out the mystery of Redemption by Christs blood of all which Baptisme is as proper a sign when given to our Infants as Circumcision was to theirs 3. What though Infants are uncapable of understanding Gospel Mysteries figured in Baptism as they were heretofore of the same shadowed forth in Circumcision yet their Baptisme is a Signe of what God will do for the future to as many of them as belong to his Election if they shall arrive to years of discretion 4. Though it be no Teaching sign at the present yet if the Infant live and be instructed in the use and ends of his Baptisme it may prove as Operative and Beneficial to him as if it had been delayed till he came to full age Thus David who though Circumcised in Infancy yet strengthned his faith by it when he came to years of discretion 1 Samuel 17.26 5. Though Baptisme be not for the present a Teaching sign to Infants neverthelses it is a distinguishing fign to distinguish those that are Within from those that are Without as the Apostle phraseth it 1 Cor. 5.12 13. And it is even to Infants a sign of Gods Covenant as before is hinted as Circumcision was to Infants under the Law and for this reason it is by a Metonimy called by the name of the Covenant and did distinguish the Jewish Infants from Gentile ones that were without the Covenant or strangers to the same Gen. 17.20 Act. 7.8 5. It is also an Engaging sign as Circumcision was to the Jewish Infants though they undertood it not when they were the Subjects of that Ordinance whereby our children are obliged to the Profession of Christ into whose name they have been Baptized I shall shut up this with those weighty words which I find in Mr. Baxters Scripture proof for Infants Church-Membership and Baptism pag. 112. Tell me saith he what operation Circumcision had on all the Infants of Church-Members formerly It was a sign of the Seal of the Righteousness of Faith c. and yet they had no more Faith nor Knowledge of the Significancy than ours have now Christ himself was circumcised in Infancy when by the course of nature he was uncapable of understanding it's Ends and Uses Not saith he that I am now arguing for Baptism from Circumcision but this fully answereth their Objection that Infants should not be baptized because they are not capable of understanding its Use and so being wrought on by it They are as capable of Baptism as they were of Circumcision and its Ends They therefore that will yet say It were better let it alone till they are more capable do but exalt their own reason against Scripture and speak as men that would teach God The Second End hinted by the Author is That the party baptized might thereby witness his Repentanee Matth. 3.11 called therefore the baptism of Repentance Mark 1. Repl. 1. It cannot be proved from these places that all those whom John Baptized did manifest their Repentance and we do not find those Pharisees and Sadduces that are branded with the name of Vipers gave the least indications thereof which if they had the Baptists would not have spoken so harshly of them and yet these for ought we can learn to the contrary from the Text were baptized 2. Grotius in his Annotations upon the nineteenth of Matthew 14. Speaketh well to this whose Words are these Neither ought that to be any hinderance to the Baptism of Infants Neque obstare debet quod non omnia quae itidem per baptismum significari solent in istam aetatem propriè congruerint c. that all things which in like manner are fignified by Baptism cannot agree properly to that Age for Repentance also which we know is signified by Baptism c. had no place at all in Christ when John baptized him who as Tertullian notes was not baptized as a Debtor to Repentance because he never sinned 3. The End of Baptism nominated by the Author is to evidence present Regeneration whereof Baptism is a Sign Titus 3.4 John 3. Repl. If this Argument were good it would have overthrown the Circumcision of Infants for that also was a lively Sign or Symbole of Regeneration and it might have been objected according to our Antagonists phanfie Infants are not regenerated or shew no signs thereof and Regeneration being the end of Circumcision therefore They ought not to be circumcised 2. According to such arguing none ought to be admitted to Baptism for none know by a judgment of certainty and infallibility who are regenerated for Simon Magus made a great shew and yet was in the Gall of bitterness and no doubt many come up out of the water as rotten hypocrites as they went in Thirdly Mr. Tombes himself grants that Infants may be regenerated as John was in the Womb and faith Pet. Martyr loc commun cl 4. c. 8. pag. 821 823. Non excludimus eos Infantes ab eccle siâ Sed ut ejus partes amplectimur benè Sperantes quòd ut sunt secundùm carnem semen sanctorum ità etiam sint Electionis divinae participes spiritum sanctum habent Neque audiendi sunt qui hâc de re movent scrupulum ac dicunt quid si Minister fallatur quia idem cavillus esse poterit de adultis that if he knew such or such an Infant were regenerated he would not scruple to Baptize it according to which arguing he must also forbear Baptizing grown persons upon profession for he knows not that they are regenerated 4. If the whole Species of Infants be excluded from Regeneration then are all Infants so dying certainly damned for all Infants are born in Original sin and by nature unclean and no unclean thing shall enter into the Kingdom of Heaven But I suppose our opposites dare not exclude all Infants from Salvation Well then I conclude some Infants are elected Regenerated and in Covenant with God or else they are saved without Election Regeneration Christ or Covenant which is most absurd 5. And whereas nothing can be said against us but this de occultis non judicat Ecclesia the Church cannot judge of secret things but is to act according to appearance and it is unknown whether such particular Infants are regenerated they cannot make any profession and Baptisme is to be given upon that I answer we have as much reason if not more to look upon the Infants of Believers to be sanctified then we have to esteem grown Christians to be such because our owning of these as such depends upon their own testimony only in a visible profession which may be counterfeit But such Infants are to be accounted Saints upon a Divine Testimony for we have the word for it 1 Cor. 7.14 else were your children unclean but now 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they are Saints or holy it being the same word the Apostle useth in his Dedications and directions of his Epistles to the Churches of Rome Corinth c. where he stiles them
Love and saith it is no outward visible society gathered together into the consent and use of outward Forms and Worship Now although both are out yet I acknowledge the Author is more sober then Dell for he is for an External Visible Church under the New Testament-Dispensation for he tells us Believers upon the profession of faith are to be Baptized and added thereunto and yet take him in his own sence he cannot be excused from error and confusion for by Believers he means the Spiritual seed before mentioned not such as are Believers Equivocally or Analogically by profession only but in reality or truth as appears by the following words upon Profession of Faith by the Ordinance of Baptism were added to the Church As if when mention is made in the Acts of so many thousands that believed it did imply they were all of the Spiritual Seed Regenerated persons Annanias Saphira Symon magus who is said to believe whereas it denotes no more then a visible profession of faith which is all that the Apostles and Primitive Churches had cognizance of and this is seen in Hypocrits who are not the Spiritual Seed of Abraham And this H. D. might have learnt as well as other things from Mr. Tombes who in his Examen pag 159. tells us Profession of Faith and holyness is a sufficient warrant to Baptism And in good earnest one would think by observing the lives and conversations of some of their Proselytes they took them in upon easier terms 2. Sydenhams Exercitaon c. 3 p. 25. We further argue That if none but the spiritual seed of Abraham be the subjects of Baptism then visible believers or such as make a profession of Faith are not the Subjects of Baptism for they may not be more the