they shall be grafted into the Church again as before for as Mr. Marshall notes in his Defence of Infant Baptism pag. 134. At their first grafting in they and their children were grafted in at their casting out they and their children were broken off and when they shall be taken in again they and their children shall be taken in This Mr. Tombs himself grants that the Jews and their seed were rejected together yea and that they shall be taken in together pag. 66. of his answer Thus then we argue if it must be so with them it must be so with believing Gentiles now or else there will be a Schisme between Jew and Gentile in point of priviledges else there will be too distinct estates in the Christian Churches one of the Jews holy Fathers and children another of the Gentiles who have only personal priviledges none for their seed which is an absurd conceit as Mr. Geree speaks and would set up or keep up a partition-wall still contrary to that Eph. 2. I shall say nothing of other absurdities which are very numerous which come from the denying the Church-Membership of the Infant seed of believers The Author adds It is incongruous to reason and sense to imagine that little Children are any way concerned as Church Members either in the Dedications of the Epistles sent to the Churches or the Epistles themselves for they were dedicated to those who were called to be Saints c. I answer First that this is a meer Paralogism for what if we confess the Apostle directed his Epistles to such as were profest Believers and Saints by calling were none other but those or such like them concern'd in the Epistles What shall we think of carnal persons and unbelievers are they unconcerned in them This minds me with a passage in Mr. Paul's serious Reflections such another rigid Antipaedobaptist as our Antagonist He tells us pag. 9. That the Epistles were writ to particular Churches and that it will be difficult to prove they were also directed to particular Saints but saith Bunian a more moderate man although an Antipaedobaptist If this be true there is vertue indeed and more then ever I dreamed of in partaking of Water-Baptisme For if that shall take away the Epistles and consequently the whole Bible from all that are not Baptized he means after their mode of dipping being grown Christians then are the other Churches and also particular Saints in a very deplorable condition Would to God saith he of his Brethren they had learnt more modesty then thus to take from all others Nè autem existiment Corinthii hanc Epistolam ita ipsis propriam esse ut ad alios non pertineat addit Cumomnibus qui invocant nomen Domini nostri Jesus Christi in quovis loco tum ipsorum tum nostri Piscator in locum and appropriate to themselves and that for observing a circumstance c. But he better instructs Mr. Paul and turns him to St. Paul Rom. 16.5 and to the first Epistle written to Corinth and shews that the first Epistle of John was wrote to some who at that time were out of Fellowship that they might have fellowship with the Church Joh. 1.1 2 3 4. Secondly we grant the Epistles were directed some of them to professing Believers joyn'd in Fellowship directly and immediately and to their children if they had any and the children of all Believers in succeeding ages remotely and the contents of the Epistles concern both the Parents at present and the children when come to years of discretion A Father that hath several children some grown up to understanding others Minors or Babes may direct a Book or Epistle to them all Whatsoever was writ was written as much for our instruction as the Primitive Christians We know Moses and the Prophets directed what they writ to the Church under that Administration whereof their Children were a part and yet they were ignorant Babes and could not understand any thing or perform any duties But let it be considered that though they understood nothing of those divine Exhortations yet being within Gods Nursery and School they were in a nearer capacity to be taught their duty than Aliens and their Parents were injoyned to teach them the Ordinances of God and God gave this Testimony concerning Abraham that he knew he would teach his children and in the New Testament it was the commendation of Lois that she had instructed Timothy 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ab Infantia when he was an Infant or little Child 3. Whereas the Epistles are inscribed with those Titles To the Saints Saints by calling sanctified in Christ Jesus chosen adopted which cannot saith our Author be spoken of Infants To this it may be thus replyed 1. Some of those titles may be predicated of children some not 2. The Apostle calls the Churches Saints either as looking upon them all as such i.e. truely regenerate for this is the famosius significatum of the word Saint but this could not be for he pointed at some that were sad Saints in the Church of Corinth and Galatia or else he calls them Saints Synechdochically because he judged the most of them to be such and so the whole Communion were judged Saints à Potiori from the better part 3. He calls them Saints by calling i.e. by the preaching of the word and so we acknowledge Infants are not and yet the same Apostle calls the Infants of Believers Saints 1. Cor. 7.14 Else were your Children unclean but now 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they are Saints or holy and 't is the same word the Apostle useth in his inscriptions of the Epistles to the Churches 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the Saints and being he maketh use of the same word applying it to the children of believers it hints thus much to us that in Saint Pauls account who was guided by the Spirit of God in what he speaks the Infant seed of Believers are as much Saints as any who are such by calling Nor are they only foederally holy but they may be also inherently sanctified saith Mr. Tombs in his Examen They may receive the new birth and we say more they must receive it if saved Job 3.5 It is much controverted concerning the Text whether it intends grown persons or any persons of whatsoever age or sex but the Original if heeded would put an end to it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Except one be born including all ages all sexes Children are so polluted in their first birth that they can never get to Heaven by that and therefore what the first birth cannot a second must saith Dr. Taylor And if it be objected that to the new birth is required dispositions of our own which are to be wrought by and in them that have the use of Reason besides that this as the Learned Doctor speaks is wholly against the Analogy of à New-birth in which the person to be born is wholly passive and hath put into him the Principle
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
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
Saints Beloved and called throughout the world in succeeding ages to receive into Church-communion and Fellowship such whom we have ground to believe God hath received into Communion with himself For that 's the Argument or Motive verse 3. God hath received him and saith he if it be a good Argument to receive such as are weak in any thing whom the Lord hath received Then there can be no good Argument to reject for any thing for which the Lord will not reject them The like argument we have chap. 15. ver 7. of Christs Receiving Receive you one another as Christ hath received us c. Then that holy man breaks out into pathetical strains Oh! how is the heart of God the Father and the Son set upon this to have his children in one anothers hearts as they are in his c. and 't is the work of the Devil saith he to divide them Thus much to shew how they differ amongst themselves about this Position that Baptism gives formality or makes a member of a visible Church which the moderate party amongst them utterly deny now that it gives neither essence or being either to a Church or Membership further appears by these Arguments 1. If there be a Church That dividing Principle That Baptism formes a Church or makes Church-Members refuted and so Members before Baptism then Baptism cannot give the formality or essence because forma is causal and so is in nature before formatum But the Church considered as totum essentiale is before Baptism for Ministers are before baptism And there must be a Church of Believers to chose a Minister lawfully for none but a Church can give him a call and without a call he cannot administer as Mr. Hooker argues in his survey of the sum of Church-discipline cap. 5. part 1. pag. 55. adding moreover that if Baptism cannot be without a Ministerial Church nor that before a Church Congregational which must make choice of a ministry then such a Church is much before Baptism Besides let it be supposed saith he that at the coming of some Godly Zealous Christian and Scholar into the Country and a company of Pagans many are converted to the Faith I ask whether these may not joyn in Church-Fellowship and choose that man Pastor and whether that choice was not lawful according to God Therefore here is a Church before a Minister and so before Baptism The demand which Mr. Jessey makes upon the same arugments is somewhat like this if Baptism saith he be the manner of forming Churches how would it suit a Country where many are converted and willing to be Baptized but there being no Church to be baptized into how shall such a Church-State begin The first must be baptized into no Church that is particular and the rest into him as the Church or the work stand still for want of a Church 2. A Church may be without Baptism and yet as real a Church as the Israelites were so long in the Wilderness without Circumcision which without dispute was the initiating Ordinance according to Divine Institution Gen. 17.13 3. One Argument I shall borrow more from Mr. Hooker and that is If Baptism give the form to visible-membership then while that remains valid the party is a visible Member for where the form is the formatum must needs be if the principles of reason may take place But there is true Baptism resting in the party who hath no visible Membership as in an Excommunicate in him that renounceth the fellowship of the Church or when the Church is utterly dissolved then all Church-Membership ceaseth for Relata mutuò se ponunt tellunt And yet Baptism is valid And as it is an undeniable position That that which gives the form or being to a Church must cease when the Church ceaseth or when a member ceaseth to be a member it must cease with it so it follows that that must be renewed namely Baptism as often as Membership is renewed so shall we have a multiplication of Baptisms as often