they shall be grafted into the Church again as before for as Mr. Marshall notes in his Defence of Infant Baptism pag. 134. At their first grafting in they and their children were grafted in at their casting out they and their children were broken off and when they shall be taken in again they and their children shall be taken in This Mr. Tombs himself grants that the Jews and their seed were rejected together yea and that they shall be taken in together pag. 66. of his answer Thus then we argue if it must be so with them it must be so with believing Gentiles now or else there will be a Schisme between Jew and Gentile in point of priviledges else there will be too distinct estates in the Christian Churches one of the Jews holy Fathers and children another of the Gentiles who have only personal priviledges none for their seed which is an absurd conceit as Mr. Geree speaks and would set up or keep up a partition-wall still contrary to that Eph. 2. I shall say nothing of other absurdities which are very numerous which come from the denying the Church-Membership of the Infant seed of believers The Author adds It is incongruous to reason and sense to imagine that little Children are any way concerned as Church Members either in the Dedications of the Epistles sent to the Churches or the Epistles themselves for they were dedicated to those who were called to be Saints c. I answer First that this is a meer Paralogism for what if we confess the Apostle directed his Epistles to such as were profest Believers and Saints by calling were none other but those or such like them concern'd in the Epistles What shall we think of carnal persons and unbelievers are they unconcerned in them This minds me with a passage in Mr. Paul's serious Reflections such another rigid Antipaedobaptist as our Antagonist He tells us pag. 9. That the Epistles were writ to particular Churches and that it will be difficult to prove they were also directed to particular Saints but saith Bunian a more moderate man although an Antipaedobaptist If this be true there is vertue indeed and more then ever I dreamed of in partaking of Water-Baptisme For if that shall take away the Epistles and consequently the whole Bible from all that are not Baptized he means after their mode of dipping being grown Christians then are the other Churches and also particular Saints in a very deplorable condition Would to God saith he of his Brethren they had learnt more modesty then thus to take from all others Nè autem existiment Corinthii hanc Epistolam ita ipsis propriam esse ut ad alios non pertineat addit Cumomnibus qui invocant nomen Domini nostri Jesus Christi in quovis loco tum ipsorum tum nostri Piscator in locum and appropriate to themselves and that for observing a circumstance c. But he better instructs Mr. Paul and turns him to St. Paul Rom. 16.5 and to the first Epistle written to Corinth and shews that the first Epistle of John was wrote to some who at that time were out of Fellowship that they might have fellowship with the Church Joh. 1.1 2 3 4. Secondly we grant the Epistles were directed some of them to professing Believers joyn'd in Fellowship directly and immediately and to their children if they had any and the children of all Believers in succeeding ages remotely and the contents of the Epistles concern both the Parents at present and the children when come to years of discretion A Father that hath several children some grown up to understanding others Minors or Babes may direct a Book or Epistle to them all Whatsoever was writ was written as much for our instruction as the Primitive Christians We know Moses and the Prophets directed what they writ to the Church under that Administration whereof their Children were a part and yet they were ignorant Babes and could not understand any thing or perform any duties But let it be considered that though they understood nothing of those divine Exhortations yet being within Gods Nursery and School they were in a nearer capacity to be taught their duty than Aliens and their Parents were injoyned to teach them the Ordinances of God and God gave this Testimony concerning Abraham that he knew he would teach his children and in the New Testament it was the commendation of Lois that she had instructed Timothy 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ab Infantia when he was an Infant or little Child 3. Whereas the Epistles are inscribed with those Titles To the Saints Saints by calling sanctified in Christ Jesus chosen adopted which cannot saith our Author be spoken of Infants To this it may be thus replyed 1. Some of those titles may be predicated of children some not 2. The Apostle calls the Churches Saints either as looking upon them all as such i.e. truely regenerate for this is the famosius significatum of the word Saint but this could not be for he pointed at some that were sad Saints in the Church of Corinth and Galatia or else he calls them Saints Synechdochically because he judged the most of them to be such and so the whole Communion were judged Saints à Potiori from the better part 3. He calls them Saints by calling i.e. by the preaching of the word and so we acknowledge Infants are not and yet the same Apostle calls the Infants of Believers Saints 1. Cor. 7.14 Else were your Children unclean but now 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they are Saints or holy and 't is the same word the Apostle useth in his inscriptions of the Epistles to the Churches 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the Saints and being