found in this Text and no such thing as a faederal Holiness Though if there was it would be no ground to Baptize an Infant upon as before The Arguments from Circumcision Examined Another and none of the least Arguments that is urged to prove Infants Baptisme by is from pretended Consequences from the Covenant made with Abraham Gen. 17. From whence it is thus argued THose to whom the Gospel Covenant belonged The Argument from Circumcision to them the Seal thereof appertained but to Believers and their Seed the Gospel Covenant belonged as Gen. 17.7 I 'le be a God to thee and to thy Seed and Acts 2.39 The Promise is to you and your Childâ—en Therefore to them the Seal thereof Circumcision so called Rom. 4.11 did appertain Gen. 17.10 For the Foederati were to be Signati those in the Covenant were to have the Seal thereof And therefore by Consequence it naturally followeth That if Circumcision the Seal of the Gospel Covenant belonged to the Seed of Believers under the Law then doth the Gospel Seal Baptisme much more appertain to the Seed of Believers under the Gospel which comes in the Place Room and Vse of Circumcision otherwise the priviledge under the Gospel would be less then that of the Law should Children be denied such a benefit Answer That this is falacious and false reasoning and that there is â—o natural Consequence at all from this Scripture to infer the Baptizing of Infants nor any ground to build the Gospel-Ordinance Baptisme upon the command of the Legal-Ordinance Circumcision may fully appear by examining the following particulars which are begged but not proved in the Argument 1. Whether Circumcision called here the Gospel Seal did of old belong to all in Gospel-Covenant 2. Whether the new or Gospel Covenant and that mentioned Gen 17. be one and the same 3. Whether the Seed mentioned was Abrahams Natural or Spiritual Seed 4. Whether Circumcision was a Seal of the new Covenant to the Children under the Law 5. Whether Circumcision was administred to Believers as Believers and to their Seed only 6. Whether Baptisme did succeed in the Place Room and Vse of â—ircumcision 7. Whetheo the not baptizing Infants makes the priviledges under the Gospel less then the Circumcising them under the Law To the first Circumcision not the Seal of the Gospel Covenant to all Believers Whether Circumcision called the Gospel-Seal did belong of old to all in Gospel-Covenant 'T is answered that the contrary doth manifestly appear upon a double account 1. Because some that were in the Gospel-Covenant were not Sealed and 2dly some that were out of the Covenant were Sealed therewith 1. 1. Many in Covenant not Sealed with it There were many persons in Covenant that were not Circumcised that were Foederati but not Signati as for instance all the Believers from Adam to Abraham who received no such Seal nor 2dly did any of the Believers out of Abrahams Family as Lot Melchisedeck Job that we read of received any such Seal neither 3dly did any of the believing Families in any Age receive it 2. Many out of the Covenant they were Sealed And 2dly there were some to whom the Covenant did not belong that received that called the Seal of Circumcision For of Ishmael God had said that this Covenant was not to be established with him but with Isaak and yet he was Circumcised Gen. 17.20 21 25. Gal. 4.29.30 And the same may be said of Esau Rom. 9.10 11 12.13 And as to all the Strangers in Abrahams House or bought with Money in Israel that were Circumcised it may well be doubted whether the New Covenant Promises did belong to them 2. The Covenant in Gen. 17 a mixt Covenant as the Seed was To the second Whether the Neâ— Covenant and that mentioned in Gen. 17. be the same In answer whereto it must be understood That as Abraham by Promise stood in a double Capacity viz. The Father of a Nation viz. the Natural Israelites so to be also a Father of many Nations comprehending the Spiritual Israel whether Jews or Gentiles throughout the world and so accordingly the Promises were of two sorts sometimes respecting his Natural Seed whether Domestick or National who were Typical of the Spirtual as the Birth of Isaac the deliverance of his Posterity out of Egypt the possessing of the Land of Canaan with many outward Temporal Blessings and benefits annexed thereto as Gen. 15.13 18.17.8.15 16. Acts 7.3 4 5 6. And others again respecting in a peculiar manner the Spiritual Seed the Family of the faithful viz. the Elect of whom through Christ he was Father and which are Evangelical and in an especial manner belonging to the new Covenant as Gen. 12.3.18.18 In thee shall all Nations be blessed which is called a Gospel-promise Gal. 3.8 9. so Gen. 15.5 So shall thy Seed be Gen. 17.5 A Father of many Nations And Verse the 8th To be his God and the God of his Seed And therefore must the mind of Wisdom rightly distinguish and truly apply the Promises that are many times so mixed that the one may be taken for the other and sure I am much of the mistake and error lies here in this very thing by applying that to the one which belongs to the other 3. The Seed in the 7th Verse the Spiritual Seed only But 3dly What Seed of Abraham is it to whom the Promise doth belong In the 7th Verse Whether the Natural or Spiritual and who those Children of Promise Acts 2.39 To the clearing the first namely That of the Seed Verse the 7th I shall refer you to the Exposition it self the Scripture hath given us hereof with the concurring sence of many judicious Expositors and all of them parties themselves 1. The Scriptures expounding this Text are Gal. 3.16 Gal. 3.16 Now to Abraham and his Seed were the Promises made he saith not to Seeds as of many but as of one and to thy Seed which is Christ And therefore saith Ver. 29. If you be Christs then are you Abrahams Seed Heirs according to Promise and farther Rom. 9.7 8. Ro. 9.7 8 Neither because they are the Seed of Abraham are they all Children but in Isaac shall thy Seed be called that is they which are the Children of the Flesh These are not the Children of God but the Children of the Promise are counted for the Seed And Rom. 4. 13 14. Rom. 4.13 14. For the promise that he should be the Heir of the World was not to Abraham or to his Seed through the Law but through the Righteousness of faith for if they which are of the Law be Heirs faith is made void and the Promise made of none effect Which so fully confirms the Seed here mentioned to whom the Promise belonged not to be the Carnal but Spiritual Seed and in farther confirmation thereof you have these following Authors and all of them Paedobaptists viz. Calvin Calvin upon Gen. 17.7 saith That
Gentile must be baptized and have the Spirit given to witness that nothing must be called common or unclean where God had purified the Heart by believing 3. Circumcision initiated the Carnal Seed into the Carnal Church and gave them right to the Carnal Ordinances but Baptisme was to give the Spiritual Seed an orderly entrance into the Spiritual Church and a right to partake of the Spiritual Ordinances 4. Circumcision was to be a Bond and Obligation to keep the whole Law of Moses's but Baptisme witnessed that Moses Law was made void and that only Christ's â—aw was to be kept 5. Circumcision was administred to all Abrahams natural Seed without any profession of Faith Repentance or Regeneration whereas Baptisme to be administred to the Spiritual Seed of Abraham was only upon profession of Faith Repentance and Regeneration and which appears more fully by the following Instances compared 1. Because a Carnal Parent and a fleshly begetting by the the Legal Birth-priviledge gave right to Circumcision whereas a Spiritual begetting by a Spiritual Parent gave only a true right to Baptisme 2. Because a Legal Ecclesiastical Typical Holiness when Land Mountains Houses Birds Beasts and Trees were holy qualified for Circumcision whereas only Evangelical and Personal Holiness was a meet qualification for Baptisme 3. Because Strangers and Servants bought with Money and all ignorant Children of Eight days old yea Trees were capable of Circumcision whereas only men of understanding that were capable to believe with all their Heart and to give an account thereof with their mouths were to be esteemed capable Subjects of Baptisme 6. Circumcision was to be a sign of Temporal Blessings and Benefits to be enjoyed in the Land of Canaan whereas Baptisme was to be a sign as before of many Spiritual benefits viz. Remission of sins Justification Sanctification here and Eternal Salvation hereafter It is granted there are in some things an Analogy betwixt the one and the other both signifying Heart-Circumcision and an initiating into the Church though as a different Church so different Subjects and Church Members upon different grounds and to different ends as before and in a far different manner one to be done in a private House and by a private Hand and the other in some publick place and by the hand of some publick Minister appointed by the Church to administer the same But now because there is some Analogy in some things is there therefore ground to conclude it cometh into the room stead and use thereof by no means for by the same Argument we may as well conclude that it cometh in the room and stead of the Ark Manna Rock c. And from such like Arguments drawn from Analogies what Jewish Rites may not by our wits be introduced to the countenancing the Papists in their High Priesthood National Churches Orders of Priesthood Tythes and all other their innumerable Rites and Ceremonies that without any Institution of Christ or pretence of new Testament-authority they have intrâ—duced or imposed upon the account of Analogy with old Testament Rites and Services Concerning which you have the Lord Brooks in his Treatise of Episcopacy L Brooks P. 100 saying very well viz. That the Analogy which Baptisme now hath with Circumcision in the old Law is a fine ratiâ—nal Argument to illustrate a Point well proved before but I somewhat doubt saith he whether it be proof enough for that which some would prove by it since besides the vast difference in the Ordinance the persons to be Circumcised are stated by a positive Law so express that it leaves no place for Scruple but it is far otherwise in Baptisme where all the designation of Persons fit to be partakers for ought I know is only such as believe for this is the qualification which with exactest search I find the Scripture requires in Persons to be baptized and this it seems to require in all such Persons now how Infants can be properly said to believe I am not yet fully resolved And very full and most excellently you have to this point Dr. Taylor Dr. Tayl p. 228. Who saith That the Argument from Circumcision is invalid upon infinite considerations Figures and Types prove nothing unless a Commandment go along with them or some express to signifie such to be their purpose For the Deluge of Waters and the Ark of Noah were a Figure of Baptisme said Peter and if therefore the Circumstances of one should be drawn to the other we should make Baptisme a Prodigy rather than a Rite the Paschal Lamb was a Type of the Eucharist which succeeds the other as Baptisme doth to Circumcision but because there was in the manducation of the Paschal Lamb no prescription of Sacramental drink shall we thence conclude that the Eucharist is to be administred but in one kind And even in the very Instance of this Argument supposing a Correspondency of Analogy between Circumcision and Baptisme yet there is no Correspondence of Identity for although it were granted that both of them did consign the Covenant of faith yet there is nothing in the Circumstance of Childrens being Circumcised that so concerns that Mystery but that it might very well be given to Children and yet Baptisme only to men of Reason because Circumcision left a Character in the flesh which being imprinted upon Infants did its work to them when they came to age and such a Character was necessary because there was no word added to the Sign but Baptisme imprints nothing that remains on the Body and if it leaves a Character at all it is upon the Soul to which also the word is added which is as much a part of the Sacrament as the Sign it self for both which Reasons it is requisite that the Parties Baptized should be capable of Reason that they may be capable both of the word of the Sacrament and the impress made upon the Spirit since therefore the Reason of this Parity does wholly fail there is nothing left to infer a necessity of complying in this Circumstance of aâ—e any more then in the other Annexes of the Type then the Infants must also precisely be Baptized upon the Eighth day and Females must not be baptized because not Circumcised but it were more proper if we would understand it right to prosecute the Analogy from the Type to the Antitype by way of Letter and Spirit and signification and as Circumcision figures Baptisme so also the adjuncts of the Circumcision shall signifie something Spiritual in the adherences of Baptisme and therefore as Infants were Circumcised so spirial Infants shall be Baptized which is Spiritual Circumcision for therefore Babes had the Ministry of the Type to signifie that we must when we give our names to Christ become Children in malice and then the Type is made compleat c. Thus far the Dr. 7. Whether the not Baptizing Infants makes the priviledge under the Gospel less then under the Law who had then Circumcision 7 Not baptizing of
what purpose is this coming forth in a point so controversal at this juncture where there is more need of Healing than Dividing Subjects To which I reply Answer That if Paul useth so powerful an Argument from one Baptism Eph. 4. to press Vnion and Peace then if there hath been another Baptism set on foot in opposition to it that must needs be a Make-bate with a witness it being no less than an Error in a Foundation Nay that which doth assert two Foundations and two Principles And if so Then what more hopeful Endeavours can there be put forth to effect Peace than to discover remove such a Rock of offence by Delivering from the false and Recovering to the true and one Baptism which doth not only heal the Division betwixt the Baptist and Poedobaptist but the Poedobaptists amongst themselves who are as you have heard at so great odds in the point and so sollicitous as Mr. Baxter tells us in a Practical of such Concernment Without which there being such an Error in the Principle such a Foundation of Antichrist held fast all Exhortations to Vnion viz. in Church-fellowship and Communion will signifie little Therefore let the cause be removed the bone of contention taken away the peaceable effects necessarily follow A faithful Pleading and Pressing whereof is the upright design of this Vndertaking and is therefore with the more Faith and Confidence recommended to the Blessing of God and to the Hearts and Consciences of all Sincere Vpright Ones that desire to keep the Commandments of God and the Testimony of Jesus Christ With this earnest Desire and Expectation that the Candid Ingenuous Reader however contrary-minded will overlook what of frailty and weakness he may take notice of which may be too much and eye principally the Design Drift and Scope thereof And that if by the multitude of Quotations through so antient a track he finds any particular mistake misquotation or misapplication that he will not so dwell or insist upon it to reject the Truth of all the rest that are full and clear without exception which is the way that Carpers and Sophisters take and the method that Papists have all along taken in Reply to our Protestant-Writers Though this withal I can assure you that I have not willingly given any such occasion But have either transcribed the Authorities from their own Works or from some Authentick Writers that have so done and especially from the Magdiburgensian History so much esteemed amongst the Protestants and whereof I shall be accountable to any judicious Enquirer that may doubt the truth hereof Though by the the way it must be remembred That all Humane Authority urged from Antiquity is at best but Argumentum ad Hominem It being Scripture-Authority only that is of Divine force and as coming from God can oblige the Conscience Therefore if you will but please before you make up your Judgment and pass the Definitive Sentence to read the whole and laying all parts together weigh them with an impartial mind in the Ballance of the Sanctuary you will find I doubt not That as no Ordinance of Jesus Christ is more fully and clearly asserted from the Scripture founded with greater Wisdom and Righteousness or of more excellent Use to the Church than that of Believers Baptism however it hath been contemned nick-named and reproached So no Invention of Man or Innovation of Antichrist hath been more pernicious either to the Church or World or founded upon less of Reason Righteousness and Truth than that of Sprinkling Infants though it hath so long and so currently past for Christs Ordinance of Baptism Lastly If any shall be offended at this Witness though thus made good by a seven-fold Demonstration twice told Let thâ—m know that the Providence of God hath so ordered as they 'l find herein that they cannot oppose it without opposing and contradicting themselves there being scarce one Argument in the whole Book that is not substiantially confirmed by some eminent men of their own Amongst several Mistakes committed by the Press the Reader is desired to correct these following some whereof alter the sense viz. PAge 29. Line 15. Read or Church P. 30. l. 18. r. and respective l. 19. none for man l. 22. r. Body of Christ P. 50. l. 2. r. of Infants Bapt. P. 72. l. 4. r. by for tâ— P. 86. l. 14. r. that P. 94. l. 24. r. uncapable P. 129. l. 19. r. the name P. 134. dele rather P. 145. l. 17. r. new Garment P. 151. l. 4. r. for P. 152. l. 23. r. know that P. 191. l. 22. r. intail P. 229. l. 8. r. Generations p. 271. l. 12. r. them P. 276. l. 16. r. conform to P 285. l. 15. r. Lanifrank P. 287. l. 18. dele for P. 296. l. 18. r. Manichean P. 307. l. 12. r. â—ppositions In the Postscript p. 41. l. 13. r. contemptious traducing p. 50. l. 1. dele which p. 51. l. 19. by the Church The Contents of the whole The Book consists of Two Parts the first proving Believers The second disproving Infants Baptism under these two Heads 1. That the Baptising of Believers is only to be esteemed Christs Ordinance of Baptisme 2. That the Baptising of Infants is no Ordinance of Jesus Christ The first whereof is proved in seven Chapters viz. 1. From Christs positive Institution and Commission commanding it P. 1. 2. From the Apostolical Doctrines and Precepts teaching it p. 6. 3. From the Examples of Primitive Saints practising it p. 9. 4. From the Spiritual Ends in the Ordinance enjoyning it p. 15. 5. From the New-Testament-Dispensation requiring it p. 35. 6. From the Constitution of all the Primitive Churches confirming it p. 39. 7. From the Testimonies of Learned Men in all Ages since Christ witnessing to it p. 55. The second is also made good in seven Chapters more viz. 1. From the Scriptures total Silence as to any Precept or Practice to warrant it p. 97. 2. From the Silence of Antiquity it self as to any practice of it for 300 years or the imposing of it for at least till 400 years after Christ p. 107. 3. From the erroneous Grounds both as to fabulous Traditions and mistaken Scriptures pretended for it p. 151. 4. From the Change and Alteration of the Rite and Ceremony it self of Dipping the whole Man into Sprinkling a little Water on the Head or Face p. 232. 5. From the Nullity and utter Insignificancy of it as to any Gospel-Ordinance p. 253. 6. From the Absurdities and Contradictions of it p. 261 7. From the eminent witness born against it all along p. 269. The Examination of the Stories about Thomas Munzer and John a Leyden p. 318. With the History of the Antiquity of the Christianity of the Antient Britains and Waldenses And a Postscript in Answer to Mr. Bunyan Believers Baptisme Proved CHAP. I. Wherein the Baptism of Believers is proved to be the only true Baptism I. From Christ's positive Commission from Christs positive