spiritual seed i.e. Godly then infants 3. Nay according to this Reasoning none must be Baptized at all for who can tell who are the spiritual seed who belong to Christ according to Election and saving Faith Nor will that evasion serve their turn we have charitable ground to believe they are such because of their profession which is enough to satisfie the Church for if according to the Author the New Testament-Church is made up only of a spiritual seed it is necessary the Church should not only have a judgement of charity but infallibility to determine who are the spiritual seed 4. And since the Author and those of his way disclaim all pretence to Infallibility and are contented with the judgment of charity to distinguish of the spiritual seed knowing nothing to the contrary Hanc veniam petimus pray give us leave to act a like charity towards the children of Believers For first they may be capable subjects of Election Jacob was such a one in his Mothers Womb Rom. 9 11 Neither was it his singular priviledge but what is common to all that are Objects of Election which is free without respect to any thing wrought or to be wrought 2. They may be capable of sanctification Christ himself whilst in the Womb is termed The Holy thing which proves the nonage of Infants makes them not incapable of grace supposing Gods will and it shews God would have it so that some of them should be sanctified because Christ passed through each age to sanctifie it to us Ideo per omnem venit aetatem infantibus infans factus sanctificans Infantes in parvulis parvulus sanctificans hanc ipsam habentes aetatem simnl exemplum illis pieatis effectus justitiae s bjectionis As Irenaeus that lives neer the Apostles speaks John was filled with the Holy Ghost and what is that but the graces of the spirit although he was no more enabled to exert or put forth any act of Grace then he was able to put forth an act of reason nevertheless his soul wanted not the faculty of reason from his Mothers Womb and what though we may not say all Infants of Believers are a like filled with the Holy Ghost as John was yet may we truly say that are all as capable thereof as John 3. They are also capable of Glory of Salvation or else it would be sad but Christ hath told us of such is the Kingdom of Heaven that is Specifically as you shall see proved hereafter 4. God calls them holy 1 Cor. 7.14 and so may we By what hath been said I suppose it is evident to the impartial Reader that the Infants of Believers are as much the spiritual seed of Abraham as visible professing believers and we have as much ground if not more to look upon them as such as we have for grown Christians untill they manifest the contrary for as for the former we own them as Godly and admit them into the Church upon their own Testimony only in a visible profession which may be deceitful but the Infants of Believers are taken into Covenant with their Parents and are visible Church-Members and hereby come to have right to Baptism For the two former we have an express Divine Testimony and that they were once accounted such and the Covenant being the same as to the essential spiritual priviledges of it none of which can be made appear to be repealed It will follow that Believers Children must not be denyed the sign and seal of the Covenant they having altogether as warrantable a Right thereunto as grown Christians or Believers This is Bucers arguing on Mat. 19.13 14. Si jam ad Ecclesiam pertinent c. Cur eis signum Baptismi quo in Ecclesiam Christi qui ad eam pertinent recipi solent negaremus Bucer an Mat. 19.13 14. Let us now hear what is said to the contrary in what follows He conceives the seed of Believers have no right to Baptism Why Because saith he Though the Jews had right to circumcision as Abrahams natural seed under the old Testament yet this would not serve the turn under the new Mat. 3.9 John Baptist dischargeth them of that priviledge of Abrahams Natural Seed that admitted into the Old Church from any such right in the new Think not to say that ye have Abraham to your Father that ye are the Children of a Godly Parent That which serv'd their turn under Moses would not avail under Christ Nothing now but the fruits of Repentance give right to the Bapisme of repentance c. And must we take all this for Gospel We shall upon examination find no weight in it and nothing prejudicial to the Baptizing the children of Believers For 1. Let it be considered that these Jews to whom John spake were to come under a New Administration of the Covenant and the first subjects of this Administration must be persons able to give an account of their faith and repentance and Christ the Messiah was now come who was the chief blessing of the Covenant yea the substance of it and therefore 't was necessary that as these Jews relyed on the Covenant of Abraham so they should hold forth their relyance on
and bitter to peaceable Authors that are forced to it than it is to the Readers And it 's pity that the Ministers of Christ should for 1500 years be taken up so much with a work that is so unpleasant to almost all It is unpleasant to the Adversary to have his Ignorance Errors Falshoods and Injuries to the Truth and Church made known to his disgrace and to have that proved an odious Error which he taketh to be a Beam from Heaven and of a Divine Off-spring and perhaps necessary to Salvation or at least some excellent thing which the Church cannot spare It is unpleasant to the sober pious Writer to think that he must thus displease and exasperate his Brother and all that are of the way which he oppugneth and that thereby he must provoke so many to esteem and defame him as an enemy to the Truth And it is not pleasant to think what hard study and labour it must cost us to procure this bitter fruit when by Ignorance Sloth or treacherous Silence we could have kept our peace and such mens Love And it is unpleasant to the best of Readers to find mens Minds thus manifesting their dissensions and to think of the Exasperations and wrath that will ensue and to see such Wars kept up among those who should be notified to the World by an Eminency of Love But it will be pleasant to those Hypocrites whose Religion consisteth in Opinions Parties and Disputes if they be of his mind whose Works they read and it will be bittersweet to those wise and pious men that find it Necessary For Necessary it may be and too oft is It 's hard keeping our own or the Churches Peace unless both Parties will consent As much as in us lieth and if it be possible we must live peaceably with all men But when it is not possible we must lament the want of what we are not able to obtain For all Christ's Ministers to stand by and see well-meaning ignorant people called as in God's name to sin against him and flattered or frightned from Truth Duty and Privileges and to let such work go on to the danger of Souls and distracting of Christ's Churches without contradiction will hardly consist with our Ministerial Fidelity Therefore as unnecessary Wars are the greatest complicate sins in the World and yet necessary Wars are the means of Peace so it is in these Theological Wars And as the valiant Defenders of their Country in necessary Wars have right to the praises given them by all so those that necessarily defend God's Truth and his Churches Rights deserve acceptance Among whom I judge the Reverend Author of this Treatise to be worthy of the Churches thanks on several accounts It is no contemptible Privilege which he vindicateth The Interest of all Christians Children in the World in the Covenant and Visible Church of Christ is a matter of greater moment than most that acknowledge it do duly lay to heart much more than the unthankful Rejecters of it understand The Title given to the Pelagians was Ingrati the Unthankful because they disputed against God's Grace which they themselves did need as well as others Such Cicero thought those Philosophers that disputed against the Immortality of Mans Soul And Mr. Tombes was long ago angry with me for giving that Title to them that so vehemently dispute all Infants out of the visible Church and Covenant But let the Evidence of the Cause well considered inform us and it will be too sure that Publick Repentance would far better beseem such Writers as Mr. Danvers than stiff persisting in this