he maketh use of the same word applying it to the children of believers it hints thus much to us that in Saint Pauls account who was guided by the Spirit of God in what he speaks the Infant seed of Believers are as much Saints as any who are such by calling Nor are they only foederally holy but they may be also inherently sanctified saith Mr. Tombs in his Examen They may receive the new birth and we say more they must receive it if saved Job 3.5 It is much controverted concerning the Text whether it intends grown persons or any persons of whatsoever age or sex but the Original if heeded would put an end to it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Except one be born including all ages all sexes Children are so polluted in their first birth that they can never get to Heaven by that and therefore what the first birth cannot a second must saith Dr. Taylor And if it be objected that to the new birth is required dispositions of our own which are to be wrought by and in them that have the use of Reason besides that this as the Learned Doctor speaks is wholly against the Analogy of à New-birth in which the person to be born is wholly passive and hath put into him the Principle
saved and consequently our Children cannot be saved because they cannot believe The same condition being required to precede Baptism that is required to precede Salvation You see whether the Argument may be carried and what little ground of comfort such doctrine affords in the death of our children To conclude then whereas they argue from this place of Mark we must believe and be baptized but Infants cannot believe therefore may not be Baptized will it not as directly follow that since they can't believe they must be damned let them frame an answer to the one and then they have answered both for look saith Mr. Marshall by what distinction they will maintain the Salvation of Infants against this Argument by the same will I more clearly justifie the Baptism of Infants against this Argument Having thus cleared the Texts from the false glosses Antipaedobaptists put upon them we shall next examine the passages out of Authors which my Antagonist quotes for his opinion The first he brings is Mr. Baxter who having so notably wounded their cause in his plain Scripture proof for Infant Church-Membership and Baptisme is become the man of their indignation and Indeed I fear the Author with whom I have to do is possest with a malevolent spirit against that Learned and Godly Divine and is glad of any occasion to wound his reputation as appears by his dealing with him in his Preface and divers other places in the Treatise Mr. Baxter saith he doth fully acknowledge in his Book called the second Disputation of Right to Sacraments pag. 149 150. Where he saith This speaking of the Commission of Christ to his Disciples is not like some occasional mentioning of Baptisme but it is the very Commission it self of Christ to his Disciples and purposely expresseth their several works in their several places and orders Their first Task is to make Disciples which are by Mark called Believers The second work is to baptize them whereto is annext the promise of their Salvation The third work is to teach them all other things which are after to be Learned in the School of Christ to contemn this order saith he is to contemn all Rules of Order for where can we expect to find it if not here I profess my Conscience is fully satisfyed that the Minister must expect a profession of Faith before Baptism To discover the Craft and Sinister dealing of our Opponent I must first acquaint the Reader that Mr. Baxter disputing with Mr. Blake who was for a large Admission to the Sacraments explains the Thesis in his second disputation thus viz. That Ministers must not Baptize the Children of those that profess not saving faith upon profession of any Faith that is short of it these are his very words pag. 53. And after it nine lines lower that he might not be mistaken hath this by way of caution viz. That he would have the Reader to understand that all along in the discourse of the whole Book the dispute is about the aged themselves whether they may be baptized so that it is none of our work at this time saith he to defend the Subjects as to their age against the Anabaptists but our present business is to enquire what that faith is that quallifieth persons to be just subjects of Baptism or to be such whose children may receive it upon the account of their faith or profession Disp 2. p. 4. Moreover in his fourth Disputation he hath this passage We take it for granted that the Right of Infants is upon the account of their Parents Faith therefore we manage this discourse with respect to the Adult P. 351. What could any man in the World say more to prevent the Cavils of unworthy persons And certainly he had not said so much unless he had known how our opposites lye at the Catch and yet we see this would not do for we have found a man of so much dis-ingenuity as to traduce and pervert the sayings of this worthy person to countenance his errour I have been the larger in setting down Mr. Baxters words that it may leave some impression on the Readers Memory when he finds any thing quoted out of Mr. Baxters Disputations about the Right to Sacraments that so it might be as a Key to open his meaning in all those numerous passages the Author hath pikt up out of that Dispute which indeed fills up many pages of his Book Next we have Mr. Calvin introduced as speaking something in favour of their opinion Ergò ut se ritè ad Baptismum offerant