made in Baptisme each ones own free choise is shewed from which Canon saith he Balsamon and Zoncras do infer that an Infant cannot be baptized because it hath no power to confess or choose the Divine Baptisme Dr. Taylor Dr. Tayl upon mentioning the Canon p. 238. saith It speaks Reason and it intimates a practice which was absolutely universal in the Church of interrogating the Catechemeni concerning the Articles of their Creed which is one Argument that either they did not admit Infants to Baptisme or that they did prevaricate egregiously in asking questions of them who themselves knew were not capable of giving answers And in farther assurance and confirmation of this great truth you have most remarkable Instances of several of the Most eminent Persons of this Century that were not baptized till aged though the Offspring of believing Parents viz. Basil Gregory Nazianzen Ambrose Chrysostome Ierom Austin Nectarius Constantine Theodosius c. and for proof whereof take the following Authorities Osiander Cent 4. l. 3. c. 42. 371. Basil baptized aged saith That Basil the great Bishop of Caesaria the Son of Basil Bishop of Nisen and his Wife Eumele whose Grandfather was a Martyr under the persecution of Maximinus was tenderly educated like a second Timothy under his gratious Mother became a learned man and great Preacher and after Baptized in Jordan by Maximinus the Bishop as he saith is declared by Vincentius in speculo and for which Story he also quotes Socrates l. 4. c. 26. Sozam l. 6. c. 34. Magd. Cent. 4. c. 10. p. 939. Gregory Nazian baptized after 20. years old Osiander Cent 4. l. 3. c. 43. p. 380. Tells us That Gregory Nazianzen was the Son of Gregory Bishop of Nazianzen by his Wife Nonna a very pious holy Woman and instructed this her Son as Hannah of old did Samuel who in the 20th Year of his age was baptized Hugo Grotius Anot. in Mat. 19.14 saith It was no small Evidence that Baptisme of Infants many hundred years was not ordinary in the Greek Church because not only Constantine the great Constantine baptized aged the Son of Helena a zealous Christian was not baptized till aged But also Gregory Nazianzen who was the Son of a Christian Bishop and brought up long by him was not baptized till he came to years as is saith he related in his Life Paulinus in vita Ambrosi saith That Ambrose Ambrose baptized after Bishop of Milan born of Christian Parents his fathers name was Ambrose and his Mothers Marcelina remained instructed in the Faith unbaptized till he was chosen Bishop of Millan as which time he received Baptisme Hugo Grotius farther upon Mot. 19. Chrâ—sost Baptized at 21. tells us That Chrysostome was born of Christian Parents and educated by Miletius a Bishop was not baptized till past 21. years who adds farther That many of the Greeks in every age unto this day do keep the custom of deferring the Baptisme of little ones till they could themselves make a Confession of their faith Erasmus in Vita Hieronimi Jerom Baptized in his 30. year Testifies That Jerom born in the City of Strydon of Christian Parents and brought up in the Christian Religion was baptized at Rome in the 30th year of his age Walafridus Strabo who lived about 840. in his Book de Reb. Eccles Cap. 26. saith That in the first times the Grace of Baptisme was wont to be given to them only who were come to that integrity of mind and body that they could know and understand what profit was to be gotten by Bapâ—iâ—me what was to be confessed and believed Austin Baptized about the 30th year of his Age. what lastly was to be observed by them that are new born in Christ and confirms it by Austins own Confession of himself continuing a Catachumenus long afore Baptized But afterwards Christians understanding Original sin and least their Children should perish without any means of Grace had them he saith Baptized to the decree of the Council of Affrica and then adds how God-fathers and God-mothers were invented and the superstitious and impious consequent of it c. Nauclerus Generat 14. An. 391. saith Austin the Son of the virtuous Monica being instructed in the faith was baptized when he was about 30. years of age Vossins de Baptismo Pag. 106. saith That Nectarius was made Bishop of Constantinople before he was baptized Historia Tripartita Lib. 1. affirmeth That Theodosius the Emperor Theodosius baptized aged born in Spain his Parents being both Christians was even from his youth instructed and educated in the faith who falling sick at Thessalonica was by Achalio baptized and thereupon recovered of his sickness Mounsieur Daille the learned French man a great searcher into Antiquity in his Book called theVse of the fathers saith In ancient times they often deferred the Baptisme of Infants as appeareth by the History of Constantine the great Constantinus Theodosiâ—s Valentinian Gracian and in St. Ambrose and also by the Orations of Greg. Nazianzen and St. Basil on this subject and some of the Fathers have been of opinion that it is sit it should be deferred but whence is it saith he that the very mentioning hereof is scarce to be endured at this day Lib. 2. P. 149. Dr. Field Dr. Field on the Church P. 729. saith That very many that were born of Christian Parents besides thos that were converted from Paganisme put off their Baptisme for a long time insomuch that many were made Bishops before they were baptized Beatus Rhenanus B. Rhen. in Anot. sup Tert. saith That the old Custom was that those that were come to their full growth were baptized with the Bath of Regeneration which Custom saith he was observed till the time of Charles the great and Lodwick Emperours as by the Statutes by theâ—â— established appeared c. Mr. Den Mr. Den. besides the former Instances of the Children of Christian Parents not baptized till aged adds Pancratiâ—â— Pontius Nazarius Tecia Laigerus and Erasma Tusca Dr. Tayl. Dr. Jerom Taylor in his Lib Proph. P. 239. affirms out of an Antiquity That the Parents of Austin Jerom and Ambrose although Christians did not baptize their Children till they were 30. years of Age and that it will be very considerable in the example and of great efficacy for destroying the supposed necessity of derivation of Infants Baptisme from the Apostles Dr. B. Letter Dr. B. late Dr. of the Chair a person of great learning and eminency hath these words in a Letter I have seen in Print viz. I do believe and know that there is neither Precept nor Example in Scripture for Pedobaptisme nor any just evidence for it for above 200 years after Christ that Tertullian condemns it as an unwarrantable Custom and Nazianzen a good while after him dislikes it too sure I am that in the primitive times they were Chatacumeni then Illuminati or Baptizati and that not only Pagans and Children
appear substantial Arguments for the Baptists and full and clear Evidence against themselves for is not the Commission it self fully owned the Order of it and Practice upon it viz. That Persons ought first to be taught in the faith before they are to be baptized into the same and that none in the Apostles times and for some Ages after were otherwise baptized and that it is ridiculous yea prophane for any otherwise to practice and that there was neither Precept nor Example for the baptizing of Infants who as confest are so capable either of themselves or any for them to answer the great ends thereof but owned to be a practice taken up and enjoyned several Ages after as many of the forecited Pedobaptists both Papists and Protestants have confessed and will more fully and particularly appear in the next part And what is or can be said more by the Baptists themselves in confirmation of of their way and Practice Thus we have dispatcht the first part and may it not now be recommended to the Conscience of the impartial unprejudiced Reader whether this first assertion viz That Believers Baptisme is only to be esteemed Christs Ordinance of Baptisme is not substantially made good not only from clear and undeniable Scripture and Reason But from most pregnant Authohities of learned men and most of them parties themselves End of the first Part. Infants Baptism Disproved The Second Part disproves Infants Baptism under this Head viz. That the Baptising of Infants is no Ordinance of Jesus Christ which is made good in the seven following Chapters CHAP. I. Wherein the Scriptures total silence about Infants Baptism is observed with the necessity of Scripture-warranty to authorize every Ordinance and that by the confession of Parties themselves IF Infants Baptism had been any Appointment or Ordinance of Jesus Christ No Scripture for Baptising Infants there would have been some Precept Command or Example in the Scripture to warrant the same but in as much as the Scripture is so wholly silent therein there being not one syllable to be found in all the New Testament about any such practice it may well be concluded to be no Ordinance of Jesus Christ for where the Scripture hath no tongue we ought to have no ear according to that known Maxime To practise any thing in the Worship of God as an Ordinance of his without an Institution ought to be esteemed Will-worship and Idolatry And that there is neither Precept or Example for any such thing as Infants Baptism in the Scripture The Parties themselves owning it we have the ingenuous confession of Parties themselves viz. Magdib The Magdiburgenses in Cent. 1. L. 2. p. 496. do say That concerning the baptising of the Adult both Jews and Gentiles we have sufficient proof from Acts 2.8.10.16 chapters but as to the baptising of Infants they can meet with no Example in the Scriptures Luther Luther in Pâ—still saith Young Children hear not nor understand the Word of God out of which Faith cometh and therefore if the Commandment be followed Children ought not to le baptized And again In his Epistle of Anabaptism saith We cannot prove by any place of Scripture that Children do believe neither do the Scriptures clearly and plainly with these or the like words say Baptize your Children for they believe wherefore we must needs yeeld to those that drive us to the Letter because we find it no where written Erasmus Erasmus in his Book of the Union of the Church saith It is no where expressed in the Apostolical Writings that they baptized Children And again upon Rom. 6. Baptising of young Infants was not in use saith he in St. Paul 's time And again In his 4th Book De Ratione Concio saith That they are not to be condemned that doubt whether Childrens Baptism was ordained by the Apostles Calvin Calvin in his 4th Book of Institutes Chap. 16. confesseth That it is no where expresly mentioned by the Evangelists that any one Child was by the Apostl's hands baptized Bucer Bucer upon Mat. saith That Christ no where commanded to baptize Infants Staphilus Staphilus in Epitome saith That young Children should be baptized is not expressed in the holy Scriptures Choelens Choelens De Bapt. Parvulorum saith That Jesus took a Child and placed him in the midst of them what Child was it I think it was not a young or new-born Child and that the same was not baptized For Infants were not in those dayes baptized but such as being come to their full growth confessed their sins Melancthon Melanct. in his Treatise concerning the Doctrine of Anabaptists writeth That there is no plain Commandment in the holy Scriptures that Children should be baptized Zwinglius Zwing In his Book of the Movers of Sedition speaking of baptizing of Children So it is saith he That there is no plain words of the Scripture whereby the same is commanded These latter Quotations from the Germane Doctors you have in an old Dutch Author called A very plain and well-grounded Treatise concerning Baptisme Englished 1618. Mr. Daniel Rogers Mr. Rogers in his Treatise about Baptism Part 29 confesseth himself to be unconvinced by demonstration of Scripture for it Mr. Baxter Mr. Baxter himself that wrote that Book called Plain Scripture-proof for Infants Church-Membership and Baptism yet in contradiction thereto in the same Book p. 3. confesseth That Infants Baptism is not plainly determined in the Scriptures And again in the Defence of the Principles of Love in the Epistle saith That he having had more invitation to study the Point throughly and to treat of it largly than most that are offended herein that they must give him leave to say that he knoweth it to be a very difficult Point Dr. Taylor Dr. Taylor Lib. Proph. p. 239 saith It is against the perpetual Analogy of Christ's Doctrine to baptize Infants for besides that Christ never gave any Precept to baptize them nor ever himself nor his Apostles that appears did baptize any of them All that either he or his Apostles said concerning it requires such previous dispositions to Baptism of which Infants are not capable and those are Faith and Repentance And not to instance in those innumerable places that require Faith before Baptism there needs no more but this one of our Blessed Saviour He that believes and is baptized shall be saved but he that believeth not shall be condemned Plainly thus Faith and Baptism will bring a man to Heaven but if he hath no Faith Baptism shall do him no good so that if Baptism be necessary so is Faith much more for the want of Faith dawns absolutely it is not said so of the want of Baptism The necessity of Scripture Authority to warrant every Ordinance Thus you have it acknowledged by Adversaries themselves that there is neither Precept President or Example in Scripture for baptising of Infants And in the next place you have it
Children is used in Scripture shall by Children understand Infants must needs believe that in all Israel there were no men but all were Infants and if that had been true it had been the greater wonder they should overcome the Anakims and beat the King of Moab and march so far and discourse so well for they were all called the Children of Israel The fourth thing to be inquired into is Whether Circumcision was a Seal of the new Covenant to the Believers and their Seed To which I answer in the Negative that it was neither a Seal to them Circumcision only a Seal to Abraham not to Believers nor their Seed not much less a Seal to them of the new Covenant It is true it was a Seal Confirmation or Ratification 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 It was a Sign put into the Flesh of the Infant but a Sign and Seal only to Abraham witnessing to him that he not only had a justifying faith but to the truth of the Promises viz. That he should be the father of many Nations Gen. 12.23 2dly The father of the faithful Rom 4.11 Heir of the World Rom. 4.13 That in hi◠all the Families of the Earth should 〈◊〉 blessed viz. in Christ proceeding fro◠him which was no wayes true of any Infant that ever was Circumcised for none had before their Circumcisio◠such a faith that intitled them to such singular Promises the scope in that place in the 4. Rom. being to shew That Abraham himself was not justified by Works no not by Circumcision but by faith which he had long before he was Circumcised and so but a Seal or Confirmation of that faith which he had before and to assure him of the truth of those special Promises made to him and his Seed both Carnal and Spiritual And to which purpose you have both Chrysostome and Theophylact Chrysost and The. as Mr. Lawr. P. 168. viz. It was called a Seal of the Righteousness of Faith because it was given to Abraham as a Seal and Testimony of that Righteousness which he had acquired by faith Now this seems to be the priviledge of Abraham alone and not to be transferred to others as if Circumcision in whom ever it was were a Testimony of Divine Righteousness for as it was the priviledge of Abraham that he should be the Father of all the faithfull as well Circumcised as uncircumcised being already the father of all uncircumcised having faith in Vncircumcision he received first the sign of Circumcision that he might be the father of the Circumcised Now because he had this priviledge in respect of the Righteousness which he had acquired by faith therefore the sign of Circumcision was to him a Seal of the Righteousness of faith But to the rest of the Jews it was a sign that they were Abraham 's Seed but not a Seal of the Righteousness of faith as all the Jews also were not the fathers of many Nations Secondly Much less was Circumcision a Seal of the new Testament as before for nothing is a Seal thereof but the Holy Spirit Eph. 1.13.4.30 Thirdly Neither is Baptisme more then Circumcision called a Seal It i◠called a Figure 1 Pet. 3.21 And 〈◊〉 is a sign as before But a sign and figure proper only to men of understanding representing Spiritual things and Mysteries And not as Circumcision which was a sign not improper for Infants because it left a signal impression in their flesh to be remembred all their days but so cannot Baptisme be to any Infants 5. Circumcision not administred only to believers their seed The fifth thing to be examined it Whether Circumcision was administred to Believers as Believers and to their See◠after them as such to which Baptisme was to Correspond It is answered by no means for it was an Ordinance which by the institution belonged to all the natural Linage and posterity of Abraham good or bad without any such limitation as was put upon Baptisme If thou believest with all thy Heart thou mayst Acts 8. or any such qualification to an Infant capable to receive it that he should have a believing Parent but will you deny Abraham to be a believing Parent and was not he a Father to them all What then he was a publick common Father which reaches not the case in hand for he was no such father to them neither have they any other in his stead therefore the Analogy holds not yet if they had would it avail for that Priviledge would not stand the natural Children of Abraham in any stead to admit them to Baptisme which though they claimed upon that account Mat. 3. John rejects them upon it calling them a Generation of Vipers bidding them bring forth fruits meet for Repentance and which only would give them admittance to the Baptisme of Repentance and that it was not enough to say they had Abraham for their father And to the same purpose doth our Saviour tell Nicodemus a Mr. in Israel that without the new Birth his Birth-priviledge would not avail him in the Gospel-priviledges Joh. 3. and with more severity doth he tell the Jews that however they bore up themselves as the Sons of Abraham yet without believing in Christ who could only make them free 6. Baptism came not in the room place use of Circumcision 1. Not in the room and stead they were Bond-slaves to sin and the Children of the Devil The sixth thing to be searched after is Whether Baptisme did succeed in the Room Place and use of Circumcision To which I answer by no means for the following Reasons 1. Not in the room and stead 1. Because then only Males not Females would be baptized because no other Circumcised but all believing women as well as men were to be baptized Acts 8.12 16.14.15 2. Because then some not all Believers should be baptized because not only women as before were not admitted but all Believers out of Abrahams Family to whom he was a Spiritual father because he was a Believer before he was Circumcised Rom. 4.11 12. Whereas all Believers according to the Commission were to be baptized 3. Because then the Circumcised needed not to have been baptized if they had been already sealed with the new Covenant-seal But Christ himself and all his Apostles and so many of the Churches were Circumcised yet nevertheless were baptized 2. Not to the ends and uses 2. Not to the ends and uses neither as suggested upon the following grounds 1. Because Circumcision was a sign of Christ to come in the flesh and Baptisme that he was already come in the flesh witnessing to his Incarnation Death Burial and Resurrection 2. Circumcision was to be a partition Wall betwixt Jew and Gentile but Baptisme testified the contrary viz. That Barbarian Scythian Bond and Free Jew and Gentile Male or Female were all one in Christ Cornelius the
