Apostolical Tradition THis is a false suggestion and exceeds all modesty for although the Church of Rome ascribes too much to Tradition as in many other things yet the Ancient Fathers as Cyprian Nazianzen Chrysostom with divers others as is before shewn plead Baptism to come in the room of Circumcision and that Infants have right thereto from the Infants of the Jews having right to Circumcision whereby 't is evident that Tradition hath not been primarily asserted to be the ground of Infant-Baptism 2. He farther saith The Protestants since the Reformation have chose to fly to some consequential Arguments deducted as they suppose from the Scriptures to prove the same both which in this Chapter are brought forth and duely weighed in the Ballance of Truth We doubt not in the Process of the discourse to shew that after we have weighed what she saith we shall find it too light and to be but chaff in stead of Truth The Protestants he saith have chose to fly to consequential Arguments deduced as they suppose from Scripture But the Antipaedobaptists are of another mind and suppose themselves to be Men of deeper Reason and more piercing inspection into the sence of the Scriptures than all the Godly and Learned Protestants since the Reformation They see the mistaken conceits they have of Scripture and how ungroundedly they draw their consequences from thence An Argument indeed it is of much modesty for the Author to speak at this rate I would ask any of these Men who are so highly conceited of their Scripture-Knowledg why Paedobaptists that are humble searching praying Christians may not understand so much of God's mind in Scripture as they Doth the Word of God come out from them or doth it come to them only John 17.14 1 Cor. 14.37 or have they only the Spirit of Illumination or are they the only Masters of right Reasons Or dare they say 't is unlawful to make use of Consequences Or may not we be permitted to use them for Infant-Baptism aswel as they against it Do not they argue from Matt. 28.18 19. and Mark 16.16 None ought to be Baptized but such who are first taught and consequently that no Children ought to be Baptized because they be not capable of teaching Vide Tombes Is not this their constant way of Arguing Now how unreasonable is it for men to practise that themselves which they will not allow of in others I remember Mr. Staltmarsh in his shadows flying away doth much condemn Consequences and saith Prudence and Consequence are the two great Engins of Will-Worship good Doctrine indeed and a fine preparative to an Implicit Faith But Mr. Baxter chastiseth the folly of these men in his Plain Scripture-Proof c. Position 10. pag. 8. Evident Consequences Quae colliguntur ex Scripturiâ— sacris perinde habenda sunt ac si in illis scripta essent Gâ—eg Nazâ—anzen L. 5. Thelog or Arguments drawn by reason from Scripture are as true Proof as the very words of a Text would it not make a man pity such senseless ignorant wretches saith he that will call for express words of Scripture when they have the Evident Consequences or Sence Is Scripture-Reason no Scripture If I prove that all Church-Members must be admitted by Baptism and then prove that Infants of Believers are Church-Members is not this asmuch as to prove that they must be Baptized I suppose no man of sound judgment will deny that the sence or meaning of Scripture is Scripture as well as the Letters and Syllables in the Bible For the sence and meaning of the Letter of the Word must be drawn out by rational Consequence as the conclusion from a Proposition by a fit medium and if this were not so the searching and studying of the Scriptures were a needless undertaking and so would all Preaching and Expounding be It is a good observation of Dr. Sclater in his Comment upon the 5th verse of the 4th Chapter of the Romans That God's Spirit in Scripture speaks as well what he implyeth as what he expresseth as well what by Consequence is deduced as what in summe of Words he uttereth And instanceth in that of James 4.5 saith the Scripture in vain c. It is usual for our Adversaries to cavil against this Theological Axiom Say the Papists and Anabaptists for in this like Sampson's foxes they are joyned together by the tayls whilst their heads look several ways where have we it taught that Infants should be Baptized in all the Scripture To which we answer we have it not in Express terms but by just Consequence Where find we that Christ's Righteousness is imputed to us for Justification saith Bellarmine Why in Express terms we have it not but Virtually and by just Consequence we have it 2 Cor. 5.21 In the Equivalent we have it Rom. 5.17 18 19. You are wont to boast saith Bellarmine of the Word of God and to reduce all your Opinions to this one head but in the Case of Justification by Faith only that help fails you for you were never able to shew in the Scripture that particle only To this we Reply that if we have it by Consequence from Scripture and if we have it in the Equivalency we have it in the Scripture That Tradition hath been the first and principal ground of Infant-Baptism he would prove from Austin and Chrysostom's sayings But how and in what sense do they call it a Tradition of the Church why certainly not as if the Church had been the Author but the Subject of it as before as continued therein all along down from the Apostles And if any of the Fathers speak too hyperbolically of Tradition what is that to us who plead Scripture as its primary ground for it Besides Anciently the greatest points of Faith were called by the name of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. Divine Doctrines or Ordinances for so it is rendred 1 Cor. 11.2 and the same word is rendred Traditions 2 Thes 2.15 So that Austin's Intendment by that expression of Apostolical Tradition is nothing else but Apostolical Ordinance or Doctrine as appears from his own words saying The Custom of our Mother the Church in Baptizing little Infants is not to be despised nor to be judged Superfluous nor to be Believed unless it were an Apostolical Tradition Lib. 10. de Gen. c. 23. i. e. an Apostolical Ordinance What follows from 153 p. to the 155th is mostly borrowed from Mr. Tombes his Praecursor Sec. 20. p. 86 89. As first The Assertion of the Cardinal Ragusi in his Oration in the Council of Bazil Tombes indeed hath it in Latin but the Author is at the pains to translate it And since it is so notorious and intolerable a piece of Plagianism thus to take and conceal from whence he had it contrary to the Laws of ingenuity provided in that behalf we shall make discovery thereof by a Paralel H. D i.e. The Author In the Council of Bazil in the Oration of of the
Cardinal of Ragusi It is asserted that in the beginning of this Sacrament of Baptism they only were to be Baptized who could by themselves answer Interrogatories concerning their Faith and that it was no-where read in the Canon of Scripture that a new-born Infant was Baptized who could neither believe with the heart to Justification nor confess with the mouth to Salvation yet nevertheless saith he the Church hath appointed it H. D. Whereas some Object that Bellarmine and others do also bring Scripture for it Becan Lib. 1. c. 2. Sec. 24. answers that some things may be proved out of Scripture when the Church's sence is first heard about the Interpretation thereof for so he saith it is concerning Infants-Baptism which is proved from John 3.5 But the sense whereby to prove it is only manifest by Tradition H. D. and it is confirmed in the Canon-Law and School-Men that Infant-Baptism was not reckoned perfect till the Bishop laid on hands which was called Confirmation viz. of the imperfect Baptism in Infancy and therefore saith Caistans secundum Jewel that an Infant wanting instruction in the Faith hath not perfect Baptism H. D. Dr. Field Lib. 4. p. 375. saith That Infant-Baptism is therefore called a Tradition because it is not expresly delivered in the Scriptures that the Apostles did Baptize Infants or that they should do so Here the Author stops and goes no farther being afraid of the next lines H. D. Prideaux controv Theol. Sec. 392. Infant-Baptism saith he rests upon no other Divine right than Episcopacy viz Diocesan Episcopacy in use in these Nations Here he adds as before he substracted from what Mr. Tombes said out of Field I. T. i.e. John Tombes In the Council of Bazil in the Oration of the Cardinal of Ragusi it is asserted Item nusquam legitur in Canone Scripturae S. quod parvulus recenter Baptizatus qui nec corde credit ad justitiam nec ore confitetur adsalutem inter fideles credentes computetur nibilominus Ecclesia ita determinavit statuit c. And in principio hujus Sacramenti Baptizabantur solum illi qui per se sciebant fidem interroganti respondere I. T. And whereas it is Objected that Bellarmine and others do bring Scripture for it Becan Manual Lib. 1. C. 3. Sec. 24. answers aliqua possunt probari ex Scriptura quando constat de vero legitimo Scripturae sensu So he saith it is concerning Infant-Baptism which is proved from John 3.5 but that the sense whereby to prove it is only manifest by Tradition I. T. Which is confirmed in the Canon-Law and School-Men an Infants-Baptism was not reckoned perfect till the Bishop layd on hands which act was called Confirmation viz. of the imperfect Baptism in Infancy Jewel alledgeth it as Caistans Tenent that an Infant for that he wanteth instruction in Faith therefore hath not perfect Baptism I. T. Dr. Field of the Church 4th Book Chap. 20. of this sort is Infant-Baptism which is therefore called a Tradition because it is not expresly delivered in Scripture that the Apostles did Baptize Infants nor any express Precept that they should do so Tombes is so ingenious as to set down the rest yet is not this so received by bare and naked Tradition but that we find the Scripture to deliver unto us the grounds of it I. T. Dr ' Prideaux Fasci Controv. Theol. Loc. 4. Sec. 3. q. 2. Paedobaptism rests on no other Divine right than Episcopaey Now to all this we have said enough before as to the Substance of it and I love not needless repetitions only let me mind you with this That though Papists and others attribute too much to the custom of the Church or Tradition yet all sound Protestants when they use that word they do it in Sensu sano quite different from the corrupt sense of the Romish Church And because the Author saith Dr. Taylor doth so fully and strenuously argue against us in his Lib. Proph. p. 237 viz. Tradition saith he must by all means supply the place of Scripture and there is pretended a Tradition Apostolical That Infants were Baptized I think it not amiss to bring in Dr. Hammond to cope with him in his Letter of Resolution Quaere 4th of the Baptizing of Infants Sec. 104. pag. 277. where having before spoken of what sort of Traditions have been rejected by the Reformed Churches he then adds Having no necessity to descend to any more minute Considerations the whole matter will be resolved into this one Enquiry whether the Baptizing of Infants doth sufficiently appear to be of the Institution of Christ or Practice Apostolical And if it do we have all that we pretend to upon the score of Tradition and if it do not we are obliged to disclaim that means of maintaining our plea or inferring our conclusion And because the way of satisfying this enquiry is but the saying over again all that hath been formerly said on this subject this whole Discourse having laid the weight of all upon this one Basis the Institution of Christ and Practice of the Apostles it will be unreasonable to do this any farther save only upon a brief Recapitulation to refer it to the judgment of any sober Christian Whether first by Christs founding of the Institution of this Sacrament in the Jewish Custom of Baptizing of Proselytes Baptism in use in the Jewish Church and applyed to Infants aswel as grown men The Learned Mr. Selden Light-foot speak the same which appears to have belonged to the Infant Children of the Proselytes as is before shewn out of Goodwin Ainsworth others Chap. 1. and Secondly by his being so far from excepting against the Age of Children as a Prejudice or hinderance to their coming to him that is to their Proselytism that he affirms them to be the pattern of those Though Children are brought to him by others yet they are sayd to come unto him in Mark 10.14 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the very words of which Proselyte is made of whom his Kingdom is to be made up and though he be not affirmed in the Gospel to Baptize such for he Baptized not at all Mark 10.16 Which being the Ceremony usual in the Church for those that were fitted for Baptism and distinctly Preparative to it they that were by Christ afforded that cannot be thought by him less capable of Baptism than of that And Thirdly by the express Words of the Apostle that their Children are Holy interpreted by the Context so as to infer from the Apostles way of Arguing that it was the Custom of those Apostolick times to Baptize the Children of the Christian Parents and so interpreted by the Christian Writers of the First and Purest Ages And Fourthly by the Testimonies of all the Ancients that are found to speak of this matter without any one pretended to dissent that this was the Practice of the Apostles Whether I say these four things being put together the truth of each of