unthankful Error I have written somewhat my self upon Mr. Danvers vehement instigation once more on this Subject partly in answer to Mr. Tombes and partly to himself But let not the notice of that hinder you from reading this Treatise For I have dealt with Mr. Danvers only on the account of his pretended Witnesses for a thousand years after Christ and his quarrels with my self having neither leisure nor will nor patience all things considered to meddle with his Arguments or the rest of his History while I know how sufficiently they stand confuted in my own and many other mens Writings long ago But this Reverend Author hath dealt with him more particularly and answered his Arguments satisfactorily and search'd into those and all the rest of his pretended Antiquities and not only done that which I have passed by but the same also in a full Confutation And it is so sad a Case that after all our dreadful Warnings we should still be haunted with this unquiet Spirit which hath been exorcised or laid so oft and that under all our other Trials we should have the addition of these vexatious dividing Wranglings to turn mens hearts against each other that we owe the more thanks to such as the Author for bringing so much water to quench these flames especially in a time when so many disaffected Persons are ready to impute to Presbyterians Independents or any such other that they desire to defame the Errors of all about them whom they do not confute yea too oft also those that they do confute while some others betray the Cause by silence or silly unsatisfactory Arguings Pardon or chuse a man that offendeth all Sects by plain dealing for telling the World That if the Anabaptists had been no better confuted than the Papists and the Silencers have confuted them I verily think that so great a part of the conscientious though injudicious Vulgar would have followed them as would have made work and trouble for us all Farewell At the door of Eternity Rich. Baxter June 24. 1674. CHAP. I. The Authors first Argument That Believers Baptisme is the only true Baptism drawn from Christs positive Institution and Commission Mat. 28.18 19. Mark 16.16 Examined and Confuted THese are the prime Texts upon which Antipaedobaptists lay the greatest stress as conceiving they have sure warrant from hence for their practice and that from the same places Ours is condemnable Out of this Armory do they fetch their keenest Weapons and most triumphant Arguments And indeed all that they say besides is vox praeterea nihil a great sound of words to little purpose This is the Palmarium argumentum their victorious and unanswerable Argument as they imagine so None are to be Babtized but those who are first taught but Infants are not teachable Ergo they ought not to be baptized and again he that Believeth and is Baptized Infants cannot believe therefore must not be Baptized We say they follow the Rule of Institution you who are Paedobaptists cross it and cannot acquit our selves of Will-worship And I confess this is a plausible way of arguing and very taking with Vulgar capacities and I wonder no more of weak understanding and tender consciences are proselyted to their way They have the advantage of us to gain upon such Yet notwithstanding their great confidence that they have both Scripture and Reason on their side
their hurt Therefore he hath not at all repealed it The sufficiency of the enumeration in the major Proposition even Mr. Tombs himself could not deny in that famous dispute at Kederminster for it must needs be for the good or hurt of Infants that they are put out and so must needs be in mercy or justice for God maketh not such great alterations in his Church and Laws to no end and of no moment but in meer indifferency The minor Mr. Baxter proves in both parts 1. That God hath not repealed this to their hurt in justice for if God never revoke his Mercies nor repeal his Ordinances in justice to the parties hurt till they first break Covenant with him and so procure it by their own desert then he hath not in justice revoked his mercy to the hurt of those that never broke Covenant with him But it is certain God never revoketh a mercy in justice to the hurt of any that never broke Covenant with him Therefore to such he hath not revoked it 1. That Church-Membership is a mercy and of the Covenant is plain Deut. 29.10 11 12. 2. That God doth not in justice revoke such to any but Covenant-breakers may be proved 1. From the merciful nature and constant dealing of God who never casteth off those that cast not off him 2. From his truth and faithfulness for else we should make God the Covenant-breaker and not man which is horrid blasphemy 3. His Immutability and Constancy his gifts and calling being without repentance Now this is also certain that many Jews did believe and not forsake the Covenant of God even most of the Apostles themselves and many thousands more and how then can these or their Infants be put out of the Church in justice to their hurt who did not first break Covenant with God Mr. Tombs was hard put to it how to extricate himself from the difficulties of this Argument although a man of great Dexterity and a very Oedipus in the controversy yet it is said he was near to a nè plus ultrà but at length took Sanctuary in this Answer and mark it well Reader viz. That the Ordinance was in mercy repealed for their good To which Mr. Baxter gives a neat reply It can be no mercy to take away a mercy except it be to give a greater instead of it But here is no greater mercy given to Infants instead of Church-membership Therefore it can be no mercy to them that it is revoked Other Arguments besides this that are invincible may be drawn from that place Rom. 11.17 A Scripture which I perceive was too hot for the Authors fingers to meddle with and therefore he gives not one touch upon it throughout all this Treatise of Baptism whereas he knows very well that this is the principal Text that gives clear evidence that Children are yet Church-members with their parents and if they have a Church-relation they must not be denyed Baptism because the same thing which qualifies any persons for Church-membership qualifies them also for Baptism But to the Text before us There are three things which the words do plainly hold forth 1. That though the Collective body of the Jews or the generality of that people were broken off from the Church through unbelief yet all of them were not broken off for it is said If some of them were broken off not all of them for as was said before most of the Apostles and thousands of Jews believed 2. The Believing Gentiles are ingrafted in their place 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in amongst them so Grotius hath it positus es inter ramos illius arboris thou art set amongst the branches of the Tree referring to those words if some be broken off implying that some remained still and the believing Gentiles were inoculated amongst them or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to Beza and Piscator pro ipsis instead of them or in their place and room in ramorum defractorum locum into the place of the branches broken off 3. The Jews shall be restored again to the Church at the latter end of the world they shall be in statu quo priùs become the Church and people of God again as formerly but in a more glorious manner From all which issueth three unanswerable Arguments for the Church-membership of believers Infants still continued The first we have already insisted upon namely That the same Jewish children which were visibly of the Church immediately before their Parents became Christians at the first continued to be so after And the reason is because they were not under the dis-churching Cause of as many of the Jews as were discharged and that was unbelief of which they could not be guilty by any Act of their own More of this may be seen in a late Book called A Perswasive to Peace and Vnity among Christians Sold at the Three Pigeons in Cornhil or of their Parents as imputed to them Because of Vnbelief saith S. Paul they were broken off If it be said saith the Author of that ingenious and pious piece intituled A Perswasive to Peace and Vnity they were dis-church'd in the dissolution of the Jewish Church-State in general it is but an evasion which will not help them for the fore-cited