as the person is cast out of the Church and taken in again upon his repentance As for those two Scriptures which the Author brings for his opinion they will hardly be found to serve his turn 1. The main place stood upon is Act. 2.41 As many as received the word gladly were baptized and there was added that day about 3000. souls Hence they conclude they were added by Baptism and that they were only added this way Sol. 1. It is more then the Text affords for to conclude that they were added by Baptism much less can it be argued from thence that they were only added this way the words say not they were added by Baptism but puts a full point or stop after that sentence As many as gladly received the word were baptized There that sentence ends as Mr. Sydenham notes upon the place And the Apostle goes on a new account and saith There were added that day 3000. souls but doth not at all shew the manner of their adding so that these words are rather a recapitulation and summing up the number of Church-Members added that day then any description of the way of their taking into the Church and the former reasons prove it cannot be interpreted as our Author would have it The other place that he urgeth for his opinion is 1 Cor. 12.13 We are all baptized into one body hence 't is concluded Baptism imbodies Members 1. In answer to this let it be considered what those of their one party say that are for Dipping The Text saith Mr. Bunyan that treateth of our being baptized into one body tells us expresly it is done by the spirit For by one Spirit we are all baptized into one body Here is the Church presented as under the â—â—tion of a Body here is Baptism mentioned by which they are brought or initiated into this body Now that this is the Baptisme of Water is utterly against the words of the Text For by one Spirit are we all Baptized into one body So Mr. Jesse The Baptism intended in the Text is the Spirits-Baptism and not Water-Baptism and the Body the Text intends is not principally the Church of Corinth but all believers both Jews and Gentiles being Baptized into one Mystical Body and the reason why it cannot be meant of Water-Baptism is because all the Body of Christ Jews and Gentiles bond and free partook not thereof Thus here we see how they clash amongst themselves as touching the sense of the place 2. We add That as we conceive the Apostle speaks there primarily of the Baptism of the Spirit not of Water so by one spirit we are baptized into one body is not so much of Baptism by Water and yet supposing it to be meant of Baptism by Water Yet as Mr. Sydenham observes it proves nothing that Baptism is the form of that body Sydenhams Christian Exercitation cap. 20. pag. 168 169. which hath its matter and form holiness and
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
that in time will produce its proper Actions It is certain that they can receive the new birth and are capable of it The effect of it is salvation if infants can receive this effect then also the new-birth without which they cannot receive the effect and he illustrates the point by a Similitude thus As the reasonable soul and all its faculties are in children Will and Vnderstanding Passions and Powers of Attraction and Propulasion yet these faculties do not operate or come abroad till time and art observation and experience have drawn them forth into action So may the spirit of grace the principle of Christian life be infused and yet lie without action till in its own day it is drawn forth and then he goes on Who is he that understands the Spirit so well as to know how or when it is infused and how it operates in all its periods and what it is in its Being and proper Nature or how or to what purpose God in all varieties does dispense it Then again if Nature saith he hath in Infants an evil principle which operates when the child can choose but is all the while within the soul Why cannot Infants have a good principle through Grace though it works not till its own season as well as an evill principle 4. Though Infants are uncapable of performing such duties as are incumbent upon professing men and women yet this hinders not but that they may be Church-Members Pray tell us what duties could those Israelitish Babes perform who notwithstanding their incapacity were asis before Members of the Church with their Parents And though they answer not all the Characters Christ gives his Adult Disciples which the Author objects against them yet they are capable of union to the Church and Fellowship in the priviledges thereof They are capable of her prayers and other pious offices and for whom the Church hath a more special care and obligation of tenderness for their souls than for others that are Without and why should this seem strange since they are Members of the Common-wealth and of the family and are capable of union with both estates and the priviledges thereof and yet cannot perform obedience to the State and Orders of either In like sort Infants are admitted Tenants but the Fealty or Homage is respited till they are of age 5. Lastly Christ himself as Mr. Baxter notes was head of the Church according to his humane nature in his infancy and this proves that the nonage of Infants makes them not uncapable of being Members And let any judge whether it be his will that no Infants should be Members For my part saith he when I consider that Infant State of Christ our head and the honour done to him therein it strongly perswades me that they know not his will who say they will not have Infants to be visible Members He farther Objects the Church of England who in their 19th Artiele do acknowledge that the visible Church is a number of Christians by profession This is down right Mr. Tombs's Examen part 3. pag. 41. only Tombes hath more charity for the Infants of Believers though not without some contradiction For he there acknowledgeth that in facie Ecclesiae visibilis Infants of believers are to be accounted Gods to belong to his Family and Church and not the Devils And what do any of us say more But mark Reader how Mr. Tombs doth esteem them such why saith he it is so as being in a near possibility of being Members of the Church of God by an act of opinion grounded on probable hopes for the future But to make them actual members of the visible Church is to overthrow the definitions of the visible Church that Protestant writers give particularly the Church of England Art 19. To which Mr. Marshall answers If overthrows it not at all for they all include the Infants of such Professors as Infants Male and Female too least you say that Circumcision made them Members I add also saith he Baptisme now as well as Circumcision of old is a real though implicite profession of the Christian Faith Next we have Dr. Owen whom he cites no less than four times in what follows in this Chapter whose judgement is sufficiently known to be against our Opposites And notwithstanding the misinterpretation the Author puts upon some passages in the Doctors Catechisme we have a particular account of his judgment in Print in a Book called A Declaration of the Faith and Order owned and practised in the Congregational Churches agreed upon and consented unto by their Elders and Messengers in their meeting at the Savoy Octob. 12. 1658. where to my knowledge he was present and the principal man of that Assembly and concerning the point before us we have it chap 29. Art 4. thus exprest viz. Not only those that do actually profess Faith in and obedience unto Christ but also the Infants of one or both believing Parents are to be Baptized and those only And in complyance herewith we have the judgment of the Synod of Elders Assembled at Boston in New-England appointed by the Court 1662. who strongly maintain by several Arguments in that printed piece That the Insant Seed of Believers are Church-Members and that being according to Scripture Members of the visible Church they are consequently the Subjects of Baptism See also the Presbyterian judgement upon the point in the larger Catechisme of the Assembly of Divines Baptisme say they is not to be administred to any that are out of the visible Church and so strangers to the Covenant of promise till they profess their Faith in Christ and obdeience to him But Infants descending from Parents either both or but one of them professing Faith in Christ and obedience to him are in that respect within the Covenant and to be Baptized we see here who they take to be of the visible Church and within the Covenant and to be baptized As for the Authority of particular Authors we have them on our side in great abundance Piscator hath it thus on the 28. of Matthew Porrò ad Ecclesiam pertinent non solùm adulti fidem profitentes sed etiam ipsorum liberi Not only grown persons who profess the Faith appertain to the Church but also their Infants Theodore Beza in his Absters Cat. Heshuii pag. 333. hath this passage Meritò arbitramur Infantes fidelium in peculio domini censeri We rightly judge the Infants of the faithful to be of the Lords Flock and he speaks of them there before Baptisme And in our Margent Bible we have this Note upon the first of Corinthians 7.14 They that are born of either of the Parents faithful are also counted Members of Christs Church because of the Promise Act. 2.39 Peter Martyr loc Commun cl 4. c. 8. p. 821 823. Non excludimus eos Infantes ab Ecclesia sed ut ejus partes amplectimur c. We exclude not Infants from the Church but imbrace them as parts John Calvin to whom
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