Arise and be Baptized and wash away thy Sins hath a favorable aspect upon Gods designing and blessing that Ordinance for the sealing of pardon in reference to grown Persons 2. To work Grace and Regeneration This is Mr. Tombes his 7th Argument against Infant-Baptism Exer. pag. 30. and to effect Salvation by the work done Although the Author knows all Protestants disclaim this and condemn it for a damnable Error yet he seems indirectly at least to charge it upon the Church of England which for my part I look upon it as very unjustly done What means else those reflections of his pag. 148. upon that passage in the Service-Book in the Rubrick before the Catechism viz. That Children being Baptized have all things necessary for their Salvation and be undoubtedly saved and then after Baptism the Priest must say We yield thee hearty thanks that it hath pleased thee to Regenerate this Infant with thy Holy Spirit just comporting saith he length and breadth with Pope Innocent's first Canons Answer 'T is fit the Church of England should be believed in what sence she intends those words Baptism by the Ancients was commonly called Regeneration or a new-Birth so 't is by the Scripture Tit. 3.5 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Washing of the new-Birth or Regeneration and we may learn it in her Articles which speaks her at an infinit distance from the absurd and irrational Error of Salvation by merit or ex opere operato and 't is not for others to put what interpretation they think meet especially such as are Obnoxious to her Lash Will you hear what Mr. Cotton of New-England an Independant as they call them speaks in Vindication of the Church of England in this particular matter and at a place where he needed not her favour and as I take it at a time when she could not help him which are circumstances that will not suffer us to suspect him of flattering or fawning We have it in his grounds and ends of Children's Baptism Notwithstanding saith he those expressions in the Service Book yet the Church of England doth professedly teach the contrary Doctrine not only in their Pulpits but in Books allowed by publique Authority She doth assert that the Scraments do not beget Faith nor Regeneration ex opere operato but they are signs and seals thereof Nor do I find that the publique Prayers of the Church are contrary hereunto but as in judgment they do believe that God by Covenant promiseth to pour clean Water upon us and our Seed Ezek. 26.25 Is 48.3 and that he Sealeth the Covenant and Promise by Baptism 3. That it was an Apostolical Tradition And for that we have the Testimonies of Origen and Cyprian as before Mr. Tombes his 4th Argument against Infant-Baptism Exerc. p. 28. Chap. 3. Part 2. who lived near the Apostles days and in which Chapter we have also shewn how Tradition is both by the Fathers of old and Reformed Churches taken in a safe sence different from that corrupt one of the Papists and not derogatory to the authority of the Scripture 4. That Children have Faith and are the Disciples of Christ Answer No Paedobaptists ever held Children had personally actual Faith for their condition is insufficient for the production of Intellectual Acts but as for the habit and grace of Faith the inherent infused power of believing it is more than any Antipaedobaptist in the World can prove they have not for 1. Their condition makes them not uncapable of Sin and Corruption in the Roots and Principles of it most of them confess it Anabaptistae ut Paedobaptismum prorsus tollerent peccatum negârunt Originale ut non sub esset causa cur Infantes Baptizarentur Dr. Prideaux Lect. 22. pag. 331. though some of them deny Original Sin and therefore not of the Roots and Principles of grace of which Faith is one for the acts of both are Moral and Intellectual But whether Infants Baptized have any such thing as a distinct habit of Faith or no this question of their Baptism depends not upon it It is a hidden thing The ground on which we give them Baptism must be visible and so it is viz. their being the Seed of Believers and hereby visibly entitled to the Covenant and so to the Seal of it We look not to what they have but to whom they pertain viz. to God as being the Seed of his Servants That they are Disciples is sufficiently proved Chap. 1. Part. 1. 5. That all Children of Believers are in the Covenant and federally Holy That 's abundantly made good Chap. 3. Part 2. 6. By defiling and polluting the Church viz. 1. By bringing false matter therein who are no Saints by calling being neither capable to perform duties nor enjoy priviledges Notwithstanding their inability to perform Duty yet they are capable of enjoying Priviledges as we have abundantly made good Chap. 6. Part 1. and are as true matter for the Church now under the Gospel as formerly under the Law as is there made out 2. By laying a foundation of much Ignorance and Profaness Cujus contrarium est verissimum The contrary is most true for 1. Infant-Baptism layes a singular good foundation for knowledg for in that Children are taken into Christs School they are in a near capacity to be taught and those who recommend them to that Ordinance are obliged to promote their knowledg and to see them brought up 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Nurture and Admonition of the Lord. And we know the Liturgy of the Church of England But the neglect hereof is much to be lamented the Children are not lookt after as they should be nor do Ministers mind them of their duty gives charge You must remember that it is your part and duty to see that this Infant be taught so soon as he shall be able to learn And that he may know these things the better ye shall call upon him to hear Sermons and chiefly you shall provide that he may learn the Creed the Lords-Prayer and the ten-Commandments in the English Tongue and all other things that a Christian man ought to know and believe to his Souls health c. Secondly it laies a good foundation for Holiness They are minded by their Baptism to cast of the Devil's service as soon as they are able to reflect that they were from their very Cradles dedicated to God whose Livery they have worn And some have repelled great temptations by virtue of their engagement to God by Baptism in their Infancy hence saith Mr. Ford in his 2d Dialogue concerning the Practical use of Infant-Baptism pag. 87. There is a very Prophane Spirit fomented under the Wings of Anabaptism for how can it be otherwise than such which endeavours to extirpate so considerable a means for the advance of Conversion and Sanctification as he shews Infant-Baptism to be Hence saith he arise grievous prejudices against those Ministers Societies and Ordinances in which God hath been wont
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-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
saved and consequently our Children cannot be saved because they cannot believe The same condition being required to precede Baptism that is required to precede Salvation You see whether the Argument may be carried and what little ground of comfort such doctrine affords in the death of our children To conclude then whereas they argue from this place of Mark we must believe and be baptized but Infants cannot believe therefore may not be Baptized will it not as directly follow that since they can't believe they must be damned let them frame an answer to the one and then they have answered both for look saith Mr. Marshall by what distinction they will maintain the Salvation of Infants against this Argument by the same will I more clearly justifie the Baptism of Infants against this Argument Having thus cleared the Texts from the false glosses Antipaedobaptists put upon them we shall next examine the passages out of Authors which my Antagonist quotes for his opinion The first he brings is Mr. Baxter who having so notably wounded their cause in his plain Scripture proof for Infant Church-Membership and Baptisme is become the man of their indignation and Indeed I fear the Author with whom I have to do is possest with a malevolent spirit against that Learned and Godly Divine and is glad of any occasion to wound his reputation as appears by his dealing with him in his Preface and divers other places in the Treatise Mr. Baxter saith he doth fully acknowledge in his Book called the second Disputation of Right to Sacraments pag. 149 150. Where he saith This speaking of the Commission of Christ to his Disciples is not like some occasional mentioning of Baptisme but it is the very Commission it self of Christ to his Disciples and purposely expresseth their several works in their several places and orders Their first Task is to make Disciples which are by Mark called Believers The second work is to baptize them whereto is annext the promise of their Salvation The third work is to teach them all other things which are after to be Learned in the School of Christ to contemn this order saith he is to contemn all Rules of Order for where can we expect to find it if not here I profess my Conscience is fully satisfyed that the Minister must expect a profession of Faith before Baptism To discover the Craft and Sinister dealing of our Opponent I must first acquaint the Reader that Mr. Baxter disputing with Mr. Blake who was for a large Admission to the Sacraments explains the Thesis in his second disputation thus viz. That Ministers must not Baptize the Children of those that profess not saving faith upon profession of any Faith that is short of it these are his very words pag. 53. And after it nine lines lower that he might not be mistaken hath this by way of caution viz. That he would have the Reader to understand that all along in the discourse of the whole Book the dispute is about the aged themselves whether they may be baptized so that it is none of our work at this time saith he to defend the Subjects as to their age against the Anabaptists but our present business is to enquire what that faith is that quallifieth persons to be just subjects of Baptism or to be such whose children may receive it upon the account of their faith or profession Disp 2. p. 4. Moreover in his fourth Disputation he hath this passage We take it for granted that the Right of Infants is upon the account of their Parents Faith therefore we manage this discourse with respect to the Adult P. 351. What could any man in the World say more to prevent the Cavils of unworthy persons And certainly he had not said so much unless he had known how our opposites lye at the Catch and yet we see this would not do for we have found a man of so much dis-ingenuity as to traduce and pervert the sayings of this worthy person to countenance his errour I have been the larger in setting down Mr. Baxters words that it may leave some impression on the Readers Memory when he finds any thing quoted out of Mr. Baxters Disputations about the Right to Sacraments that so it might be as a Key to open his meaning in all those numerous passages the Author hath pikt up out of that Dispute which indeed fills up many pages of his Book Next we have Mr. Calvin introduced as speaking something in favour of their opinion Ergò ut se ritè ad Baptismum offerant homines peccatorum confessio ab illis requiritur alioqui nihil quam inane esset ludicrum tota actio Notandum est de Adultis his verba fieri Calv. in Mat. 3.6 Verùm quia docere prius jubet Christus quam baptizare tantum credentes ad Baptismum vult recipi videtur non ritè administrari baptismus nisi fides praecesserit c. Eos qui fide in Ecclesiam Dei ingressi sunt videmus cum sua sobole censeri in Christi membris in salutis haereditatem simul vocari Nec modò seperatur hoc modo Baptismus a fide Doctrina quia licet pueri Infantes nondum per aetatem fidem babent Deus tamen eorum parentes compellans c. whereas few ever wrote so smartly against them it is from that same passage of his on Mat. 6. c. Therefore that men may rightly offer themselves to Baptisme Confession of sin is required otherwise the whole action would be but Sport The words indeed are Mr. Calvins so that I confess my Antagonist speaks truth but he should have done well to have spoken the whole truth For Mr. Calvin also cauteously adds It is to be Noted that these words are spoken of Adult persons And that we may see his judgement fully take notice of his Paraphrase upon the 28. of Mat. 19. and that other Text Mark 16.16 But because saith he Christ commandeth us to teach before he commands us to Baptize and he would have believers only admitted to Baptism it seems Baptism is not rightly administred unless faith goeth before From this place saith Calvin the Anabaptists oppose Infant Baptism To which he presently answers That those whom we see by a Profession of their Faith to be admitted into the Church we are to look upon them together with their off-spring as the members of Christ and to be jointly called to the inheritance of the Saints neither is Baptism hereby separated from Faith and Teaching because though children have not yet faith by reason of their Age. Nevertheless God taking their Parents into Covenant they themselves are also to be imbraced in the same Covenant After Calvin comes Piscator to as little purpose whose words on Mark 1.4 are these It is called the Baptisme of Repentance because John Preached remission of sins to the penitent Believers But why should this worthy Author be thus curtail'd whenas he farther expresseth himself thus Baptismus
nulli adulto conferendus est nisi prius ediderit confessionem peocatorum i.e. We must not Baptize any person that is grown up unless he first make a Profession of his Faith c. If we would know his mind more fully we may see it in his Comment upon the 28. of Mat. 19. It was saith he the Duty of the Apostles to Preach the Gospel all abroad throughout the World to all Nations Apostolorum officium fuit Evangelium-praedicare passim in orbe terrarum c. Verō pastorum illis suceedentium est Evangelium praedicare apud certam Ecclesiam a quae peculiaritèr sunt vocati praterea Infantes qui in illa Ecclesia noscuntur per Baptismum Deo consecrare Piscat Observ in Mat. 28. p. 746. Edit 2. Herbornae Nassoviorum Porrò ad Ecclesiam pertinent non solum adulti Credentes ac fidem profitentes sed etiam ipsorum liberi ut patet ex verbis Apost 1 Cor. ◠Quare dubium videri non debet quin illi quoque liberi inquam Infantes fidelium baptizandi sint etsi fidei non sunt capaces and by Baptism to incorporate them into the Church who make Profession of their Faith c. And it is the duty of all Pastors that succeed them to preach the Gospel to that particular Church whereunto they are called and farthermore to consecrate to God by Baptism those Infants which are born in that Church And then adds Not only Adult persons that do believe and profess their Faith belong to the Church but also their Children as appears from the words of the Apostle 1 Cor. 7. else were your Children unclean but now are they holy where saith he the Apostle calls their children holy that were born though but one of the Parents were a Believer forasmuch as they belong to Gods Covenant made with his Church and by consequence they belong to the Church wherefore we need not doubt but they also I say the Children or Infants of Believers are to be Baptized although they are not capable of Faith even as the Infants of the Jews were circumcised belonging likewise to the Covenant and to the Church And as if all our eminent Divines had heedlesly spoken something in favour of their way he hath the confidence to bring in more still Mr. Perkins saith he in concurrence here with these words Teaching all Nations Baptizing them saith I explain the terms thus Mark first of all it is said Teach them 1. make them my Disciples by calling them to believe repent Here we are to consider the Order which God observes in making with men a Covenant in Baptism First of all he calls them by his word and commands them to believe and to repent Then in the second place God makes his promise of mercy and forgiveness And thirdly be seals his promise by Baptism They that know not nor consider this Order which God used in Covenanting with them in Baptism deal preposterously over-slipping the Commandment of Repenting and Believing Who would not think by this that the Renowned Perkins were of his side a down right Antipaedobaptist whereas not a word of what he saith is intended against Infant-Baptisme but only to shew in what order Baptisme is to be Administred to Aliens and Pagans as appears by what he saith upon the same Text. Mat. 28.29 Which is disingeniously conceal'd by the Author Go teach all Nations Baptizing them c. In these words saith Mr. Perkins the Baptism of Infants is prescribed and the Apostles by vertue of this Commission Baptized whole Families Act. 16.15 33. As knowing Gods former Administration to his