Text is flatly against them For all that were not broken off by unbelief did continue unbroken off that is they still kept their place and standing in the Church of God And therefore to assign any other cause of dis-churching any than the Scripture hath assigned or at least any other without this here assigned and determined by the Apostle is too great presumption and such as will not satisfie an impartial mind and as Mr. Baxter enforceth the Argument very strongly They who kept their Station kept also their priviledges for themselves and their children if they were not broken off their children were not broken off for as the Infants came in with their Parents so they are not cast out whilst their Parents continue except when they are grown up they cast out themselves by their own personal unbelief It is not to be conceived that God should cast out the child that came in for his fathers sake while the Parents remain in the same Church 2. Those Jews who were broken off from the Church their children also being before Members were likewise broken off therefore it follows Believing Gentiles and their children are ingrafted in for the ingrafting must be proportionable to the breaking off they succeeding in the place of the former must enjoy the priviledge they lost 3. If after the fulness of the Gentiles be come in the Jews shall be grafted in again not with a diminution but addition to their glory and one part of their glory was that they and their seed were Gods visible Church then so shall it be with them when they are called This we have ver 26. All Israel shall be saved Which cannot be understood but from their broken off State
words and deeds of Christ are infinite which are not recorded Joh. 20.30 and 21.25 Many things Christ did that were not written and of the Acts of the Apostles we may suppose the same in their proportion and therefore what they did not is no rule to us unless they did it not because they were forbideen So that it can be no good Argument to say The Apostles are not read to have Baptized Infants therefore Infants are not to be baptized but thus We do not find they are excluded from this Sacrament and Ceremony of Christian Institution therefore we may not presume to exclude them Now since all contradiction against Infant-Baptism depends wholly upon these two grounds The Negative Argument in matter of fact and the pretences that faith and repentance are required to Baptisme since the first is wholly nothing and infirm upon an infinite account and the second may conclude that Infants can no more be saved then be baptized because faith is more necessary to Salvation then to Baptisme it being said he that believeth not shall be damned and it is not said he that believeth not shall be excluded from Baptism it follows that the Doctrine of those that refuse to Baptize their Infants is upon both its legs weak and broken and insufficient Thus far the Learned Doctor To conclude this whereas the Apostles Preached up faith and Repentance before Baptism it was requisite they should do so according to their Commission having to do with Aliens grown up as not only the Gentiles but the Jews were in reference to the new Administration for these being the first subjects of Baptisme it was necessary they should make profession of their faith before they were admitted to it but not so in their Children to be Baptized no more then in Isaac and the Children of the Proselytes to be Circumcised Abraham believed first and afterward was Circumcised Gen. 17.24 And why so Because he was the first subject of that Ordinance and therefore could not be admitted to it but by his own faith But as for Isaac his Son he was Circumcised before believing and so was it with the Proselytes and their Children when any Gentile was converted to the Jewish Faith he had a personal Right to be circumcised and his Child likewise was Circumcised at eight days old as was the custome of the Jewish Church by virtue of Gods Covenant giving it a parental Right The Author is very unhappy at Citations for usually they serve not his purpose He acquaints us out of Bede that men were instructed into the knowledge of the Truth then to be Baptized as Christ hath taught because without Faith it is impossible to please God Magdeburg Cent. 8. pag. 220. But this Bede himself tells us was the method used amongst the Inhabitants of this Island when Paganish In initio nascentis Ecclesiae apud Britannos Beda lib. 2. Angl. Hist cap. 14. When a Church first of all began to be planted amongst the Britains and he tells us it was at that time when Gregory sent from Rome Austin and forty other Preachers and afterward Paulinus who converted Ethelbert the Saxon King but of this we shall speak more hereafter when we shall shew how Bede himself was for Infant-Baptisme notwithstanding the Author so perverts his words His other Citation is Erasmus who in his Paraphrase upon Mat. Observeth and t is a great Observation indeed That the Apostles were commanded first to teach and then to baptize c. Every Child that can read observes the same Probabile est tingere Infantes institutum fuisse ab Apostolis c. but if you would know his judgment about Infant-Baptism you may read it in his Ratio concionandi lib. 4. where he conceives it probable that the Apostles ordain'd and practised it And truly amongst other probable reasons this seems to be one if it be not a Demonstration namely because we do not read of any children of believing Parents who were Baptized when they came to years of discretion That they were Baptized I presume saith Brinsley our Adversaries will not deny and if so Note No Children of Believing Parents Baptized afterwards to be found from John the Baptist to John the Evangelist ending his Ministry which was about 60. years An Argument sufficient if not to convince the Adversary that they were Baptized in Infancy yet to stop their mouths Brinsley Doctrine and Practice of Paedobaptisme pag. 75. let them shew where and when For this let all the Sacred Register be searched from the time that John the Baptist began his Ministry to the time that John the Evangelist ended his which was about 60 years during which time thousands of Children of Believing Parents were grown up to maturity and if in all that time they can but shew any one instance of any child born of a believing Parent whose Baptism was deferred till he came to years of discretion and that then he was Baptized we will then acknowledge there is some strength in their Negative Allegation viz. We read of no children Baptized therefore There were none CHAP. III. Containing his Argument that Believers Baptisme is the only true Baptisme from the example of Primitive Saints Reply TO this there needs no more then what we have before said Sydenhams Christian Exercitation pag. 7. For as Mr. Sydenham says all that they urge as to Examples of actual Believers being baptized all along the new Testament especially the Acts and that if thou believest thou mayst We can freely grant without any damage to Infant-Baptism For 1. We say as they Professing Believers grown men were first Baptized and so they ought to be who are to be the first subjects of the Administration of an Ordinance instancing as before in Abraham c. he was 99. years old when circumcised and he must be first Circumcised before he could convey a right to his seed now you may as well argue Abraham was first circumcised when so old therefore old persons are to be Circumcised and none else as because grown persons were Baptized therefore not Infants when they must be first Baptized themselves for children are Baptized by the promise first to them and in them to their seed Now for as much as all the Examples brought by the Author out of Act. 8.12 18.8 22.14 Speak of grown persons that were the first subjects of Baptism and Jews that were Aliens too as well as the Gentiles in regard of the new Administration it makes nothing against Infant-Baptism that being of another circumstance and the disagreeing of it from them argues not the unlawfulness of it and as the same Author farther argues 2. An Affirmative Position is not exclusive of subordinates because Believers were said to be Baptized Ergo not their Seed is not true reasoning for their seed were comprehended with them in the same promise as before and as we shall more fully shew hereafter Let us now see what his Quotations of Authors or Testimonies