homines peccatorum confessio ab illis requiritur alioqui nihil quam inane esset ludicrum tota actio Notandum est de Adultis his verba fieri Calv. in Mat. 3.6 Verùm quia docere prius jubet Christus quam baptizare tantum credentes ad Baptismum vult recipi videtur non ritè administrari baptismus nisi fides praecesserit c. Eos qui fide in Ecclesiam Dei ingressi sunt videmus cum sua sobole censeri in Christi membris in salutis haereditatem simul vocari Nec modò seperatur hoc modo Baptismus a fide Doctrina quia licet pueri Infantes nondum per aetatem fidem babent Deus tamen eorum parentes compellans c. whereas few ever wrote so smartly against them it is from that same passage of his on Mat. 6. c. Therefore that men may rightly offer themselves to Baptisme Confession of sin is required otherwise the whole action would be but Sport The words indeed are Mr. Calvins so that I confess my Antagonist speaks truth but he should have done well to have spoken the whole truth For Mr. Calvin also cauteously adds It is to be Noted that these words are spoken of Adult persons And that we may see his judgement fully take notice of his Paraphrase upon the 28. of Mat. 19. and that other Text Mark 16.16 But because saith he Christ commandeth us to teach before he commands us to Baptize and he would have believers only admitted to Baptism it seems Baptism is not rightly administred unless faith goeth before From this place saith Calvin the Anabaptists oppose Infant Baptism To which he presently answers That those whom we see by a Profession of their Faith to be admitted into the Church we are to look upon them together with their off-spring as the members of Christ and to be jointly called to the inheritance of the Saints neither is Baptism hereby separated from Faith and Teaching because though children have not yet faith by reason of their Age. Nevertheless God taking their Parents into Covenant they themselves are also to be imbraced in the same Covenant After Calvin comes Piscator to as little purpose whose words on Mark 1.4 are these It is called the Baptisme of Repentance because John Preached remission of sins to the penitent Believers But why should this worthy Author be thus curtail'd whenas he farther expresseth himself thus Baptismus
out the mystery of Redemption by Christs blood of all which Baptisme is as proper a sign when given to our Infants as Circumcision was to theirs 3. What though Infants are uncapable of understanding Gospel Mysteries figured in Baptism as they were heretofore of the same shadowed forth in Circumcision yet their Baptisme is a Signe of what God will do for the future to as many of them as belong to his Election if they shall arrive to years of discretion 4. Though it be no Teaching sign at the present yet if the Infant live and be instructed in the use and ends of his Baptisme it may prove as Operative and Beneficial to him as if it had been delayed till he came to full age Thus David who though Circumcised in Infancy yet strengthned his faith by it when he came to years of discretion 1 Samuel 17.26 5. Though Baptisme be not for the present a Teaching sign to Infants neverthelses it is a distinguishing fign to distinguish those that are Within from those that are Without as the Apostle phraseth it 1 Cor. 5.12 13. And it is even to Infants a sign of Gods Covenant as before is hinted as Circumcision was to Infants under the Law and for this reason it is by a Metonimy called by the name of the Covenant and did distinguish the Jewish Infants from Gentile ones that were without the Covenant or strangers to the same Gen. 17.20 Act. 7.8 5. It is also an Engaging sign as Circumcision was to the Jewish Infants though they undertood it not when they were the Subjects of that Ordinance whereby our children are obliged to the Profession of Christ into whose name they have been Baptized I shall shut up this with those weighty words which I find in Mr. Baxters Scripture proof for Infants Church-Membership and Baptism pag. 112. Tell me saith he what operation Circumcision had on all the Infants of Church-Members formerly It was a sign of the Seal of the Righteousness of Faith c. and yet they had no more Faith nor Knowledge of the Significancy than ours have now Christ himself was circumcised in Infancy when by the course of nature he was uncapable of understanding it's Ends and Uses Not saith he that I am now arguing for Baptism from Circumcision but this fully answereth their Objection that Infants should not be baptized because they are not capable of understanding its Use and so being wrought on by it They are as capable of Baptism as they were of Circumcision and its Ends They therefore that will yet say It were better let it alone till they are more capable do but exalt their own reason against Scripture and speak as men that would teach God The Second End hinted by the Author is That the party baptized might thereby witness his Repentanee Matth. 