people the Children were taken into Covenant with the Fathers as the Israelites both Old and Young were baptized into Moses in the Cloud 1 Cor. 10.4 As the Nation of the Jews were first taught and then they and their Infants being confederates were circumcised so saith our Saviour Do you go Teach and Disciple the Nations and then Baptize them The last quoted in this Chapter is the famous Paraeus and what saith he he tells us saith the Author in his Comment on Mat. 3.5 That the Order was That confession as a testimony of true repentance go first Hoc enim damus Anabaptistis in Ecclesiam fuscipiendos non esse nisi praeviâ confessione fidei paenitentiae quem morem vetus servavit ecclesia nostrae hodie observant si vel Judaeus vel Turca Adultus c. Paraeus in Mat. 3.5 and then Baptism for Remission of sins afterward Very good but is this all No certainly for he presently adds this we grant to the Anabaptists that persons are not to be taken into the Church and be Baptized speaking of Aliens or those that are without as the Apostle phraseth it unless a Profession of Faith and Repentance hath gone before which custome saith he the Antient Primitive Church kept and ours at this day still observe when a Turk or a Jew that is grown is to be initiated by Baptism Thus Reader I have given thee a taste of the ingenuity of my Antagonist and I leave thee to judge of it CHAP. II. Containing his second Argument to prove the Baptisme of Believers the only true Baptism and that is if we will believe him from the Apostles Doctrine teaching the same Reply ALthough what we have before said to invalidate his main Argument drawn from the Institution of Christ be sufficient to overthrow whatsoever is brought in the two following Chapters yet we shall further add that it is not to be denyed that the Apostles assert Believers Baptisme to be a true Baptism but that they teach us that it is the only true Baptisme is utterly false and we have only the Authors word for it The Texts cited out of Act. 2.37 Act. 8.36 37. Act. 10.42 Act. 16.29 prove that grown persons unbaptized ought to be required to believe before their Baptism which we grant but to inferr thence that the Children of Baptized Believers are not to be Baptized is more then these Texts or any else that I know can yeild We read of none de facto that the Apostles Baptized A non dicto ad non factum non valet consequentia Because it is not exprest in so many words therefore it was not done is not Logical but Believers therefore none but such de jure ought to be Baptized is a sorry way of arguing The words of Dr. Taylor in his Discourse of Baptisme part 2. pag. 34. are very weighty viz. A Negative argument for matters of fact in Scripture cannot conclude c. And therefore supposing that it be not intimated that the Apostles did Baptize Infants it follows not saith the Dr. that they did not and if they did not it does not follow that they might not or that the Church may not The Scripture speaks nothing of the Baptisme of the Virgin Mary and of many of the Apostles therefore they were not baptized is a weak arguing The
words and deeds of Christ are infinite which are not recorded Joh. 20.30 and 21.25 Many things Christ did that were not written and of the Acts of the Apostles we may suppose the same in their proportion and therefore what they did not is no rule to us unless they did it not because they were forbideen So that it can be no good Argument to say The Apostles are not read to have Baptized Infants therefore Infants are not to be baptized but thus We do not find they are excluded from this Sacrament and Ceremony of Christian Institution therefore we may not presume to exclude them Now since all contradiction against Infant-Baptism depends wholly upon these two grounds The Negative Argument in matter of fact and the pretences that faith and repentance are required to Baptisme since the first is wholly nothing and infirm upon an infinite account and the second may conclude that Infants can no more be saved then be baptized because faith is more necessary to Salvation then to Baptisme it being said he that believeth not shall be damned and it is not said he that believeth not shall be excluded from Baptism it follows that the Doctrine of those that refuse to Baptize their Infants is upon both its legs weak and broken and insufficient Thus far the Learned Doctor To conclude this whereas the Apostles Preached up faith and Repentance before Baptism it was requisite they should do so according to their Commission having to do with Aliens grown up as not only the Gentiles but the Jews were in reference to the new Administration for these being the first subjects of Baptisme it was necessary they should make profession of their faith before they were admitted to it but not so in their Children to be Baptized no more then in Isaac and the Children of the Proselytes to be Circumcised Abraham believed first and afterward was Circumcised Gen. 17.24 And why so Because he was the first subject of that Ordinance and therefore could not be admitted to it but by his own faith But as for Isaac his Son he was Circumcised before believing and so was it with the Proselytes and their Children when any Gentile was converted to the Jewish Faith he had a personal Right to be circumcised and his Child likewise was Circumcised at eight days old as was the custome of the Jewish Church by virtue of Gods Covenant giving it a parental Right The Author is very unhappy at Citations for usually they serve not his purpose He acquaints us out of Bede that men were instructed into the knowledge of the Truth then to be Baptized as Christ hath taught because without Faith it is impossible to please God Magdeburg Cent. 8. pag. 220. But this Bede himself tells us was the method used amongst the Inhabitants of this Island when Paganish In initio nascentis Ecclesiae apud Britannos Beda lib. 2. Angl. Hist cap. 14. When a Church first of all began to be planted amongst the Britains and he tells us it was at that time when Gregory sent from Rome Austin and forty other Preachers and afterward Paulinus who converted Ethelbert the Saxon King but of this we shall speak more hereafter when we shall shew how Bede himself was for Infant-Baptisme notwithstanding the Author so perverts his words His other Citation is Erasmus who in his Paraphrase upon Mat. Observeth and t is a great Observation indeed That the Apostles were commanded first to teach and then to baptize c. Every Child that can read observes the same Probabile est tingere Infantes institutum fuisse ab Apostolis c. but if you would know his judgment about Infant-Baptism you may read it in his Ratio concionandi lib. 4. where he conceives it probable that the Apostles ordain'd and practised it And truly amongst other probable reasons this seems to be one if it be not a Demonstration namely because we do not read of any children of believing Parents who were Baptized when they came to years of discretion That they were Baptized I presume saith Brinsley our Adversaries will not deny and if so Note No Children of Believing Parents Baptized afterwards to be found from John the Baptist to John the Evangelist ending his Ministry which was about 60. years An Argument sufficient if not to convince the Adversary that they were Baptized in Infancy yet to stop their mouths Brinsley Doctrine and Practice of Paedobaptisme pag. 75. let them shew where and when For this let all the Sacred Register be searched from the time that John the Baptist began his Ministry to the time that John the Evangelist ended his which was about 60 years during which time thousands of Children of Believing Parents were grown up to maturity and if in all that time they can but shew any one instance of any child born of a believing Parent whose Baptism was deferred till he came to years of discretion and that then he was Baptized we will then acknowledge there is some strength in their Negative Allegation viz. We read of no children Baptized therefore There were none CHAP. III. Containing his Argument that Believers Baptisme is the only true Baptisme from the example of Primitive Saints Reply TO this there needs no more then what we have before said Sydenhams Christian Exercitation pag. 7. For as Mr. Sydenham says all that they urge as to Examples of actual Believers being baptized all along the new Testament especially the Acts and that if thou believest thou mayst We can freely grant without any damage to Infant-Baptism For 1. We say as they Professing Believers grown men were first Baptized and so they ought to be who are to be the first subjects of the Administration of an Ordinance instancing as before in Abraham c. he was 99. years old when circumcised and he must be first Circumcised before he could convey a right to his seed now you may as well argue Abraham was first circumcised when so old therefore old persons are to be Circumcised and none else as because grown persons were Baptized therefore not Infants when they must be first Baptized themselves for children are Baptized by the promise first to them and in them to their seed Now for as much as all the Examples brought by the Author out of Act. 8.12 18.8 22.14 Speak of grown persons that were the first subjects of Baptism and Jews that were Aliens too as well as the Gentiles in regard of the new Administration it makes nothing against Infant-Baptism that being of another circumstance and the disagreeing of it from them argues not the unlawfulness of it and as the same Author farther argues 2. An Affirmative Position is not exclusive of subordinates because Believers were said to be Baptized Ergo not their Seed is not true reasoning for their seed were comprehended with them in the same promise as before and as we shall more fully shew hereafter Let us now see what his Quotations of Authors or Testimonies
Surely it must be so or else there is no way how Infants can be saved 3. Dr. Taylor in his last discourse of Baptism gives a good Rule for the understanding Scriptures of this sort which if attended to would bring us and Antipaedobaptists a little neerer together which is this viz. That when the Scripture speaks of the effects of or dispositions to Baptisme it speaks in general expressions as being most apt to signifie a common duty or general effect or a more Universal event or the proper order of things but those general expressions do not supponere universalitèr that is they are not to be understood exclusively to all suscipients or of all the subjects of the proposition And he makes it clear by divers passages of Scripture There are many Synecdoches in the word where many only are to be understood when it speaks of all The secret effects of Election and of the spirit are in Scripture attributed to all that are of the outward Communion 1 Pet. 1.2 So Peter calls all the Christian strangers of the Eastern dispersion Elect according to the fore-knowledge of God the Father And Paul saith of all the Roman Christians and the same of the Thessalonians that their Faith was spoken of in all the world and yet among them it is not to be supposed that all the Professors had an unreproveable faith or that every one of the Church of Thessalonica was an excellent and charitable person and yet saith he 2 Thes 1.2 your faith groweth exceedingly and the charity of every one of you all towards each other aboundeth So to the question before us As many of you as are baptized into Christ have put on Christ That is so it is regularly and this is the designed event but from hence we cannot conclude of every person and in every period of time This man hath been baptized therefore now he is clothed with Christ he hath put on Christ nor thus This person cannot in a spiritual sense as yet put on Christ therefore he hath not been baptized that is he hath not put him on in a Sacramental sense To conclude We cannot understand the Apostle in those words of putting on Christ to intend a saving union to Christ or a putting on of Christ spiritually and effectually in regard of all that are Baptized for all these Galathians did not so put him on and innumerable persons that are Hypocrites when baptized at age do not so put him on Wherefore the words are to be understood Sacramentally as 1 Cor. 10.4 5. Heb. 10.29 And thus Infants put on Christ as well as grown persons 7th End of Baptism saith he is that the Baptized person may orderly thereby have an entrance into the visible Church c. For as Circumcision heretofore was the visible door of entrance into the old Testament-Church So also was Baptisme such a door and visible entrance into the New Testament-Church c. Act. 2.41 42. They who gladly received the word were baptized and the same day there was added to them about 3000. souls and they continued stedfastly in the Apostles doctrine and fellowship and in breaking of Bread and in Prayers So that after baptisme not before the believers were said to partake of all the Church-priviledges Posito uno absurdo mille sequuntur Upon this false Hypothesis do our Opposites build their dividing Practices Wherefore we deny that Baptisme doth give formality or make a man a member of a Visible-Church it is not that which gives entrance into it as the Author would have it so as if only by its Administration and in their own way too persons must be Baptized or else they are not to be reputed Church-Members or to be admitted into the participation of Church-priviledges But for this we have divers of our Divines quoted as Vrsinus The Assembly in their Catechisme And lastly Mr. Baxter with whom he is again at Hocus Pocus Mr. Baxter saith he in his plain Scripture proof pag. 24. As a Soldier before listing and a King before Corwning and taking his Oath so are we Church-Members before Baptisme But as every one that must be admitted solemnly into the Army must be admitted by listing as the solemn ingaging sign so every one that hath right to be solemnly admitted into the visible Church must ordinarily be admitted by Baptism But mark Reader the Authors ingenuity Baxters words are So are we and Infants Church-Members But being quite out of charity with those Innocent Babes this man leaves out Infants and one would think by the partial Citation that Mr. Baxter also did shut the Church-door against them It cannot be denyed that Orthodox Divines have frequently termed Baptism the Sacrament of our initiation into the Church and have ascribed our Admission or entrance into it thereunto and hereby have given the Antipaedobaptists some seeming ground for their rigidity And yet I find that they are not agreed among themselves about the point for Mr. Paul a great Zealot against Communion with any that are not Baptized in their way doth in his serious reflections disown the Position That Baptism is an initiating Ordinance and tells us in that Diminitive Volume of his p. 3. That he knows none that asserts it to be the in-let into praticular Churches though it prepares them for Reception Mr. Kiffin it seems is of the same judgement for he bestows an Epistle upon the piece Of the same judgment is John Bunyan a more moderate Antipaedobaptist that is for Vnion and Communion with Saints as Saints and condemnes the Rigidity of his Brethren and maintains in his Answer to the scurrilous not serious Reflections of Paul That differences in judgement about Water-Baptisme ought to be no Bar to Communion Printed for John Wilkins in Exchange Alley which is the Title of his Book and sees no cause to repent after severe checks from his Brethren to call them Babes and Carnal that attempt to break the peace and communion of Churches though upon better pretences than Water and declares God never made Water-Baptism a Wall of Division between us And whereas Paul denies Baptisme to be an initiating Ordinance he retorts very rationally upon him that if it be not that but another and if visible Saints may enter into Fellowship by that other and are no where forbidden so to do because they have not light into Water-Baptisme it is of weight to be considered by all unprejudiced persons Mr. Tull also a moderate and very ingenious Antipaedobaptist is of Mr. Bunyans judgment But Mr. Henry Jessey of precious Memory hath published his judgment to the same purpose grounding it upon Rom. 14. v. 1.3.7 such as are weak in the faith receive you c. From whence he argues most strongly and convincingly that it was the duty not only of the then present Church at Rome to whom the Epistle was writ as also to all beloved of God called to be Saints at that time ver 7. But also of all Churches and