signifies abluo luo i.e. to Wash and that the Christian Baptism was taken a judaica lotione from the Jewish Baptism of which the Apostle speaks Heb. 9 10. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i.e. Divers Baptisms it is rendred Washings and these Baptisms we know were not Dippings Moses in the Ceremonial Law did not prescribe different kind of Dippings though he did several kind of Washings or Baptisms as it is in the Original CENT II. HE saith the Magdeburgenses tell us that they find nothing in this Century different from the former that is in reference to Baptism And that they make mention of Justin Martyr's words in his Apology to Antoninus Pius the Emperour which are repeated as we have it translated by Mr. Baxter in his Saints Rest The import of which is only to shew what order they took with Pagans upon their conversion to the Christian Faith before they were admitted to the Sacraments And although this be wide of the matter and insignificant to the Question under debate which is about Baptizing the Infants of Believers yet this will serve well enough to blind an ignorant Reader And as it this were some great matter he glories in it and concludes with a jeer They saith he that shall consider the manner that Christians he should have said Heathens were admitted into the Churches in those dayes can hardly I presume pick out any good warranties for Infant Church-Membership or Baptism out of the same to which there needs no more to say than this even just as much as he can pick out from thence against it Nor do I see any reason he hath to pick a quarrel with our Practice from any thing in that Fathers Apologie who as Mr. Baxter notes giveth such hints by which his Judgment and the Practice of the Church in those days may be discerned to be for it though we cannot expect that he should speak expresly to the point both because he is brief and treateth on other Theams to which this did not belong and because the Church then living among Heathens had so much to do in converting and Baptizing the Aged that they had little occasion to treat about Children especially it being a point not controverted but taken for granted by the Christians who knew God's dealing with the Jewish Church that Children were Members with the Converted Parents especially when the very Gentiles Children were members before Christ With more to this purpose Plain Scripture-proof Pag. 155. CENT III. IN this Century saith the Author they tell us the Rites of Baptism in the Asiatick Churches continue the same as before but concerning the African Churches they give some account of great Corruption creeping into the Church as to Subject Time Manner and Ceremonies Cent. 3. Cap. 6. Pag. 123 124 125. They do indeed charge this Age with corruption as to the Time and Manner of administring Baptism but not a word in derogation of Infants being the Subject of it and 't is strange they should have reckoned that a corrupt innovation which they had a little before so well maintained for a Truth They tell us indeed that Tertullian in this Age opposed himself to some that Asserted Infant-Baptism affirming that the Adult were the only proper Subjects But how weakly he doth it may be seen afterward when we come to examine the witnesses of which Tertullian is the Van and as Estius and Junius conceive with others the said Father intends only those Infants quorum Parentes whose Parents were Infidels or if he meant the Children of Christians he speaks nothing absolutely against their Baptizing For his Words are Cunctatio utilior it is more profitable to defer their Baptism as it was also best in his opinion for young men that were Innupti unmarried Quin innuptie Baptismum procrastinandum art esse quia eis praeparata est tentatio Magde burg Cent. 3. so to do and it was his advice to young Widows to forbear Baptism until the lust of concupiscence was quite extinguished Is not this good Doctrine think you yet this is the man as the Author saith who opposed Infant-Baptism affirming that the Adult were the only proper Subjects yet it seems not all they neither for he advised all unmarried persons to delay Baptism not sparing young-Maids and that upon a very corrupt ground What sport would my Antagonist have made with this man and how much would he have disparaged him had we brought him in for a witness on our side One would think the more temptation any state is Subject to the more doth it stand in need of helps especially such as lay engagements on us to holiness and may be a means to convey it But Tertullian was very corrupt and superstitious and turned Montanist when he wrote his Book of Baptism and shews himself to be somewhat neer the judgment of the Clinici who as Dr. Hammond notes would not be Baptized till their Death-Beds and the reason was because being to be Baptized but once and attributing so extreamly much to that Ceremony and hoping so little for pardon of sin from any other instrument they durst not be Baptized too early lest they should sin again and have no remedy And the deferring Baptism till thirty or fourty years old was a spice of this fancy but then they that did so were the most impatient of any to miss Baptism when they thought they were near their last and would let no Christian Infant die without that Viand and so doing what they did upon a score so contrary to the Anabaptists it is strange 〈◊〉 should be producible in favour of them as he tells Dr. Taylor But to return to the Magdeburgenses who do indeed inform us that in this Age the Doctrine of Baptism began to be defiled with Ceremonies without any reflection upon Infant-Baptism and 't is very well known that Tertullian himself was the man that introduced that filthy greasy one of anointing the Baptized which he borrowed from the Montanists They also tell us that in this Age Baptismus Infantibus datur Infants were Baptized and cite Origen in his 8th Homily upon Leviticus affirming that Baptism is to be given to Infants secundum Ecclesiae Observantiam according to the custom of the Church adding also another passage of his upon the 14th of Luke to the same purpose Cent. 3. Cap. 4. Pag. 57. Moreover they give us the Testimony of Cyprian in his 4th Book Cyprianus L. 4. Epist 7. Recte disputat Baptismum valere sive aqua perfundantur sive toti immergantur qui Baptizantur and 7th Epistle and approve his arguing that Baptism is valid whether it be by Immersion or Sprinkling for these two Reasons First Because they signify one and the same thing idem sit aspersio quod Lavacrum Sprinkling holding forth the Mystery as well as Dipping according to that in Ezek. 36. I will Sprinkle you with Water Secondly Because they that were sprinkled in their Beds as sick Persons were in those
Lattin Fathers bring this Text to prove the Prerogative of the Infants of Believers in such a sense as they could not have done if to their understanding it had not related to the Covenant of grace But to the Argument and let us see what is excepted against it The Argument is this viz. They who are holy with a federal or Covenant holiness ought to be baptized But the Infants of Believers are holy with such a holiness Ergo This is grounded on the Text which saith else were your Children unclean but now are they holy Against which it is excepted that there are two things in the Argument asserted but not at all proved First that the holiness in the Text is a Federal or Covenant-holiness Secondly that federal holiness qualifies Infants for Baptism both which the Author positively denies upon the following grounds First because the Holiness in the Text be it what it will be whether Moral Federal or Matrimonial is neither here nor elsewhere assigned to be a ground of Baptizing Children upon it being only the ground laid down in the institution that can warrant the same To which I reply That in the first part of the Book chapter the first is shewed how the Infant Seed of Believers are included in the institution or comprehended in the Commission as baptizable and being not willing actum agere I must referr the Reader thither We have also proved that they are of the Church of Christ chap. 6. of the first part upon which account they are likewise subjects of Baptisme Farther if their