of Infants be deferred quoting it out of Dr. Taylors Liberty of Prophesy Besides what we have said of Nazianzens judgment that he disswaded not Infant Baptism as unlawful but as conceiving delay for three or four Years more expedient but if there were Aliquid periouli any fear of death then he allowed of it I shall mind the Reader that when the Learned Dr. Taylor brought in Nazianzen against Infant-Baptism he personated an Anabaptist but in his latter discourse you have his Judgment very fully for Infant-Baptism confuting his former piece particularly he quotes the following passage out of Nazianzen for Infant-Baptism viz. What wilt thou say of Children which neither are sensible of the loss nor the grace shall we Baptize them yes by all means in case of urgent danger for it is better to be Sanctified i e Baptized without their knowledg than to dye without it for so it happened to the Circumcised Babes of Israel c. I conclude this with what Vossius saith of him in his Thesis de Baptismo non igitur Nazianzenus c. Nazianzen was not against Infant-Baptism After him comes Ambrose who in his 3d Book de Sacramentis Cap. 2. hath this saying That the Baptized did not only make confession of his Faith but was to desire the same I perceive he is still sick of the old disease for that this Father speaks of the Pagans in what order they were taken into the Church and not in Opposition to the Baptizing Infants needs no other proof than that he himself was for it Quia omnis aetas peccato obnoxia ideo omnis aetas Sacramento idonea i. e Because every Age is Obnoxious to sin therefore every Age is fit for the Sacrament There is one or two more but I will leave them for we have enough of it After this small Shot the Author le ts fly Canons and Decrees of Councils for Baptizing such as were of years of discretion and were able to rehearse the Articles of the Creed as also we have an Enumeration of several persons born of Christian Parents that were not Baptized till they were of Age and able to give account of their Faith To which I Reply first Grant that some Councils were against Infant-Baptism which we shall not yeild yet if we must go by number of Councils we shall carry it He names three which he would have thought to be against Infant-Baptism and I think I shall not exceed in saying we may name ten times three for it and mark Reader he takes the priviledge of citing Councils but if we do it they are slighted and condemned for Popish and Superstitious 2. We conceive those Councils he names had also respect to Pagans in their Decrees and we have good reason for it because the Canon of Neocaesaria speaks plainly of the Children of such Women as come out from amongst Infidels being proselyted to the Christian Religion in their Pregnancy as Mr. Marshal tells Mr. Tombes This is taken out of Mr. Tombes Exercitation and Examen when he Objected the same thing The Author hath taken the whole Story out of him and all the rest upon the matter which follows in this Century is fetcht from his Exercitation and Examen printed 27. years since and Answered by that Reverend Divine Mr. Steven Marshal in his Defence of Infant-Baptism I would make a parallel betwixt the Author I have to deal with and Tombes but that it would be tedious wherefore instead of that I will transcribe the same things out of Tombes which the Author hath brought again upon the Stage If the Reader compare them he will find never two Eggs more alike Mr. Tombes in his Examen Pag. 10. hath it thus Grotius saith he in his Annotation on Matt. 19.14 adds That the Canon of the Synod of Neocaesaria held in the year 315. determins that a Woman with Child might be Baptized because the Baptism reached not the fruit of her womb because in the Confession made in Baptism each ones free choyce is shewed From which Canon Balsomon and Zonaras do infer that an Infant cannot be Baptized because it hath no power to chase the Confession of Divine Baptism This is according to what we have in H. D. to a tittle what impudence then is it to trouble us with this filly and ridiculous Story when Mr. Marshal proved to Tombes that the inference brought from hence against the Baptism of Believers Children was altogether invalid For the Canon there speaks of the Children of Women come out from among Infidels and come over to the Christian Faith during the time they were with Child For Balsomon saith such Women as were with Child and come from the Infidels and what is this to our Question saith Mr. Marshal which is about Children born in the Church of believing Parents and Balsomon the Glossator distinguisheth of Children some in the womb and some born for the first faith he no man can undertake he means in Baptism and for the other they answer by such as undertake for them which words as Mr. Marshal observes are not mentioned by Mr Tombes for he says no more than what he found in Grotius and for the partial relation he is sharply rebuked for wronging the Truth and labouring to deceive people and yet the Author I conflict with persists in the same course Next the Author speaks big words telling us That in farther Assurance and Confirmation of this great Truth we have most remarkable Instances of several of the most Eminent persons of this Century that were not Baptized till Aged though the Ofspring of Believing Parents viz. Bazil Gregory Nazianzen Ambrose Chrysostom Austin Constantine This also is Mr. Tombes again Examen p. 9. And that People may not be startled with these great names Reply Tombes his Examen P. 9. and be made to think that Childrens Baptism was not practised in the Church in those days wherein they lived I shall acquaint the Reader out of Mr. Marshal upon what grounds Christians heretofore deferred their Baptism namely sometimes they would do it in imitation of Christ who was not Baptized till about thirty years of Age. Constantine the Great put off his Baptism till he came to the River Jordan in which Christ was Baptized some deferred it till they had contracted a great deal of sin out of an erroneous conceit that by Baptism it would be all washed away Much more we have of this in Marshal's Defence of Infant-Baptism Pag. 27. Now for the Instances I find Tombes begins with Constantine and then comes on Nazianzen but the Author here ends with Constantine This argues nevertheless it was taken thence I shall trouble my self no further to seek after any other reason why the Baptism of these men was delayed than what Mr. Marshal gives Tombes For Constantine the Great though the Son of Helena who is reported to have been a zealous Christian not Baptized till he was Aged it doth not appear that his Mother was
notwithstanding the confidence of the adverse party unless they can produce one Express place of Scripture where it is said No Infant was Baptized or some Express Command not to Baptize them their calling for an Express Command concludes nothing against our Practice 2. Moreover we affirm against their Practice that there is no Express Command in all the Book of God to plunge persons Head and Ears under water nor can they by any convincing Circumstance about the manner of Baptizing make it appear though thousands were Baptized in a day that any one was so severely dealt with in the primitive times we shall shew when we come to it that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 among Heathen and Ecclesiastical Writers doth promiscuously signify to dip into or wash with Water by pouring on of it and in the Scripture it is more frequently taken for Washing than dipping 3. They have no Express Command or Example to Baptize or plunge themselves as they do with their Cloaths on which is rather a Baptizing Garments than Bodies Since they are so much for Express Command and Example let them first justify their own Practice by it before they condemn us for want of it 2. He tells us That the approved Practice and known custom of the Primitive Church was to Baptize the Adult as all Ages acknowledg and only they at least for the first as is so fully attested by Eusobius Beatus Rhenanus Lud. Vives Bullinger Haimo the Neocaesarian Council Look back Reader to that saithful Account I have given from the Magdeburgensian Century-Writers and thou shalt be able to judg of the truth of what he speaks I am necessitated to touch upon it again what Eusebius speaks of Origens being a Teacher before Baptism refers to the Pagans what that Old Popish St. Beatus Rhenanus saith of the Ancient custom which was to Baptize those that were come to full growth with the Bath of Regeneration if it relates to Heathens it is no more to purpose than the former out of Eusebius but if we are to understand him so as if no Children were anciently admitted to Baptism no not those of Believers then we plead an older custom even as old as Origen and Tertullian that Children were Baptized in the Church and as Mr. Calvin hath it in his Instruction against the Anabaptists The Holy Ordinance of Infant Baptism hath been perpetually observed in the Christian Church for there is no ancient Writer that doth not acknowledg its Original even from the Apostles which was the Reason why Austin hath that Expression concerning it namely Nullus est Scriptor tam vetustus qui non ejus Originem ad Apostolorum saculum pro certo referat Calvini Instit cap. 17. part 8. pag. 227. Ecclesia semper habuit semper tenuit The Church always had it always held it And for Lud. Vives his saying That they Baptized the Adult in some Cities of Italy his Testimony hath been always looked upon as very incompetent because he was but of yester-day and we have nothing but his bare word for it and not to be compared with Austin's a man of great integrity and that lived above thousand years nearer the Apostles who affirms it was not only Practised in his day but before and quotes Testimonies for it Then for Haim◠all that he sais upon Matt. 28 will not prejudice us his words are Here is set down a rule how to Baptize that is that Teaching should go before Baptizing c. which we confess ought to be so when we have to deal with Pagans and he speaks of such And as none of the Popish School-men are for the Authors turn though we have many passages quoted out of them to no other end but to blind the Reader and make the Book swell so I am mistaken if that which he quotes out of Albertus Magnus the Conjurer be much for his turn you have it in the 12th Cent. p. 85. of his Treatise And lastly for the Neocaesarian Council that business is of a very ridiculous nature and impertinent to the question for the matter under debate in that Council was about a Woman that was pregnant who being an Infidel came to be Baptized and the Canon speaks of such a one and not of a Woman that was within the Church of a Child born of a believing Parent as is fully shewn before in Cent. 4. 3 Whereas he saith not only the Children of Pagans were to be Instructed and taught in the Faith in order to Baptism but the Children of Christians also as those famous instances given from the 4th Century We have shewn in our discourse upon that Century the corrupt and silly grounds upon which they deferred Baptism till they were grown up in those days and some of the instances there given had Parents that were Heathens when they were born and so continued till they were come to Maturity and that was the reason they were Baptized though 't is true their Parents were at last converted to the Christian Faith 4. He farther saith that as there was no Scripture-Authority for it so no Human Authority till above 400 years after Christ though to justify that injunction Apostolical-Tradition to supply the want of Scripture-Institution was pretended I may almost say truly of this Quot dicta tot maledicta so many words so many foul reproaches Calumniare fortiter aliquid adhaerebit said Machiavel and our Author follows the Rule exactly he thinks he can never throw dirt enough upon Infant-Baptism hoping some will at last stick I shall Reply to this First To say there is no Scripture-Authority for Infant-Baptism and that Apostolical Tradition was on purpose brought in to supply the want of it are presumptuous weak and false dictates Since the same Men viz. The Fathers that call it an Apostolical Tradition do upon the matter all of them plead for it upon Scripture-grounds as Cyprian Nazianzen Chrysostom Ambros Epiphartius who argue for Infant-Baptism because it came in the room of Circumcision and from the right the Infants of the Jews had to Circumcision and of latter days Protestants own nothing for truth that comes under the notion of Apostolical-Tradition Proinde necessario veniendum erat ad argumenta ex Scripturis quae si rem non evincant frustrà traditionem ad vocabimus Riv. Animad in annot Grotii in Cassandrum Art 9. p. 71. unless they see ground for it in Scripture they are of Rivets mind that Tradition is in most points uncertain and thereforē if we will be certain of a thing we must see the foot-steps of it in the word And Mr. Calvin speaks to the same purpose in his Instructions against the Anabaptists Caeterum minime peto ut in eo probando nos Antiquitas ullo modo juvet c. I do not in the least desire to borrow help from Antiquity for the proof of this point any whit farther than the judgment of the Ancients shall be found to be grounded on