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
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-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-Testament-Church is a spiritual Invisible Fellowship gathered up into the Unity of Faith Hope and
Love and saith it is no outward visible society gathered together into the consent and use of outward Forms and Worship Now although both are out yet I acknowledge the Author is more sober then Dell for he is for an External Visible Church under the New Testament-Dispensation for he tells us Believers upon the profession of faith are to be Baptized and added thereunto and yet take him in his own sence he cannot be excused from error and confusion for by Believers he means the Spiritual seed before mentioned not such as are Believers Equivocally or Analogically by profession only but in reality or truth as appears by the following words upon Profession of Faith by the Ordinance of Baptism were added to the Church As if when mention is made in the Acts of so many thousands that believed it did imply they were all of the Spiritual Seed Regenerated persons Annanias Saphira Symon magus who is said to believe whereas it denotes no more then a visible profession of faith which is all that the Apostles and Primitive Churches had cognizance of and this is seen in Hypocrits who are not the Spiritual Seed of Abraham And this H. D. might have learnt as well as other things from Mr. Tombes who in his Examen pag 159. tells us Profession of Faith and holyness is a sufficient warrant to Baptism And in good earnest one would think by observing the lives and conversations of some of their Proselytes they took them in upon easier terms 2. Sydenhams Exercitaon c. 3 p. 25. We further argue That if none but the spiritual seed of Abraham be the subjects of Baptism then visible believers or such as make a profession of Faith are not the Subjects of Baptism for they may not be more the spiritual seed i.e. Godly then infants 3. Nay according to this Reasoning none must be Baptized at all for who can tell who are the spiritual seed who belong to Christ according to Election and saving Faith Nor will that evasion serve their turn we have charitable ground to believe they are such because of their profession which is enough to satisfie the Church for if according to the Author the New Testament-Church is made up only of a spiritual seed it is necessary the Church should not only have a judgement of charity but infallibility to determine who are the spiritual seed 4. And since the Author and those of his way disclaim all pretence to Infallibility and are contented with the judgment of charity to distinguish of the spiritual seed knowing nothing to the contrary Hanc veniam petimus pray give us leave to act a like charity towards the children of Believers For first they may be capable subjects of Election Jacob was such a one in his Mothers Womb Rom. 9 11 Neither was it his singular priviledge but what is common to all that are Objects of Election which is free without respect to any thing wrought or to be wrought 2. They may be capable of sanctification Christ himself whilst in the Womb is termed The Holy thing which proves the nonage of Infants makes them not incapable of grace supposing Gods will and it shews God would have it so that some of them should be sanctified because Christ passed through each age to sanctifie it to us Ideo per omnem venit aetatem infantibus infans factus sanctificans Infantes in parvulis parvulus sanctificans hanc ipsam habentes aetatem simnl exemplum illis pieatis effectus justitiae s bjectionis As Irenaeus that lives neer the Apostles speaks John was filled with the Holy Ghost and what is that but the graces of the spirit although he was no more enabled to exert or put forth any act of Grace then he was able to put forth an act of reason nevertheless his soul wanted not the faculty of reason from his Mothers Womb and what though we may not say all Infants of Believers are a like filled with the Holy Ghost as John was yet may we truly say that are all as capable thereof as John 3. They are also capable of Glory of Salvation or else it would be sad but Christ hath told us of such is the Kingdom of Heaven that is Specifically as you shall see proved hereafter 4. God calls them holy 1 Cor. 7.14 and so may we By what hath been said I suppose it is evident to the impartial Reader that the Infants of Believers are as much the spiritual seed of Abraham as visible professing believers and we have as much ground if not more to look upon them as such as we have for grown Christians untill they manifest the contrary for as for the former we own them as Godly and admit them into the Church upon their own Testimony only in a visible profession which may be deceitful but the Infants of Believers are taken into Covenant with their Parents and are visible Church-Members and hereby come to have right to Baptism For the two former we have an express Divine Testimony and that they were once accounted such and the Covenant being the same as to the essential spiritual priviledges of it none of which can be made appear to be repealed It will follow that Believers Children must not be denyed the sign and seal of the Covenant they having altogether as warrantable a Right thereunto as grown Christians or Believers This is Bucers arguing on Mat. 19.13 14. Si jam ad Ecclesiam pertinent c. Cur eis signum Baptismi quo in Ecclesiam Christi qui ad eam pertinent recipi solent negaremus Bucer an Mat. 19.13 14. Let us now hear what is said to the contrary in what follows He conceives the seed of Believers have no right to Baptism Why Because saith he Though the Jews had right to circumcision as Abrahams natural seed under the old Testament yet this would not serve the turn under the new Mat. 3.9 John Baptist dischargeth them of that priviledge of Abrahams Natural Seed that admitted into the Old Church from any such right in the new Think not to say that ye have Abraham to your Father that ye are the Children of a Godly Parent That which serv'd their turn under Moses would not avail under Christ Nothing now but the fruits of Repentance give right to the Bapisme of repentance c. And must we take all this for Gospel We shall upon examination find no weight in it and nothing prejudicial to the Baptizing the children of Believers For 1. Let it be considered that these Jews to whom John spake were to come under a New Administration of the Covenant and the first subjects of this Administration must be persons able to give an account of their faith and repentance and Christ the Messiah was now come who was the chief blessing of the Covenant yea the substance of it and therefore 't was necessary that as these Jews relyed on the Covenant of Abraham so they should hold forth their relyance on
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
days ought not to be rebaptized It seems by the way Sprinkling is of ancient date They tell us farther that Cyprian in his 3d Book 8th Epistle hath this Argument for Infant-Baptism viz Infantes Circumcidebantur ergo Baptizandi Infants were Circumcised therefore they may be Baptized Cent. 3. Cap. 4. P. 57. Which passage may shame the Author and his party who usually object that Tradition is the main Argument which we take up in defect of others to justify our Practice and that this is all the ancient Fathers say for it in want of Scripture-ground Lastly The Magdeburgenses wonder at Tertullian's Simplicity for he held say they Miram Opinionem Se ntit Tertullianus mirâ Opinione c. a strange Opinion that Children should not suddenly be Baptized and then set down his reasons in opposition to those words Math. 19. Veniant dum Adolescunt veniant dum discunt dum quo veniunt docentur Fiant Christiani cum Christum nosse potuerint Quid festinat innocens aetas ad remissionem peccatorum c. Suffer little Children to come to me and forbid them not viz. Let them come saith Tertullian when they grow elder when they learn when they are taught when they come according to which Dotage the Disciples did wisely in forbidding Children to come and Christ did weakly in rebuking them for so doing and inviting them to come What follows is fetcht from Mr. Baxter concerning Origen and Cyprian that in the Primitive times none were Baptized without express covenanting c. is still meant of Aliens so is that of Origen's being a Teacher of the Disciples at Alexandria and others that succeeded him in that work so that to bring instances of this Nature is but trifling and not to the question before us yet we cannot but observe the Author's humor who when we quote any thing for Infants Baptism out of the works of those Fathers he brands it for spurious but when he pleaseth to make use of any of their sayings which he would have interpreted against the same then they are authentique and must pass for current CENT IV. HIS discourse upon this Century is veryinjurious to the Magdeburgenses who have not a word of very many things which he fathers on them as First That it was the universal Practice of this Age to Baptize the Adult upon Profession of Faith as if Infants had been excluded for so we are to understand him or else he speaks nothing wherefore I desire the Reader to observe what the Century-Writers speak concerning the matter and I shall give him a just account thereof We have before shewn say they out of Cyprian and Origen Infantum Baptismum in Ecclesiis Africanis in usu fuisse supra ex Cypriano Origene demonstratum est hoc vero seculo eundem durasse ex Athanasii questione 124. Constat that Baptizing of Children was in use in the African Churches and that the same continued in this Age is evident from the 124th Question of Athanasius Besides Nazianzen speaking of the Churches of Asia saith that Infants ought to be Baptized in case of danger of death De Asianis Ecclesiis Nazianzenus loquens Infantes Baptizandes esse ait and the said Father also grounds it upon Circumcision but if they were not in eminent danger of death he advised they should delay Baptism for three years or there-about till they could be taught some of the Mysteries of Religion We must look upon this say the Magdeburgenses as his peculiar Opinion Nazian Orat. 3. in S. Lavacrum Cent. 4. Cap. 6. Pag. 417. And verily Nazianzen's delay for three years that they may be taught Mysteries is a weak conceit for what can a Child be capable of at that Age or if he be taught to say something it is like that of a Parrot without understanding But the same Gregory Nazianzen in his 40th Oration is for Baptizing Children 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not only in case of danger but absolutely Hast thou a Young-Child let it be Baptized from an Infant let it be early Consecrated by or to the Spirit Secondly He puts a gross abuse upon the Magdeburgenses in representing them to affirm that all the Eastern Churches did only Baptize the Adult or Aged We may judge what credit to give him by these following instances First he perverts the saying of Athanasius as if it were directed against Infant-Baptism when meant only of Infidels who according to Christs Commission must first be taught then Baptized Athanasius was for Infant-Baptism and it was Practised in his days Athan ad Antioch qu. 114. as appears by that passage of his to Antiochus 114th Question Where he resolves a doubt that might arise from the death of Infants whether they go to Heaven or no. seeing saith he the Lord said Suffer little Children to come to me for of such is the Kingdom of Heaven And the Apostle saith Now your Children are Holy it is manifest that the Infants of Believers which are Baptized do as unspotted and faithful enter into the Kingdom Where mark again how unworthily Antipaedobaptists abuse the Fathers in saying their strongest Argument for Childrens Baptism is from Tradition which they fly to for want of Scripture Next he cites Hilary and we are of his mind that confession and profession is requisite to precede the Baptizing Aliens but what is this to exclude the Infants of Believers from that Ordinance And whereas he saith the Eastern Churches did only Baptize the Adult this is abominably false His first instance is of a saying of Basil contra Eunomium Lip 3. Must the Faithful be fealed with baptism-Baptism-Faith must needs precede and go before And in his Exbortation to Baptism he saith that none were to be Baptized but the Catechumens and those that were duly instructed in the Faith Now this is sufficient to impose a fallacy upon any Ordinany Reader that hath no acquaintance with that Father and understands not in what sense he speaks who would hot think that this Antient Dr. was against Infant-Baptism and that no such thing was owned in the Church in his days Whereas the same Father in the very next lines to what the Author hath above cited speaks thus What then say you of Infants Quid vero de Infant ibus ais qui neque quid gratea quidve sit paend dognorunt num illos Baptizeious maxime quidem idque nobis designat post octavum diem Circumcisio illa c. which neither know good nor evil may we Baptize them Yea saith he For so we are taught by the Circumcising of Children c. Hence forward have a care Reader how you trust the Authors Quotations for the palpable abuse done to this Father The next is Nazianzen that the Baptized in his time used in the first place to confess their Sins but I am before hand with them in respect of this Ancient Dr. of the Church and love not to repeat Nazianzen saith he advised that the Baptism
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