3.11 called therefore the baptism of Repentance Mark 1. Repl. 1. It cannot be proved from these places that all those whom John Baptized did manifest their Repentance and we do not find those Pharisees and Sadduces that are branded with the name of Vipers gave the least indications thereof which if they had the Baptists would not have spoken so harshly of them and yet these for ought we can learn to the contrary from the Text were baptized 2. Grotius in his Annotations upon the nineteenth of Matthew 14. Speaketh well to this whose Words are these Neither ought that to be any hinderance to the Baptism of Infants Neque obstare debet quod non omnia quae itidem per baptismum significari solent in istam aetatem propriè congruerint c. that all things which in like manner are fignified by Baptism cannot agree properly to that Age for Repentance also which we know is signified by Baptism c. had no place at all in Christ when John baptized him who as Tertullian notes was not baptized as a Debtor to Repentance because he never sinned 3. The End of Baptism nominated by the Author is to evidence present Regeneration whereof Baptism is a Sign Titus 3.4 John 3. Repl. If this Argument were good it would have overthrown the Circumcision of Infants for that also was a lively Sign or Symbole of Regeneration and it might have been objected according to our Antagonists phanfie Infants are not regenerated or shew no signs thereof and Regeneration being the end of Circumcision therefore They ought not to be circumcised 2. According to such arguing none ought to be admitted to Baptism for none know by a judgment of certainty and infallibility who are regenerated for Simon Magus made a great shew and yet was in the Gall of bitterness and no doubt many come up out of the water as rotten hypocrites as they went in Thirdly Mr. Tombes himself grants that Infants may be regenerated as John was in the Womb and faith Pet. Martyr loc commun cl 4. c. 8. pag. 821 823. Non excludimus eos Infantes ab eccle siâ Sed ut ejus partes amplectimur benè Sperantes quòd ut sunt secundùm carnem semen sanctorum ità etiam sint Electionis divinae participes spiritum sanctum habent Neque audiendi sunt qui hâc de re movent scrupulum ac dicunt quid si Minister fallatur quia idem cavillus esse poterit de adultis that if he knew such or such an Infant were regenerated he would not scruple to Baptize it according to which arguing he must also forbear Baptizing grown persons upon profession for he knows not that they are regenerated 4. If the whole Species of Infants be excluded from Regeneration then are all Infants so dying certainly damned for all Infants are born in Original sin and by nature unclean and no unclean thing shall enter into the Kingdom of Heaven But I suppose our opposites dare not exclude all Infants from Salvation Well then I conclude some Infants are elected Regenerated and in Covenant with God or else they are saved without Election Regeneration Christ or Covenant which is most absurd 5. And whereas nothing can be said against us but this de occultis non judicat Ecclesia the Church cannot judge of secret things but is to act according to appearance and it is unknown whether such particular Infants are regenerated they cannot make any profession and Baptisme is to be given upon that I answer we have as much reason if not more to look upon the Infants of Believers to be sanctified then we have to esteem grown Christians to be such because our owning of these as such depends upon their own testimony only in a visible profession which may be counterfeit But such Infants are to be accounted Saints upon a Divine Testimony for we have the word for it 1 Cor. 7.14 else were your children unclean but now 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they are Saints or holy it being the same word the Apostle useth in his Dedications and directions of his Epistles to the Churches of Rome Corinth c. where he stiles them
Surely it must be so or else there is no way how Infants can be saved 3. Dr. Taylor in his last discourse of Baptism gives a good Rule for the understanding Scriptures of this sort which if attended to would bring us and Antipaedobaptists a little neerer together which is this viz. That when the Scripture speaks of the effects of or dispositions to Baptisme it speaks in general expressions as being most apt to signifie a common duty or general effect or a more Universal event or the proper order of things but those general expressions do not supponere universalitèr that is they are not to be understood exclusively to all suscipients or of all the subjects of the proposition And he makes it clear by divers passages of Scripture There are many Synecdoches in the word where many only are to be understood when it speaks of all The secret effects of Election and of the spirit are in Scripture attributed to all that are of the outward Communion 1 Pet. 1.2 So Peter calls all the Christian strangers of the Eastern dispersion Elect according to the fore-knowledge of God the Father And Paul saith of all the Roman Christians and the same of the Thessalonians that their Faith was spoken of in all the world and yet among them it is not to be supposed that all the Professors had an unreproveable faith or that every one of the Church of Thessalonica was an excellent and charitable person and yet saith he 2 Thes 1.2 your faith groweth exceedingly and the charity of every one of you all towards each other aboundeth So to the question before us As many of you as are baptized into Christ have put on Christ That is so it is regularly and this is the designed event but from hence we cannot conclude of every person and in every period of time This man hath been baptized therefore now he is clothed with Christ he hath put on Christ nor thus This person cannot in a spiritual sense as yet put on Christ therefore he hath not been baptized that is he hath not put him on in a Sacramental sense To conclude We cannot understand the Apostle in those words of putting on Christ to intend a saving union to Christ or a putting on of Christ spiritually and effectually in regard of all that are Baptized for all these