in baptizing of Bells and Churches which in your judgment is so far from making it a right Ordinance the true Subject being wanting that it is no less then a prophanation thereof and a miserable taking of the name of God in vain And farther to demonstrate and illustrate this point you know it is generally owned that Baptisme is no other then our mystical Marriage as being the solemnization of a mutual consent and striking of a Covenant the essentials of Marriage betwixt Christ â—â—d a believer Mr. Bax. as Mr. Baxter â—â—ly owns and acknowledges in his 9. Argument to Mr. Blake saying I conclude Christ hath appointed no Baptisme but what is for a visible Marriage of the Soul to himself as Protestants saith he ordinarily confess therefore he hath appointed no Baptisme but for those that profess to take Jesus Christ â—o be their Husband and to give up themselves to him as his Spouse Now mutual consent in Marriage is so essential an Ingredient that without it there is no Marriage being as Beza saith the formal cause thereof because only Consent makes the Marriage as saith the Lawyers so that if there should be only the consent of one Party it is but like a bargain wherein only one side is agreed for as well known there is no Covenant where no Consent And just so it is in the Case of Infants Baptisme for if you dip an Infant without Consent or Vnderstanding that indeed is capable of neither it no more makes Baptisme then a bargain a bargain though one side only be agreed or if made with an Infant or an Idiot or then a forc'd bed is lawfull Matrimony for as Mr. Baxter before 〈◊〉 ingeniously confesseth That for persons to be baptized without such a profest Contract is a Baptisme not of Christs appointment and that being done without Repentance and Faith iâ— an impious prophanation yea ridiculous saith Mr. Calvin as before And in Confirmation of this weighty point of nullity we are yet farther beholding to Mr. Baxter who is pleased in his Christian Directory amongst the many Cases of Conscience to give 〈◊〉 the discussion of this and which in P. 817. you 'l find managed after this sort viz. Q. 41. Are they really baptized who are baptized according to the English Liturgy and Canons where the Parent seemeth excluded and those to consent for the Infant which have â—o power to do it Answ I find saith he some puzled with this doubt whether all our Infants Baptisme be a meer nullity for say they the outward washing without Covenanting with God is no more Baptisme then the Body of Corps is a Man the Covenant iâ— the chiefe essential part in Baptisme And he that was never entred into Covenant with God was never Baptized But Infants according to the Liturgy are not entred into Covenant with God which they would prove thus They that neither ever Covenanted by themselves or any authorized person for them were never entred into Covenant with God for that is no act of theirs which is done by a stranger that hath no power to do it but c. That they did it not themselves is undeniable That they did it not by any person impowred by God to do it for them we prove first because God fathers are the persons by whom the Infant is said to promise but God-fathers have no Power from God 1. Not by Nature 2. Not by Scripture Secondly because the Parents are not only included as Covenanters but prositively excluded 1. In that the whole Office of Covenanting for the Child from first to last is laid on others 2. In that the 29. Canon saith No Parent shall be urged to be present nor admitted to answer 〈◊〉 God-father for his own Child by â—â—â—ch the Parent is excluded Therefore our Children are all unbaptized to which he is pleased to answer to this purpose Mr. Bax. Answer That though the Parents be absent who yet may if he please be silently present yet his consent is supposed because he chooseth the Sponsors and gives the Minister notice before hand and though my judgment be that they should be the principal Covenanters for the Child expresly yet the want of that expresness will not make us unbaptized persons Now whether Mr. Baxter herein hath not most amply confirmed and not at all answered the Scruple let all men judge For first if it be so as scrupled and by him not denyed 1. That the entring Covenant with God it so the Essential part of Baptisme that without it it is not 2. That Children cannot 3. That the Sureties either by the Law of God or Nature ought not 4. That the Parent by the Canon Law must not How then is it possible which our learned Casuist would impose upon us that a Parents â—â—pposed Consent can create a power in another to do a thing which neither the Law of God nor Nature enjoy us for approves And therefore have we not good and substantial ground from this Argument to conclude That for as much as Children by the Liturgy are baptized without any covenanting with God either by themselves or others authorized by God thereto therefore their Baptisme is a meer nullity And as to his saying Dictator and Oracle like that a Parent hath a Covenanting Power for his Child inherent in him and which he may confer upon another It is but begging the Question in both parts and no less then opposing the Canon but especially a contradicting the whole Current of Scripture As to the Humane invention of Gossips or Sureties for Children and Bells c. you have before at large treated of both as to their Original and Use and also how sinfull and ridiculous by the Bishop of Downe P. 91 92. Which Chapter therefore I shall conclude with the words of Mr. L. a person of great learning and moderation as generally esteemed in his book of Baptisme upon this Point P. 359. And the Patrons of Baptisme I hope will pardon me If what Chamier affirms of Baptisme not given by a right Minister I with more Equity and Reason affirm here That it is not a Sacrament but a rash mockery or deceiving by no â—â—ans to be endured in the Church CHAP. VII Wherein there is an account of some eminent witness that hath been born against Infants Baptisme from first to last THe first we shall mention is that excellent Testimony Tertullian bore against it Tertul. upon the first appearance of it in the 3. Century in his Book de Baptisme Cap. 18. Wherein he disswades from the practice by such like Arguments as these viz. First From the mistake of the Scripture usually brought to enforce it which was afterwards called the Scripture Canon for Baptisme viz. Mat. 19.14 Suffer little Children to come to me and forbid them not for of such is the Kingdom of Heaven c. It is true saith he the Lord saith Dâ— not forbid them to come to me Let them come therefore when they grow
part of Baptisme is the Ministers washing the person and the person first offering himself to be washed and after actually receiving it doth hereby signally profess his consent Now this washing doth essentially signifie our washing from our former filth of sin together with the guilt our putting away the old man which is corrupt according to our deceitful lusts being buried with Christ for all that are baptized must profess to be buried with him and to rise again signifieth a being dead to sin and alive to God to newness of life and not only an engagement of this for the future but a profession also of it at present which is made good from Col 2.11 12 13. Rom. 6.4 5 6 7 8 11. Yea he that readeth the whole Chapter with judgment impartiality will soon discern that true Repentance abrenuntiation of the service of sin was to be professed by all that would be baptized and thereupon they sealed their own profession and Covenant by the reception of Baptisme as Christ sealed his part by the actual baptizing of them Dr. Tayl. Concerning which you have Dr. Taylor very excellently Page 243. Baptisme saith he is never propounded mentioned or enjoyned as a means of Remission of sins or of Eternal Life but something of duty choise and â—anctity is joyned with it in order to the production of the end so mentioned Know ye not that as many as are baptized into Christ are baptized into his Death There is the Mystery and Symbol together and declar'd to be perpetually united All of us who were baptized into the one were baptized into the other not only into the Name of Christ but into his Death also But the meaning of this as it is explained in the following words of St. Paul makes much for our purpose For to be bapitzed into his Death signifies to be buried with him in Baptisme That as Christ rose from the Dead we also should walk in newness of Life that is the full Mystery of Baptisme For being baptized into his Death or which is all one in the next words into the likeness of his Death cannot go alone if we be so planted into Christ we shall be partakers of his Resurrection and that is not instanced in precise reward but in exact duty for all this is nothing but Crucifixion of the old man and destroying of the body of sin that we no longer serve sin And therefore it is that Baptisme is called The answer of a good Conscience towards God 1 Pet. 3.21 Which can by no means be applied to the Infant And thereupon Dr Taylor again p. 244. That Baptisme which saveth us is not not only the washing with Water of which only Children are capable but the answer of a good Conscience towards God of which they are not capable till the use of Reason till they know to refuse the evil and choose the good Mr. Bax. And Mr. Baxter very fully p. 156. If saith he according to the institution the answer of a good Conscience must be joyned with Baptisme for the attaining of its end then we must admit of none that profess not the answer of a good Conscience but the former saith he is certain from the Text for Baptisme is said to save that is its appointed Vse yet not the External washing but the Answer of a good Conscience doth it Therefore this is of a necessary injunction and without it Baptisme cannot attain its Ends But it is to be administred and received only in order to the attainment of its End and theerefore never in a way by which the end is apparently not attainable What the answer of a good Conscience is the common Expositions fully confirm as I maintain The Assemblies Annotations saith he recite both thus viz. By the Answer of a good Conscience we may understand that unfeigned Faith whereof they made confession at their Baptisme and whereby their Consciences were purified and whereby they received the Remission of their sins The Fifth End of Baptisme is to be a Sign to the Believer of the Covenant on Gods part of washing away his sins by the Blood of Christ Fifth end to be a sign of the Covenant on Gods part to give Spiritual Life and Salvation Act. 2.32 3.3 Act. 22.16 1 Pet. 3 21. To which truth Mr. Perkins sets his Seal Mr. Perk. We see saith he what is done in Baptisme the Covenant of Grace is solemnized between God and the Party baptized and in this Covenant something belongs to God and something to the Party baptized And Bullinger Bullinger upon Act. 2.38 That Baptisme is an Agréement or Covenant of Grace which Christ enters into with us when we are baptized as well as a professing sign of our true Repentance A Sixth End is Siâ—th end to represent the union betwixt Christ the Believer That it might be a signal Representation of a Believers union with Christ called therefore a being baptized into Christ and a putting on of Christ figured out by such an Union and Conjunction with the Element as imports a being born thereof and and being clothed therewith Vpon which saith Dr. Taylor Whoever are baptized into Christ Dr. Tayl. have put on Christ have put on the new man This whole Argument is the very words of St. Paul The Major proposition is Dogmatically determined Gal. 3.24 The Minor in Eph. 4.24 The Conclusion then is obvious that they who are not formed in Righteousness and Holiness and Truth They who remaining in their iâ—capacities cannot walk in newness of Life they have not been baptized into Christ and then they have but one Member of the distinction used by St. Peter they have that Baptisme which is the putting away the filth of the Flesh but they have not that Baptisme which is the Answer of a good Conscience towards God which is the only Baptisme that saveth And this saith he is the Case of Children Mr Bax. And to this purpose also Mr. Baxter again p. 98. If it be the appointed use of all Christian Baptisme to solemnize our Marriage with Christ or to Seal or confirm our Vnion with him or ingrafting into him then must we baptize none that profess not iustifying â—aith because this is necessarily prerequisite and no other can pretend to union Marriage or ingrafting into Christ Both the Antecedent and the Consequent are evident in Gal. 3 27 28 29. For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ ye are all one in Christ Jesus and if ye be Christs then are ye Abrahams seed and Heirs according to Promise Here we see that it is not an accidental or separable thing for Baptisme to be our Visible entrance into Christ Our putting him on Our admittance by solemnization into the State of Gods Children and Heirs according to Promise For as all own if we be truly baptized we are baptized into Christ then are we Christs and have put on Christ
and are all one in Christ and Abrahams Seed according to Promise A seventh End of Baptisme is Seventh End entrance into the Visible Church that the Baptized person may orderly thereby have an entrance into the visible Church and have a right given him to partake of all the Ordinances and Priviledges thereof For as Circumcision of old was the visible door of entrance into the Old testament-church and so essentially necessary thereto that without it none were esteemed either Church Members or were to Partake either of the Passover or of any of the Priviledges thereof all without being called the Uncircumcision So also was Baptisme such a Door and Visible entrance into the New-testament-church that none were esteemed Members thereof or did partake of its Ordinances before they were baptized being so Gods Hedge and Boundary that others were esteemed without And therefore as Christ had laid down the Order in the Commission first to teach then to Baptize and then to teach them all things viz. in the place of teaching his School or Church So did they practice accordingly as we read Act 2.41 42. Where after Peter had taught them it is said That they who gladly received his Word were bapt zed and the same day there was added unto them 3000. Souls and they continued stedfastly in the Apostles Doctrine fellowship and breaking of Bread and Prayer So that after Baptisme not before the Believers were said to enjoy and partake of all the Church Priviledges And which is Christs directory and Standard for Rule and Order to the end of the world The Church of Corinth were said 1 Cor. 11.2 to have kept the Ordinances as they were delivered to them And it was the Apostles joy and rejoycing to see the Order and Faith of the Saints Col. 2.5 And therefore it is said 1 Cor. 12.13 That by one Spirit we are all baptized into one body whether we be Jews or Gentiles Bond or Free and have been all made to drink into one Spirit viz. The same Spirit of Faith Regeneration and Holyness which gives right to Baptisme orderly lets into the Body and Church and so admits also unto the Supper which is the received sense of most interpreters upon the place And by this Order believers were said to be baptized into Christ and to be implanted together with him Rom. 6 3 Gal 3.27 For as publick Officers are invested into their trust by some external solemnity that passeth upon them at the time of their installment And as the Husband and Wife enter into their Relation by some solemn act done at the time of their Marriage Or as a Corporation by some publick act done doth receive its Members at their Enfranchisement Even so according to the import of these Scriptures mentioned do Men and Women receive that Relative being which they have in Christ and as Visible Members of that Spiritual â—orporation wherein Christ is Head and Chief from that solemn act of being baptized into him And as the Officer is not invested with his Authority Or Husband and Wife with that Power over each others Bodies as 1 Cor. 7.4 nor any Members with the Immunities of the Corporation by any prequalifications or actions preparatory thereto 〈◊〉 that be acted and done by way of Solemnity which immediately invests them with their several Respectâ— and Capacities In like manner mâ—n are to â—e esteemed capable of those priviledges which visibly do belong to the body of the Church upon the account of any precedaneous Qualification or Action whatsoever until first they have past through those spiritual solemnities in Baptisme upon which they are invested with the denomination and visible priviledges which belong in common to the Members of Christs Mystical body Which Order of Christ hath had such a sanction upon it that all or for the most part all that have profest Christianity whether Papists Prelatists Presbyterians or Independents have owned the same not communicating in the Supper with any they judged unbaptized In a word Baptisme hath been called of old amongst the Ancients and not without Reason Janna Sacramentorum the Gate of the Sacraments whereof they gave this Reason In all respects the Order of the Mystery is kept that first by Remission of sins a Medicine be prepared for their wounds and then the Nourishment of the Heavenly Table be added Ambrose Ambrose Which Truth is further witnessed unto and confirmed by the following Testimonies viz. Justin Martyr Justin Martyr in secunda Apologiâ pro Christianis speaking of the Lords Supper to which the new baptized person is admitted saith This food we call the Eucharist to which no man is admitted but only he that believeth the truth of our Doctrine being washed in the Laver of Regeneration for Remission of sins c. Vrsinus Vrsinus in his Catechisme Baptisme is a Sacrament of entrance into the Church whence it cometh that the Supper is presented to none except first baptized The Assemblies Catechisme â—ssemâ—lies Catechisme Baptisme say they is a Sacrament of the New Testament ordained by Jesus Chriâ—t not only for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the Visibit Church But c. Mr. Bax. Mr. Baxter in his plain Scripture proof p. 24. As a Souldier before Listing and a King before Crowning and taking his Oath so are we Church-Members before Baptisme But as every one that must â—e admitted solemnly into the Army must be admitted by Listing as the solemn engaging sign So every one that hath right to be solemnly admitted into the Visible Church must ordinarily be admitted by Baptisme proved thus If we have neither Precept nor Example in Scripture since Christ ordained Baptisme of any other way of admiting Visible Members but only by Baptisme then all that must be admitted Visible Members must ordinarily be baptized But since Baptisme was instituted we have no Precept or Example of admitting Visible Members any other way but constant Precept and Example for admittance this way Therefore all that must be admitted Visible Members must be baptized I know not saith he what in shew of Reason can be said to this by those that renounce not Scripture For what man dare go in a way that hath neither Precept nor Example to warrant it from a way that hath a full current of both Yet they that will admit Members into the Church without Baptisme do so I had thought to have been larger upon this Point and intended particularly to have answerâ—d a late piece of Mr. â—unions in contradiction hereto But â—eing so well replyed to by Mr. Paul in his serious Reflections so lately Printed I shall say thereto little more then what you find in the Sixth Chapter respecting the constitution of the Primative Churches Now may it not be referred to the Judgment and Conscience of the considerate Impartial Reader whether any but the believer can possibly reach or attain these Spiritual ends mentioned and how capable poor ignorant Babes are to answer