not in use in the first times he goes about to prove it very simply from Austin's being Baptized at full years as if Austin's times had been the first times whereas we have shewn before it was in practice many hundred years before he was born and Austin himself that lived many hundred years before Strabo was born affirms That the Church always had it always held it It was a solid Observation of Mr. Geree in his Vindiciae paedobaptismi That if the Antiquity of Infant-Baptism had been dubious amongst the Ancients surely some of the Latin or Greek Churches that held the delay of Baptism more convenient and perswaded it would have been the more perswaded against the use of it from its Novelty and given at least some hint of that in their Arguings Thirdly I observe a pittiful escape in Walfridus Strabo who saith Infant-Baptism took its rise and foundation afterwards when Christians came to understand Original Sin and when was that I pray doth he think never till Austin's days I suppose Christians understood this as soon as ever Baptism was enjoyned the Scripture is so express touching Original corruption Nay the very Heathens by the light of Nature knew that we were Originally depraved although they could not tell which way it came about as Duplessis largely shews in his Verity of Christian Religion This also was shadowed forth to the Jews in Circumcision In sin was I conceived saith David c. What a strange imagination then is it in this Writer That the Baptism of Infants was an Invention found out in Austin's time to wash away Original Sin of which Christians till then had been ignorant It is very true the Fathers were of opinion that it was of use for that and that long before Austin They knew Infants were defiled although they had lived but one day upon Earth as Origen speaks Hom. 8. in Luk. although Origen mistakes as to the manner how they came to be defiled For this fancy of Strabo minds me with another of Origen's a little more extravagant who thought Baptism served to wash away those sins which the Soul was guilty of whilst it was in some other Body a Pythagorean fancy before it entered into the body of the Child whence it appears that Origen was not for the Traduction of Original Sin from our Parents but a patron of the Pelagian heresy afterward so called Fourthly Strabo is much out too about his God-fathers and God-mothers which were in use in the Church many hundred years before Austin was born even in the 3d Century in Tertullian's days and yet he tells us they were first invented in Austin's days Fifthly Lastly this Srabo doth at last kick down the good pail of Milk which he before gave our Adversaries for declaring his own Opinion upon the matter he saith that it was a sign of the growth of Religion after a diligent search to take up the practice of Infant-Baptism and amongst other Testimonies citeth the Fathers in general for it in opposition to the prolonging of Austin's Baptism till he was Adult And concludes at last thus Wise Christians Baptized their Infants being not as some heretical persons opposing the Grace of God and contend that Infants are not to be Baptized Some others my Antagonist brings and quotes Authors for persons not Baptized till grown up which whether true or no I shall not enquire nor undertake to determine of the reasons why their Baptism was delayed which very likely may be the same with those before-mentioned or â—or other causes which shake not the Basis upon which Infant-Baptism is setled nor strike at the general Practice of the Church CENT V. HE tells us again That in this Age Believers Baptism was Asserted and the grounds thereof by many learned Writers and here take notice Reader how egregiously he Faulters for he instanceth only in two Chrysostom and Austin the former saying That the time of Grace and Conversion was the only fit time for Baptism which was the season the three-thousand were Baptized in the 2d of the Acts and the five-thousand afterwards Acts 4. The latter that is Austin in his Book de fide bonis Operibus Cap. 6. saith That none without due Examination both as to Doctrine and Conversation ough to be admitted to Baptism In these Quotations the Author seems to have forgotten himself for see what he says in his Treatise Pag. 121. there he gives an account of the Doctors of this Age Cent. 5. that approv'd Infant-Baptism the first is Chrysostom the words cited by him are these That Infants ought to be Baptized as universally received by the Catholick-Church And again That which the Church throughout the World unanimously teacheth and practiseth about the Baptizing of Children ought not carelesly to be slighted Magdeburg Cent. 5. Pag. 375. Then he instanceth in Austin who saith he was as a great Patron so a great Defender of Infant-Baptism in his Contests both against the Donatists and the Pelagians and the Celestians and then sets down some passages out of his works for it so that here we have these Fathers according to the account he gives of them diametrically opposite to themselves and how shall we reconcile them very easily even as we may do with the sayings of the rest for when they speak of the Baptizing persons after examination as to Doctrine and Conversation they mean Pagans and when they Assert Infant-Baptism The Fathers Reconciled it is in the behalf of the Children of Believers born in the Church And just as the Author hath served these Fathers so hath he constantly dealt with Mr. Baxter in all the Quotations taken from him concerning a profession of Faith which he maintained as necessary before Baptism in his Disputation with Mr. Blake although Mr. Baxter did so cautelously advertise the Reader that a Profession which he so much insisted upon was to be understood only in reference to Adult Persons and that the dispute had no reference at all to the Children of visible Believers Let us now for a Conclusion of this Century hear what the Magdeburgenses say concerning this Age Baptisati sunt porrô tum Adulti tum Infantes that is both grown Persons and Infants were Baptized Cent. 5. Cap. 6. Pag. 654. And they tell us how they dealt with the Adult in this Age Ae Adultorum quidem fuit ea conditio ut prius in Catecheseos parti-bus recte solidè instituerentur unde ipsis nomen Catechumenorum fuit namely First they were rightly and solidly instructed in the parts of the Catechism and from hence they were named Catechumenists of which we have such frequent mention in Ecclesiastical Writers CENT VI. IN this Age saith the Author The Adult upon Profession of Faith were Baptized This is no news and yet 't is observable he gives no instance of any such that were Baptized which if he had it had been nothing to the purpose unless he could have proved that in this Age the
why then should it stand in force against Infants in their own persons not capable of contemning and whose Parents desire it but are prevented by necessity Alas poor infants that you free from contempt in your selves and your Parents also must yet away to Hell for bare want of Baptism and yet grown persons as Papists themselves acknowledge in the same want have access to Heaven so they be free from contempt Can we imagine bare want to be more prejudicial to Infants then to grown men But what Reader if it appear that the place cannot be understood of Baptism at all I must leave it to thee to judge of what is offered to shew that 't is only Regeneration and not Baptism that is concerned in the Text for Water and the Spirit here by an Exegesis are one or if you will according to the judgement of Dr. Taylor by Water is meant the effect of the Spirit Nor is this the single judgment of Dr. Taylor but very many others who in their time were the Magna Ecclesiae lumina who so interpret it amongst whom are Calvin Beza Piscator Calvin indeed acknowledgeth the ancient Expositors followed Chrysostome that the Text was to be understood of Baptism yet professeth himself of another mind Beza in his Annotations of the place declares himself to the same purpose that he understood by Water in that place is meant rather the effect of the spirit then the Sacrament of Baptism sin verò malimus Christum cum Pharisaeo disserentem Aquae nomine ad externas ablutiones allusisse c. I rather conceive Christ reasoning with this Pharisee under the name of Water doth allude to those external washing which were useless without the cleansing of the Spirit Et Spiritus nomen sit exegesis that is a figure which signifies a dark speech made clear by another word which here is the Spirit nominis aquae sicut alibi spiritus ignis in baptismo conjunguntur By the name of Water we are to understand by an Exegesis the Spirit as elsewhere the Spirit and Fire are joyned Though the Order be inverted there and he gives the reason of it So Piscator except a man be born of Water that is ex spiritu sancto exserente quasi vim aquae Of the holy Spirit which operates in the soul as Water doth in the body and he also referrs to the same place Mat. 3.5 Of being Baptized with the Spirit and with Fire We have also the great Chamier arguing the same seeing in this sense the words bear an absolute truth without any limitation The Author concludes this with sporting himself at the different grounds upon which the Assertors of Infant-Baptism hold it out as the Fathers upon one ground the Lutherans upon another the Calvinist differing from them the Episcoparians one way the Presbyterians another and the Independents have a peculiar ground varying from them all Now thanks be to Mr. Tombes his eleventh Argument against Infant-Baptism for all this Exercitation pag. 33. The Assertors of Infant-Baptism little agree amongst themselves saith he upon what ground they may build it Cyprian and others draw it from the Universality of grace and the necessity of Baptism to Salvation Austin brings the faith of the Church others the Church of England substitute the promised surety in the place of the Faith and Repentance of the Baptized The Lutherans the faith of the Infant others the faith of the next Parent in Covenant in a gathered Church Reply This saith Mr. Geree unto him hath art I will not say Sophistry in it and what though divers men have let fall different grounds yet none of those are the main upon which they ground it for that 's the Covenant of Gods grace that takes in the Child with the Parent if saith he I should from several ways or Arguments used by the Antipaedobaptists say they did oppose Infant-Baptism on several grounds therefore their opposition were invalid you would think my answer unsolid and so do I your Argument Father I desire the Author to reflect upon his own party who oppose childrens Baptism by denying that Covenant made to Abraham was a Covenant of Grace some say it was Temporary some Typical some mixt and I know not what So they much differ in the foundation of their practice Some build it on a bare confession of sin whatever the man be as to grace some on profession of Faith some on signs of grace c. Mr. Geree saith well weakness in mens sight variety of fancy and principles carry men into different ways of defending the same truth The Author now frames his exceptions against those Scriptures which hold forth a Covenant-Right to the Children of Believeers 4. Argument from federal holiness excepted against and from whence we inferr their baptizing and thus he begins Paedobaptists being loth to part with the Tradition and yet seeing the rottenness of the ancient ground upon which 't was built found out this new foundation for it of Covenant-Holiness of which Zwinglius about 120 years for aught that he can learn was the first Founder and singular from all that went before him All this is from Master Tombes The Author a notorious Plagiary having taken all in his 43. pages following from Mr. Tombes his two Books of Exerc. and Examen I mean as to the substance of it and most in his words and method only indeed he hath two quotations out of Dr. Taylor and one out of Dr. Owen Mr. Tombes Exercit. p. 11. and so throughout to the endc of this Chapter both Arguments Authorities Scriptures and Cryticismes with this difference that he varies a little in some things and doth not speak so warily as he Mr. Tombes in his Examen part 3. pag. 35. begins the Argument as framed by us from the connexion between the Covenant and the Seal but this man ends it with that and the Scriptures are in both one viz. Gen. 17.7 Acts 2.39 I need not therefore much trouble my self for an Answer to the Author for the same which Mr. Marshall gave Tombes doth the work to a hair The Author tells us that for ought he could learn Zwinglius was the first Founder of the Argument for Baptism from federal Holiness and this indeed he learnt from Mr. Tombes his Exercitation pag. 11. whose words are Whether any in the Ages before the last past expounded it of federal holiness I am not yet certain and in the two last lines of page the 79. of his Examen he hath it thus viz. None that ever I met with expounded it of federal Holiness till the controversie of the Anabaptists in Germany To this I will seek for no other answer then what Mr. Marshal gives him the cause saith he I confess depends not upon this whether such an interpretation was then first put But it discovers some defect in your reading and then shews Athanasius one of the most Ancient Greek Fathers and Tertullian one of the most Ancient of the