Galathians did not so put him on and innumerable persons that are Hypocrites when baptized at age do not so put him on Wherefore the words are to be understood Sacramentally as 1 Cor. 10.4 5. Heb. 10.29 And thus Infants put on Christ as well as grown persons 7th End of Baptism saith he is that the Baptized person may orderly thereby have an entrance into the visible Church c. For as Circumcision heretofore was the visible door of entrance into the old Testament-Church So also was Baptisme such a door and visible entrance into the New Testament-Church c. Act. 2.41 42. They who gladly received the word were baptized and the same day there was added to them about 3000. souls and they continued stedfastly in the Apostles doctrine and fellowship and in breaking of Bread and in Prayers So that after baptisme not before the believers were said to partake of all the Church-priviledges Posito uno absurdo mille sequuntur Upon this false Hypothesis do our Opposites build their dividing Practices Wherefore we deny that Baptisme doth give formality or make a man a member of a Visible-Church it is not that which gives entrance into it as the Author would have it so as if only by its Administration and in their own way too persons must be Baptized or else they are not to be reputed Church-Members or to be admitted into the participation of Church-priviledges But for this we have divers of our Divines quoted as Vrsinus The Assembly in their Catechisme And lastly Mr. Baxter with whom he is again at Hocus Pocus Mr. Baxter saith he in his plain Scripture proof pag. 24. As a Soldier before listing and a King before Corwning and taking his Oath so are we Church-Members before Baptisme But as every one that must be admitted solemnly into the Army must be admitted by listing as the solemn ingaging sign so every one that hath right to be solemnly admitted into the visible Church must ordinarily be admitted by Baptism But mark Reader the Authors ingenuity Baxters words are So are we and Infants Church-Members But being quite out of charity with those Innocent Babes this man leaves out Infants and one would think by the partial Citation that Mr. Baxter also did shut the Church-door against them It cannot be denyed that Orthodox Divines have frequently termed Baptism the Sacrament of our initiation into the Church and have ascribed our Admission or entrance into it thereunto and hereby have given the Antipaedobaptists some seeming ground for their rigidity And yet I find that they are not agreed among themselves about the point for Mr. Paul a great Zealot against Communion with any that are not Baptized in their way doth in his serious reflections disown the Position That Baptism is an initiating Ordinance and tells us in that Diminitive Volume of his p. 3. That he knows none that asserts it to be the in-let into praticular Churches though it prepares them for Reception Mr. Kiffin it seems is of the same judgement for he bestows an Epistle upon the piece Of the same judgment is John Bunyan a more moderate Antipaedobaptist that is for Vnion and Communion with Saints as Saints and condemnes the Rigidity of his Brethren and maintains in his Answer to the scurrilous not serious Reflections of Paul That differences in judgement about Water-Baptisme ought to be no Bar to Communion Printed for John Wilkins in Exchange Alley which is the Title of his Book and sees no cause to repent after severe checks from his Brethren to call them Babes and Carnal that attempt to break the peace and communion of Churches though upon better pretences than Water and declares God never made Water-Baptism a Wall of Division between us And whereas Paul denies Baptisme to be an initiating Ordinance he retorts very rationally upon him that if it be not that but another and if visible Saints may enter into Fellowship by that other and are no where forbidden so to do because they have not light into Water-Baptisme it is of weight to be considered by all unprejudiced persons Mr. Tull also a moderate and very ingenious Antipaedobaptist is of Mr. Bunyans judgment But Mr. Henry Jessey of precious Memory hath published his judgment to the same purpose grounding it upon Rom. 14. v. 1.3.7 such as are weak in the faith receive you c. From whence he argues most strongly and convincingly that it was the duty not only of the then present Church at Rome to whom the Epistle was writ as also to all beloved of God called to be Saints at that time ver 7. But also of all Churches and
5. p. 375. fell out with Cecilianus Bishop of Carthage because he was against his will Ordained Bishop but when Donatus and his party could not prove what was Objected against Cecilianus and they were found lyars they were not contented to make a Schism only in the Church but afterward broached Heresies as the Magdeburgs tell us in the same place and this Schism ended not there but came at length to Persecution For as Glark in his Martyrology informs us Austin complains in sundry places and in his 50th Epistle he thus writes In hoc labore multi Catholici maxime Episcopi Clerici horrenda dura perpessi sunt quae commemorare longum est In this disturbance the Orthodox especially the Bishops and Ministers suffered cruel and horrible things the particulars whereof are too long to recite For some had their Eyes put out some their Tongues cut off some slain out-right to speak nothing of their plunderings and outragious burnings not only of private Habitations but Churches also Julian the Apostate favoured these Hereticks because he knew they were such a pest to the Church of Christ How the Anabaptists of former times did Symbolize with the Novatians and Donatists 1. The Novatians Donatists denyed Original Sin 2. †Ex Novatianorum sontibus Ortum esse hunc Errorem non dubito Danaeus in Opusculo suo de Pelag. Errore p. 678. The Novatians Donatists confined the Church of Christ to their Sect only Magdeb Cent. 4. C. 5. p. 376. Ecclesiam dixerunt nullibi esse quam in Africa quidem tantum esse in parte Donati No true Church but of their own party and all others esteemed Heathens 3. If any were Converted or rather Perverted to the Donatists they Rebaptized them Magd. Cent. 4. C. 5. p. 376. 