any of them and whether it is not contradictious to common sence and Experience for any to assert it For what Repentance or Faith are they capable to profess What present Regeneration can they evidence What Testimony of a good Conscience can they give in striking or keeping Covenant with God herein And how can they embrace or improve the Covenant on Gods part for Pardon Purging Justification Sanctification and Salvation And therefore is Mr. Faxter forced to confess in his plain Scripture proof p. 301. That as to the Ends of Baptisme they are rather to be fetched from the Aged then Infants and that because the aged 1. are the most fully capable Subjects 2. The most Excellent and Eminent Subjects 3. Of whom the Scripture fully speaks c. But on the contrary as for Infants Baptisme be acknowledgeth in the same place that the Scripture speaketh darkly of it Yea that it is so dark in the Scripture that the Controversy is thereby become not only hard but so hard as he saith he finds it Wherein if he hath not said more in a few words for the baptizing of Believers and against that of Infants then all his great book can answer Let all the world judge though he calls it in contradiction hereto plain Scripture Proof for Infants Church-Membership and Baptisme CHAP. V. Wherein the Baptisme of believers is proved to be the only Baptisme from the New-testament-dispensation so differing from that of the old THe Old Testament Church Fifthly from the new Testament Dispensation we find was national consisting of the Natural and Fleshly Seed of Abraham Therefore were Infants by the Ordinance of Circumcision added thereto Wherein they had a worldly Sanctuary Carnal Ordinances a Temporary Priesthood and multitude of Ceremonies The New-testament-church was by Christs appointment to be a separated people out of the Nations consisting only of the Spiritual Seed of Abraham and therefore believers upon profession of Faith by the Ordinance of Baptisme were added thereto Acts 2.31 1 Cor. 12.13 Wherein aâ— in the Spiritual house the true Tabernacle they partake of Spiritual Ordinances in Communion of Spiritual Members And by an unchangeable Priesthood do offer Spiritual Sacrifices and Worship God as true Wroshippers in Spirit and Truth And therefore upon this change you have John Baptist discharging that Priviledge of Abrahams natural Seed that admitted into the old Church from any such Rite in the new Mat. 3.9 c. telling them in express terms That now in Gospel dayes they must not say within themselves That they have Abraham for their Father viz. That they are the Children of a godly Parent No that which mâ—ght have served turn under Moses will not a vail nor must not be admitted now under Christ Nothing now but fruits meet for Repentance give right to the Bapâ—isme of Repentance and nothing short of the Spirits birth can orderly admit to Water-birth and Spiritual Ordinances And the Genuine Reason Christ himself gave to that Doctor in Israel though yet it seems ignorant of the Mystery of the new birth which only gives the right of admission into the New testament church Because saith he that which is born of the flesh is but flesh Regeneration being not entailed to Generation To which purpose therefore Dr. Owen Dr. Owen very excellently in his Catechisme about Government p. 106. Our Lord Jesus Christ hath laid down saith he as an Everlasting Rule that unless a man be born again he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God John 3.3 Requiring Regeneration as an indispensible condition in a Member of his Church a Subject of his Kingdom for his Temple is now to be built of Living Stones 1 Pet. 2.5 Men Spiritually and savingly quickned from their death in sin and by the Holy Ghost whereof they are partakers made a meet habitation for God Eph. 2 21 22 1 Cor. 3.16 2 Cor. 6.16 Which receiving Vital supplies from Christ its Head increaseth in faith and holiness edifying it self in love Thus far the Doctor Under the Law Ceremony Shadow Letter and Carnal Seed suited to Carnal Ordinances But when the substance and Spirit was come under the Gospel then only a spiritual Seed as most meet and suitable must attend the spiritual Worship and spiritual Ordinances Dr. Tayl. And herein doth Dr. Taylor very well accomodate this Truth P. 242. They saith he that baptize Children make Baptisme to be wholly an outward Duty a Work of the Law a Carnal Ordinance it makes us adhere to the Letter without regard of the Spirit to be satisfyed with Shadows to return to Bondage to relinquish the mysteriousness the substance and spirituality of the Gospel which Argument is of sâ— much the more consideration becausâ— under the Spiritual Covenant or thâ— Gospel of Grace if the Mystery goâ—â— not before the Symbol which doeâ— when the Symbols are consignations oâ— Grace as the Sacraments are yet iâ— always accompanies it but never followâ— in order of time And this is cleâ— in the perpetual Analogy of Holy Scripture CHAP. VI. Wherein Believers Baptisme is confirmed to be the only true Baptisme from the constitution of the Primitive Churches who were formed not of Ignorant Babes but of professing Men and Women that upon Baptisme were joyned together to observe all the Ordinances of Christ which is also further evidenced by the Dedications of the Epistles to the Churches as well as Contents of the same THe Truth whereof appears not only from the Order directed unto in Christs Commission 6. From the constitution of the Primitive Churches which as already observed requires that men be first taught in the Faith 2. That then they be baptized into the Faith And then thirdly that they be edified or taught in the Faith viz. in the place of teaching the Church or School of Christ The contemning which Order as Mr. Baxter saith is to contemn all Rules of Order Sect. 1 But also from the pattern and example the Apostles gave in observation of the aforesaid direction in planting the New Testament Churches we read of As first the Church of Jerusalem Jerusalem Acts 2.41 42. Then they that gladly received his Word were baptized and the same day there were added to them 3000. Souls The them that they were added to appear to be the Baptized Disciples mentioned Acts. 1.15 21 22. And so they continued in the Apostles Doctrine fellowship breaking of Bread and Prayers Where you have the order fully observed 1. Receiving or believing the Word 2. Baptizing 3. Church fellowship in Doctrine breaking Bread and Prayer And so in like manner you will find the self-same order was observed in all the Churches As Secondly The Church of Samaria Samaria Acts 8.12 Where it is said that when the Samaritans believed Philp Preaching the things concerning the Kingdom of God and the name of Jesus they were baptized both Men and Women but not a Word of Children Thirdly The Church at Cesarea Cesarea Acts 10 47 48.
Where Peter upon Cornelius and his Companies believing and receiving the Holy Spirit said Can any man forbid Water that these should not be baptized which have received the Holy Ghost as well as We And he commanded them to be baptized Fourthly The Church of Philippi Philippi Acts 16.14 It is said That Lydia a Worshipper of God heard us whose Heart the Lord opened that she attended unto the things that were spoken by Paul and was baptized and her houshold And Verse 32. They said unto the Ialour believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved And they spake unto him the Word of the Lord and to all that were in his house 33. And he was baptized he and all his straightway 34. â—elieving in God with all his House Where you have two Families baptiâ—ed but no Child mentioned in either but only such who were capable to hear the Word of the Lord and to believe the same Fifthly The Church at Coloss Coloss Col. 2.10 11 12. Where the Apostle asserts that that Church at Coloss was buried with Christ in Baptisme wherein they were risen with him through the faith of the operation of God who hath raised him from the dead Which cannot be truly said of any but professed believers Sixthly Concerning the Church at Corinth Corinth it is said Acts 18.18 And Crispâ—â— the chief Ruler of the Synagogue believed on the Lord with all his House and that many of the Corinthians hearing believed and were baptized and in 1 Cor. 1.13 Paul tells the Church at Corinth That they were not baptized in his name And in 1 Cor. 12.13 That by one Spirit they were all baptized into one Body viz. That they were joyned to the Church by baptisme of whom it is said 1 Cor. 14.2 That they kept the Ordinances as they were delivered to them Seventhly of the Church of Rome it is written Rom. 6.3 Know ye not that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his Death Therefore we are buried with him in Baptisme into Death Eighthly of the Church at Galatia Galatia Gal. 3.26 27. For ye are all the Children of God by Faith in Christ Jesus For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ And lastly of the Church at Ephesus Ephesus it is Recorded Acts 9.1 2 3. That Paul having past through the upper Coasts came to Ephesus and finding Disciples said unto them Have you received the Spirit since you believed and they said No c. And he said unto what were you baptized c. By which Scriptures it manifestly appeareth that the New Testament Churches were formed only of baptized believers wherein we neither find one Ignorant Babe nor one unbaptized person a Member And that Infants have as little right to be admitted into the Church and esteemed Members thereof or to partake of the spiritual Ordinances therein as they have to that initiating Ordinance Baptisme It may further appear if you do but consider how incongruous it is to Reason and sense to imagine that little Children are any way concerned as Church-Members either in the Dedications of the Epistles sent to the Churches or in the Epistles themselves Sect. 2 First In the Dedications and Directions of the Epistles as first that to the Church of Rome Rom. 1.7 Directed to the beloved of God called to be Saints and whose Faith was spoken of through the whole world But can that be said of any Infant And secondly those Epistles to the Corinthians are they not also directed to those that are sanctified in Christ Jesus called to be Saints with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord and theirs enriched with all utterance and Knowledge c. But what Ignorant Babe could be concerned therein And thirdly that Epistle written to the Church at Ephesus Is it not to the Faithful in Christ the chosen adopted abounding in Wisdome and Prudence But what poor silly Babe could be intended thereby And Fourthly In the Letter directed to the Church at Philippi Is it not to all the Saints in Christs Jesus who have had their fellowship in the Gospel from the first day till then Philip. 1.1 But how can that be said of any Child And fifthly those Epistles inscribed to the Church at Thessalonica were they not to such as did abound in Love Faith Hope Patience that received the word in much affliction and joy in the Holy Ghost c. 1 Thes 1. 2 Thes 1.3 But what Patience Love or Hope can be attributed to silly Children And lastly those seven Epistles written to the Asian Churches wherein several Graces are commended and s ns reproved and threatned and every one that had an Ear commanded to hear what the Spirit said to these Churches But how could there be one Child concerned therein The Church of England Church of England in their 19th Article do acknowledge that the Visible Church is a number of Christians by profession Dr. Owen gives a description of a Gospel-Church Dr. Owen in his Catechisme about New Testament Worship P. 89. tells us That a Gospel-Church is a society of Persons called our of the World or their Natural worldly state by the administration of the Word and Spirit unto the obedience of the Faith or the Knowledge and Worship of God in Christ joyned together in an Holy band or by special agreement for the exercise of the communion of Saints in the due observation of all the Ordinances of the Gospel Rom. 1.5 6. 1 Cor. 1.2 1 Cor. 14.15 Heb. 3.1 James 1.18 Rev. 1.20 1 Pet. 2.5 Eph. 2.21 22 23. 2 Cor. 6.16 17. And again in Page 106. As the Apostles in their Writings do ascribe unto all the Churches and the Members of them a Participation in this effectual Vocation affirming that they are Saints Called Sanctified Iustified and Accepted with God in Christ for which he again cites the foregoing Scriptures so many of the Duties which are required of them in that Relation and condition are such as none can perform to the Glory of God their own benefit and the edification of others the â—nds of all obedience unless they are partakers of this effectual Calling 1 Cor. 10.16 17. 1 Cor. 12.12 Ephes 4.16 Mr. Baxter in his 10th Argument to Mr. Blake Mr. â—ax hath these words very significant to our purpose viz. Paul calleth all the baptized Church of Corinth justified None that profess not a justified Faith are called justified therefore none such should be baptized The Major is proved out of 1 Cor. 6.11 Ye are Waâ—hed ye are Sanctified ye are Iustified in the Name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God To which he adds I confess it is sad that good men should be so unfaithfull to the Truth which is so pretious and is not their own and which they should do nothing against but all they can for iâ— Secondly
what profit was to be gotten by Baptisme what is to be confest and believed what lastly is to be observed by them that are new born in Christ and confirms it by Austins own confession of himself continuing a Chatachnmenus long before Baptisme But afterwards understanding Original sin and least their Children should perish without any means of Grace had them he saith baptized according to the Councel of Affrica c. CENTURY X. Auslbert AVslbertus saith That the faithful are born not of blood but of God viz. of the Word of God Preached and of the Baptisme of God duly administred by which Sacraments saith he Gods Children are begotten Cent. 10 p. 186 Smarag Smaragdo on Mat 28. First men are to be taught in the faith then after to be baptized therein for it is not enough that the body is baptized but that the Soul first by faith receive the truth thereof p. 187. Theophi Theophilact saith Whoever are truly baptized into Christ have put on Christ p. 189. CENTURY XI ANselme saith That believers are baptized into the death of Christ that believing his death and conforming thereto may as dying with him live also with him Cent. 11. p. 169. Anselme And again The Baptisme of Christ is the washing in Water into the Word of life take away either Water or Word Baptisme ceaseth p. 116. And again Whoever is baptized hath Heaven opened to him and knows God is there above ready to receive him which as by the Steps of a Ladder he must from his Baptisme ascend to him for as Solomon saith The way of life is above to the wise p. 160 170. Algerus Algerus saith As Water extinguisheth cleanseth and whitneth above other Liquors so in Baptismal Water fleshly lusts are quenched sin both Original and Actual washed away and white Innocency thereby begotten and so whilst the Image of the Heavenly father is reformed the Sons of Adoption are begotten CENTURY XII RVpertus Rupertus saith That they who do believe and make confession thereof are to be Baptized Cent. 12. p. 597. And again in his 4th Book of Divine Offices Cap. 18. saith That in former times the Custom of the primitive Churches was that they administred not the Sacrament of Regeneration but only at the feast of Easter and Pentecost and all the Children of the Church which throughout the whole year through the Word were moved when Easter came gave up their names and were the following days till Pentecost instructed in the Rules of faith rehearsing the same and by their Baptisme and dying thus with Christ rose again with him Johannes Bohemius Bohemius Lib. 2. de Gent. moribus It was in times past saith he the Custom to administer Baptisme only to those that were instructed in the faith and seven times in the week before Easter and Pentecost Catechised but afterwards when it was thought and adjudged needful to Eternal life to be baptizeed It was ordained that new born Children should be baptized and God-fathers were appointed who should make Confession and renounce the Devil on their behalf Rupertus Rupertus again saith That many who are baptized with Water are not renewed in the Spirit of their minds have not put off the old man and his deeds as if he was drowned in the Water and the new man really put on in his 3. Book upon the second of John And again That the visible Baptisme of Water may confer but that in which the virtue of Baptisme doth consist we cannot p 598. Peter Lumbard P. Lumb saith That the Reason why Baptisme was instituted was that the mind might be changed that the man who by sin was made old by Grace might be renewed And that Believers who are baptized in faith receive both the Sacrament and the thing but they who have not faith may receive the Sacrament but not the thing intended in the Sacrament p. 529. Albertus Magnus Albert. Magnus saith That the Laver of Regeneration is not proper but to the Illuminated and Called who can draw virtue from the Death and Resurrection of Christ Cent. 13. 413. And again That Baptisme is Christs Seal wherewith he seals Believers and that where Regeneration is there the sanctifying power of the Spirit operates with the Water 414. And again That Baptisme works to Salvation in those that are Regenerate but not in those that are not Regenerate p. 425. Thomas Aquinus Th. Aqui saith That in Baptisme God works inwardly as he dispenseth outwardly there is not only a consignatioâ— of the Soul but the Body because the whole man by Baptisme is dedicated to God for by Baptisme we die to the life of sin and begin to live a new life of Grace d. 424. And again In Baptisme there is a four fold purification viz. â—y the Word by the Spirit by the Blood of Christ and by baptismal Grace viz. Repentance Faith and Mortification fetcht from Christs Death p. 425. Alexander Bonaventure Aegedius and other learned men of this Age spake also after the same manner in â—ustification of Believers Baptisme CENTURY 14 15 16 17. THough the Magdiburgeâ—stan History reach no farther then the end of the 13th Century yet we do find than both the Principal and practice thereof was owned by many of the learned downwards in the rest of the Centuries Ludovicus Vives L. Vives saith That they continued to baptize the Adult even in Italy in his dayes in his Comment upon August l. 1. c. 26. Bellarm. And Bellarmine himself tells us in his Book de bon Operib l. 2. c. 17. That amongst the Lutherans the Custom of Baptizing the Catachumens and absolving the penitent at Easter is abolished whereas amongst the Catholicks but especially in the City of Rome there is no year wherein great multitudes are not baptized whereby a relick and footstep of Truth may appear even in Rome it self Grotius Grotius saith That in every age many of the Greeks unto this day keep the Custom of deferring the Baptisme to little ones till they could themselves make a Confession of their faith and the Armenians are confest by Heylin in his Microcos 573. to defer Baptisme of Children till they be of grown years Zwinglius Zwingli in his Book of Articles Art 18. In the old time saith the Children were openly instructed who when they came to understanding were called Catachumens that is such as are instructed in the Word of Salvation and when they had imprinted the faith in their Hearts and made confession thereof with their mouths they were admitted to Baptisme and this Cuâ—tom saith he of teaching I wish it were in use in our time Luther Luther In times past it was thus saith he that the Sacrament of Baptisme was administred to none except it were to those that acknowledged and confessed their faith knew how to rehearse the same Bullinger in his house Book 48. Sermon Bulling upon these words God