train after it The Holiness is not one and the same as before and therefore cannot entitle to the same privileges And besides I add the Covenant was not made with the Believer and his Yoak-fellow but with him and his Seed and therefore the one hath a right to the Ordinance of Baptism the other not The third Argument such as it is is from the consideration that children in the Text is not to be limited to Infants Mr. Tombes again Examen p. 73. or such children that they might have since the Religious difference happened but of grown children for a mans Child is his Child though thirty forty or fifty years old c. 'T is wonderful to behold the shifts of errour This is old Tombes again Exam. pag. 73. He saith Your children indiscriminatim without difference as well those you had before one when of you was a Believer But this Muse is soon stopped by these considerations Quòd enim nonnulli ad liheros ex utroque infideli susceptos extendunt qui non sint spurii sed legitimi falso dici apparet ex hypothesi pauli Quor sum enim vel de spuriis vel dc infidelis utriusque naptiis dissereret Bezae Annot. in locum First That the Corinthians could not possibly be so filly as to doubt whether those children which were begotten in their Infidel state were Bastards before this Religious difference happened nor can we conceive the Apostle would have suggested such a false thing unto them as if those Children had been to be so reputed had not one of them turned Believer Secondly The Children then born after one of them was turned Christian is unquestionably that which the Apostle intends and if so then Children is most rationally to be limited to Infant Children such as should be or had been newly born upon their Parents Believing for we may well suppose the scruple arose presently after conversion about cohabitation and converse with their Infidel-Yoak-fellows and whether it were not irreligious not Fornication as Antipaedobaptists very weakly suppose for the Believer to procreate with the Infidel His fourth Argument why it cannot be a new Covenant-Holiness that qualifies and intitles to Baptism is First because that cannot be known The fourth Argnment taken from Mr. Tombes vide Mr. Baxters plain proof for Infants Church-Membership and Baptism p. 92. for if the Parent professing faith be a Hypocrite and not in Covenant themselves then may you Baptize a wrong subject as well as a right I perceive the Authors strength is almost spent His reason runs low and is near come to the dreggs for what doth this his arguing amount to shall we not find those who are for Baptizing grown persons upon the profession of Faith in the same praedicament may not these be Hypocrits also and not in Covenant and if so do they not Baptize a wrong subject When therefore they have cleared this difficulty for themselves they have done it for us Farther if it be the reality of Faith and Holiness in grown persons that qualifies for Baptism then none must be Baptized because this cannot be known but if it be said a serious profession is sufficient for De occultis non judicat Ecclesia The Church judgeth not of secret or hidden things Then the same also is sufficient for the Infants of such so professing The distinction which is used by Divines may give light in this point namely there is an external being in Covenant in facie visibilis Ecclesiae in the esteem and judgement of the Church and that is visible Profession or Holyness and this gives right to visible priviledges 2. There is an internal being in Covenant in regard of the spiritual faving benefits of it and it is out of the reach of the Church to judge of this latter I shall shut up this with the words of Mr. Marshal in his Defence of Infant-Baptism pag. 108. viz. When therefore I say they Infants are visibly to be reckoned to belong to the Covenant with their Parents I mean look what right a visible Professor hath to be received and reputed to belong to the Visible Church Quà visibilis Professor as a visible Professor that right his child hath so to be esteemed Now I conceive the Author himself will confess that the spiritual part and privileges of the Covenant of Grace belongs not to visible Professors as visible but only to such among them who are inwardly such as their external profession holds out but yet there are outward Church privileges Mr. Blakes Covenant Sealed which belong to them as they are visible Professors As to to be reputed the Children of the Kingdom Mat. 8.42 Act. 3.25 And in this sense St. Paul speaking of the Body of the Jewish people saith Rom. 9.4 To them pertaineth the Adoption Not the spiritual adoption but the honour of being separated and reputed Gods Children Deut. 14 and the Glory and the Covenants c. Secondly he saith such an absurdity would follow that no Vnbelievers Child is in Covenant or Elect c. To this I answer that no Unbelievers child is in Covenant in the sence before mentioned that is in facie Ecclesiae in the face of the Church until he make a Profession of his Faith Nevertheless he may belong to the Election of Gods Grace but that 's not to the point in hand for Election is not a Covenant nor any in Covenant because elected Thirdly he adds the concurrent Testimony and Confession of many Learned Commentators and parties themselves upon the place that the Text is to be understood of matrimonial and not federal holiness As Austin Jerom Ambrose Melancton Musculus Camerarius Erasmus to which saith he we may adde many more as if these were collected by his own pains Whereas he hath only added the last the rest were all gathered and published by Mr. Tombs neer thirty years since And that the Reader may not think I injure him I shall parallel them once more H. D. Jerom saith because of Gods appointment Marriage is holy H. D. Ambrose thus The Children are Holy because they are born of Lawful Marriage H. D. Melancthon in his Commentary on the place thus Therefore Paul answers that the Marriages are not to be pulled asunder for their unlike opinions of God if the impious person do not cast away the other and for comfort he adds as a reason The unbelieving Husband is Sanctified by the believing Wife Meat is sanctified for that which is holy in use that is granted to Believers from God so here he speaks the use of Marriage to be holy and to be granted of God H. D. Musculus in his Comment upon the place confesseth That he had abused formerly that place against the Anabaptists H. D. Camerarius in his Commentary upon the place saith for the unbelieving Husband hath been sanctified an usual change of the Tense that is Sanctified in the lawful use of Marriage for without this he saith it would be
Opinion in opposition to an innumerable company of our judgment and that not without sufficient ground if the forementioned reasons be well weighed The other is Dr. Taylor who speaks not his own sence upon the Text but personates as he tells us an Anabaptist we may see his own proper judgment in his last piece viz. The consideration of the practice of the Church in baptizing Infants of believing Parents pag. 48.49 It is saith he in our case as it was with the Jews children our children are a holy Seed for if it were not so with Christianity how could S. Peter move the Jews to Christianity by telling them the promise was to them and their children For if our children be not capable of the Spirit of promise and holiness and yet their children were holy it had been a better Argument to have kept them in the Synagogue than to have called them to the Christian Church And indeed if the Christian Jews whose children are circumcised and made partakers of the same promises title and inheritance and Sacrament which themselves had at their first conversion to the faith of Christ had seen their children shut out from the new Sacrament of Baptism it is not to be doubted but they would have raised a storm greater than could easily be suppressed since about their circumcision they had raised such tragedies and implacable disputations and there had been great reason to look for a storm for their children were circumcised and if not baptized then they were left under a burthen which their fathers were quit of for S. Paul said unto you whosoever is circumcised is a debtor to keep the whole Law these children therefore that were circumcised stood obliged for want of Baptism to perform the Laws of ceremonies to be presented to the Temple to pay their price to be redeemed with silver and gold to be bound by the Law of pollutions and carnal ordinances ad therefore if they had been thus left it would be no wonder if the Jews had complained and made a tumult they used to do it for less matters and this may serve to ballance what the Author quotes form the Doctors lib. of Proph. p. 233. Except 4. Because saith he Circumcision was only a Seal to Abraham not to believers and their Seed a Seal of the Faith that Abraham had long before he was circumcised but so could it not be said of any Infant that had no faith Repl. In this the Author doth quadrare with the Papists So say the Jesuites and so say the Antipaedobaptists Bellarmin and after him others object that Circumcision in Rom. 4. Bellarmin lib. 1. de Sacramentis is not said to be a Seal vniversally to any faith but only a Seal of the individual faith of Abraham which is clear saith he in that it is expresly said it was a Seal of the righteousness of the faith that he had being yet nncircumcised that he might be the father of all that believe but only Abraham could be such a father c. your collection saith he is naught when you say Circumcision was a Seal of Abrahams faith that therefore it is so to others for you conclude a general from a particular So he and his followers limits the use of Circumcision as a Seal of the righteousness of faith to Abraham only Paraeus gives an acute reply to this Paraus ad locum Quod omni Speciei inest toti generi recte tribuitur sicut igitur valet Homo Equus quodvis animal sentit movetur sensus motus differentia Systatica generis recte dicitur Sic. valet circumcisio est 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 addita foederi obsignationis causâ ergo Dr. Sclater on the fonrth of Romans thus That which belongs in common to all the Species may well enough be attributed to the general for that which all the Species have in common they have from their general But why saith Dr. Sclater should circumcision be a Seal to Abraham only and not to others as well as him was the Covenant made with him only or with his Seed also or was Circumcision a sign of the Covenant to Abraham only or else to his Seed also if the Covenant belong to all if Circumcision was to all a sign of their being in the Covenant why not to all also a Seal of righteousness Forsooth say the Papists one end of Abrahams Circumcision was peculiar to Abraham as that he should be the father of all Believers therefore this also of being a Seal of the righteousness of faith Answ And I wonder why we may not conclude by like reason that to Abraham only it was a Sin of the Covenant because this end they mention had place in Abraham only But let us more nearly view the reasons it was Abrahams privilege only to be the father of all Believers both circumcised and uncircumcised ergo his privilege only to have circumcision a Seal of righteousness how prove they that consequence Because Paul joins both together and therefore they are of like privilege Answ Why may we not say ut supra that the necessity of the sign of Circumcision was also Abrahams privilege because it also is joined to the rest But for fuller satisfaction view the scope of the Text which is this to shew that justification belongs to Believers of both people the proof is from a sign Abraham had righteousness in uncircumcision therefore righteousness belongs to the uncircumcised for this was that the Lord mystically intended to signifie in justifying of Abraham before Circumcision and in commending Circumcision to him justifyed but why doth he mention that end of Circumcision as sealing up the righteousness of faith Answ To obviate an objection which might be made in this manner if Abraham was justified before Circumcision what profit received he by that Sacrament Answ It sealed unto him the righteousness of faith and shall we say now it was Abrahams privilege to be confirmed in perswasion of righteousness belike then his posterity either needed not such confirmation and so Abrahams privilege shall be to be the only weakling in faith that needs means of confirmation or else his Seed shall lack that help that Abraham had for establishment though the Covenant was equally made to them Thus far Dr. Sclater and I repent not may pains he hath so cleared the point that I know not what either Papist or Antipaedobaptist can say against it I shall add that which every one will subscribe to that the children of Abraham stood in much more need of a Seal to confirm their faith then he himself with whom the Covenant was originally made and for that reason was called the father of the faithful as well as for the eminency of his faith It could not be saith the Author a Seal to an Infant that had no faith Repl. I perceive he hath read Bellarmin for he jumps in with him his words are these If it be a Seal of Faith in that Baptism comes
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
that he speaks by way of Prophesy that what they have writ shall not only live as a Witness for God and his reproached Truths but as a living Testimony against themselves in their unreasonable and unrighteous departure from the same except they repent to all generations if these Man cannot appeal to Heaven touching their own integrity so thundring a Sentence must needs trouble their Consciences Moreover if I mistake not they are divided amongst themselves about the Administrator of Baptism as unwholsome word because unscriptural Pastors Teachers Ministers we read of but no Administrators some holding none but men in Office may give Baptism others that a private Man may do it especially in case of necessity and Mr. Tombes favours this Opinion Praecursor pag. 72. and he gives his reason for it viz. because all or most of the Ministers ordained in England are against Baptizing of Persons of years Sprinkled in Infancy and there lying upon them that see Infant-Baptism a corruption a necessity to be Baptized upon Profession of Faith there is a necessity that they be Baptized by Persons not Ordained I like a man that will speak plainly his mind I will be as plain in opening mine and I think I have hit upon the truth namely that the Opposers of Infant-Baptism must hold that unbaptized Persons ☞ may Baptize and a Church with true Ordinances may be of unbaptized persons or else they must disown their new Baptism and all their Ordinances and turn Seekers For the first of their Administrators must either Baptize himself or else was Baptized by some Person Baptized in Infancy that is with them by an unhaptized Person Lastly I want not Instances to shew how impatient they are of having their adored Opinion contradicted and must prepare my self for the hard Censures of my Antagonist and his Party and had it not been for the honour of truth and love that I bear unto it they should have gone on till Dooms-day though I believe God will shortly break the neck of their ridged Principle before I would have disturb'd their quiet and exposed my self to their ill-will It is sufficiently observed and deplored by sober Christians that are unaddicted to faction how turbulent this fort of men have alwayes been as in forreign parts so in our own Country in the propagation of their Opinion and how distastful it is to them to have any thing said against their way There is a sad passage quoted by the Author himself pag. 308. of his Treatise out of Cloppenburg's Gangrene viz. The Troops of Anabaptists that dwell in Friestand although they trouble not the Commonwealth they suffer not the pure Reformed Churches to be edified without daily conflicts and what a stir they kept in Gemany with those Godly Ministers Luther Zwinglius Musculus contesting with them disturbing their Churches you shall hear shortly in our Animadversions upon the Authors historical part at the latter end of this discourse 9. By being an occasion saith he to stir up much bitter hatred wrath strife emnity persecution against those that oppose it How have they been followed with Stripes Imprisonments Confiscation yea Death it self Something of this may be layd at their own door as before hath been manifested in the persecution of the Tongue to which they are so much addicted but as for those Martyrs he speaks of that have suffered stripes imprisonment death we find very few of them in Fox his Martyrologie and none of them punished purely for opposing Infant-Baptism but the Antichristian Tenets of Rome Transubstantiation the Mass c. for which other Protestants suffered and some of them were put to death for