which hath been before more largely evinced it be not sufficiently Evident That the Baptizing of Children is of the Institution of Christ and Practice Apostolical Thus far Dr. Hammond Next the Author saith he will give us some account of the insufficiency and Weakness if not wickedness of those first Authorities that have been leaned upon to prove this Practice to be an Apostolical Tradition c. and he reduceth it to these following Dionysius the Areopagite the Decretal Institutions or Epistles of several Popes as he calleth them Justin Martyr Origen and Cyprian Concerning the two first of these we look upon them as broken Reeds and we lean not on them at all and to produce an Argument for the Apostolicalness of Paedobaptism from these is as Dr. Hammond speaks of some which he likes not to be look upon of the number of the Blind and the Lame that are of more use to betray and lose than defend and secure that Fort in which they are placed Know then Sir that we except against them as much as your self and you know you have taken all your exceptions against these Romish Forgeries from the learned Pens of Paedobaptists 'T is by the elaborate pains of the Magdeburgenses Osiander Perkins Reynolds Rivet c. that they are detected who as you observe have laid open the Bastardy both of the one and of the other From these Mr. Tombes gleans what he hath to say upon this point in his Praecursor Mr. Tombes his Praecursor where you have them collected to your hand and from whence you fetch what you present us with and here I am tempted again to draw another Paralel you do so exactly tread in his steps as first beginning as he doth with Osiander then follows Rivet afterward Perkins then the Decretal-Epistles which pass under the name of Clement Hyginus c. All which are condemned as Spurious by Mr. Perkins and he gives undeniable Arguments for it But I observe your little design to render Infant Baptism the more odious by that appellation you give Clement Hyginus with the rest of them namely Pope say you the Decretals and Institutions of several Popes in this Second Century as that of Pope Clement Pope Hyginus and is it not strange â—hat the Pope should appear so early 'T is not handsome thus to impose upon the weaker sort that are not read in Church-History As for others that are more learned they know that Hyginus the Verus or true one of that name is numbred amongst the first good Bishops that succeeded the Apostles for so we find him in Dr. Prideaux his Catologue and to be the man that set Justin Martyr at work to frame his Apology for the Christians and was no Pope in the sence it is usually taken viz. An Oeconomical Bishop challenging unto himself and usurping Authority over the whole Church Euseb Lib. 4. c. 9. He is calculated to be the 8th Bishop of Rome living in the dayes of Antoninus Pius about a hundred and fourty years after Christ and very near to the Apostles Having thus discarded the feigned Dionysius and the Personatus Hyginus as Mr. Tombes observes he is called by Ostander with the rest of the cheating Tribe laying no stress at all upon what they say as touching the Apostolicalness of Infant-Baptism we shall notwithstanding by the Author 's good leave still retain a Venerable esteem of the other three that follow For honest Men are nevertheless honest for being rankt with cheats though I confess they are the more lyable to suspicion by such as do not examine things First for Justin Martyr we shall not altogether quit our claim to him though there be so litle left of him as Mr. Baxter notes that we cannot expect that he should speak expresly to the point Justin Martyr is supposed to have lived in St. John's days Scultetus saith he flourished Anno 140. both because he is brief and treateth on other Theams to which this did not belong and because the Church then living amongst 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 Jews Church yet nevertheless saith Mr. Baxter Justin Martyr gives such hints by which his Judgment and the Practice of the Church Baxter plaint Scripture-Proof p. 155. even in those dayes may be discerned Touching what is said in Justin Martyr's Responses against which the Author levels his discourse and especially what is said in his 56th Question ad Orthodoxos the Author sayes right that many of the afore-said Learned Writers that are Paedobaptists do disown it as spurious And Mr. Baxter himself Acknowledgeth the same that though the Book be Ancient yet it was either Spurious or Interpolate True but withal gives divers passages for our turn out of other Works of his as that in his Dialogue with Tryphon Part 2. Propos 3. Nos certe qui hujus ope ad Deum accessimus non carnalem istam Circumcisionem fed Spiritualem Hanc nos per Baptisma ut pote peccatores nati a Deo miserante accepimus eam licet omnibus similiter accipere i. e. It was Lawful for all to receive the Spiritual Circumcision which he saith was done by Baptism and if all might receive it even so Infants who were the subjects of the Legal Circumcision for they must be a part of the All and not excluded Another touch we have in that Passage of Justin importing Baptism to be the only way to Remission of Sins and Salvation and he judged that Infants are forgiven and saved therefore he judged that they might be Baptized As for the places I refer the Reader to Mr. Baxter's Plain Scripture-Proof where we have them quoted pag. 155. 2. For Origen we shall with greater confidence adhere to him notwithstanding the frivolous Cavils of the Author which are reducible to these 6 Heads 1. His First is That Origen is but one single Testimony for the practice of Infant-Baptism to be Apostolical Reply This will not pass for a Truth because we have also the Testimony of Irenaeus Irenaeus lived in the 2d Century with Justin Martyr in the Age of those that saw the Apostles and therefore could not be ignorant of their Practice who lived in the Second Century with Justin even in the Age of those that saw the Apostles within the first Century after them Dr. Hammond in his Letter of Resolution Sec. 40. pag. 212. where also we have quoted that Common though Famous passage of his Extant in Lib. 2 Adv. Haeres C. 39. Omnem aetatem Sanctificans per illam quae ad ipsam erat similitudinem Omnes enim venit per semet ipsum salvare Infantes Parvulos Pueros Omnes inquam qui per eum renascuntur in Deum i. e. Christ did Sanctify every Age by his own susception of it and
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
are given not for Conversion but Confirmation of Grace are meer Nullities or that the Baptism Administred by them is to be reiterated Take an instance in the Circumcision of the 10 Tribes after Jeroboam's Apostacy and the casting out of the Priests and Levites 2 Chron. 11.14 15. It was generally Administred by wicked Priests and Men that had no regular call thereunto when the Priests and Levites were cast out of Office in the 10 Tribes Jeroboams Priests came in their room which were as ignorant and unskilful to expound the Law as those ye call Dumb-Dogs 1 Kings 13.33 2 Cor. 15.3 2. We must put a difference betwixt the Essentials of an Ordinance and some Circumstantial Additions and Corruptions if there be a Corruption in the Essenee or substance of the Ordinance as for Instance if Persons be not Baptized in the Name of God the Father Son and Holy-Ghost but into the Name of a Creature then such Baptism is void and null and the party ought to be Baptized again But if there be a Corruption only in the External Administration of the Ordinance though every Christian should labour to avoid such Corruption and if he hath been intangled therewith humble himself deeply before God for it yet such Baptism is valid for the substance of it and should not be reiterated At this day the Protestant Reformed Churches do hold it unwarrantable to Rebaptize those Persons who were Baptized in the Church of Rome which being administred in the Name of the Father Son and Holy-Ghost is held for true Baptism for the substance of it The other is Mr. Bartlet in his Model of the Congregational way pag. 70. Those Christians saith he which of late days calling into question the Truth and Lawfulness of their Baptism have fallen upon the Practice of Rebaptizing and taking up the Ordinance of Baptism de novo are utterly void and altogether to seek of a true and just ground from the Scripture for their Practice herein and so this latter Baptism of theirs will be found as unlawful because unlawfully Administred For if the Administration of the Seals be now tyed to ordinary Officers and those to a particular Church since the Apostles times that give them their lawful and right Call to Administer the Ordinances then it will follow that there is no Lawful Baptism but by him that is an Officer of some particular Church and he that is an Officer of some particular Church must have a Lawful Calling from the Church to which he is an Officer for all extraordinary Officers that had their Call and Commission immediately from Heaven are ceased Now those that Rebaptize cannot prove the taking up of that Ordinance again after this manner but are enforced to hold that a Disciple in Common that by the exercise of his gifts doth convert a Sinner from the