for these many hundred years out of the Word of God If therefore among any of these Articles we can find Infant-Baptism owned what becomes then of all the Crack that the Author makes as if they had been of his judgment The Articles there agreed on were in number 17 too long to be inserted the last is about Baptism and thus it is to a Syllable Article 17. Touching the matter of the Sacrament it hath been coneluded by the H. Scriptures that we have but two Sacramental signs the which Christ Jesus hath left unto as 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 This is the Confession of the Faith of the Assembly at Angrongne where a letter was read from Oecolampadius to those of Provence who it seems out of fear were sometimes present at Mass with the Papists or at least some of them who did in heart doubtless abhor it but how doth this prove they were not heartily for Infant-Baptism And because the Letter is so Excellent a Disswasive from any Complyance with Superstitious and Idolatrous Worship I shall here insert it Oecolampadius his Letter to the Waldenses of Provence 1530. WE understand that the fear of Persecution hath made you to Dissemble in your Faith and that you bide it Now we believe with the heart to Righteousness and confess with the mouth to Salvation But they that fear to Confess Christ before the World shall not be received
applanded by the Author who was Contemporary with Munzer is one Balthazar Huebmer a Dr. in Waldshnot a great Preacher of this way in Bohemia and Moravia who was taken Prisoner with his Wife by the Emperour's command who was himself burned at Vienna and his Wife drowned for Hereticks in the year 1528. This is Mr. Tombes again Mr. Tombes Examen pag. 23. But because we have such an ample Character of this man I have been the more curious in enquiring what account we or him in History and before I shall enter upon that I shall tell thee Reader that the Author minds me with what I lately met with in a Book intituled plus ultra being an Examination of Dr. Heylins Discourse of the Reformation of the Church of England the Examiner observes that when the said Dr. speaks of Harding the Jesuit a base Apostate and grand enemy of the Gospel it is with terms of honour and reverence as Dr. Iohn Harding one of the Divines of Lovain and the most learned of the Colledge pag. 128. but when he speaks of those Glorious Lights of the Reformation 't is barely Luther Zwinglius Calvin in like manner we have here one Balthazar Huebmer a Dr. in Waldshnot a great Preacher of this way in Bohemia c. when in a leaf or two before we have no venerable Title given to those famous Divines of the Reformation but 't is plain Luther Zwinglius Calvin I have met with this Huebmer in several Authors without the Title of Dr. which made me think he was a Dr. of H. D. his Creation until I found it in Mr. Tombes to be otherwise in his Examen pag. 23. who sayes that Zwinglius gives him that stile in his Epistle before his answer to his Book about Baptism be it so and if he were regularly admitted to that degree I think he was the first and last Dr. that ever was of the Anabaptist judgment Concerning this man Mr. Tombes relates out of one of Zwinglius his Epistles that Huebmer came to Zurich and there made a Recantation but it appears he was afterwards taken by the Emperour and burnt at Vienna for what cause I know not saith Mr. Tombes Then farther he relates more of what he finds in Zwinglius his Epistle to Gynoraeus viz. We approve dexterity and moderation in a man but in that man I wish I were deceived saith Zwinglius I never perceived any thing in him but an immoderate thirst after profit and glory Mr. Tombes concludes modestly and sayes only this I leave him to his judge to whom he stands or falls This Huebmer is called by Melchior Adam Princeps Catabaptistarum the chiefest of the Anabaptists and the head of them that disputed with Zwinglius at Zurich Alpha eorum fuit Balthazar Hubmerus Apostatà iterum iterumque factus qui Zwinglii beneficio liberatus tantis convictis vtrum bene de se meritum onerare nebulo non dubitavit ut apologiâ satisfacere fratribus habuerit necesse Melch. Adam pag. 30. and he tells us he was an Apostate several times who being freed out of Prison by Zwinglius his endeavours was so ungrateful as to load him afterward with such reproaches that Zwinglius was fain to write an Apology for himself to satisty the Brethren That Learned and Godly man Bullinger says of him that whilst he was pastor at Waldshnot the whole Cit became proselytes to his opinion and that they banished out the Citizens that were men of good conscience and sincere and drove them from their possessions by which means the Gospel which did there excellently flourish was utterly rooted out Spanhemius hath this of him That Bul-Diol Huldricus Zwinglius that valiant Champion of the Truth confuted that Turbulent fellow who by his words and writings had troubled the consciences of many and yet at Zurich recanted his Error and did forswear the Tennents of the Ambaptists Spanhem c. â—â— But he was burnt at Vienna for an Heretick saith the Author whereas his Tutor Mr. Tombes saith be knows not what he was burnt for and this might have been his lot if he had been for Infant-Baptism they do not use to distinguish of men that go under the notion of Protestants all are in their account Hereticks and deserve burning that are not of the Church of Rome Sad instances you shall have by and by and unless I mistake we do not find in our Martyrologies very many of the Author's judgment to have suffered death purely for their opinion of Antipaedobaptism and in truth I have not faith to believe ever any one did as for those which suffered in Henry the 8th his time we shall find it was for some other causes and usually as the rest of Protestants for denying the Real presence in the Eucharist and the Popes headship After this he tells us out of Comenius the distresses that befel the Anabaptists upon the defeat of Frederick by the Emperour's forces at Prague how that the Enemy began the year after the victory with the Anabaptists in Moravia and banished a great company of them c. To which I have this to say that they dealt kindly with them in comparison of their dealings with the Godly Ministers that were for Infant-Baptism for as soon as ever Fredrick Elector Palatine the Defender of their Faith and Persons was defeated the faithful Ministers of Christ as in the Marian dayes were the proto-Martyrs It was the precious blood of those men that was first spilt and the Antichristian cruelty shewed it self most barbarously against them Divers of them were shot to death excruciated and tortured with new-invented Torments covering some with hot burning coals twisting about the fore-head of others knotty Cords and with a stick straining their heads till their eyes were ready to start out cruelly burning one with his Wife broiling another to death with a fire made under him cutting another in small pieces hanging another by the privy members being 70 years old with his Books fired under him and at last shot through the body and slain another being above 70 years old was brought into the market place laid upon the fire and burnt to death Thus the poor Ministers in every place suffered all banished out of Prague twenty one out of Cuttenburgh many Citizen's accompanying them one of which preached on that Text They shall cast you out of the Synagogue all the multitude present bewailing their loss with great lamentations Thus did they deal with them at Boslavia Radecium Zaticum and in other places and some were stifled and poysoned with the stink of Prisons Comenius Clarks Martyrology pag. 183 184. see all this in Comenius his History of those persecutions which is Translated and in Clark's Martyrology taken thence As for that which follows That the Anabaptists which were banished out of Moravia into the neigbouring Countries of Hungaria and Transilvania were of the Waldensian stock he hath nothing for it but a Conjecture And whereas he adds that these