asserting dangerous errors and for sedition here in England and multitudes for horrid acts beyond the Seas as shall appear in the Historical Narrative 10. By confirming hereby the whole Antichristian Interest as made good by the Preface An unworthy calumny and spoken without the least ground of reason only because Mr. Baxter hath declared his single Judgment in some things in reference to Baptism in some of which he speaks not positively and dogmatically but as I remember he qualifies it with such expressions as I think so or suppose so and how doth the delivery of his private Opinion about it render Infant-Baptism it self a point that confirms the whole Antichristian Interest that is not derived thence and hath no reference to or favour for it and when many Paedobaptists differ from Mr. Baxter and are unsatisfied at those passages in his Christian Directory Absurdities 11. By ushering in great Absurdities viz. 1. That Persons may have Regeneration and Grace before calling This is no Paradox to those who have heard of John Baptists being Sanctified in the Womb. I could here turn the Author to several places in Mr. Tombes his Works where he dares not deny but Infan̄ts may have the seed of Grace but I have spoken to this before only take notice of that is his Praecursor pag. 13. It is not doubted but Infants belong to the invisible Kingdom of the Elect but how they attain Salvation is not so certain if by a Seed of Faith and Holiness without actual exercise the thing is more easie to conceive c. And again he saith There are Believers of two sorts either in the Seed or Fruit either by Ordinary or Extraordinary Operation in one of which wayes Infants are or may be Believers 2. That Persons may be visible Church-members before Conversion And is that such a wonder We have proved that Chapter 6. Part 1. They were Church-members under the Law why not under the Gospel when were they excluded 3. That Persons may Repent Believe and be Saved by the Faith of another We own no such thing 4. That Types and Shadows profit after the Antitype and substance is come introducing thereby the Birth-priviledge The weakness of this is discovered before proving the Covenant made with Abraham still to continue to Believers and their natural Seed as you may see towards the end of the 3d Chapter Part. 2. 5. That the better to exclude Believers-Baptism new Church-Covenants are invented c. This is directed only against one sort of Paedobaptists called Independents whom he saith in point of order do err more than Prelate or Presbyter owning Infant-Baptism and yet denying them the right of Church-membership this is answered Chap. 6. Part 1. by shewing that they own the Infant Seed of Believers to be Church-members that is of the Universal Visible Church before Baptism and the reasons for it as also why they admit them not into their particular Churches when grown up till they make a serious Profession of that Faith into which they were Baptized and claim the priviledg of Communion Contradictions 12. By the manifold Contradictions that attend the Practice 1. By asserting that Baptism is a Symbol of present Regeneration wrought and yet apply it to ignorant unconverted Babes so uncapable of Regeneration This is a crambe bis cocta answered again and again
the H. Ghost hath no intent ☜ to bind and determine our Practice to this or that for seeing the word he useth is indifferent for both he would have left us some light either from precept or example which way he would have Sacramental This Assumption is confirm'd by this that no-where is it expressed that it was done by Dipping yea in some it is more than probable that it was not viz. Act. 2.41 there being in one day 3000 Baptized which might well be done by Sprinkling but not by Dipping So Act. 10.47 there be many Baptized at a time and place when there could not be accommodation of water and other conveniences for total Dipping Yea Peters phrase can any Man forbid Water imports a bringing in of Water to the place for the use which might well be done for Sprinkling but not for Dipping Also Act. 16.33 There is a Man all his Family straight-way Baptized in a Prison and in the night at which time and place Water for Dipping so many could not be had but easily for Sprinkling CHAP. VII Wherein there is a pretence to some eminent Witness that hath been born against Infant-Baptism from first to last THe first that we shall mention saith the Author is that Excellent Testimony Tertullian bore against it upon the first appearance of it in the 3d Century Reply 1. It is acknowledged that Tertullian who was the first Writer of note in the Latin Church hath divers passages seemingly against Infant-Baptism but yet withal it must be considered that his Testimony such as it is is but the Testimony of one single Dr. in opposition to the general custom of the Church and even from this instance we may learn the great Antiquity of Infant-Baptism that it hath been in use above 15 hundred years as it appears upon record for Tertullian according to Helvicus wrote his Book of Prescriptions about the year 195. which was about 97 years after St. John's Death and 't is probable Mr. Baxter of Infant-Baptism when he wrote his Book he had arrived to the years of thirty or fourty so that according to this calculation he lived about sixty or seventy years after St. John and yet as early days as these were Children were then Baptized for else why should Tertullian be so earnest in disswading them not to be over-hasty in the doing it Cunctatio utilior praecipue circa parvulos he would have them defer the Baptizing of Infants aswel as those of riper years which shews that it was then the custom of the Church to Baptize Children aswell as grown Persons Reply 2. Whereas the Author saith Tertullian lived in the 3d Century Irenaeus contra Haeretic Lib. 2. c. 39. this is true but that the first appearance of Infant-Baptism was in this Age is certainly false for Irenaeus who lived in the second Century makes mention of it Reply 3. Tertullian's Testimony in this case is so far from being excellent that it is contemptible and not to be regarded as may appear by two Reasons First Because he was very corrupt and unsound in his judgment P. Martyr loc com Clas 4. Loc. 8. Sect. 5. It is observed by Peter Martyr in his Common places that when Tertullian wrote his book de Baptismo he was fallen from the Church and from the orthodox-Orthodox-Faith into the foul error of Montanism Had he been sound in the Faith in all other points it had not been enough to scruple any one touching the point of Infant-Baptism because of his dissent because he only was the man we read of that seems to be against it how much less is this authority to be valued when so corrupt that Jerom counted him little less than a Heretick The Magdeburg Divines whom the Author makes so much use of give us a Catalogue of his Naevi or errors As 1. That he did Deo corpulentiam tribuere ascribe unto God Grosseness or Fleshiness 2. That he did speak concerning Christ incommode periculose unsafely and dangerously 3. That he condemned second marriages ut stupra as Whoredoms 4. That he brought in and augmented many filthy Ceremonies in the Church which he borrowed from the Montanists as anointing the body after Baptism c. 5. And lastly though they mention many other gross errors he affirms in his Book de Baptismo that it is the peculiar prerogative of the Bishop to Baptize Dandi Baptismum jus habet summus sacerdos qui est Episcopus and none must do it but by his leave Presbyters and Deacons he allows to Baptize but not without his Authority and in case of extremity that is when one is like to dye and in the want of a Minister it may be lawful for a layman to Baptize not excepting Women provided they did it privately and not in the Church by which passage it is more than probable he was for Baptizing Infants rather than that they should dye without it now let any indifferent Reader judge what a precious witness the Author hath singled out to lead the Van against Infant-Baptism A second Reason why Tertullian's Testimony deserves not to be stiled excellent is this because his arguments are so poor and weak that they will sooner administer occasion of laughter than conviction I acknowledg the Author hath drest them up very handsomly and shewed so much artifice herein leaving out somethings that are most gross that some who have weak heads and no very charitable thoughts towards the way of Infant-Baptism will think Tertullian and he were of one mind both against it and that on very good grounds 1. Because saith the Author out of Tertullian The practice of Baptizing Children was built upon the mistake of that Scripture Matt. 19.14 Suffer little Children to come unto me and forbid them not c. It is true saith Tertullian the Lord saith do not forbid them to come unto me let them come when they grow elder when they learn when they are taught why they come c. upon which the Magdeburgenses have this sentence seutit Tertullianus Mira opinione Cap. 3. Cap. 4. c. Tertullian was of a strange opinion then they repeate those weak passages before mentioned As before intimated in Chap. 7. according to which Dotage the Disciples did wisely in forbidding Children to come and Christ did weakely in rebuking them for it inviting them to come Let them come saith Christ though 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 little Children the wise men found 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the young-Child or Infant with Mary 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to Luke the exactest Historian new-born Babes or sucking Children that are carried in Arms and such wore those whom Christ invites to come unto him brought in all likelyhood by their Parents that did believe or made some profession of their Faith as appears by this because they brought their Children for a Spiritual end to receive some special favour or blessing from Christ and for this Christ would have them come
Romish Ceremonies used in Baptism as Exorcism Chrysm c. but not against Infant-Baptism itself Another Citation is out of an Ancient Confession Artic. 11. The words are We esteem for an Abomination and as Antichristian all Humane Inventions as a trouble and prejudice to the liberty of the Spirit And in their Ancient Catechism Perin de Doct. de Vaud Liv. 1.168 169. When Humane Traditions are approved for Gods Ordinances then is he Worshipped in vain Is 19. Matt. 15. Which is done when grace is attributed to the external Ceremonies and persons enjoyned to partake of Sacraments without Faith and Truth This also is insignificant to the purpose for which the Author quotes it and doth not in the least touch Infant-Baptism It is a good Testimony against Humane Traditions and they tell us what they mean which is done say they when Grace is attributed to the External Ceremonies and 't is one of the Popish Errors we know that Baptism confers grace ex opere operato it is also a good Testimony against Compulsion to the Sacraments and that wicked practice of the Spaniards in forcing the Indians to be Baptized and whoever shall compel ignorant and scandalous persons to receive the Lords Supper Lastly we have something brought out of their ancient Treatise concerning Antichrist writ 1120. And if we can find nothing there against our Practice then may we say of this Antagonist Promisit montes nascitur ridieulus mus The words of that Treatise are That Antichrist attributes the Regeneration of the Holy Spirit unto the dead outward work of Baptizing Children and teacheth that thereby Regeneration must be had And here at last by good hap we have the word Children named but not a jot serving the Author's design for they do not hereby except against Childrens Baptism but only against the corrupt ends that Antichrist hath in it for whether it be in Children or grown Persons it is an Antichristian or Popish Tenent to ascribe Regeneration to the dead outward work of Baptism and this is that before mentioned that Baptism confers grace ex opere operato By what hath been said any unprejudiced Reader may see how meanly the Author hath acquitted himself in the beginning of his undertaking to prove the Waldenses against Infant-Baptism from their publick Confessions of Faith and 't is not unlikely we shall find him as defective in what follows We have seen much confidence in the man but not a grain of proof and 't is impossible any mans belief should be shaken by what he hath hitherto faid touching the Lawfulness of Infant-Baptism 2. His second proof is the Witness of the eminent and leading Men. The first he begins with is the Famous Beringarius of Turain in Anjou and he quotes the Magdeburgenses Cent. 11. c. 5. p. 240. That Beringarius did in the time of Leo the 9th about the year 1049. publickly maintain his Heresies which they set down to be denying Transubstantiation and Baptism to little ones Now we must have to do with Mr. Tombes again Mr. Tombe's Praecursor Examen p. 20. Reply 1. That Beringarius was a famous Champion for the Truth against Popish Errors and Superstitions is beyond all dispute but still 't is questionable whether he was against Infant-Baptism Why saith the Author the Magdeburgenses tell us so that is 4 Protestant Divines that drew up the History of the Church Here the incautelous Reader is in danger of a snare for those Divines accuse him not of this but only tell us what the Popish records speak of him Beringarius say the Magdeburgenses maintained his Heresies which they that is the Papists set down to be denying Transubstantiation and Infant-Baptism who being such false accusers may very well be excepted against as insufficient evidence We know what Calumnies they have cast upon those eminent Reformers Luther Calvin Beza that lived nearer our times what errors they charge them with both Intellectual and Moral as if they had been very Heretical in judgment and men of debaucht lives they have their witnesses too more than a Iury to justify all their malicious charges Books written by divers Authors enough to make up a considerable Library If we must credit them against one why not against all the Testimony is the same 2. Since this instance of Beringarius is taken out of Tombe's let us hear what answer Mr. Marshal gave him pag. 65. of his defence of Infant-Baptism It is true saith he that Deoduinus Leodienses took it up as a common fame upon his credit Guitmond a Popish Bishop relates it that Beringarius opposed the Corporal presence in the Eucharist and the Baptism of little ones Usher de Success Cap. 7. Sect. 37. but saith Bishop Vsher in his Succession of the Church in so many Synods beld against Beringarius we never find any thing of this nature laidto his charge and Bishop Vsher farther adds that to him it appears that they who in those days were charged to hold that Baptism did not parvulis proficere ad salutem held nothing but this that Baptism doth not confer Grace ex opere operato And indeed in those Popish times to deny the greasy Ceremony of Chrism was ground enough for a charge of denying Infant-Baptism as you shall hear suddenly Next we have an impertinent citation out of Clark's Martyrology where it is said that God raised up Beringarius who did boldly and faithfully preach and witness against Popish errors whereupon the Gospellers were called Beringarians for above an hundred years after but Clark gives no hint that any of these Gospellers were against Infant-Baptism but relates the quite contrary for saith he in the same place and in the words following what is before quoted by the Author They Baptized their Children taught them the Belief and ten Commandements and carefully kept the Sabbath day upon which Lewis the 12th of France that had been otherwise informed but now satisfied of the truth of their faith and practice by his commissioners and Confessors said and bound it with an Oath that they were honester than he and his Catholick Subjects To as little purpose as the former is that he quotes out of Dr. Vsher in his Succession of the Church out of Thuanus Dr. Usher That Bruno Archbishop of Tryers did expel several Beringarians that had spread his Doctrine in several of those Belgick Countries and that several of them upon examination did say that Baptism did not profit Children unto Salvation And well might they say so all Protestants are of the same judgment and in the same we have Dr. Vsher's Paraphrase on it nec aliud videntur negavisse c. They seemed saith he to deny nothing else but this that Baptism doth not confer Grace by the work done and so we have done with his first witness 2. The next he brings are Peter Bruis P. Bruis Arnoldus and Henricus three famous Waldenses they were of their Barbes that is Teachers I shall speak of the first and