4. The Novatians held every man had Free-will so did the Donatists and from the Novatians Pelagius suckt in that Error And say the * The Donatists hold cum arbitrio libero homo creatus est si vult credit in Christum si non vult non credit si vult perseverat si non vult non perseverat Magdeb. Cent. 4. ut supra Magdeburgenses the Donatists hold if a man will believe he may if not he may not believe if he will persevere he may if he will not he may chuse 5. The Novatians and Donatists both held that upon the commission of a great Sin a Man was not to be Communicated with though he repented Magdeb. Cent. 4. ut supra 6. * d The Magdeburgenses speak the same of the Donatists Cent. 4. Vt supra Non sine peccato volunt videri sed etiam justificatores esse hominum c. Zanchy tells us that the Donatists putant se esse puros ab omni peccatorum labe immunes esse adeo ut nihil necesse habeant veniam peccatorum suorum a Deo postulare They are so pure and free from Sin that they have no need to ask pardon of God And Beza upon John 1.3 8. says the Donatists and Anabaptists hold the same Itaque non homines sed monstra hominum sunt Pelagiani Cathari Donatistae Anabaptistae qui ex hoc loco perfectionem illam somniant aqua absunt ipsi omnium hominum longissime The Pelagians Novatians Donatists and Anabaptists do from this place dream of perfection c. 1. * Dr. Prid. calls the German Anabaptists Evangelii opprobrium and saith isti ut Paedobaptismum prorsus tollerent peccatum negarunt Originale ut non subesset causa cur Insantes Baptizarentur So did the Anabaptists heretofore in Germany and some still in England Pontan Catalog Haeret. Dr. Prid. de Pec. Origin Lect. 22. p. 331. 2. * Dr. Prid. calls the German Anabaptists Evangelii opprobrium and saith isti ut Paedobaptismum prorsus tollerent peccatum negarunt Originale ut non subesset causa cur Insantes Baptizarentur Anabaptists judg none of the true Church but those of their way and Practice 3. So if any be admitted into the Churches of the Anabaptists they must be Rebaptized so formerly in Germany Pontan Catal. Haeret. 4. The Anabaptists in Germany and some in England have held the same viz. Free-will thence they are known by the name of Free-Willers Pontan Catal. Haeres 5. As the Novatians heretofore at Rome so the Anabaptists now saith Zanchy hold there is no hope of pardon for him that falleth into a great sin after Baptism upon a misunderstanding of that place Heb. 6. It is impossible to renew them again by repentance Zanchy Tom. 7. Loc. 8. de Symbolo Apostolorum p. 756. So Sleidan tells us the same p. 529. denying absolution to Men sinning after Baptism though they repented 6. Alsted in his Compendium says The Anabaptists held they were pure and without Sin Beza saith the same upon John 1.3 8. Let not the Reader mistake as if I designed to represent those who are called Anabaptists amongst us were all of them tainted with the forementioned Errors of the Novatians and Donatists for I suppose the generality of them here in England do abhor the owning of such Tenets not but that some are tainted with some of them but others I know to be as Orthodox in judgment the denying Infant-Baptism excepted and holy in conversation as any other Christians that I know I shall conclude this with this observation of the vain attempt of my Antagonist in bringing in those Ancient Hereticks for a Testimony against Infant-Baptism which I perswade my self was never before done by any man and then I cannot but smile to see how neatly he hath drest them up and in such a comely habit that they look just like those called Independents yet it is certain they have no affinity with them For 1. He tells us They were for purity of Church-members and that none ought to be admitted into Churches but visible Saints This is very good but Beza whom I shall believe before the Author says otherwise in his Annotat. upon Ephes 5.27 That he might make unto himself a glorious Church not having spot or wrinkle c. From this place saith he the Donatists gather that the Orthodox Churches were not worthy of the name of Churches Donatistae ex hoc loco colligebant Orthodoxorum Ecclesias nomine Ecclesiarum indignas esse perfectionem justitiae volebant in hac vita constituere Beza in Ephes 5.27 and that from hence they conclude a perfection of Holiness in this life In this then the Author hath misrepresented the Donatists and abused his Reader 2. He saith they were for purity of Church-Discipline and keeping-out such as apostatized or sinned scandalousty when we find they were for keeping-out all that so sinned although they repented So Novatus and Donatus and their followers held that after Baptism there was no Reconciliation or readmittance to the Church though never so penitent That they both agreed in Asserting the power rights and priviledges of particular Churches against