holiness be a Covenant-holiness that is a holiness of special separation to God and he owneth them as his peculiar ones by virtue of his Cove nant-Relation this is virtual ly and implicitly a word of command for the Baptizing such In fants Antipaedobaptists are ever up with this note where is your command What word of Institution have you to bear you out To this we have spoken enough before in telling them we have an implicit command for what we do and farther we offer this Syllogisme They to whom God is a God in Covenant have a command to receive the seale of the Covenant Gen. 17.10 11. If then the same Covenant be given to Believers and their Seed and if Baptism be given to Christians instead of Circumcision as shall be proved in its proper place then the same command which obliged Abraham to be Circumcised and his seed doth in like manner the faithful and their seed also Secondly Because saith he if it should be granted that Faederal holiness were a ground to baptize Children upon under the Gospel as it was to Circumcise them under the law yet it will appear from substantial Arguments that no such holiness is intended here Let us hear what they are namely 1. Because there is no such Holiness in the new-Testament as Federal belonging to Children Well argued this seems to be neer of kin to idem per idem it is not because it is not So there is no such holiness intended in the Text Why Because there is no such holiness in the New Testament and the Text is in the New Testament The matter is well mended in what follows It is no where to be found This is only a Dictate for he addeth no reason It is no where to be found But you must understand he means by himself and his party that have made such inquisition and search into Scripture that they only have found what is there what they judge to be the fence of Scripture is so and we must all come and learn of them what the Scripture contains what it implyes and what may be inferred from it what not Away with this Popery But what if I say the Covenant holyness of Children may be found in this Text I see no reason but my word may be be credited as well as his Nay if we must go by an implicit faith we shall carry it for allmost all the Godly and Learned Divines in Europe have found Covenant-holiness in the New-Testament not only in the 2 Cor. 7.14 But in Rom. 11.15 16 17. where it is said if the first fruits are boly so is the lump if the root be holy so are the Branches which demonstrates the Covenant-holiness of the children of believing Gentiles now under the Gospel as much as of the Jewish children that descended naturally from Abraham under the Law but this must not be admitted and why 1. Because it contradicts the Gospel-Dispensation as before that is I suppose in the first part of his Book chap. 5. and I referr the Reader to our Answer of that Chapter to which I adde this by way of surplusage that if our Children be not federally holy how could the Apostle press the Jews to imbrace Christianity by telling them The Promise is made to you and to your seed and to all that are afar off even as many as our Lord God shall call So that to say the Doctrine of Federal holiness contradicts the Gospel-dispensation is to contradict the Gospel which expresly says the contrary Act. 2.38 39. Where mark the words are not the promise Was to you and to your Children but is intimating that the Covenant is not repealed but in force still under the Gospel-Dispensation as much as ever it was anciently to the Jews and their posterity and to them that are afar off the Gentiles and then to their Children too even their Infant Children otherwise these two absurdities would follow 1. The grace of Christ under the Gospel-dispensation would be less then what it was under the Law for then the believing Parent with his Children were federally holy and if it were not so now then should we be in a worse condition under Christ then under Moses 2. It will render the Children of the Jews also in a worse condition upon their coming in to Christ then they were in under the legal Administration contrary to that Jer 30.20 Ezek. 37.25 26. 2. His second Reason is Because such apprehensions intails Grace to Nature Regeneration to Generation contrary to John 3. That which is born of the flesh is flesh and Eph. 2. We are all the Children of wrath by Nature This hath been before answered and I shall only now say that this is a false and fraudulent insinuation to beget a prejudice in the weak against our assertion of federal holiness for he knows very well 1. That our Divines hold that gratia non transfunditur per carnem and that grace is not extraduce Grace is not hereditary that is inherent Grace We all ways affirm that all Children are alike depraved and all the posterity of Adam are alike conceiv'd in sin and brought forth in iniquity all are Carnal and unclean by nature 2. We farther affirm that though all the Children of Believers are not holy with an inherent personal holyness that accompanies Regeneration yet the Children of either believing Parent are holy with a holiness-relation put upon them and
train after it The Holiness is not one and the same as before and therefore cannot entitle to the same privileges And besides I add the Covenant was not made with the Believer and his Yoak-fellow but with him and his Seed and therefore the one hath a right to the Ordinance of Baptism the other not The third Argument such as it is is from the consideration that children in the Text is not to be limited to Infants Mr. Tombes again Examen p. 73. or such children that they might have since the Religious difference happened but of grown children for a mans Child is his Child though thirty forty or fifty years old c. 'T is wonderful to behold the shifts of errour This is old Tombes again Exam. pag. 73. He saith Your children indiscriminatim without difference as well those you had before one when of you was a Believer But this Muse is soon stopped by these considerations Quòd enim nonnulli ad liheros ex utroque infideli susceptos extendunt qui non sint spurii sed legitimi falso dici apparet ex hypothesi pauli Quor sum enim vel de spuriis vel dc infidelis utriusque naptiis dissereret Bezae Annot. in locum First That the Corinthians could not possibly be so filly as to doubt whether those children which were begotten in their Infidel state were Bastards before this Religious difference happened nor can we conceive the Apostle would have suggested such a false thing unto them as if those Children had been to be so reputed had not one of them turned Believer Secondly The Children then born after one of them was turned Christian is unquestionably that which the Apostle intends and if so then Children is most rationally to be limited to Infant Children such as should be or had been newly born upon their Parents Believing for we may well suppose the scruple arose presently after conversion about cohabitation and converse with their Infidel-Yoak-fellows and whether it were not irreligious not Fornication as Antipaedobaptists very weakly suppose for the Believer to procreate with the Infidel His fourth Argument why it cannot be a new Covenant-Holiness that qualifies and intitles to Baptism is First because that cannot be known The fourth Argnment taken from Mr. Tombes vide Mr. Baxters plain proof for Infants Church-Membership and Baptism p. 92. for if the Parent professing faith be a Hypocrite and not in Covenant themselves then may you Baptize a wrong subject as well as a right I perceive the Authors strength is almost spent His reason runs low and is near come to the dreggs for what doth this his arguing amount to shall we not find those who are for Baptizing grown persons upon the profession of Faith in the same praedicament may not these be Hypocrits also and not in Covenant and if so do they not Baptize a wrong subject When therefore they have cleared this difficulty for themselves they have done it for us Farther if it be the reality of Faith and Holiness in grown persons that qualifies for Baptism then none must be Baptized because this cannot be known but if it be said a serious profession is sufficient for De occultis non judicat Ecclesia The Church judgeth not of secret or hidden things Then the same also is sufficient for the Infants of such so professing The distinction