applanded by the Author who was Contemporary with Munzer is one Balthazar Huebmer a Dr. in Waldshnot a great Preacher of this way in Bohemia and Moravia who was taken Prisoner with his Wife by the Emperour's command who was himself burned at Vienna and his Wife drowned for Hereticks in the year 1528. This is Mr. Tombes again Mr. Tombes Examen pag. 23. But because we have such an ample Character of this man I have been the more curious in enquiring what account we or him in History and before I shall enter upon that I shall tell thee Reader that the Author minds me with what I lately met with in a Book intituled plus ultra being an Examination of Dr. Heylins Discourse of the Reformation of the Church of England the Examiner observes that when the said Dr. speaks of Harding the Jesuit a base Apostate and grand enemy of the Gospel it is with terms of honour and reverence as Dr. Iohn Harding one of the Divines of Lovain and the most learned of the Colledge pag. 128. but when he speaks of those Glorious Lights of the Reformation 't is barely Luther Zwinglius Calvin in like manner we have here one Balthazar Huebmer a Dr. in Waldshnot a great Preacher of this way in Bohemia c. when in a leaf or two before we have no venerable Title given to those famous Divines of the Reformation but 't is plain Luther Zwinglius Calvin I have met with this Huebmer in several Authors without the Title of Dr. which made me think he was a Dr. of H. D. his Creation until I found it in Mr. Tombes to be otherwise in his Examen pag. 23. who sayes that Zwinglius gives him that stile in his Epistle before his answer to his Book about Baptism be it so and if he were regularly admitted to that degree I think he was the first and last Dr. that ever was of the Anabaptist judgment Concerning this man Mr. Tombes relates out of one of Zwinglius his Epistles that Huebmer came to Zurich and there made a Recantation but it appears he was afterwards taken by the Emperour and burnt at Vienna for what cause I know not saith Mr. Tombes Then farther he relates more of what he finds in Zwinglius his Epistle to Gynoraeus viz. We approve dexterity and moderation in a man but in that man I wish I were deceived saith Zwinglius I never perceived any thing in him but an immoderate thirst after profit and glory Mr. Tombes concludes modestly and sayes only this I leave him to his judge to whom he stands or falls This Huebmer is called by Melchior Adam Princeps Catabaptistarum the chiefest of the Anabaptists and the head of them that disputed with Zwinglius at Zurich Alpha eorum fuit Balthazar Hubmerus Apostatà iterum iterumque factus qui Zwinglii beneficio liberatus tantis convictis vtrum bene de se meritum onerare nebulo non dubitavit ut apologiâ satisfacere fratribus habuerit necesse Melch. Adam pag. 30. and he tells us he was an Apostate several times who being freed out of Prison by Zwinglius his endeavours was so ungrateful as to load him afterward with such reproaches that Zwinglius was fain to write an Apology for himself to satisty the Brethren That Learned and Godly man Bullinger says of him that whilst he was pastor at Waldshnot the whole Cit became proselytes to his opinion and that they banished out the Citizens that were men of good conscience and sincere and drove them from their possessions by which means the Gospel which did there excellently flourish was utterly rooted out Spanhemius hath this of him That Bul-Diol Huldricus Zwinglius that valiant Champion of the Truth confuted that Turbulent fellow who by his words and writings had troubled the consciences of many and yet at Zurich recanted his Error and did forswear the Tennents of the Ambaptists Spanhem c. â—â— But he was burnt at Vienna for an Heretick saith the Author whereas his Tutor Mr. Tombes saith be knows not what he was burnt for and this might have been his lot if he had been for Infant-Baptism they do not use to distinguish of men that go under the notion of Protestants all are in their account Hereticks and deserve burning that are not of the Church of Rome Sad instances you shall have by and by and unless I mistake we do not find in our Martyrologies very many of the Author's judgment to have suffered death purely for their opinion of Antipaedobaptism and in truth I have not faith to believe ever any one did as for those which suffered in Henry the 8th his time we shall find it was for some other causes and usually as the rest of Protestants for denying the Real presence in the Eucharist and the Popes headship After this he tells us out of Comenius the distresses that befel the Anabaptists upon the defeat of Frederick by the Emperour's forces at Prague how that the Enemy began the year after the victory with the Anabaptists in Moravia and banished a great company of them c. To which I have this to say that they dealt kindly with them in comparison of their dealings with the Godly Ministers that were for Infant-Baptism for as soon as ever Fredrick Elector Palatine the Defender of their Faith and Persons was defeated the faithful Ministers of Christ as in the Marian dayes were the proto-Martyrs It was the precious blood of those men that was first spilt and the Antichristian cruelty shewed it self most barbarously against them Divers of them were shot to death excruciated and tortured with new-invented Torments covering some with hot burning coals twisting about the fore-head of others knotty Cords and with a stick straining their heads till their eyes were ready to start out cruelly burning one with his Wife broiling another to death with a fire made under him cutting another in small pieces hanging another by the privy members being 70 years old with his Books fired under him and at last shot through the body and slain another being above 70 years old was brought into the market place laid upon the fire and burnt to death Thus the poor Ministers in every place suffered all banished out of Prague twenty one out of Cuttenburgh many Citizen's accompanying them one of which preached on that Text They shall cast you out of the Synagogue all the multitude present bewailing their loss with great lamentations Thus did they deal with them at Boslavia Radecium Zaticum and in other places and some were stifled and poysoned with the stink of Prisons Comenius Clarks Martyrology pag. 183 184. see all this in Comenius his History of those persecutions which is Translated and in Clark's Martyrology taken thence As for that which follows That the Anabaptists which were banished out of Moravia into the neigbouring Countries of Hungaria and Transilvania were of the Waldensian stock he hath nothing for it but a Conjecture And whereas he adds that these
piece of Ridicule for there is no such Confession to be found unless it be in Vtopia Nay there is nothing looks like a Confession that excludes Infants from Baptism as appears after all their endeavours to prodace it See this p. 46 47 48. of the 2d Part of our Answer 8. He Professeth ingenuously amongst all his search that except those two passages 1 the Confession presented to Laodislaus the 12th Article of which is for Infant-Baptism and that in the Spiritual Almanack which declares the Baptizing of their Children he can find none Very good however he hath not gained much advantage to his cause having found two Confessions for Infant-Baptism but never one against it for he must reckon the lying accusations of the Papists that they were against Baptizing Children when they only abhorred their filthy Ceremonies and purged themselves from the calumany by putting forth their Confessions in which they Profess their judgment for it 9. Lastly In may little search I have found another Cnfession and such a one as may shame the Author for his prevarication and that is it which we have before mentioned in the 2d part of our Answer p. 65. The Confession made at Angrongne where the Heads of every Family with the Pastors signed several Articles and the 17th is for Infant-Baptism as before Of the Witness pretended to be born by the Novatians and Donatists THe Novatians and Donatists saith the Author gave Witness against Infant-Baptism as Austin's 3d and 4th Book against the Donatists doth demonstrate wherein he manageth the Argument fof Infant-Baptism against them with great Zeal c. Reply 1. In this the Author is guilty of a great mistake and we have no Authority for this thing but his ipse dixit his own saying so neither the Magdeburgenses that write largely of their Opinions nor any of the Church-Histories nor Danaeus in his Opusculum nor Zanchy who treats of them in his Volumes nor Beza nor Mr. Fox in his Acts and Monuments nor Clark that hath a large Story of them nor any other that ever I could meet with assert this that the Donatists were against Infant-Baptism 2. Though the Novatians Donatists and Pelagius denyed Original Sin yet all three allowed and practised Infant-Baptism Dr. Featly in his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 pag. 31. 3. Danaeus in his Opusculum speaks of the Origianl De Donatistis corum Origine Progressu Doctrina pag. 673. to 676. Progress and Doctrine of the Donatists from pag. 653. to 676. where though he sets down the Errors of the Donatists and gives us the sum of all Austin's Disputes with them speaks not a word of this but in divers places shews they were for Rebaptization of such as were Baptized by Hereticks or not in their own Churches which Austin vehemently opposeth and this I conceive is the ground of the Authors mistake and which I am the more inclinable to believe because he hath a particular tract of all the Heresies collected by Austin Augustinus de Haeresibus Cap. 69. p. 995. Danaeus and the 69th Chapter is de Donatistarum Erroribus The Errors of the Donatists And in it is no mention made of their being against Baptizing Children and in the 38. Chap. of the same Tract we have an account of Novatus from whom they are called Novatians and of the Errors they held but not one hint of any such thing as Antipaedobaptism they were also called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quatenus a reliquo Christianorum hominum caetu se tanquam Sanctiores separant pretending that they were more pure than any of the Churches of Christ besides Posterior aetas ad praegravandam bonam S. Sancti Evangelii causam homines vere Evangelicos infami Catharorum nomine calumniata est ut Waldenses pauperes de Lugduno Arnaldistae ab Arnoldo quodam c. which title of Catharists or Puritans came in process of time saith Danaeus to be used to the reproach of Holy-Men so saith he the Waldenses and poor Men of Lions were branded with the infamous name of Catharists 4. But let it be taken for granted that the Novatians and Donatists were of kindred to the Author and his party as indeed the Lineaments of their Faces and Complexion are in many things alike with some that are against Infant-Baptism yeâ—â— do not know what honour will redound to then cause from it for both the Novatians and Donatists were vile persons and always condemned for Hereticks We shall therefore give the Reader an account of their Rise Errors and Agreement I dare not say with those called Anabaptists amongst us in every thing that shall be set down but most exactly with those in Germany before mentioned Novatus Under the Persecution of Deeius the Roman Emperour Anno Christi 250 being the 7th Persecution rose up the first Quarrel and Heresie of Novatus who in those days made a great disturbance in the Church holding this Opinion That they who once renounced the Faith and for fear of torments had offered incense to the Idols although they repented thereof yet could not afterward be reconciled nor admitted to the Church This Novatus being first Priest under Cyprian at Carthage afterward by stirring up discord and faction began to disturb the Bishoprick of Cyprian to appoint there a Deacon against the Bishop's mind or knowledg and also to allure and separate certain of the Brethren from the Bishop After this he went to Rome kept there the like stir with Cornelius setting himself up as Bishop of Rome against Cornelius altare contra altare as the Magdeburgenses have it which was the Lawful Bishop of Rome before The which to bring to pass he used this practice First he had allured to him to be his Adherents 3 or 4 good Men and Holy Confessors which had suffered before great torments for their Confession Afterward he inticed three simple Bishops about the coast of Italy to repair to Rome under pretence to make an end of certain Controversies then in hand This done he caused them whether by making them drunk or by other crafty counsel to lay their hands upon him and to make him Bishop and so they did Fox Acts Monum 1. Part p. 84. We have it also for the most part in the Magdeb. Cent. 3. Cap. 7. p. 186. Sub Decio Schisma Novati He for his wicked Opinions was condemned in a Synod at Rome Magd. Cent. 3. Cap. 9. p. 293. Donatus In the year of our Lord 331 or a little more early there sprang up in Africa the Donatists taking their name from Donatus This Man Initium ejus haereseos Hieronimi Chronicom in Annum Christi 331. Paulo antiquiorem Donatum facit Magd. Cent. 4. C. 5. p. 375. Donatus cumsua parte Schisma illud in Haeresim convertit Magdeb. ibid. They speak of their cruelty Cent 4. Cap. 5. p. 379. Clark of the Persecution of the Donatists p. 89 90. in his Martyrology as the Magdeburgenses inform us Cent. 4. c.
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