we should have given precedency upon Acts 22.16 Eos qui fide in Ecclesiam Dei ingressi sunt videmus cum sua sobole in Christi Membris c. The Episcopal Divines fall in with the rest I will name but one instà r omnium and that is the famous Doctor Vsher in his Body of Divinity pag. 415. The outward Elements saith he are dispensed to all who make an outward profession of the Gospel for Infants their being born in the Church is instead of an outward profession c. Lastly the Author is at Mr. Baxter again quoting something out of his tenth Argument to Mr. Blake as if he had intended those words against Infants Church-Membership when he clears himself so fully in the point as when he stated the Thesis in the said Book of Disputations and hath written particularly a large piece whose Title is Plain Scripture-proof of Infants Church-Membership and Baptism To conclude this I cannot but pitty the Author because of that self-conceited scornful Genius that appears in what follows altogether unbecoming a Christian and I think all modest and sober spirits cannot but be extreamly scandalized to see a man pretending to be for the truth of Christ so proudly to trample upon all that differ from him Surely he must needs be furnisht with more than an ordinary measure of self-conceit that doth so Magisterially condemn not only the Ancients but those of the Protestant Reformation of latter days sparing none neither Prelate Presbyter nor Independent Have patience Reader and thou shalt hear a little of it How childishly ridiculous it was in those first Inventors of Baptism for six hundred years c. Have a care Sir since you swell at this rate least you burst Austin tells you Ecclesia semper habuit semper tenuit The Church always had it always held Infant Baptisme And Doctor Taylor a person whom you seem to honour much says there is no Record extant of any Church in the World that from the Apostles days inclusively to this very day ever refused to baptize children excepting of late amongst your selves So well to observe the Order viz. first to Baptize and then to Communicate and yet so miserably to miss it in the Subjects applying the Spiritual Ordinances to ignorant Babes This of the six hundred years giving the Communion to Infants he hath taken from Master Tombes his sixth Argument against Infant-Baptisme Exercitation pag. 29. for there it is and Tombes as is conceived took it up from Maldonate the Jesuite who reports that the giving of the Communion to Infants continued six hundred years in the Church But Master Geree well òbserves that is not nor ought to be taken of the first six hundred years for it appears by Maldonate's expression calling it Sententiam the opinion of Augustin and Pope Innocent that it had if not its rise yet its force to become common from them Not only Protestants but Papists themselves condemn that of communicating Infants as an errour yea as I remember the Councel of Trent it self And yet Doctor Taylor doth profess in his discourse of Baptizing the Infants of Believers that page 59. certainly there is infinitely more reason why Infants may be communicated then why they may not be Baptized The Protestant Reformers are more blind and do worse in his opinion then those who gave Infants the Lords Supper And how much worse saith he in the Protestant Reformers that so lamentalby miss it both in the due Order and right Subjects also which the Prelate and Presbyter doe in admitting children to Baptism and Membership but not to the Supper A little more modestly would do the Author no hurt and let him know that neither their Baptism or Church-Membership are inconsistent with the Word but so is Infant-Communion not only because God requires a particular qualification to the Ordinance which Infants are not capable of namely the exercise of actual grace in examination discerning the Lords Body and remembring the death of Christ but because they are not capable in any certain way of the Elements used in that Sacrament as to take and eat the Bread and drink Wine Lastly this Hagio-Mastix lasheth the Independents which do worse than all the rest and doth more grosly erre in point of Order in admitting them to Baptism but neither to Membership nor the Supper But I find the Proverb is true Bernardus non videt omnia even that great Doctor called Saint Bernard is ignorant of some things Wherefore I crave leave of the Author tó tell him he is ignorant of the grounds or principles by which the Independents walk And for his better information I refer him to Doctor Nathaniel Holmes his Answer to Mr. Tombes his Exercitation and Examen where he shall find the Independents Judgment jump with Master Jesseys in his discourse upon Romans 14.1 you have it reprinted at the end of Master Bunians last piece in answer to a Book entituled Some serious Reflections on that part of Master Bunyans Confession of Faith touching Church-Communion with unbaptized Believers Consider saith Master Jessey whether such a practice hath a command or example that persons must be joyned into Church-Fellowship by Water-Baptism For John Baptized many yet he did not Baptize some into one Church and some into another nor all into one particular Church And then afterward into what Church did Philip Baptize the Eunuch or the Apostle the Jaylor and his house This he speaks in opposition to those who hold that a particular Church is constituted by Baptism and formally united as Master K. did many years since in his answer to Doctor B. and is no changeling as appears by his Epistle to Master Pauls sorry Reflections lately Printed So Master Tombes of old in his sixth Argument Exercitat where