hath not sent me to Baptize but Preach the Gospel saith This must not slightly be understood as if he were not sent to to baptize at all but that teaching should go before Baptisme for the Lord commanded his Apostles both to Preach and also to administer the Sacraments Erasmus Erasmus paraphraseth that upon those words in Mat 28. When you have taught them the Word of God if they then believe you and receive it if they begin to repent themselves of their former life and are ready and willing to embrace the Doctrine of the Gospel then let them be baptized with Water in the Name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost that they may be marked with his Mark and written amongst the number of those which trust that are through the merits of his death freed and washed from their sins and received to be Children of God Ludovicus Vives in his Comment aforesaid L. Vives l. 1. c. 27. None saith â—e were baptized of old but those that are of Age who did not only understand what the Mystery of the Water meane but desired the same the perfect Image whereof we have yet in our Infants Baptisme for it is askt of the Infant Wilt thou be baptized for whom the sureties answer I will Melancton upon 1 Cor. 11. In times past saith he those in the Church that had Repented them were baptized Melanc and was instead of an Absolution wherefore Repentance must not be seperate from Baptisme for Baptisme is a Sacramental sign of Repentance Beza Beza upon 1 Cor. 7.14 saith That to permit all Children to be Baptized was unheard of in the primimitive Church whereas every one ought to be instructed in the Faith before he were admitted to Baptisme Bucer Bucer in his Book entituled The Ground Work and Cause saith That in the Congregation of God Confession of sins is always first the which in times past went before Baptisme For commonly Children were baptized when they came to their understanding and that in the beginning of the Church no man was Baptized and received into the Congregation but those that through hearing the Word wholly gave over and submitted themselves to Christ Chamier Chamier Tom. 4. l. 5. c. 15. Ser. 19. saith Who seeth not that the Custom of the scrutiny of the Baptized was not in that time when scarce the 1000 Person was Baptized before he came to Age and was diligently exercised in Catechisme Dr Ham Dr. Hamond in his Chat. Lib. 1. l. 3 p 23. saith That all men were instruâ—ted in the Fundamentals of faith anciently before they were permitted te be baptized Dr. Field Dr. Field on the Church p. 729. saith That very many that were born of Christian Parents besides those that were converted from Paganisme put off their Baptisme for a long time insomuch that many were made Bishops hefore they were baptized Ch. Cate. The Doctrine of the Church of England held sorth in their publick Catechisme gives Testimony to this Truth where it is asserted That Repentance whereby we forsake sin and faith whereby we stedfastly believe the promises are required in every one that is to be baptized confessing also that Children can neither repent nor believe Which though they would salve by saying they do both by their Sureties upon which invention they lay the stress of the whole for if there be no warranty for Sureties in the Case they have in these few words given up the Controversy For they grant that Faith and Repentance are requisite to qualifie to Baptisme and ingeniously acknowledge that Children are not capable of either but that they do repent and believe by their sureties which how Consonant to Reason Rule and Righteousness lâ—t all the upright judge and concerning which Practice take the judgment of Dr. Taylor Bishop of Downe Dr. Tayl. p. 239. of his Lib. of Pro. I know saith he God might if he would have appointed God-fathers to give answer in behalf of Children and to be fiduciors for them but we cannot find any authority or ground that he hath and if he had that it is to be supposed he would have given them Commission to have transacted the solemnity with better Circumstances and given Answers with more truth for the Question is askt of believing in the present and if the God-fathers answer in the name of the Child I do believe it is notorious they speak false and ridiculous for the Inâ—ant is not capable of believing and if he were he were also capable of discenting and how then do they know his mind and therefore said he Tertullian and Gregory Nazianzen gave advice that the Baptisme of Infants should be deferred till they could give an account of their own faith How this invention of Gossips came in and by what Pope it was instituted and how they were required in the Baptisme of Bells and Churches as well as Infants you will hear farther in the other Historical Part. We shall now conclude this Chapter with that wonderfull Testimony given by Mâ— Baxter in his 20th Argument to Mr. Blake in these words Mr. Bax. Here note saith he speaking of the Eunuchs not being admitted 〈◊〉 Baptism till he made a profession of his Faith first that Baptisme as received is the Seal of our Faith how much soever denied by Mr. Blake as it is the Seal of Gods Promise secondly That the constant order is that Baptisme follow Faith thirdly That it is 〈◊〉 better then an impious prophanation of it if it go without Faith that is firsâ— if the Party seek it without the presence of Faith secondly if the Pastor administer is without the profession of Faith Thus you see by plentifull Evidence that the Lord hath not left himself without witness hereto from men and that in several Ages not only before but since the Antichristian darkness took place but that which is most to be admired and adored in this Providence is that much of this blessed Testimony for Truth hath proceeded from the Pens of some of its chiefest Adversaries whereby the Wisdom and Power of God hath much appeared who cannot only out of the mouths of Babes and Sucklings but out of the very mouths of Enemies also create and perfect his own praise And make even their own Tongues to fall upon themselves for what is esteemed better Evidence and Testimony amongst men then the confession of Parties themselves But it may be Objected Object that howâ—ver you improve many of these sayings of the Pedobaptists to justifie your way and condemn theirs yet they have another meaning which will well enough reconcile such Principles to their Practice of baptizing Infants and whereby you will be found mistaken in in the supposed advantage for is it to be thought possible that such pious wise and learned men should so positively contradict themselves as you seem to make them do Answ To which I answer That whatever their meaning may be yet their word and reasons
for God and the Shoulders anointed to be inabled to bear God's burden After Baptism the Neck must be anoynted with Chrisme that the mind may be better disposed for God and holy contemplation which by Chrism is signified being made of shining Oile and healing sovereign Balsome They must be endewed with white Garments to hold forth that Innocency which is received in Baptism as well as the Glory which they are to pertake of at the Resurrection And a burning Taper put into the hand that the Word of God may be a light to his Feet Gulielmus saith That as to the form of Baptism the Virgin Mary A blasphemous addition is to be added to the Father Son and Holy Spirit viz. I Baptize thee in the name of the Omnipotent Father Son and Holy Spirit and the blessed Virgin Mary 419. Thom. saith there are seven Sacraments 7 Sacraments viz. Baptism Confirmation Eucharist Penance Extream-Vnction Order and Matrimony Two whereof viz. Baptism and the Eucharist were instituted by Christ and the other five by the Apostles as Alexander 406. Which seven Sacraments were after confirmed by the Councel of Trent with Anathema to those who should deny them When and by whom Tyths first granted Pope Gregory X. was the first in Anno 1271. granted Tythes to the Churches Those that opposed and witnessed against Infants Baptism and other Popish Superstitions in this Age were the Albigenses and Aumionenses Magdeburg Cent. 13. P. 554 c. CENT 14 15 16 17. That the Baptizing of Infants with all the Rites and Ceremonies still continued especially in the Romish Church we need not question when we read the Canons of the Council of Trent which was called on purpose as to establish their old Superstitions and Idolatries so to suppress the Light and Truth that especially did shine in the Empire In which Council which ended 1564. we have the following Canons The Canons of the Council of Trent about Inf. Bapt. In the 5th Session about Original Sin in the 4th Canon It was Decreed That they who shall deny Baptisme to young Children from their Mothers Womb for the taking away Original Sin Let them be accursed Os 16 Cent. c. 60 380. In the 7th Session about Baptism in the 13 Canon It was Decreed That whosoever puts not young baptised Children amongst the faithful or saith they must be re-baptised at the years of discretion or that it is better to omit their vaptism till then Let them be accursed And in the 14 Canon It was decreed That whosoever shall say that baptised Children when they come to Age ought not to be enjoyned to ratifie the promise made in their name but to be left to their will if they refuse Not compelling them to Christian life but denying them other Ordinances Let them be accursed In the 3 Canons about Confirmation it was Decreed That whosoever said It was an idle Ceremony not a Sacrament properly or that it was formerly used that Children might give an account of their faith 2. That to give vertue to Chrysome was tâ— wrong the Holy Spirit 3. Thaâ— every simple Priest is the ordinary Minister for confirmation and not thâ— Bishop only Let them be accursed Os 16 Cent. pag. 417. And as a standing Rule to justifie themselves in their Determinations they conclude and Decree A blasphemous Decree That their Traditions should bâ— observed Pari Pietatis affectu with the same pious affection with the Holy Scriptures Charl. V. his Interim In that Instrument called the Interim That Decretal of Charles the Fifth made till the Councels Canonâ— could be perfected it was determined That young Children by the faith and confession of the Sureties should be Baptised And that all Ancient Ceremonies that pertained to the Sacrament 〈◊〉 Baptisme should be continued as Exorcisme Chrysme c. Osiander p. 482. Among the many Aâ—â—â—christian oppressions the Princes of Germany exhibited to the Pope from their Convention of Norimberg they complained oâ— that of baptizing Bells wherein they say The Suffragans have invented Baptizing of Bells complained of by the Princes of Germany that no other but only themselves may Baptize Bells for the Lay-people Whereby the simple people upon their affirmation do believe That such Bells so baptized will drive away evil Spirits and Tempests Whereupon a great number of God-fathers are appointed especially such as are rich which at the time of the baptizing holding the Rope wherewithal the Bell is tyed the Suffragan speaking before them as is accustomed in the baptizing of young Children they altogether do answer and give the name to the Bell the Bell having a new name put upon it as is accustomed to be done to the Christians after this they go to sumptuous Feasts whereunto also the Gossips are bidden that thereby they may give the greater reward to the Suffragans their Chaplins and Miâ—â—sters whereby it happeneth oft-times that even in a small Village an hundred Florins are consumed in such Cristenings which is not only superstitious but contrary to Christian Religion a seducing of the simple People and meer Extortion Wherefore such wicked unlawful things are to be abolished Fox's Acts and Monum 990. Pius the Fifth baptized the Duke of Alva 's Standard Standard Baptized and called it Margaret Dr. Morison de Depra Bel. p. 24. The German Protestants about Infants-Baptism Luther August Confessâ—oÌ„ The Lutherans in their Augustan Confession made 1530. do declare That Baptism is necessary to Salvation That Gods Grace is conferred thereby That Children ought to be baptised who by Baptism are dedicated and received into the grace and favour of God condemning the Anabaptists who deny Baptism to Children and who affirm that Children without Baptism may be saved Osiand 16 Cent. p. 153. In the Smalkald Articles 1536. the Lutherans say In the Smalkald Articles Concerning Infants we teach that they are to be baptized For inasmuch as they do belong to the promised Redemption made by Iesus Ehrist the Church ought to baptize and to declare the promise to them Osiand Cent. 16. p. 278. In the Conference betwixt the Calvinists and Lutherans at Mumpelgartens 1529. In the Conference at Mumpelgart It was agreed that Baptisme came in the room of Circumcision and that the Children of the Christians are to be Baptized Osiand Cent. 16. 1020. Though about the Ground of Baptizing them they differed The Lutherans affirming that they had a proper and peculiar Faith to intitle them thereto The Calvinists asserting they had none but ought to be baptized by vertue of the Faith of the Parent in Covenant In the Book of Concord In the Book of Concord 1580. by the Lutherans They agree that the Tenets of the Anabaptists are to be renounced that say Infants are not to be baptized because they have no use of reason Osiand 16 Cent. p. 254. The English Protestants about Infants Baptism In the Reformation begun in Edward the Sixth time In the
London going to a Dispute about infants-Infants-Baptism told his friend He was going to hear a Miracle viz. Infants Baptism to be proved by Scripture And the Ground and Reason why they do so firmly own this Truth to the Protestants upon that subject is but the better to inforce and introduce their many other Traditions there being nothing else for that But whereas some object That Bellarmine and others do also bring Scripture for it Becan Becâ—n Lib. 1. c. 2. Sec. 24. answers That some things may be proved out of Scripture when the Churches sence is first heard about the Interpretation thereof for so he saith it is concerning Infants Baptism which is proved from John 3.5 Except a man be born of Water and the Spirit c. But the sense whereby to prove it it only manifest by Tradition And it is confirmed in the Canon Law and Schoolmen That Infants-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 Caistans secundum Jewel That an Infant wanting Instruction in the Faith hath not perfect Baptism Tom. prec p. 86. Dr. Field Dr. Field Lib. 4. P. 375. saith That Infants-Baptism is therefore called a Tradition because it is not expresly delivered in the Scriptures that the Apostles did baptise Infants or that they should do so The Oxford Divines Oxford Divines in a full Convocation Jan. 1647. say That without the consentaneous judgment and practice of the Universal Church they should be at a lâ—ss when they are called upon for proof in the point of Baptizing Infants Mr. Tombes Dr. Prideaux Dr. Pridâ— Controv. Theol. Sec. 392. Infants Baptism saith he rests upon no other Divine right than Episcopacy viz. Diocesan Episcopacy in use in these Nations Mr. Baxter Mr. Baxter in Defence of the Principles of Love p. 7. saith That the Anabaptists are Godly men that differ from us in a Point so difficult that many of the Papists and Prelatists have maintained That it is not determined in Scripture but dependeth upon the Tradition of the Church Though he saith he is of another mind himself To which many more might be added to prove to you That Apostolical Tradition for want of Scripture hath been urged as the principal and first ground of this Practice And not only for this but for all other Rites and Ceremonies as well those that have been already declared as Chrysme Exorcisme Consignation and innumerable more as those that have not yet been heard of or declared for as a late learned Author excellently observes That the Papists Dr. Owen in point of Tradition do herein very much exceed the Jews those old Tradition mongers who so made void the Law of God in their days by it For they tell us plainly that now their whole Oral Law is written and that they have no reserve of Authentick Traditions not yet declaâ—r'd But here the Romanists saith he fail us for although they have given us heaps upon heaps of their Traditions yet they plead that they have still an inexhaustible treasure of them laid up in their Church-stores â— breast of their Holy Father to be drawn forth at all times as occasion shall require And which Principle hath been the means of their Apostacy and is the great Engin whereby they are rendered incurable therein Dr. Owen his Proleg P. 67. Dr. Taylor D. Taylor P. 237. argues so fully and strenuously upon this point of Tradition that I cannot pass him by who saith Tradition by all means must supply the place of Scripture and there is pretended a Tradition Apostolical that Infants were baptized But at this saith he we are not much moved For we who rely upon the written Word of God as sufficient to establish all true Religion do not value the allegation of Tradition And however the world goes none of the Reformed Churches can pretend this Argument for this Opinion Because they who reject Tradition when it is against them must not pretend it in the least for them but if we allow the Topick to be good yet how will it be verified For so far as can yet appear it relies wholly upon the Testimony of Origen for from him Austin had it Now a Tradition Apostolical if it be not consigned with a fuller testimony than of one person whom all other Ages have condemned of many Errors and whos works saith Erasmus are so spurious that he that reads them is uncertain whether he read Origen or Ruffinus Therefore will obtain so little reputation amongst those who know that things have upon greater Authority been pretended to be received from the Apostles but falsly that it will be a great Argument that he is ridiculous and weak that shall be determined by so weak Probation in matters of so great concernment But besides that the Tradition cannot be proved to be Apostolical we have very good evidence from Antiquity That it was the Opinion of the Primitive Church That Infants ought not to be Baptized which saith he is clear in the Canon of the Council of Neocaesarca which he mentions at large in the original Greek Determining that none ought to be baptized without giving an account of their Faith and desiring the same That tie Traditons for Inf. Bapt. are fabulous Thus far Dr. Taylor In the next place we shall give you some account of the insufficiency and weakness if not the wickedness of those first Authorities that have been leaned upon to prove this Practice to be an Apostolical Tradition and which appearing fabulous all others depending upon the same necessarily fall to the ground whereof you have four or five of the principal of them and which may be useful to the Protestants whatever they are to the Papists viz. The first and earliest we meet with to prove Infants-Baptism to be an Apostolical Tradition is that of Dyonisius the Arâ—opagite mentioned already P. 109. quoted by Bellarmin Tom. 3. Lib. 8. Cassander in his Book de Bapt. and many other learned Papists for Authentick proof that Infants-Baptism was Apostolical out of his Ecclesiastical Hiâ—rarchy c. But that this was a piece of Forgery put upon the world may yet further more fully appear to you in that which followeth viz. This Dionysius the Areopagite living at Athens Dionysius Areopag who some will have to be Bishop of Corinth though Eusebius calls him Bishop of Athens for you must know according to Eusebius and Dorotheus all men of Name in the New Testament must be Bishops of some place or other and therefore they can tell you not only the Names of the seventy Disciples but what Bishopricks each did belong unto Now this Person being an Athenian must be supposed to be a learned Greek Philosopher and therefore upon none more fitly in this Age could be fathered all those Philosophical Tracts that are put upon him and amongst which you have two of