evil of his ways may also Baptize him which Doctrine Mr. Hooker calls a Frenzy of the Anabaptists Mr. Hooker of new-England in his Survey of Church-Discipline C. 2. part 3. p. 9. which begins to labour with the loathsomness of itself For if that were true what need of Christ's Ordaining Officers in his Church for these purposes or why may not a Godly Woman by her good exhortations and chast conversation Converting her Husband Baptize him CHAP. VI. Wherein the Author endeavours to shew the Nullity and utter insignificancy of Infant-Baptism THus he proceeds That it is no-way safe for any to rest contented with that Baptism which they received in their Infancy may appear because such their Baptism is a meer Nullity How doth he make this out Why thus Because saith he as the right matter so the true Form is wanting for the External Form as before is shewed is not Sprinkling or pouring a little Water upon the Head or Face but a Dipping the whole Person under Water and raising him up again to figure out Death Burial and Resurrection as before if then Matter and Form be wanting which is so essential to its Being it must needs be a Nullity Although enough hath been said already to confute this in the 6th Chap. of the first Part of our Book to prove Infants of Believers fit Matter for the Church and consequently Subjects of Baptism besides what hath been said in the 4th Chap. Part 2. concerning the Ceremony of Baptism yet being willing to give the Author full measure pressed down and running over We shall say something more to evince the weakness of his Assertion in this Chapter First 't is observable that he who hath undertaken to write a Treatise of Baptism mark well should mistake both the Matter and Form of it for certainly he is out in both 1. First for the Matter of Baptism all Divines hold it is Water meer pure Water without mixture Take the Judgment of two very eminent Divines The first is the Learned Zanchy Tom. 1. Lib. 1. pag. 404. Materia Externa Baptismi est Aqua Interna Sanguis Spiritus Christi The External Matter of Baptism is Water the Internal the Blood and Spirit of Christ The other is Bucan Professor of Divinity in Academia Lausanensi He in his Theological Institutions or Common places answereth several Questions concerning Baptism this is the 18th Quae est Materia Baptismi What is the Matter of Baptism To which he gives this answer it is two-fold Externa Interna External and Internal the External is Aqua pura munda naturalis sine discrimine simplex vulgaris non prius peculiaribus Consecrata non mixta non Oleum c. That is it is pure clean simple common Water without mixture of Oyl Spittle and such kind of things as the Papists add to it de Baptismo locus 47. p. 616. The Materia Interna the Internal Matter of Baptism is Sanguis Spiritus Jesu Christi the Blood Spirit of Jesus Christ de Bapt. loc 47. Quest 22. 2. For the Form of Baptism they agree in this that it is those Words of Institution I Baptize thee in the Name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost So saith Zanchy in the aforementioned place and he brings the Words of the Apostle for both Matter and Form Ephes 5.26 That he might Sanctify and cleanse it by the Washing of Water through the Word citing that famous speech of Austin Accedit verbum ad Elementum fit Sacramentum The word joyned to the Element i.e. the Word of Institution makes the Sacrament So Bucan Quest 22. Quae est igitur forma Baptismi scil Externa what is therefore the External Form of Baptism Ans The rehearsing the words of Institution by a Minister of the Word of God viz. I Baptize thee in the Name of the Father c. which he cals aspersio aquae and then Internâ— Baptismi Forma est Interna illa actio quae Jesu Christi ipsius per Spiritum Sanctum agentis propria est The Internal Form is that Internal action of Christ working by his Spirit c.
refuse the most sordid and shameful ways to promote it They will fall in with slanderous Papists and take up what they say to defend their Opinions Witness my Antagonist and his Predesessour and Tutor Mr. Tombes who was checkt by Mr. Baxter for his evil carriage in this very thing he boldly justifies himself and tells us in his Precursor pag. 29. That Petrus Cluniacensis was though a zealous Papist yet thought fit by Illyricus to be reckoned among Witnesses of truth in his Catalogue and if such as he and especially Bernard be not taken for Witnesses of things in their times I know not how Protestants will make up their Catalogue of Witnesses for them in all Ages I think these are dangerous words somewhat derogating from the honour of the Protestant Religion The other eminent Person which is joyned in History with Peter Bruis is Henricus These two as is said were the first and most famous Preachers of the Albigenses and Waldenses This Henricus saith the Author witnessed to this great Truth being a Friend and Collegue of P. Bruis whose Doctrines and Positions are also recorded by the Magdeburgenses under eleven Heads the first whereof was denying Baptism to Children Cent. 12. p. 843 We have observed before that Bernard is so ingenious as to acknowledg that he takes up these things by hear-say and upon report ab iis qui ad Pontificiam ecclesiam redierunt of such as were returned again to the Church of Rome and who is such an infidel as not to believe what they say Furthermore the Magdeburgs tell us that when the Henricians or Disciples of Henricus were examined Bernard himself confesseth they denyed the things that were Objected against them and that haply say the Magdeburgs because they Objected such things as they never taught Ait porrâ— in Examine eos Objecta negasse Haec ille sc Bernardus Quia forte alia â—is Objecta fuerunt quam docuerunt Magd. Cent. 12. p. 845. Mr. Tombes told his Tale about Henricus a little handsomer than the Author in his Praecursor pag. 29. And is not ashamed to say it seems utterly unlikely to him that be and his followers should be belyed and tells us what Bernard said of them in 204th Epistle the same also he hath in his Exercitation p. 31. and let us compare the Author with him and we shall see he hath the Story from him for thus he concludes this Section The Author The same Bernard in his Epistle to Heldefonsus Earl of St. Gyles saith The Henerici did deny Holy-days Sacracraments Churches and Priests complaining that the Children of Christians were excluded the life of Christ whilst they denyed them the grace of Baptism and not suffered them to partake of Salvation Mr. Tombes Exerc. p. 31. and Examen pag. 21. The same Bernard in his first Epistle to Heldefonsus Earl of St. Gyles complains of Henricus that he took away Holy-days Sacraments Churches Priests that the life of Christ is stopped to the little ones of Christians while the grace of Baptism is denyed and they not suffered to draw near to Salvation Thus far we find the Author exactly following Tombes having little else but what is transcribed out of him only he omits that ingenious passage of Mr. Tombes Praecursor pag. 30. As for the Albigenses and Waldenses it might be saith he that some might be against infant-Baptism yet others not or it may be in the beginning beld so but after left it But this Author makes as if the whole Body of the people had been against it which followes next to be examined Thirdly saith he in the Witness born not only by some particular Men but by the body of the People 3. By the People themselves suffering for the same as appeareth by decrees of Councils Decretal Epistles and Edicts given forth against them aswell as the Testimony of many Learned Writers Reply There is no convincing Proof to be fetcht from hence of their being against Infant-Baptism because they were their Enemies calumniating malicious Papists that loaded them with all manner of reproaches to render them Odious And no marvel saith Mr. Marshal such Opinions should be charged upon them Marshal's Defence p. 66. though they held them not seeing we find this particular charged upon Luther Calvin and Beza who did all in a special manner oppose this error so that saith the same Author unless some one doth out of their own Confession give better evidence Ies Vicecom Obser Eccl. Vol. Lib. 2. c. 1. p. 103. I shall believe that this Doctrine of opposing the Baptizing of the Infants of Believers is an Innovation no ancienter than the Anabaptists in Germany And whereas the Author cites two Canons of Alexander the 3d one made in the Gallican and the other in the Lateran Council against the Waldensian or Catharian Heresy the latter Anathematizing them as for other Heresies so particularly for denying Infant-Baptism and for their Contempt of all the Sacraments We are informed by Perin the French Historian that these Canons were discharged against the Waldenses as soon upon the matter as they were known by this name For saith he in the year 1160 Peter Waldo Citizen of Lyons couragiously opposed Transubstantiation with divers other corruptions crept into the Church of Rome blaming the Vice Luxury Excess and Avarice of the Pope and his Clergy and he was the more harkened to being held in great esteem for his learning piety and great charity Now the Pope considering that at Lyons there were so many persons by reason of Waldo's teaching that questioned his Soveraign Authority over the whole Church fearing what this might come to being chased out of Lyons they spread themselves in divers companies and places and from this Waldo they were called Waldenses Perin Hist Lib. 1. p. 2 3. The Monks Inquisitors and others saith the Historian being their Mortal Enemies poured out Reproaches and laid Opprobrious Imputations on them affirming they were the Authors of all Heresies in the World and that they were Confederates with the ancient Hereticks Because they made profession of Purity they called them Cathares i. e. Puritans Because they denied the Bread which the Priest shewed in the Mass to be God they called them Arrians as if they denied the Divinity of Christ and because they maintained that the Authority of Emperours and Kings depended not on the Pope Manicheans and for other causes which they fained they called them Gnosticks and Apostoliques This Protestant Historian is large in these things but I must contract among others laid to their charge he mentioneth these 3 following 1. That they held Community of Goods 2. That it was unlawful to swear at all 3. That they rejected the Baptism of Infants This Bernard and Cluniacensis charged them with as before They acquit themselves faith Perin from these Calumnies by putting forth a Book called the Spiritual Almanack Fol. 45. They assert and maintain Propriety of Estate the Lawfulness of Oaths grounded on Heb.