which is used by Divines may give light in this point namely there is an external being in Covenant in facie visibilis Ecclesiae in the esteem and judgement of the Church and that is visible Profession or Holyness and this gives right to visible priviledges 2. There is an internal being in Covenant in regard of the spiritual faving benefits of it and it is out of the reach of the Church to judge of this latter I shall shut up this with the words of Mr. Marshal in his Defence of Infant-Baptism pag. 108. viz. When therefore I say they Infants are visibly to be reckoned to belong to the Covenant with their Parents I mean look what right a visible Professor hath to be received and reputed to belong to the Visible Church Quà visibilis Professor as a visible Professor that right his child hath so to be esteemed Now I conceive the Author himself will confess that the spiritual part and privileges of the Covenant of Grace belongs not to visible Professors as visible but only to such among them who are inwardly such as their external profession holds out but yet there are outward Church privileges Mr. Blakes Covenant Sealed which belong to them as they are visible Professors As to to be reputed the Children of the Kingdom Mat. 8.42 Act. 3.25 And in this sense St. Paul speaking of the Body of the Jewish people saith Rom. 9.4 To them pertaineth the Adoption Not the spiritual adoption but the honour of being separated and reputed Gods Children Deut. 14 and the Glory and the Covenants c. Secondly he saith such an absurdity would follow that no Vnbelievers Child is in Covenant or Elect c. To this I answer that no Unbelievers child is in Covenant in the sence before mentioned that is in facie Ecclesiae in the face of the Church until he make a Profession of his Faith Nevertheless he may belong to the Election of Gods Grace but that 's not to the point in hand for Election is not a Covenant nor any in Covenant because elected Thirdly he adds the concurrent Testimony and Confession of many Learned Commentators and parties themselves upon the place that the Text is to be understood of matrimonial and not federal holiness As Austin Jerom Ambrose Melancton Musculus Camerarius Erasmus to which saith he we may adde many more as if these were collected by his own pains Whereas he hath only added the last the rest were all gathered and published by Mr. Tombs neer thirty years since And that the Reader may not think I injure him I shall parallel them once more H. D. Jerom saith because of Gods appointment Marriage is holy H. D. Ambrose thus The Children are Holy because they are born of Lawful Marriage H. D. Melancthon in his Commentary on the place thus Therefore Paul answers that the Marriages are not to be pulled asunder for their unlike opinions of God if the impious person do not cast away the other and for comfort he adds as a reason The unbelieving Husband is Sanctified by the believing Wife Meat is sanctified for that which is holy in use that is granted to Believers from God so here he speaks the use of Marriage to be holy and to be granted of God H. D. Musculus in his Comment upon the place confesseth That he had abused formerly that place against the Anabaptists H. D. Camerarius in his Commentary upon the place saith for the unbelieving Husband hath been sanctified an usual change of the Tense that is Sanctified in the lawful use of Marriage for without this he saith it would be
affirm p. 6. saying that Christianity is hereditary that as the child of a Noble man is noble the child of a Free man free a Turk a Turk and of a Jew a Jew so the child of a Christian is a Christian But I pray Sir who told you this of Mr. Blake was it not your old friend Mr. Tombes Exercit. p. 53. your words differ very little If this be true saith Tombs that the Covenant of grace is a Birth-right priviledge then the children of Believers are children of Grace by nature for that which is a Birth-right privilege is a priviledge by nature and if as Mr. Blake saith p. 6. to but neither of them names the Book Christianity is hereditary that as the child of a Noble man is noble the child of a Turk is a Turk of a Jew a Jew the child of a Christian is a Christian then saith Tombes just as my Antagonist Christians are born Christians O wonderful that men should so agree And how are they then saith he the children of wrath by nature and saith our Author this is in contradiction that 's some alteration to the Scripture which saith we are children of wrath One would think these men did very well agree they do so often meet and kiss each other but t is in aliquo tertio that is in the point of Baptism for I hear from those that knows them both intùs in cute that they are at a great if not irreconcileable distance in some other matter But I would have the reader to understand that those words are not Blakes though charg'd upon him by Mr. Tombs to render him odious which is very sad And that learned godly man being very sensible of the injury signifies to Tombes that he disowns it and adviseth him to forbear such device I believe saith he no such thing that Parents conveigh to their children as by Birth-priviledge a being in Christ Jesus but if you understand by Christianity the bare name or title of Christian together with a right to Church priviledges then I shall own the thing but disclaim the expression A sufficient vindication from so sordid a Calumny and if this were so unworthily done in Mr. Tombes what shall we think of the Author who hath lick'd up that vomit again and cast it upon Mr. Blake after he had so well cleared himself which he could not but know Nor doth our Doctrine contradict those Scriptures which saywe are children of wrath by nature and except a man be born again c. Joh 3.3 for even all the Elect are born sons of Adam children of wrath and yet they are the children of promise Isaac himself was visibly the child of promise in his infancy he was born by promise Rom. 9.7.8 9. and yet in respect of natural generation he was a son of Adam a child of wrath Another Absurdity he fancies Mr. Tombes again is That then all the posterity of Believers must bâ—saved without saith he you will necessitate the Doctrine of falling from grace Down right Mr. Tombes Exerc. p. 52. if God keeps his Covenant it follows that all the posterity of Believers are saved or if some are not saved though they be in the Covenant of grace there may be Apostacy of persons c. This is a non sequitur for the Covenant of Grace is not absolute and saving to all that are once within it it is absolute saving to the Elect Seed but not to those who partake of the out ward priviledges of it but take not hold of it by faith It may truly be said of all Elect Infants born of believing Parents that they are absolutely under the Covenant as Isaac in his Infancy even before they believe Mr. Cotton's Grounds and Ends of childrens Baptism Dr. Proston of the Covenant yea their believing in Gods time is given to them as the effect and not the cause of the Covenant But as for others who only partake of the outward priviledges of it and no more that do not believe it is not saving to them As for the other dismal Consequence of Falling from Grace which they say we must hold if Infants of Believers be in Covenant and not all saved This is like the rest the fear is more than the hurt for as Mr. Cotton saith whom soever God taketh into Covenant are in a State of Grace but what Grace either common or saving Grace The Elect are in a state of saving Grace and they shall never totally fall away but persons may fall away from a state of common Grace and from the external priviledges of the Gospel Covenant of Grace quatenus it respects outward spiritual priviledges Those that stick at this and will not own it for Truth may do well to give us the sence of those Scriptures psal 44.17 Dan. 11.30 31. Where they are said to be false in Gods Covenant and to apostatize from it Another dismal consequence which is only the result of an idle and erroneous conceit is That we tie up the Groce of Gods Covenant to the children of Believers only and then what hope for the children of unbelievers No fear of that for the children of unbelievers may belong to the Election of Gods Grace but have no right to be baptized but upon their own personal profession nor are the children of