D. Tayler p. 240. speaking so much my mind and the truth herein saith he Whether Infants have Faith or no is a Question to be disputed by persons that care not how much they say and how little they prove First Personal and Actual Faith they have none for they have no acts of Understanding and besides how can any man know that they have since he never saw any sign of it neither was he told so by any that cold tell Secondly Some say they have Imputative but then so let the Sacrament be too that is if they have the Parents faith or the Churches then so let Baptism be imputed also by deriuation from them and as in their Mothers Womb and while they hang on their Mothers Breasts they live upon their Mothers Nourishment So they may upon the Baptism of their Parents or their Mother the Church For since Faith is necessary to the susception of Baptisme and they themselves confess it by striving to find out new kinds of Faith to daub the matter up such as the Faith such must be the Sacrament for there is no proportion between an actual Sacrament and an imputative Faith this being in immediate and necessary order to that And whatsoever can be said to take off from the necessity of Actual Faith all that and much more may be said to excuse from the actual susception of Baptisme The first of these devices was that of Luther and his Scholars the second of Calvin and his and yet there is a third Device which the Church of Rome teaches and that is that Infants have habitual Faith but who told them so How can they prove it What Revelation or Reason teacheth any such thing Are they by this habit so much as disposed to an actual Belief without a new Master Can an Infant sent into a Mahumetan Province be more confident for Christianity when he comes to be a Man than if he had not been baptized Are there any Acts precedent concomitant or consequent to this pretended Habit This strange Invention is absolutely without Art without Scripture Reason or Authority But the Men are to be excused unless there were a better To which saith he this Consideration may be added That if Baptisme be necessary to the Salvation of Infants as the Fathers of old and the Church of Roms and England since upon whom is the imposition laid To whom is the Command given To the Parents or the Children Not to the Parents for then God hath put the Salvation of innocent Babes into the Power of others and Infants may be damned for their Fathers carelesness or malice It follows that it is not necessary at all to be done to them to whom it cannot be prescribed as a Law and in whose behalf it cannot be reasonably entrusted to others with the appendent necessity and if it be not necessary it is certain it is not reasonable and most certain it is no where in terms prescribed and therefore it is presumed that Baptism ought to be understood and administred according as other Precepts are with reference to the capacity of the subject and the reasonableness of the thing And again to this purpose p. 242. And if any Man runs for succour to that exploded Cresphugeton that Infants have Faith or any other inspired Habit of I know not what or how we desire no more advantage in the world than that they are constrained to answer without Revelation against Reason common Sense and all the Experience in the World The Argum. from federal Holiness examined 4. Argum. From Federal Holiness examined The other Scriptures we shall speak to are those that are supposed to hold cut a Covenant-Right to the Children of Believers and from whence Arguments are drawn for the Baptizing of them which are principally 1 Cor. 7.14 Gen. 17.7 compared Rom. 4.11 and Acts 2.39 From whence it is asserted That the Children of Believers being a holy Seed and in Covenant that to them therefore belong the Seals of the Covenant which we shall examine with care and circumspection so much stress being laid thereon And as previous to our Answer thereto shall in the fir place take notice that this way of arguing hath been the new way which since the Reformation hath been taken up to prove Infants-Baptism by Antiquity of the Argum. from Federal Holiness For when the unsoundness and rotteness of the antient ground of Infants-Baptisme appeared they being loath to part with the Tradition endeavoured to build it upon this new Foundation for when it was discovered that Infants might be saved without Baptism and that they were not damned if they died without it and that the Sacrament did not give Grace by the bare work done nor took not away Original Sin it was high time to lay a new Foundation for it or else it would have faln therefore is this new way of Covenant-Holiness found out upon which our Congregational-Men especially both in Old as well as New-England seem to go of which Zwinglius about 120 years since forasmuch as I can learn was the first Founder wherein he was singular from all that went before him And which he seems himself to owne in his Book of Baptisme Tom. 2. Fol. 57. Saying That all those who have from the Apostles times written of Baptism have not in a few things erred from the scope he having it seems found out a way freer from Error and Exception than all the Tracts of the Antients Having observed to you the Antiquity of this new Foundation we shall in the next place weigh and consider the Arguments themselves The First and chiefest is from 1 Cor. 7.14 Else were your Children unclean The Arguments from Foederal-holiness examined 1 Cor. 7.4 but now are they holy From whence this Argument is raised That they who are holy with a Covenant-holiness may be baptized But the Infants of Believers are holy with a Covenant-holiness for it is said in the Text but now are they holy therefore they may be baptized In which Argument we have these two things asserted but not at all proved First that the holiness in the Text is a federal or Covenant holiness Secondly That Federal or Covenant holiness qualifies Infants for Baptism Both which are positively denied upon the following Grounds First Because the Holiness in the Text be it what it will whether Moral Federal or Matrimonial is neither here or elswhere assigned to be a ground of baptizing Children upon it being only the ground laid down in the Institution that can warrant the same The Female as well as the Male Children under the Law had all of them a Legal or Federal Holiness yet must none of them be Circumcised because God had not so ordained And for twenty Generations before the Law Circumcision was neither administred to Male or Female for the like Reason It being Gods Word only not our Reason or the Inventions or Persuasions of Learned Men that can warrant our practice in Gods
us that horrible Gulfe of Divine Justice in which Christ for our sins sake which he took upon him was for a while in a manner swallowed up Abiding under the Water how little a while soever denotes his descent into Hell even the very deepest of lifelesness while lying in the sealed and guarded Sepulchre he was accounted as one dead Rising out of the Water holds out to us a lively similitude of that Conquest which this dead man gâ—t ever Death which he vanquished in his own Den as it were that is the Grave In like manner therefore saith he it is meet that we being Baptized into his Death and buried with him should rise also with him and so go on in a new Life Rom. 6.3 4. Col. 2.12 Bish Jew Bishop Jewel in his Apology P. 308. Brings the Council of Wormes determining the manner of Baptisme viz. That the dipping into the Water is the going down into Hell or the Grave and that the coming out of the Water is the Resurrection And most remarkable is the Testimony that Mr. Baxter himself gives to this Truth Mr. Bax. wherein he also owns the changing of the Ceremony in his third Argument against Mr. Blake in these words viz. Quoadmodum To the manner saith he it is commonly confessed by us to the Anabaptists as our Commentators declare that in the Apostles time the Baptized were dipped over head in Water and that this signifieth their profession both of believing the Burial and Resurrection of Christ and of their own present renouncing the World and Flesh or dying to sin and living to Christ or rising again to newness of Life or being buried and risen again with Christ as the Apostle expoundeth in the forecited Texts of Col. 2. Rom. 6. And though saith he we have thought it lawfull to disuse the manner of dipping and to use less Water yet we presume not to change the use and signification of it So then he that signally professeth to die and rise again in Baptisme with Christ doth signally profess saving Faith and Repentance but this do all they that are baptized according to the Apostles practice Thirdly from the use of the Ancients and the confest Change thereof since this Rite of dipping in Baptisme is confirmed Daille Daille on the Fathers 2d Book P. 148. saith That it was a Custom heretofore in the Ancient Church to plunge those they baptized over Head and Ears in the Water as saith he Tertullian in his Third Book de Cor. Mil. Cyprian in his 7. Ep. P. 211. Epiphanius Pan. 30. P. 128. and others testifie And this saith he is still the practise both of the Greek and the Russian Church at this day as Cassander de Bapt. P. 193. And yet saith he notwithstanding this Custom which is both so Ancient and so universal is now abolished by the Church of Rome and this is the reason saith he That the Muscovites say that the Latines are not rightly and duly Baptized because they are wont not to use this Ancient Ceremony in their Baptisme Walfrid Strabo Walfridus Strabo de Reb. Eccles Tells us that we must know at the first Believers were Baptized simply in Floods and Fountains Mr. Fox Mr. Fox tells us in his Acts and Monuments Part. 1. P. 138. out of Fabian Cap. 119 120. That Austin and Paulinus did in the 7th Century Baptize here in England great multitudes in the River Trent and the River Swol where note by the way saith Mr. Fox it followed there was no use of Fonts The like also as you 'l here after find Germainus and Lupus the two French Evangelists did in the fifth Century Baptize multitudes in the River Allin near Chester Hierem. Pa. Con. Hieremias Patr. of Constantinople ad Thelo Witâ—bergenses Resp. 11. C. 4. saith The Ancients Baptized not by sprinkling the Baptized with Water with their hands but by Immersion following the Evangelist who came up out of the VVater therefore did he descend which must needs be Immersion and not Aspersion Zepperus Zepperus de Sacramentis from the Annotation and Etymology of the word it doth appear what was of old the Custom of administring Baptisme which though we have changed into rantising or sprinkling Dr. Taylor in his Rule of Conscience Dr. Tayl. B. 3. C. 4. P. 644 645. The Ancient Church did not in their Baptisme sprinkle VVater with their Hand but did Immerge and therefore we find in the Records of the Church That the Persons to be Baptized were quite naked as it is to be seen in many places particularly in the Mystagogy Chat. of St. Cyril and many others as you have before in the second Chapter of this Part from Vossius P. 133. And this of Immersion was of so sacred an account in their esteem that they did not esteem it lawfull to receive him into the Clergy who had been only sprinkled in Baptisme as the Epistle of Cornelius to Fabianus of Antioch Euseb lib. 6. c. 43. It is not lawfull that he who is sprinkled in his Bed by reason of sickness should be admitted to Holy Orders doubting whether such a sprinkling should be called Baptisme And therefore Magnus in his Epistle questions whether they are to be esteemed right Christians who are only sprinkled and not dipt in VVater And that Chrysostome saith That the old man is buried and drowned in the Immersion under VVater and when the Baptized Person is afterwards raised up from the VVater it represents the Resurrection of the new man to newness of life And therefore concludes that the contrary Custom being not only against Ecclesiastical Law but against the Analogy and Mystical signification of the Sacrament is not to be complyed with Marq. of VVorcest The Church of Rome confesseth by a Learned Pen the Marques of Worcester in his Certam Relig. That she changed dipping the Party Baptized over Head and Ears into sprinkling upon the Face Until the Thâ—rd Century we find not any that upon any consideration did admit of sprinkling The first we meet with is Cyprian in his Epistle to Magnus What Clinical Baptisme Lib. 4. Ep. 7. where he pleads for the Baptizing of the sick by sprinkling and not by dipping or pouring called the Clinical Baptisme Magdib Cen. 3. Ch. 6. P. 126. As also for the sprinkling of new Converted Prisoners in the Prison House And which by degrees afterwards they brought in use for sick Children also and then afterwards all Children Aquinas Scotus and others of the Schoolmen conclude that dipping is most agreeable to the Institution but admit that in case of necessity viz. when either many are to be baptized scarcity of VVater or sickness and weakness they may sprinkle Vossius P. 38. All which Arguments from the Genuine Sence of the Word Nature of the Ordinance Usuage of the Ancients were excellently inculcated by the learned Dr. Tillotson in a Sermon Preached at his Lecture in Michaels Cornhill London April 15. 1673. from
upon the Head or Face contrary to the Sence of the Word Nature of the Ordinance and constant Vsage of the Primitive times as confest by Parties themselves obliging thereby the Administrator to tell a lie in the name of the Lord saying he doth Baptize when he doth but Rantize V. By introducing so much Error and false Doctrine into the world viz. 1. That it was to take away Original sin 2. To work Grace and Regeneration and to effect Salvation by the Work done 3. That it was an Apostolical Tradition 4. That Children have Faith and are Disciples of Christ 5. That all Children of Believers are in the Covenant of Grace and faederally Holy VI. 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 2. By laying a foundation of much ignorance and profaneness 3. By confounding World and Church together which Christ hath separated bringing the World into the Church and turning the Church into the World VII By introducing and establishing many Humane Traditions and Inventions of Antichrist together with it as Gossips or Sureties Bishoping or Confirmation Chrysme Exorcisme Confignation c. prophaning thereby so solemn an Ordinance taking Gods name in vain and making his Commandments void VIII By being such a make-bate such a Bone of Contention and that amongst themselves too that own it as well as with those that oppose it For what Divisions and Sub-divisions are there amongst them both as to Subject Time Order Circumstances what endless strifes about Womens baptizing and whether Bastards or the Children of Apostates Heathens or Excommunicated persons should be baptized IX By being an occasion to stir up much bitter hatred wrath strife enmity and persecution against those that oppose it Oh how have they been loaded with Calumney and Reproaches as the vilest of Men and how in all Ages have they been followed with Stripes Imprisonments Confiscations yea Death it self as the Historical Part informeth you X. By confirming hereby the whole Antichristian Interest as made good in the Preface XI By ushering in great Absurdities Absurdities viz. 1. That persons may have Regeneration and Grace before Calling 2. That Persons may be visible Church-Members before Conversion 3. That Persons may Repent believe and be Baptized and saved by the Faith of another 4. That Types and Shadows are profitable after the Antitype and Subâ—tance is come introducing thereby the Legal Birth-priviledge the Carnal Seed the Typical Holiness the National Church c. to the reviving Judaisme and outing Christianity 5. That the better to exclude believers Baptisme new Church-Covenants are invented to enter into the Visible Church by instead thereof especially amongst those that own Infants Baptisme yet deny them the right of Church-Membership XII By the manifold Contradictions Contradiâ—tions that attend the Practise 1. By asserting that Baptisme is a Symbol of present Regeneration wrought and yet apply it to ignorant unconverted Babes so uncapable of regeneration as Jam. 1.18 1 Pet. 1.23 Joh. 1.12 13. And as so well defin'd by Dr. Owen in his Theo. l. 6. c. 4 p. 480. viz. To be a Renovation new Creation Vivification opening blind Eyes raising from Death to Life c. 2. That it truly figures and represents a Death Burial and Resurrection and yet do nothing but sprinkle or pour a little Water on the Face 3. That Faith and Repentance is râ—quired in Persons to be baptized anâ— that it is ridiculous yea impious anâ— prophane to do it without and yet coâ—fess that Children to whom they apply it have neither 4. That it is the declaration of the Spiritual Marriage the stipulation that is mutually entred into betwixt God and the Believer and yet assign it to Subjects as uncapable of either as Stocks or Stones Bells or Church-walls that yet Antichrist makes capable Subjects thereof as well as Infants 5. That the Baptismal Covenant enters into the Visible Church and yet deny the Church-Members the Priviledges thereof or seperate from them without any warrantable cause shew'd or orderly proceeding either against them or they that do own them as such 6. That seperate from Rome as the false Church and yet own their Baptisme the Foundation Stone thereof And others that pretend seperation from National and Parish Churches and to disown the baptizing the Children of all good and bad with the sinful Ceremonies attending it yet if Papist or Protestant either upon their Tearms tender to their fellowship they are received without Renouncing their sinfull Baptisme and performing it in the way they judge right 7. That they own the Doctrine of Perseverance and dâ—sown falling from Grace yet baptize all the Children of Believers because they conclude them in the Covenant of Grace yet afterwards teach them Conversion and in Case of unbelief reject them as Reprobates And to all which you may familiarly add by your daily observation which Chapter we shall conclude with these high expressions of Dr. Tayler Dr. Tayl in his Lib. Pro. P. 244. And therefore whoever will pertinaciously persist in this opinion of the Paedobaptists and practice it accordingly they pollute the Blood of the Everlasting Covenant They dishonour and make a Pagentry of the Sacrament They ineffectually represent a Sepulture into the Death of Christ and please themselves in a Sign without effect making Baptisme like the Fig-Tree in Gospel full of Leaves but no Fruit and they invocate the Holy Ghost in vain doing as if one should call upon him to illuminate a Stone or a Tree CHAP. VI. Wherein the nullity and utter insignificancy of Infants Baptisme is made appear THat it is no way safe for any to rest contented with that Baptisme which they received in their Infancy may appear because such their Baptisme is a meer nullity an insignificant nothing in respect to the New Testament Ordinance of Baptisme and the reason is plain because there is that wanting in it which is so essential to true Baptisme For first Neither right matter nor form there is as the right Subject of Baptisme wanting so the true External form is wanting also as practised with us For the External form as before shewed is not sprinkling or pouring a little Water upon the Head or Face but a dipping the whole person under Water and raising him up again to figure out death burial and Resurrection as before If then matter and form be wanting which is Essential to its being it must needs be a nullity for what is more essential to the being of a thing then matter and form and how is it possible to define Baptisme or any thing else where they are wanting and which is such a difficiency in that or any thing else that makes it a non-entity or a meer nullity Object But 't is said there was the right words of Baptisme it was done in the name of the Father Son and Holy Spirit Answ So there was also