lived in the Country and times where and when these things were acted may not be credited then we may call in question the truth of all History whatsoever Add hereunto the Testimony of those famous Men Peter Martyr Calvin Beza Bucer who can scarce speak of the German-Anabaptists with patience or give them any other title what-ever the charitable Author says than Furies Blasphemous Unclean Seditious Frantâ—ck wretches c. Two material Objections he hath a mind to clear 1. The first is concerning the Miscarriages of these Men. 2. The Second is some of the Waldensian Confessions which seem to own the Baptizing of Infants But it had been more to his honour to have let those Objections lain dormant unless he had said more to the purpose To the first he saith That take it for granted that things were so as to matter of fact that is that many Anabaptists did prove so horribly wicked as is reported yet 't is both unreasonable uncharitable to render all the people either in those times or since to be such persons also and to judg an Error in the Principle from the Error in the Conversation of some that Profess it Reply Thus far the Author speaks well for it is not fair dealing to judg at such a rate and Mr. Tombes before him argues rightly in the case in his Praecursor p. 56. I am sure saith he it is no Rule to judg a Doctrine false by this that the Professors miscarry but only to make Men wary and fearful if it be we must judg the same Doctrine false by reason of some mens miscarriages and true because of others godly living Nevertheless we may safely affirm that Doctrine is to be suspected false which is usually attended with gross miscarriages in the Professors of it for that speaks the Doctrine Ominous and looks like a Spiritual Judgment of God upon it And I heartily wish there were no ground to say that of such a nature is the Doctrine of Baptizing grown Persons in opposition to that of the Infant-Seed of Believers For not to insist upon the horrid Errors and wicked Lives of those in Germany nor of the Blasphemies and Immoralities of divers Persons here in our own Nation the very principle it self of Anabaptistry is of a dangerous nature which in that rigidity as some men hold it is of such a disquieting tendency that as Mr. Bunyan speaks before it is not fit for any Age or State of the Church I cannot but sigh to consider the ways of some men whose Spirits are impregnated there-with so that their very constitution inclines them to nothing more than to rent and tear and divide the Church The Zeal for their Opinion hath and doth still prove the greatest hinderance to the conjunction of Christians here in this Nation For as soon as they become Baptists as some call them and our opposites love to appropriate the name to themselves they fall off from Godly Ministers and People differing from them though never so Holy But let Men calmly consider whether this be not an effect of ignorance and pride and more from an erring than well instructed Conscience and what a scandal and shame it is to the Christian Religion to make it thus a fomenter of faction and disturbance in the World and what an injury is hereby done to Christ by contracting and narrowing his Interest in such a manner But I see not how it can be otherwise if men adhere and strictly keep themselves to the Antipaedobaptistical Principle for if our Ministers be no true Ministers and our Baptism a Nullity and consequently our Churches no true Churches how can they hold Communion with us though some that are for the Baptism of Believers only do yet it must be imputed to their good nature and not their Principle which they cross in so doing Farther saith he if it be granted many Anabaptists did prove so horribly wicked in Germany yet others that owned that Principle were Men of another Spirit both in that as well as in former times for which we have most ample and authentick Testimonie from their greatest enemies Witness that honourable Character that Raynerius the bloody Inquisitor gives of them in those days in France Cassander Bellarmine and Baronius of those in Germany and Mr. Baxter of them in this Nation But hold Sir I doubt your ample and authentick Testimony will fail you and first I must tell you Rainerius is not for your turn for he never gave any honourable Character of Anabaptists That favourable Character which he gives relates to another sort of People called the Waldenses which you and I had some discourse of not long since and found to be none of your kindred for they were for Infant-Baptism Verily Dr. Featly's Roma Ruens Rainer contra Wal. C. 4. Inter omnes sectas quae adhuc sunt fuerunt non est periculosior Eccles Leonistarum idque tribus de causis Prima quia est diuturnior aliqui entm dicunt quod duravit a tempore Sylvestri alii a tempore Apostolorum Secunda quia est generalior fere enim nulla terra est in qua haec Secta non sit Tertia quiae cum omnes aliae Sectae immanitate blasphemiarum in Deum audientibus horrore m inducant Haec sc Leonistarum magnam habet speciem pietatis eo quod coram omnibus juste vivant bene omnia de Deo credant omnes Articulos qui in Symbolo continentur Solummodo Roman Eccles Blasphemant clerum saith Dr. Featly who wrote a Book against Anabaptists Rainerius the Inquisitor though entertained against us not against the Author's party yet speaks he so much for us that he deserveth a Fee of us The Sect saith he of the Waldenses or Lyonists is more pernicious to the Church of Rome than all other Sects 1. Becanse it hath been of longest continuance for some say it hath continued ever since the Apostles time 2. Because it is more general than any other for there is almost no Country into which it doth not creep 3. For that all other Sects do bring an horrour with the hainousness of their Blasphemies against God but this hath a great appearance of Godliness because they live justly before Men and believe all things well concerning God neither of which could be said of the German-Anabaptists and all the Articles which are contained in the Creed only they speak evil of the Roman Church and the Clergy And that Rainerius did not look upon the Waldenses as Anabaptists is demonstrated by this because he gives not the least hint of it in the Catalogue of their Errors which follows upon the former words The Waldenses saith he do not receive the Canon of the Mass they say the Church doth err in forbidding Priest's Marriages they allow not the Sacraments of Confirmation and extream Unction they condemn Latin Prayers and affirm prayers for the Dead do not profit the Souls of the departed but never a word
something of a greater concern For the design of that envious One hath been in all Ages to sow tares of Division He it was that made the first Schism in the glorious Communion and hath ever since out of an intense hatred to the peace and quiet of mankind stirred up Emulations Wrath Strife and mutual Antipathies in the minds of men especially among Christians hath he laboured to his utmost to foment and cherish Differences to agitate Schisms and to rend and tear the Church of Christ into divers Sects and Parties and by his notable subtilty and influence upon our corrupt nature to make our very Arguings and Contendings for the Faith once delivered too often managed with Pride Prejudice and carnal Interest a means rather of widening than healing our Breaches So that in our Contests of this nature if we gain but a grain of Truth we are in danger of losing a pound of Charity There is as the Apostle James terms it a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a bitter Zeal bitter indeed in its root issuing from a root of bitterness within and bitter in its fruits accursed discords and irreconcilable distances amongst Brethren The consideration whereof hath made me even jealous of my self lest in the foregoing Responsatory-discourse any thing hath dropt from my Pen which may tend rather to the exasperating than convincing our Opposites for 't is hard in disputes both not to be provoked and not to provoke Nevertheless I hope the Godly Sobery and Ingenuous amongst them will put the best interpretation upon all and the rather because they cannot but perceive how tender I have been of them manifesting respect to such throughout all the Discourse And though I contend with what I conceive is an error in them yet I cannot but love their persons for I know there are some of that Perswasion who for their eminency in Grace ought to be had in estimation by us And I would always distinguish the Humble and Holy from the Heady and High-minded the Tender and Conscientious from the Turbulent and Factions of that Party And Oh! how much do I long to see all rigidness on every side remov'd and a sweet correspondency and complyance between God's People though of different judgments as to the Subject of Baptism I have for more than twenty years considered the point and weighed what hath been said on both sides and cannot possibly be brought to judg it a matter of that moment as to break Communion or to be prosecuted with so much Vehemency as it is by some of the Dissenters 1. It being only about a point not so expresly revealed but that Godly Persons both in Christ visibly may differ in their light about it 2. Also it being only about the right or wrong application of an external Ceremony or Solemnity of Christ's Institution for Baptism in the outward Act of it can be esteemed no more Wherefore I could heartily wish there were a reviving of the Primitive Moderation when Christians did bear one with another and allow a liberty in matters of an higher nature without breach of Communion For I verily believe the Church of Christ hath received more prejudice by contesting about this thing than is commonly thought of for it hath always produced heart-burnings amongst Christians and undermined the Power of Godliness And it would be more for the honour of Religion if our Spirits were so attempered and sweetned as to indulge each other a latitude of practice according to our light and perswasion without imposing or condemning according to the Apostolical Rule Phil. 3.15 16. Certainly the differences that are amongst us about Baptism were they put in the Ballance of the Sanctuary to try whether they bear proportion to the distances and animosities attending the same they would be found too light And if Austin did so much lay to heart the breach which was between two single persons Jerom and Ruffinus concerning which we have spoken before in our Answer that he cryed out Hei mihi qui vos alicubi simul invenire non possum c. Wo is me that I cannot find you both together I would even fall down at your feet with much love and many tears I would beseech you for your selves and for one another and for weak Christians for whom Christ died that you suffer not these dissentions to spread Oh! how much more cause have we to lament the breaches of so many thousands of God's People and to use our utmost endeavours to repair the same I wish there were more of Melancthons Spirit amongst us who professed that though he had many domestical troubles yet the publick wounds of the Church