those who are called Christians to be ranck'd with the children of Pagans for they are in a nearer capacity of Salvation being born in a nation where the Gospel is preached of whom the Apostle speaks who being strangers to the Covenant are said to be without hope Lastly he saith our Doctrine overthrows the Covenant of Grace it self concluding an interest without faith and deriving a Title by Generation Not so Whatsoever both they and Papists would fasten upon us for in this they are agreed for we say that the Infant Seed of Believers are Confederates with their Parents and God excepts of the Parents Faith and embraceth the children into the same Covenant with them Licet pueri Infantes fidem non habent Deus tamen eorum parentes compellans ipsos etiam complectitur God taking the believing Parents into Covenant takes the children in with them as we have before more fully shewn out of Calvin on Mat. 28.19 Mark 16. according to the Tenor of the Covenant I will be thy God and the God of thy Seed Nor do we hold we derive a Title to the Covenant by Generation for Foedus non transfunditur per carnem saith Peter Martyr the Covenant is not propagated or transmitted by way of natural Generation that which is born of the flesh is flesh the Parent communicates his nature and the corruption of it Mr. Prinsley of the Doctrine practice of Pedobaptism unto his child but nothing of Grace That is the free gift of God and this it is that brings the child of the Believer into Covenant as well as the Parent even the free and gracious promise of God made
to scatter saving Grace in this Nation which are if not raised yet fomented by Anabaptism And their Principle he conceives hath been very prejudicial to the Conversion of young-ones amongst whom usually the stream of converting Grace runs because it speaks an actual disingagement from all relation to God his Covenant Church and Ordinances till of their own choice they take them up at years of discretion Now whilst persons live loose from such engagements as in their proper nature and tendency further Conversion no wonder if the work goes slowly on among them 3. By confounding the World and the Church together which Christ hath separated Not so For Baptism is God's Sheep-mark as Mr. Ford calls it to distinguish those that are of his Fold from such as graze in the wild Common of the World what confounding is there in this Principle That not only they who do actually profess Faith in and Obedience to Christ but also the Infants of one or both Believing Parents are to be Baptized and they only 7. By introducing and establishing many Humane Traditions and Inventions of Antichrist This is Mr. Tombe's his 6th Arg. Exercit. p. 1. Many of which and some of the worst attend the Baptism of grown Persons in the Church of Rome as Chrism Exorcism c. And when Mr. Tombes urged this very Argument against Infant-Baptism Mr. Geree tells him it was rather a Motive than a Reason against it to move peoples affections against the inconveniences following it rather than to convince the unlawfulness of it But that which is lawful in it self cannot reflect any scrûple of unlawfulness upon that which occasions it And if any corruption occasioned accidentally and separable from an act of Worship could cashier it then farewel Baptism it self Prayer Lords Supper and all that is Sacred for what a world of superstitious devices have the wanton and superstitious Heads and Hearts of Men taken occasion from them all to devise and practise it is so clear there needs no instances to be given 8. By being saith he such a Make-mate such a Bone of Contention and that among themselves too that own it as well as with those that oppose it The Lord open the eyes of those who are so zealous against Infant-Baptism that they may see their own nakedness consider the beam that is in their own eyes certainly whilst they judg our principle condemnation is written in their own foreheads First how furiously do they contend among themselves What a heat is there between Mr. Bunyan and Mr. Paul both of them for Baptizing Believers the former having published a little Book whose Title is Differences in Judgment about Water-Baptism no Bar to Communion or to Communicate with Saints as Saints proved Lawful of which I have before hinted complains in the Epistle to the Reader That the Brethren of the Baptized way would not suffer them to be quiet in their Christian Communion but did assault them for more than 16 years and as they had opportunity sought to break them in pieces meerly because they were not in their way all Baptized First He professeth that he denyed not the Ordinance of Baptism though they feigned it but all that he asserted was That the Church of Christ hath no warrant to keep out of their Communion the Christian that is discovered to be a visible Saint and walketh according to his light with God And for this Orthodox position they charge him to be a Machivelian a Man Devilish Proud Insolent Presumptuous words saith the poor Man fitter to be spoken to the Devil than a Brother He puts out his Confession of Faith upon which Mr. Paul makes reflections and tells him he defies all the Brethren of the Baptized way and Blasphemes them that dwell in heaven p. 3. That he belyes all Expositors p. 13. and calls upon the Heavens to blush at his insolency p. 35. that his Inferences are ridiculous top-ful of ignorance or prejudice and deserve no other answer than contempt p. 43. and then falls to prayer the Lord judg between us and this accuser to whom we shall say no more but the Lord rebuke thee And what sayes Bunyan to this in his Book of Differences in Judgment about Water-Baptism First that in his simple Opinion their rigid and Church-dividing disquieting Principles are not fit for any Age and State of the Church pag. 1. and I wish there were not too much truth in what he saith he accuseth them for endeavouring and perswading him to break Communion with his Brethren tampering with others that their Seeds of division might take and prevailed so far as to rent and dismember some from them and that the judgment of God so followed their design that the presons which then they prevail'd upon became afterward a stink and reproach to Religion I find our Author falling upon this good Man two to one is odds and lashing him to the purpose for his last Book you have it at the end of his Treatise of Baptism He chargeth Mr. Bunyan with absurdities contradictions traducing the Wisdom of Christ hainous Errors and fundamental mistakes whose Principles saith he are presumptuous savouring of ignorance and folly contradicting the Wisdom Authority of Christ ridiculous man of egregious ignorance and self-condemned and at last that he is one that pleaseth not God and is contrary to all Men which last must be understood with a limitation of all Men like himself But why should Professors of Religion throw so much dirt in the Faces of their Brethren that dissent from them Tantaene animis caelestibus irae Sure such language becomes not Christians Let it be supposed that they have truth on their side this is no good way to propagate it it needs not tali auxilio nec defensoribus istis The Wisdom which is from above is first pure then peaceable The Servant of the Lord must not strive but must be gentle towards all In meekness instructing those that oppose if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledgment of the Truth 2 Tim. 2.24 25. But haughty and uncharitable Spirits follow not this Rule if they be set upon a point though controvertible they have such a fire of zeal within that it breaks out into a flame that consumes the good name and credit of any that dare oppose it Your Opinionists if they have Faith they will not follow Paul's advice and keep it to themselves but are infinitely desirous to propagate it and are the severest Censurers in the World Two other Antipaedobaptists viz. Mr. Allen and Mr. Lamb being come off from that hide-bound Spirit of having Communion with none but those of our own Judgment are also lasht in the Authors Postscript They have saith he both declined the Truth and their Books which were pen'd with great Judgment strength of Argument and Authority of Scripture in his Opinion shall rise up in Judgment against them without Repentance for declining the Truth so confident is the Author