Elder when they learn when they are taught why they come let them be made Christians when they can know Christ Secondly From the weightiness of the Ordinance which ought not to be trifled with For saith he they that do understand the weight of Baptisme will rather fear the attaining it then the deferring it Thirdly From the sinfulness of such a Practice So rashly saith he to give such Holy things to Dogs and to cast such Pearls before Swine and so headily to partake of other mens sins Fourthly From the absurdity of it To refuse to commit Earthly and Secular things to their trust by reason of their incapacity and yet to commit to and intrust them with Heavenly and Spiritual things Fifthly From the folly of exposing of Witnesses Who by death may not only frustrate their Promises but be disappointed through the evil disposition of them they so largely undertake for Mag. Cen. 3. c 6. 125. Sixthly From the consideration that the Adult were the only proper Subjects of Baptisme because saith he Fasting Confession Prayer Profession Renouncing the Devill and 〈◊〉 Works is called for from them Coron Mil. 124. The Witness Born by the Donatists THe second we shall mention is the Witness that the Novations and Donatists gave against it 2. Novations Donatists Austin as Austins 3. and 4. Books against the Donatists doth demonstrate wherein he manageth the Argument for Infants Baptisme against them with great zeal enforcing it by several Arguments but especially from Apostolical Tradition and cursing with great bitterness they that should not embrace it And therefore Osiander Osiander in his Epit. Gen. 16. P. 175. saith That our modern Anabaptists were the same with the Donatists of old And Fuller Fuller in his Ecclesiastical History l. 5. p. 229. saith That the Anabaptists are the Donatists new dipt And in farther Confirmation thereof Pope Innocent I. the first Institutor and Imposer of Infants Baptisme did banish thâ—â— People called Cathâ—ri out of Rome as Socrates Socrates l. 7. c. 9. We put the Donatists and Novations together because they did so well agree in Principle Cryspin as Cryspins French Hist P. 17. out of Albaspinaus upon Optat. Milevitanus Observat 20. telleth us saying That they hold together in the following things viz. First For purity of Church Members by offering that 〈◊〉 ought to be admitted into Churches but such as were visibly true Believers and reâ—â— Saints Secondly For the purity of Church-Discipline as the Application of Church Censures and keeping out such as had Apostatised or scandalously sinned Thirdly They both agreed in asserting the Power Rights and Priviledges of particular Churches against Antichristian incroachments of Presbiters Bishops and Synods Fourthly That they baptized again those whose first Baptisme they had ground to doubt Eckbert Eckbertus and Emericus two great opposers of the Waldenses for denying Baptisme to Children as afterwards you 'l find do assert That the new Cathari or Puritans which they called the Waldenses do conform to the Doctrine and manners of the old Cathari viz. the Nâ—vations And Paul Perin Perin in hâ—s History of the Waldenses tells us That the Fratricelli or little Brethren another name given to the Waldenses were time out of mind in Italy and Dalmatia and were the Offspring of the Novations persecuted and driven from Rome about 400. and why for their purity in Communion were also called Cathari And as for Cassanders Reason in his Epistle to the D. of Cleve why the Donatists did not disown Infants Baptisme mentioned also by Mr. Gâ—bbâ—t I conceive hath no weight at all in it viz. because the 6 Council of Carthage decreed That all that returned from the Dâ—natâ—â—â—s should be received â—â—to the Catholick Church without Rebaptisation thâ—â—gh â—aptized in Infancy which is bâ—◠〈◊〉 supposition at â—â—st that they might be baptized in Infancy oâ— they might not and câ—â— signifie nothing against all the former Evideâ—â—â—â— â—bjeâ—â—s But the Nâ—vations and Doâ—â—â—isâ—s were by Popes and Councels adjudged and dealt with as Hereticks Answ So were the Waldenses as you 'l hear none more and so have â—een the Christians in all aâ—es therefore all that have heen so Censured ought not so to be esteemed Paul himself tells us That in the way they called Heresie so worshiped be the God of his Fathers And indeed what part of the purest Gospel way and worship has escaped this Censure Neither doth is follow if Christians should erre or mistake themselves in some things that therefore they must be rejected as Hereticks in others I could enumerate several gross errors and mistakes of Austin himself their great opposer as they are â—â—corded amongst his Navi mâ—st be therefore be esteemed 〈◊〉 Heretick But as to the Novaâ—â—us and Dâ—natists so much one in principle and praâ—tiâ—e however adjudged by Popes and Councils I 〈◊〉 find they 〈◊〉 other then a very Holy Peoplâ— â—â—â—â—cially the Novations whose great Crime was that they prest after purity in worship and to separate 〈◊〉 you have heard from Antichristian defilement therefore called Puritans or Cathari concerning whom Socrates Scholastious speaks so honourably and so largely vindicates from the Calumnies cast upon them defending them to be a holy zealous sincere faithfull People The Witness born by the Ancient Britains THe next we shall mention 3. Britains is that witness we find born by the Old Britains of whose Antiquity and Purity in Christianity you have a more particular account in the following History who having as you will find received the Christian Doctrine and Worship from the Apostles time did entirely keep thereto cleaving to the Scriptures utterly renouncing all Romish Traditions and Superstitions especially the Remains of them that after the Roman and Saxon invasions inhabited Wales to whom Austin the Monk the â—â—gate of Pope Gregory about the year 604. did address in two Assemblies that he procured upon the Borders of Wales to engage them as he had done many of the Saxons to embrace the Romish Rites especially in Christening Children and keeping Easter But in as much as they utterly refused to be seduced by him therein he not only threatned their ruine but accomplished the same in a short time after Concerning which Mr. Fox Fox in his Martyrology P. 153 154. 1. Part tells us That Austin having charged them to Preach with him to the English and that they should among themselves form certain Rites and Vsages in theer Church especially for keeping their Easter Tide and Baptizing after the manner of Rome and for which he quotes Bede Polichron Huntingdon Jornalenses and Jeff Monmouth and Fabian Fabian 5. Part Ch. 119. c. Fabian expresseth himself thus Fol. 125. Part 5. viz. Then he said to them since you will not assent to my Hosts generally assent you to me especially in that things The first is that you keep Easter iâ— dâ—â— form and time as it is Ordained The second that you give Christendome tâ—
Brusians was received in the Galiâ— Norboncâ—sâ—â— complaining that the People were Rebaptized the Churches Altars and Crosses prophain'd â—leâ—◠〈◊〉 in Lent yâ—â— upon Good Friday it self This Peter Bruis was supposed to have written the Treatise of Antichrist whereof you have some account in the History and so eminent and worthy a Person that for many years the Waldenses were called Petro Brusâ—ians The next we shall mention is the famous Arnoldus Arnold or rather the Arnoldeses there being three of that name Pridieux The first viz. Arnoldus of Briâ—ia was in the second Lateran Council with Peter Bruis Censured for the Heresie of rejecting Infants Baptisme Church-buildings and the Adoration of the Cross Prid. Introduct to Hâ—st Latin Councils P. 23. The said Arnoldus was in the year 1155. as saithVsher Vsher out of Gerhohus at Rome put to death being first hanged then his Body burnt and his Ashes flung into Tyber least the People of Rome following his Doctrine should adore him Another eminent Man of this name and one of the Waldensian Barbes also whom Eckberâ—â—â— aâ—Vsher tells us P. 292. calls the Arch-Catheri or Puritans was with two of his Associates vâ—z Marâ—â—llyus and Theodoricus who with him managed a publick dispute at Cologne against one Eckberius were burnt Arnold and Eight more of his Disciples at Cologne August 2. 1163. And Theodoricus and Marsellyus afterwards at Bunnae near Cologne Eckbertus saith That the Principal Argument they brought against Infants Baptisme was Christs Commission Mat. 28 19. Mark 16.15 16. We read also of another Arnold who in the time of Honorius II. 1124. was burnt at Rome for witnessiing against the Pride Pomp and Luxury of the Priests as Prid. in his Introduction and Baronius in his Anals 1124. Balaeus saith he was an English Man The Waldensian Sect were also called Arnoldists as BishopVsher and P. Perin tells us after their names Another eminent Person we meet with witnessing to this great Truth Heneric was one Henricus a great Friend and Collegue of P. Bruis 's whose Doctrines and Positions are also recorded by the Magdiburgs under 11. Heads the first whereof was denâ—ing Baptisme to Children Cent 12. 843. which Bernard Bernard at large endeavours to answer and confute telling us That Infants are to be baptized upon the Faith of the Church The same Bernard in his Epistle to Heldesâ—nsâ—s Earl of St. Giles saith The Henerici for so they called his followers did deny Holy days Sacraments Churches and Priests complaining that the Children of Christians were excluded the Life of Christ whilst they denyed them the Grace of Baptisme and not suffered them to partake of Graâ—e and Salvation thereby Cassander Cassand in his Epistle before his Book of Baptisme saith that Peter Bruis and Henry his Disciple and Colegue were great Propagators of the Error of denying Baptisme to little ones affirming that it did only belong to the Adult Thirdly By the People themselves suffering for the same in the Witness born not only by some particular men but by the Body of the people as appeareth by Decrees of Councils decretal Epistles and Edicts given forth against them as well as the Testimony of many learned Writers DR Vsher Dr. Vsh out of the Fragments of the History of Acquitane written by P. Pithao P. 81 82. tells us That in the time of Robert King of France that they of Acquitaine and Tholouse principal places of the Waldenses did deny Baptisme for so they called denying Baptisme to little ones the Sign of the Cross the real presence in the Eucharist and other Rites of the Church and that many of them were Sentenced by Council and burnt Dr. Vsher also tells us out of Papir Masson in his French Annals That 14. Citizens of Orleans in the Reign of King Robert were convicted of the same Heresie for denying baptismal Grace and the real presence and were all burnt alive and that the names of three of the chief of them were Herbert â—isius and Stephen Dr. Vsher tells us That in the time of the Emperour Henry II. 1017. many of this Sect were about Mediolanenses fined and banished as he tells us Antonius in his History 2. Tit. 15. Chap. 23. informeth And also out of Radulp. Ard Homil. tells us That in Germany under the Reign of Henry IV. about 1054 several of this People whom they called the Manchean Sect and the Reason of it you will understand afterwards did inhabit the Countrey of Aganenses who denyed Baptisme and the Sacrament of the Altar P. Leo IX Pope Leo the IX in his Decretal Epistle to the Bishop of Acquitaine a Principal Place of their abode about the year 1050. Commandeth that Young Children should be Baptized because of Original sin Pope Gregory VII decreed 1070. That thâ—â—e young Children whose â—â—â—oâ—tâ— are absent or unknown should according to the Tradition of the â—â—â—â—ers be Baptized Bernard Bernard Abhor of Claraâ—el in the 12 Century in his 66. Sermon in Câ—â—itioâ— complained That the Cathari did deride them because they baptized â—â—â—â—â—â—s and pray'd for the dead and â—sserted â—urgatory and that the Soul as soâ—â— as it departed out of the Body went to Salvation or Damnation Eckbertus a great Dr. about the same time Eckber in his Sermon against the Cathari saith That they say concerning the baptizing of Children that through their incapacity it nothing profited them the Salvation and that Baptisme ought to be deferred till they come to years of discretion and that then only they ought to be baptized when they can with their own months make a profession of Faith and desire it and which he largely endeavoâ—â—ds to confute in that Sermon Bib. Pâ—t 2. Toâ— fol. 99. 106. Erbrardus another great Dr. of this time saith Erbrard That the Cathari do deny Baptisme to Children because they want understanding and therefore spends his 6. Chapter to confute them the Title of which is Children which cannot speak ought to be Baptized and concludes thus By this therefore we find that we ought to call little ones to faith by Baptisme Bib. Pat. Tom. 4. P. 1108. Ermengendus Ermengendus another great writer of this Age in his Book contra Waldenses proves Infants Baptisme which he saith they deny by two Scriptures namely Mat. 19.14 Suffer little Children to come to me c. And 1 Cor. 15. Baptized for the dead whence he thus reasons If they of old baptized the Living for the Dead for their Eternal Salvation though they neither received it nor were capable thereof how much more doth the faith of the Gossips avail for Spiritual Grace and Salvation in the baptizing the persons of the little oâ—â—s themselves Bib. Pat. Tom 4. Dr. Vsh Dr. Vsher in his foresaid Book of the Sâ—ccession of the Church P. 292. tells us out of Decretal Lib. 5. Tit. 6 c. 10. That Pope Alexander the III. in the Turonensiâ—n Synod held 1163. touching the Albigenses made the
of that kind Providence hath preserved something from themselves First As to the Names Their Names in Story by which they are known and distinguished in History you will find to be various viz. Sometimes from the Places and Countries of their abode Sometimes from their Men of Name sometimes from Reproach and Slander 1. From the Places of their abode 1. From the places of abode therefore called Lyonists or the poor People of Lyons from that City or County of Lyons in France Albigenses from the City Albi in Languedoc Tholouzions from the City Tholous in the same Province Arletenses from the City Arles the chief Seat of the Kings of Burgundy in Province Picards from Picardy Lumbards from Lumbardy in Italy Gazars either from a City so calle in Languedock or from the word of disgrace signifying Execrable 2. From their principal Leaders Sometimes by some of their Principal Leaders as Waldenses as many suppose from one Waldo a Citizen of Lyons though others suppose upon another account because they were so called long before his time as appears by the Book of Claudius Seiscelius a Councellor to Charles the Great in the 8th Century who mentions them by that Name in his Book Advers Waldenses who though a good man and in many things holding with them yet in some things against them which was 260 Years before Waldo's time Beringarians Sometimes they are called Beringarians from the famous Beringarius one of their Barbs or Elders sometimes Petro Brusians from that worthy Martyr Peter Bruis sometimes Arnoldists from Arnold another eminent Barb. and Martyr sometimes Henericans from Henericus sometimes Ioseplests from Joseph Lolarde from Lolard another of their eminent Barbs 3. From Nick-names Sometimes by Nick-names or terms of Disgrace viz. The Apostolici or Apostolick men The Cathart or Puritans the old name of reproach by which the Novatians and Donatists were called in the 4th Cent. Perfectionists because they prest after Holiness Publicanos because they said they were sent to publish the Gospel The Fratracili or the little Brethren and Fraticelli viz. Shifting Companions Passagenes from their Itinerat Preachings Credentes the Believers The Humiliati the humble Men. The Bon-homes the good Men. Siccars Cut-purses Gazars Execrable Turlupins because like Wolves they inhabited Woods Caves and Mountains Sometimes from slanderous lying Reflections As the Paterines as though they only worshipped the Father but refused to adore the Son because they would not fall down to the Host nor give reverence to their Breaden God And from like reason also Arians as denying thereby the Divinity of Christ Manichées because they denied the Civil Magistrates Authority to depend upon the Popes as men asserting therefore two Principles Deuyers of Baptisme because they denied that of Bapt. of Infants and their Inventions to be Christ's Ordinance Denyers of Marriage because they disowned that to be one of the Sacraments and that many of their Barbs lived single Lives