arising much from the difference 'twixt Lutherans and Calvinists about the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper which Christ intended for a bond of love as he did the other of Baptism did most deeply afflict him Oh! how sad is it to behold the Staff of Beauty and the Staff of Bands Zech. 11.10 11. Zeph. 3.9 so broken amongst us And that we cannot call upon the Lord and serve him with one consent Those were Halcyon and blessed days when the multitude of Believers were of one heart and one soul when they held communion in Doctrine in Fellowship in breaking of Bread and Prayer When the People of God could hear together and pray together and receive together Act. 4.32 When those thousands of Believers were as if they had but one heart and soul to animate and actuate them in God's service What an eminent answer was this of Christ's Prayer Joh. 17.21 That they all may be One 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the words are very emphatical it is not said that they may love and agree though this be intended Burges on Joh. 17.21 but those words that they may be One is as if the Church of Christ should be but as one person and as the Apostle argues none ever hated his own flesh Eph. 5.30 and we are members of his Body and of his Flesh and of his Bones On this account there should be no divisions amongst the Members of Christ for they are one Spirit as it were They should no more hate one another than a man doth his own flesh And Dionysius the Arcopagite calls the Godly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is persons closely compacted into One according as the Apostle hath it Eph. 4.16 where he speaks of the Body's being compacted For they should be as the Pearl which is united in it self and is called Vnio He that is joyned to the Lord saith St. Paul is one Spirit One Spirit in himself One with God and One with all his People In order to this blessed Unon and Accommodation of the Godly I shall in all humility address my self to both Parties to them who are for and to them that are against Infant-Baptism 1. To the Dissenters in general 2. To the Antipoedobaptists in particular 1. Concerning the first of these the Dissenters in general that fear God I can with great
confidence expect to meet with better measure from them than to be condemned for an overweening conceit of my own sufficiency to undertake the Work of a Conciliator I only humbly submit what I have to say to their judicious godly Consideration Whether it be not their duty to entertain and keep up Fellowship and Communion in all other Ordinances wherein they are agreed notwithstanding this their difference about Baptism which to me seems clear for several Reasons as First Because they are Members of the same Body of which Christ is the Head Rom. 12.4 5. We being many are one body in Christ and every one Members of another the import of which is that all Believers stand to Christ in the same relation that the natural Body doth stand to the natural Head and that they all stand in relation one to another as the Members of the natural Body do stand one to another To the same purpose is that 1 Cor. 12.12 where from the 4th to the 7th verse the Apostle shews That there are diversities of Gifts and differences of Administrations and diversities of Operations but all come from the same Spirit Lord and God and are given for this end that they may be for the profiting of the whole And that we might more plainly apprehend him he further tells us that as in the natural Body there are divers Members joined and each Member hath its several office for the good of all so is Christ saith he that is Christ collectively and mystically Christ and all his Members and then he adds vers 13. That by one Spirit we are all baptized into one Body Christum intellige cum Ecclesia suâ conjunctim et quatenùs est corporis mystici caput Beza in loc whether Jews or Gentiles bond or free which cannot be meant of Water-Baptism saith Mr. Jesse an eminent godly Antipaedobaptist in regard all the Body of Christ Jews and Gentiles bond and free partook not of that Sacrament of Christ instituted for the Gospel-Administration and are made to drink into the same Spirit which is also to be understood metaphorically and spiritually Potionati sumus saith Piscator and so prove our selves to be of one and the same Corporation of Believers Like to this is that Eph. 4.16 from whom the whole Body fitly joyned and compacted together c. From what hath been said there follow these five Corrollaries 1. Vnity of the Body in the Church floweth from Unity to the Head first the Members are united to the Head and then to one another and with the Head 2. This Spiritual Union and Conjunction with the Lord Jesus is the foundation of all their Communion with one another 3. As in the Natural Body all the Members do not only meet in the Head as the Lines in the Center but have real Union one with another so in this Mystical and Spiritual Body all Believers have not only each for his own part Union and Conjunction with Christ but also a real Union and Conjunction with each other which is the ground of all offices of Love and reciprocal Fellowship and Communion wherein they stand obliged amongst themselves 4. Union to the whole the Catholick or Universal Church or Body of Christ gives right to Communion with any particular Church of Christ in the World and there is no Believer as Mr. Marshal observes in any part of the World but where-ever he comes might demand upon the profession of his Faith and his voluntary subjection to the Gospel his right in the Ordinances to hear and pray and receive the Sacrament with them 5. To deny Communion to any who give evidence that they are of the same Body is to be guilty of a great Schism in the Body and most opposit to the design of God's Grace in compacting all his People into one Body which was 1. That there should be no Schism in the Body 2. That therefore the Members should have the like care of one another They therefore who in contrariety hereto stand at a distance one from another and refuse Communion do that which is not practicable from Scripture for it is unnatural and destructive to the Body and not only so but fouly scandalous to the Christian Religion for as the Lord Verulam speaks Lord Bacon's Essayes like a Divine as well as a Philosopher Schism is one of the greatest Scandals yea more than corruption of Manners For as in the Natural Body a Wound or Solution of Continuity is worse than a Corrupt Humour so in the Spiritual So that nothing doth so much keep men out of the Church and drive men out of the Church as breach of Unity This then is the first Argument they are both visibly Members of Christ's Body and therefore should have Communion one with another 2. Because both parties agree in the main Fundamentals of Religion and Union in the great things of Religion should oblige them to bear with one another in lesser matters Phil. 3.15 16. If in any things ye be otherwise minded God shall reveal even that to you Nevertheless whereto we have already attained let us walk by the same Rule let us mind the same thing Here 's an excellent direction to preserve Unity amongst God's People notwithstanding difference in judgment and for composing and healing of differences when they arise 1. Christians are to consider whereunto they have already attained and how far they do agree Whether there be not a mutual Consent in the Principles and Fundamentals of Religion for if this be wanting all Union is but a daubing with untempeted mortar and a Conspiracy against Christ but when there is a Consent in Fundamentals and the Marks of Godliness upon Persons Wisdom and Charity should teach us to condescend unto and forbear one another but alas how much is this wanting may we not sigh out that doleful sentence Heu pro quantillo pacem perdidimus for what poor inconsiderable things do we jar and differ 2. To walk by the same Rule or to put in practice those Truths wherein they do agree They agree in Prayer in Hearing in the Lord's Supper let them walk together in these The best way to attain Unity in Judgment is to maintain it in Obedience and jointly to walk together in the Ordinances and Duties wherein Christians do agree 3. To mind the same thing that is I conceive to propose the same ends in Religion Nothing causeth more difference than poor narrow selfish-ends If Professors had all one common end viz. to be really Godly and to advance the Glory of God in the World there would be an end of these bickerings St. Paul hath an eye to this Phil. 2.1 2. There he useth most pathetical Arguments to Love and Union and for to further it he presseth the Philippians to be like-minded and let nothing saith he be done through strife or vain-glory v. 2 3. and in the 4th vers look not every man at his own things c. that is at his own
is a set time appointed to gather Judah and Israel both together that is to bring Peace to his Church God hath a time to gather all his Church together in a way of Peace that there shall be a Universal Peace amongst his Churches for though 't is true it be meant here of Judah and Israel literally yet Israel and Judah is to set out to us all the Churches of Christ that shall be afterward amongst the Gentiles So that Ephraim shall not envy Judah and Judah shall not envy Ephraim Isa 11. 13. The envy of Ephraim shall depart God will take away this Envious Vexatious Spirit 3. Let it be considered that we upon whom the ends of the Earth are come live nearer the accomplishment of these Promises than the former generations yea 4. The day of their fulfilling begins to dawn the Spirits of many excellent Christians incline and work towards Union yea some are actually in Union and Communion in all other Ordinances though they differ in the point of Baptism they are come off from their former rigidness and can hear and pray and receive together in divers places of this Nation 5. Light increaseth more and more whereby they see what is the right Basis and ground of Communion That it is for grace-sake and not a Syncretism or agreement in Opinions That Christians should love and imbrace one another and that heart-Religion and Godliness is to be preferred before Notions and Forms 6. They do also see the dismal and fatal consequences of their Divisions and those who are wise and solid must needs on that account be studious of Accommodation they do now experimentally find that it is this 1. That strengthens the hands of the common Enemies of Religion Divide impera Dissolution is the Daughter of Division It is even Nuts to the common Enemy to see how God's People wrangle and divide they may well conclude that though they are quiet and let them alone destruction will arise out of themselves they may fit still and laugh and say Aha so would we have it And as the Apostle speaks if ey bite and devoure one another take heed ye be not consumed one of another This is like to be the finis operis though not operantis Gal. 5.15 the Event though not the Intent Si colligimur frangimur these Clashings if not stopt will prove horresco scribere fatal to the