Secondly As to their Original and Antiquity which you will find to be very Antient. The Antiquity of their Christianity Eusebius tells us in his Ecclesiastical History Lib. 5. p. 74. That there were Churches of them in those parts of France under Antonius Verus the Emperour An. 179. recording there a large Epistle written by them and as a Preamble thereto he makes this following Inscription Of the Martyrdom of Saints and cruel Persecution in France under Anton. Verus the Emperour It was the Country of France wherein the Theater of this Wrestling before-mentioned lay whose chief Cities and most frequented in respect of the rest in the same Region are Lyons and Viena by both which Cities the River Rhodonus doth run compassing that whole Countrey The holy Churches there sent their Letter touching their Martyrs unto the Churches throughout Asia and Phrygia making relation of their affairs after this manner The Servants of Christ inhabiting Vienna and Lyons Cities of France unto the Brethren throughout Asia and Phrygia having with us the same Faith and Hope of Redemption Peace and Grace and Glory from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord be multiplied Which excellent Epistle they mention at large and which also you may read in the Book of Martyrs In the Preface to the French Bible Morland and the first that ever was Prnted they say That they have alwaies had the full enjoyment of that Heavenly truth contained in the Holy Scriptures ever since they were enriched with the same by the Apostles themselves having in fair Manuscripts preserved the entire Bible in their Native Tongue from Generation to Generation Morland Hist p. 14. Rainerius Rainerius one of their grand Persecutors and chief Inquisitor in the time of Pope Innocent the Third in the thirteenth Century gives this account of their Antiquity Among all the Sects which are or ever were thereis none more pernicious to the Church of God than that of the Poor People of Lyons First Because it is of a longer duration some say it hath remained from the time of Pope Sylvester some from the times of the Apostles Theodore Belvedre Balvedre another of the Popish Missionaries saith that That Religion which he calls Heresie hath been alwaies in the Valleys of Angrogna in his Book De Pro. Fide p 37. Beza Beza affirms in his Book Historie des Homes illustres That the Waldenses were so called from their abode in the Valleis and straiter parts of the Alpes where they had from a long time retired themselves and one may say they were the Reliques of the Pure Primitive Christian Churches Some of them were called The Poor Men of Lyons who as some men have judged had for their Head a Merchant of Lyons named John and sirnamed Waldo but herein they abuse themselves because on the contrary this John was so named being one of the Waldenses Scultetus The Waldenses in their Letter to Ocolampadius affirm That their Churches had continued down in constant Succession from the Apostles times so Scultetus Anal. in Anno 1530. p. 295. Beza Beza as Peter Perin c. 6. tells us That the Seed of the most Antient Christian Church That was and hath been most miraculously preserved in the midst of the Darkness and Errors which have been hatcht by Satan in these later times And farther tells us That Constance upon the Revelations sheweth that the Reformation of the Church in the West parts of the World began in France and that from their source it spread it self through the rest of Europe In the next place you have some account of their Conversation Of their Conversation given by their Enemies themselves Rainerius Reinerius the Inquisitor aforesaid saith thus of them That whereas all others procure horror by their blasphemies against God this of the Lyonists hath a greater appearance of Piety in as much as they live uprightly before men and put their trust in God in all things and observe all the Articles of the
that Mr. Bunian in his opposing this Principle may well be said Not only not to please God but to be contrary to all men And whose return to Mr. Paul hereupon is so ridiculous that it may not be unworthy your knowledg as witnessing either his egregious Ignorance or Self-condemnation therein which I shall give you in his own words p. 98. who first sets down Mr. P. Question viz. Whether your Principle and Practice is not equally against others as well as us viz. Episcopal Presbyterians and Independants who are also of our side for our practice though they differ with us about the subject of Baptism viz. 1. to Baptize then to Communicate Do you delight to have your hand against every man Bun. Ans B. Answ I own Water-Baptism to be Gods Ordinance but I make no Idol of it Where you call now the Episcopal to side with you and also the Presbyterian c. You will not find them easily persuaded to conclude with you against me they are agaist your manner of Dipping as well as Subject of Water-Baptism neither do you for all you flatter them agree together in all but the Subject Do you allow their Sprinkling Do you allow their Signing with the Cross Why then have you so stoutly an hundred times over condemned these things as Antichristian I am not against every man though by your abusive Language you would set every one against me but am for Union Concord and Communion with Saints as Saints and for that cause I wrote my Book This is that he calls his Answer but let all the world judg whether he hath so much as once taken the least notice of the Question Mr. Paul tells him his Principle and Practice opposes all those named as us viz. Who do own with us as a principle that Baptism should precede Church-Fellowship and therefore in their sence of Baptism which is not in the Question either as to Subject or Circumstance do practise it accordingly not admitting any Unbaptised Person into their Fellowship And the truth whereof if Mr. Bunian doubt besides their Writings I could give him some late instances of grown persons not Sprinkled in Infancy that must not be admitted upon account of their Saintship into Fellowship till they had Water sprinkled or poured upon their faces and that by some that he hath leaned upon as Patrons But what doth he reply to this how doth he acquit himself from this Singularity so differing in Principle and Practice from all They differ from you in the manner as well as the subject I am not against every man but am for Union Concord and Communion with Saints But would any Child that could say any thing for it self have made a more ignorant Return therefore you may judg of the rest by it But to the next 3. That Ignorance absolves from Sins of Omission and Comission A Third Fundamental Mistake is his presumptuous asserting all along That Ignorance doth absolve both from the Sin of Omission and Commission and which not only justifies the neglect of the true but the Exercise of false Worship and not only bears out in rejecting of Christs but the embracing of Antichrists appointments and that not only to give a Dispensation to the parties themselves thus transgressing but to the Congregation also that shall Receive and bear with them A Rule if observed what corrupt Doctrine or Practice might not be introduced thereby And which may pass for as good Doctrine as theirs of old if they could but say Corbon they might be set free from their dutiful Obligation to their Parents 4 By decrying Institutions by crying up Moral Precepts Mark 7.11 A Fourth is That under pretence of crying up Obedience to the X. Commandments or moral Precepts he takes the boldness to decry and trample under foot Christ's instituted Worship as though it were possible to be guilty of false Worship and Idolatry and not violate the first and second Commandment Did not such daring Presumption cost Israel dear in their following the Rebellions Inventions of Jeroboam the Son of Nebat who made Israel to sin and what was that helnous provetation but the perverting the right way of the Lord by changing part of his Instituted Worship A Fifth is 5. That the Churches to whom the Epistles were written were not all baptised His asserting that the Churches in the New Testament to whom the Epistles were written were not all Baptized to the vacating all the holy Exhortations and spiritual Obligations inferred and inforced from the same almost in every Epistle and which he grounds upon his vain Imagination That because it is said Gal. 3.27 As many of you as have been baptised into Christ have put on Christ And Rom. 6.3 Know you not that so many of you as have been baptised into Christ were baptised into his Death implying that the words so many import that some were not Not considering that the Sâ—â—pâ— and the Argument from the words which do necessarily enforce another sense and that such a sense as he would put upon them is altogether groundless and unreasonable as for instance in Gal. 3.27 He tells them that they are all the Children of God baptised into Christ For the Apostle having said vers 26. That they were all the Children of God he in the next words gives the reason of what he had said for they had put on Christ by Baptisme But now if their putting on of Christ in Baptisme was to be esteemed as a proof of their Relation to God as Children as the Apostle you see makes it to be Then that which he gives in by way of Reason and proof that they were all the Children of God by Faith would fall shorâ— of â—his end if only a part of the Members of their Churches had been Baptised and not all And so in like manner in that other Text he presseth a general Duty viz. Mortification and Vivification from a general and universal Practice otherwise those Duties would not in this Amâ—â—ent concern the Unbaptised And by as good Argument may we conclude that because the Apostle commands that as many Servants aâ— are under the yoke should count their own Masters worthy of all honour that the name of God be not blasphemed That some Servants by the same inference might be under the yoke and some not and that some must honour their Masters and some might choose Sixthly By his declaring so often 6. That Baptism is no Church-Ordinance and so positively That Baptisme is not a Church-Ordinance whereby he bears up himself exceedingly in his Notion To which I would say It must either be an Ordinance lest by Christ for the Church to manage and order or to the World for I know no medium But that he left no such holy Appointment to be managed by the ignorant prophane World but to the Church only I thus prove 1. Because he hath committed the Ministry to them to Teach and Convert which must precede Baptisme and qualifie for it 2. That to the Church belongs ordinarily to receive the account of such Conversion that it may be better understood whether the Party desiring Baptisme doth believe with all the heart and that he hath brought forth fruits meet for Repentance before he be baptised with the Baptisme of it 3. That to them belongs the appointing of the Administrators and faithful Witnesses to see it orderly performed otherwise Women Apostates or any as some hold may do it God is a God of Order and not of Confusion And all things are to be done to Edification 4. Because it is an entrance and door into the Visible Church as hath been amply in the foregoing Treatise proved and the foregoing Scriptures evidence and which is so clear saith Mr. Baxter that they must deny Scripture that deny it It is true as Mr. Paul affirms that Persons entered into the Visible Church hereby are by consent admitted into particular Congregations where they may claim their Priviledges due to Baptized Believers being orderly put into the Body and put on Christ by their Baptismal Vow and Covenant for by that publick Declaration of consent is the Marriage and solemn Contract made betwixt Christ and the Believer in Baptisme as before at large And if it be propostrous and wicked for a Man and Woman to cohabite together and to enjoy the Priviledges of a Marriage-state without the passing of that publick Solemnity So it is no less disorderly upon a Spiritual account for any to claim the Priviledges of a Church or be admitted to the same till the passing of this Solemnity by them But 't is not done in the Church No more is Visiting the Sick or anointing with Oyl are they not therefore Church-Ordinances If any desire further Satisfaction upon this Argument they may peruse two Treatises one written by Mr. Allen called Baptismal Abuses discovered Disproving the Lawfulness of Infants and verity of Believers Baptism with the irregularity of mixt Communion Baptised and Unbaptised written 1653. The other by Mr. Lamb called Truth prevailing against the fiercest opposition upon the same subject the same Year both answering Mr. John Goodwin opposing the same And which are done with that Judgment strength of Argument and Authority of Scripture that notwithstanding they have both of them personally declined those Truths so zealously and understandingly pleaded for by them and gone back to that they therein call Humane Tradition Will-Worship and Idolatry fulfilling Dan. 11.35 Pro. 28 4â— Gal. 2.18 1 Pet. 2.21 22. Yet will their Books 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 without Repentance to all Generations FINIS
Ordinances That Profession of Faith and Repentance is a substantial ground to Baptize upon is undeniably proved from Scripture and consented to by themselves But that foederal Holiness or any other Qualification in Infants is any Scriptural ground for the same is yet to be proved this Text being altogether silent herein But Secondly If it should be granted that Federal Holiness was a ground to baptize Children upon under the Gospel as it was to circumcise them under the Law which must not be owned by any means Yet from substantial Arguments it will appear that no such Holiness is intended here First No such Federal Holiness in the N. T. Because there is no such Holiness in the New Testament as a federal Holiness belonging to Children That because the Parents are Believers and in the New Covenant their Natural Seed must therefore be so esteemed and have the like right thereby to the Evangelical as the Children under the Law had to the Legal Ordinances which as no where to be found so not to be admitted upon the following Considerations 1. Because it contradicts the Gospel Dispensation as before 2. Because such apprehensions intails Grace to Nature Regeneration to Generation in contradiction to that of our Saviour John 3. That which is born of the flesh is flâ—sh And that we are all the Children of wrath by Nature Eph. 2. 3. Because it contradicts all the experience both of former and latter times wherein Godly Men have had Wicked Children and wicked Men good Children as Abraham had an Ishmael Isaac an Esau David an Absolom and on the contrary wicked Ahaz begat good Hezekiah wicked Abia good Asa wicked Amon good Josia 4. Because it necessitates an owning the Doctrine of Falling from Grace 2. The Text intends an other Holiness viz Matrimonial Secondly Because the Text intends another Holiness viz. A Civil or Matrimonial Holiness in opposition to Fornication Uncleanness Bastardy And which doth fully appear First From the Scope of the place The Question propounded by the Believing Corinthians for Solution was 1. From the scope of the place Whether their new Spiritual Relation to Christ in the Gospel did not dissolve their Carnal Relation entered into in Unbelief and whether they could without defilement maintain their Converse without Sin any more than they could in Ezra and Nehemiah's time To which the Apostle replies That the Civil Relation before orderly entered into was clean now as before The unbelieving Husband is as much clean and sanctified to his believing Wife and that she might as freely converse with â—im in the Conjugal State now as before the Spiritual difference happened betwixt them For Religion breaks no Bands nor Civil Contracts They being as true Man and Wife as before the Marriage as Honourable as before And therefore the Apostle adviseth that they should abide in the state and Calling Religion findeth them in Ver. 20. And that by no means the believer should depart and upon that account break the Relation but that he should maintain his Civil in expectation of gaining her over to a spiritual Relation And in confirmation hereof brings an Argument ab absurdo for otherwise the Children that they had together would be unclean viz. if they should depart from their Relations from the unlawfulness of the Marrage and uncleanness of the bed what would they make their Children but Bastards or unclean But in as much as they had no question of their legitimacy or holiness neither had they any cause to scruple the other And farther also the believer had the least ground to doubt hereof because to him all lawfull things are clean whether Husband Wife Child Estate c. which is all the Holiness I conceive can be meant in the Text agreeable to the Holiness 1 Thes 4.3 4. Mal. 2.15 the Bastard being amongst the unclean and unholy Deut. 32.2 as Mr. Calvin upon Mal. 2.15 saith wtll namely Calvin Wherefore hath God made one to wit seeking a Seed of God a Seed of God is here taken for Legitimate as the Hebrews do name that Divine which is pure from any fault or spot therefore he sought a Seed of God that is appointed Marriage from whence should be born a Legitimate and pure Offspring secretly therefore doth the Prophet here shew that they are all Bastards that shall be born by Poligamy because they neither can nor ought to be accounted legitimate but they who are begotten according to Gods institution but where the Husband violates the faith given to the Wife and takes to himself another as he perverts the order of Marriage so also he cannot be a lawfull father thus Calvin 2. The holiness the same spoken to be in the unbeliever A second Argument why it is a Holiness of this kind and not such a faederal Holiness as suggested because the Holiness of the Children is of no other nature then that spoke of the unbelieving Parent in the Text and if one will intitle to the Ordinance so the other A third is from the consideration that Children in the Text is not to be limited to Infants or such Children that they might have since the Religious difference happened 3. Children not to be taken for Infants only but of grown Children for a Mans Child is his Child whilst he lives through 30 40 or 50 years old and we suppose it would be as absurd to say a Heathenish Son should be baptized upon a faederal Holiness as to say the unbelieving Parent should so be A fourth Argument 4. Ber. it cannot be known why this cannot be a new Covenant-holiness that must qualifie and intitle to Baptisme first because that cannot be known 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 one And secondly such an absurdity would follow that no unbelievers Child is in Covenant or Elect which is notoriously false for as before Hezekiah was the Son of wicked Ahaz and Asa of Abia and Josia the Son of wicked Amon. Thirdly from the concurrent Testimony and Confession of many learned Commentators 3. From the confession of Commentators upon the place and parties themselves Austin Austin a great asserter of Infants Baptisme as before saith hereupon It is to be held without doubting whatsoever that Sanctification was it was not of power to make Christians and remit sins Jerom saith Because of Gods appointment Marriage is Holy Ambrose Ambrose thus upon the place The Children are Holy because they are born of lawful Marriage Melanc Melancton in his Commentary upon 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