interest of Religion and welfare and safety of Professors in the Nation 2. This also opens the Mouths of Men to Blaspheme and speak evil of the good ways of God Dioclesian that persecuting Roman Emperour lookt upon the Christian Religion as a wretched device of wicked Men and that because of the pride and dissentions he observ'd amongst the Pastors and Bishops so now adays some Atheists and time-servers set their Wits on work to vilify the pure Worship of God and to bring the power of Godliness into contempt and the main Topic from whence they fetch their Hellish Arguments is the Divisions and Dissentions of Professors There be some of late have been notable Factors for Hell and would deride and jeer Men out of strictness and purity and not a few Books of this kind have been printed whose design have been meerly to discountenance Religion and the Authors of them have done as much for the Devil this way that he can hardly tell what to desire more of them and 't is to be feared he will pay them their wages shortly And verily the Divisions of God's People have occasioned much of these mens Blasphemies it hath been a woful stumbling Block before them 7 It is that which in all likelyhood will draw persecution upon all their heads at last they fear it and they need it and it is just with God to bring it upon them Remarkable is that saying of Cyprian viz. non venissent Fratribu◠haec mala si in unum Fraternitas fuisset animata These evils had not happened to the Brethren if they had joyned together in Brotherly Unaminity As when there is no quietness in the house but a continual clamour and brawling among the Children and they scratch and fight and tear one another the Father comes in and whips them all So if Christians will not be quiet but still go on to persecute one another with their Tongues and tear one another by Dissentions Gods way to divert this humour is to set the Common Enemy upon them if they rend themselves from one another and forsake the Assembling themselves together God will let loose the Dogs to worry them and drive them together He will melt them into one piece in the fire of persecution Common sufferings long since under those persecuting Emperours Constantius and Julian Zozomen Lib. 4. C. 20. brought the Christians to agreement who before were at great Enmity And Bullinger in his Book of the Persecution of the Church saith more than once that the dissentions of God's People is that which gives them up into the hands of their Enemies ad abstergendum aeruginem to scour off their rust as he phraseth it And Mr. Burroughs ut supra in his Comment upon Hosea Chap. 3. saith God may justly give us over into the hands of our Enemies if we agree not among our selves and they may Chain us together perhaps a Prison may make us agree as it was said of Ridley and Hooper though Ridley stood much against Hooper in point of Ceremonies and they could not agree yet when they came to Prison they did well enough there the Lord deliver us saith he from that Medicine of our dissentions that we be not made so to agree yea that we be not sodered together with our own blood 2dly There is one thing yet behind and that is to apply my self more particularly to those who are Antipaedobaptists that fear the Lord in this Nation and let it be resented as offered to them in all love and humility There are a few things I would leave with them by way of Caution The Lord knows I desire not to scatter in Israel nor to divide in Jacob. 1. Take heed lest your Zeal for your own way which you take to be most agreeable to Truth doth eat up your love to Peace and Vnion with the Godly Cautions to the Antipaedobaptists who are otherwise minded The Apostle Exhors us 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to speak the Truth in love to truthify it in love as Mr. Crook translates it aiming to reach the fulness of the Greek in one Word So 't is your duty if your opinion be true as we suppose it is not to manage your Tenents with love meekness and moderation of Spirit towards those who are otherwise minded and yet agree with you in other things For though every Truth be precious yet every Truth is not necessary to Salvation nor to be found in all with whom notwithstanding it may be necessary for you to hold Communion and that because you cannot but know that many
union before Baptism baptized into one body doth not here shew the essential constitution of a Church but the confirmed union and the argument is inserted more to prevent Schism then to express the way of first imbodying or constitution of Churches as the whole context demonstrates CHAP. V. Containing his fifth Argument That Believers Baptism is the only Baptism from the New Testament-dispensation so differing from that of the old THe Argument is taken from the New-Testament-Dispensation so different from the Old The Old Testament-Church saith the Author was National consisting of the Natural and Fleshly seed of Abraham therefore were Infants by Circumcision added thereto but the new Testament-Church was by Christs appointment to be a separated people out of all Nations consisting only of the spiritual seed of Abraham and therefore Believers upon profession of Faith by the Ordinance of Baptism were added thereto Repl. 1. What of all this If there any ground from hence that Believers Baptism is the only true Baptism 'T is true the Church Dispensation is altered Mr. Baxters plain proof for Infants Church-Membership and Baptism but the Covenant of Grace is not altered The Dispensation differs under the new Testament only in regard of Ceremonial accidents as Temple Priesthood Sacrifice but the Essentials of the Covenant still remain viz. I will be thy God and the God of thy seed and this is the grand Charter of Church-Membership which takes in the Child with the Parent and consequently entitles it to Baptism as shall be hereafter shewn for if their Church relation can be made good their Baptism will follow upon it If therefore the Author could have proved that the covenant had been altered as to its essentials he had said something worth a hearing 2. Whereas he says the old Testament Church was National it is a Truth and yet the Nation of the Jews was not the Church of God as they descended from the Loyns of Abraham by Natural Generation according to the Flesh but only with reference to Gods gracious Covenant made with Abraham and his seed which I wish the Opposers of Infant-Baptisme would consider and as this Covenant was made with Abraham and his seed after the flesh so likewise is it still the same with Believers and their natural seed under the Gospel-Dispensation by virtue of the same gracious covenant made to them and their seed Act. 2.39 For the promise is unto you and to your children and to all that are afar off the Gentiles 3. Antipaedobaptists may do well to consider yet farther what Mr. Baxter makes good in his plain proof viz. That Infant Church-Membership did take place as an Ordainance of God before Cirscumcision was enjoyned or the Ceremonial law Instituted and why then it should cease with it is more then ever yet could be shewn He makes it appear it was no part of the Typical Administration of the old Testament but a moral Institution of God even from the beginning of the World God ever made a distinction between the seed of the faithful and the seed of the wicked as visibly belonging to two several Kingdoms the Kingdom of God and the Kingdom of Sathan Mal. 2.15 therefore are they called a Holy Seed and a Holy Seed are Members of the Church and so consequently the Subjects of Baptism the Seal of Admission thereunto 4. Notwithstanding the Dictates of H. D. that the Baptism of Believers is the only true Baptism we shall retain our practice in Baptizing our children and thankfully own and acknowledge it as a Gospel-priviledge till the opposers thereof can produce some clear proof out of Scripture that the Old Ordinance of the Church-Membership of Believers is repealed We see how imperiously another sort of people do impose their conceits and how confidently they call for our subscription to their Light as they term it as if it were a duty to deliver up our Reason captive to their absurd imaginations We respect Antipaedobaptists as a more sober people yet strangely over-grown with self-conceitedness as if the word of God came out from them and it came to them only in regard of the true knowledge of the spirits mind in it Let them produce but one plain Scripture that God hath made void the Antient Charter and Grant and we will readily yield up the cause But we have Scripture and reason as well as they and are the more confirmed in what we hold by observing how weakly they dispute against it All the Reason the Author brings to make good his Assertion is Because under the New Testament dispensation Christ hath appointed the Church to be a separated people out of the Nations consisting only of the spiritual seed of Abraham and therefore believers only upon profession of faith are to be admitted to Baptism and so added to the Church To which I answer First That under the New Testament-Dispensation Christ hath appointed the Church to be a separated people out of the Nations is a certain truth but that this Church consists only of the spiritual seed of Abraham is false Qui benè distinguit benè docet He that distinguisheth well teacheth well What our Antagonist says is true in regard of the Invisible Mystical Church of Christ which is a company of real Saints that have spiritual Union and Communion with Christ and with one another but not so with respect to the outward visible Church which is the Society of those that profess true faith for the exercise of Church-union and Communion among themselves and many of these are Hypocrits and shall perish Dr. Ames an excellent person that understood what the New Testament-Church was a little better then our Author Med. lib. 1. c. 32. art 9. tells us the same And such saith he was the Church of Corinth and Ephesus wherein all held not Communion for life and of such Christ spèaks Joh. 15.2 Every branch in me that beareth not fruit And hath these words in Opposition to what Bellarmine falsely chargeth on Protestants viz. Falsum est internas virtutes recuiri a nobis ut aliquis sit in Ecclesia quoad visibilem ejus statum It is false that inward vertues Grace are required of us to put a man into the Church according to the visible state of it The Lord Dupless is in his Excellent Treatise of the Church distinguisheth aright The Invisible Church containeth none but good or in the Authors Dialect the Spiritual seed of Abraham The Visible both good and bad that only the Elect this all those indifferently that are brought into her by the Preaching of the Gospel By all which it is evident that the Author stragles out of the Road of Protestant Divines and is fallen upon the confines of Thomas Colliers General Epistles or the wild Notion of Mr. Dell who in his Book intituled The way of Peace pag. 6. gives this definition of the Church viz. The New Testament-Church is a spiritual Invisible Fellowship gathered up into the Unity of Faith Hope and