he inveighs against the Independents as the Author doth here and saith That by Baptism a person is exhibited a Member of Christ and that Church To which Doctor Holmes an Independent Pastor makes this reply viz. But what Church doth Master Tombes mean If he means of the Universal Church I yield that he is exhibited a visible Christian But if he means a Member of any particular rightly constituted Church according to the platform of those in the New Testament and ancient antiquity I altogether deny it for these reasons 1. Those Baptized Matthew 3. were in no particular Christian Church there being none gathered till a good while after that Christ had given the Holy Spirit to the Disciples 2. Cornelius his and the Jaylors Families after the gathering of Churches were not by that numbred to any particular Churches or thereby made particular Churches that we read Now that which exists afore or after a thing without that thing cannot be the form of that thing 3. That which is common cannot be proper and peculiar But Baptism is common to make men only visible Christians in General Therefore it is not proper and peculiar to make them of this or that particular Church And then
a Legitimat seed as Calvin and Camer and others inlarge upon it in opposition to Bastardy for so were Bastards to be esteemed Deut. 23.17 and so 1 Thes 4.3 4 5. This is the will of God even your Sanctification and that you abstain from Fornication c. Still Mr. Tombes word by word both Scriptures and Authors so that the Book might have well born the Title of Tombes redivivns but First For that in Malachy it hath no neerness to it for Godly or of God is not the same with Holy nor doth he say that all Seed begotten in lawful Marriage of one to one is a Godly Seed But that he might seek a seed of God that so he might have a Church proceeding from orderly and chaste marriage Mr. Gerre hath cleared this very well in his Vindiciae Paedobaptismi The place in Malachy saith he to Mr. Tombes doth not any thing countenance your conceit that Holy is taken for Legitimate not only because that place is capable of another sense then to import a Legitimate Seed but if it be taken for Legitimate it follows not that Holy and Legitimate are one Holy is a higher state then Legitimate both are from Gods Ordination Seed in both senses may be termed a Seed of God as the Original is there and yet they be different and so though a Seed of God be translated Legitimate yet it follows not that holy is taken for Legitimate Then for that place in Deuteronomy 23.17 This makes it more unlikely saith the aforementioned Author for though Bastards were once Legally unclean yet that was a Ceremonial thing that was abrogated when the Apostle wrote to the Corinthians and for the Apostle then in that sense to say Bastards were unclean was neither true nor safe for it were a reviving again the Ceremonial Law And for the other Text 1 Thes 4.3 4 5. where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sanctification is the same with Chastity Mr. Marshal did not fly to a shift when he told Tombes that Chastity among the Heathens is never called Sanctification but among Believers it is being a part of the New-Creation and one branch and part of their Sanctification wrought by the spirit of God for the Apostle here writes to the Saints to take heed of that sin to which whilst they were in their Infidel State they were much given up to Chastity indeed amongst Infidels we call a moral virtue but cannot properly be called a part of Sanctification Thirdly which is the last reason the Author brings I should have said Mr. Tombes Neither can Matrimonial holiness be said not to be a Separation to God Mr. Tombes Examen pag. 77. for it is no other then setting a part according to Gods Ordinance and which is called honourable or in this sense holy c. The Author had been ingenious if he had given us all that Mr. Tombes saith upon this for he flyes to the English Liturgy for help I may adde saith he that Marriage hath had the reputation of a holy estate as the Liturgy calls it In answer to which this may suffice it is a chaste estate but for the term holiness to be given to it it is to be susspected to be the Issue of a supposed Sacrament Mr Geree Vinditiae Paedollapt so esteemed by the Papists and this may occasion some Epethites given to it which are yet retained that ought to be laid aside There are two other petty objections which I let pass as not thinking them worthy of any more answers Vide Marshalls defence p 146. and Gerees Vindiciae Paedobapt p. 25. when both Mr. Marshal and Mr. Geree hath done it so well to whom I refer the Reader Exceptions against our Arguments for Infant Baptism from Gen. 17. Acts 2.39 removed In the next place he attempts to invalidate our great Argument for Infant-Baptism drawn from the connexion that is between the Covenant and the seal so that if the Infant seed of Believers are found to be within the Covenant of Gods Grace they ought therefore to partake of the Seal The Author sights most furiously against this Argument but all the Weapons he makes use of in this engagement are fetch'd out of Mr. Tombes his Armory whose edges were long since blunted in an encounter with Mr. Marshall and Mr. Geree yet hath he thought fit to whet and furbish them over again and to make a great flourish as if he would do some notable execution But thou wilt find Reader that he tenders nothings to the end of the Chapter but a nauseous Crambe a Repetition of the old routed Arguments and indeed the controversie hath been so much bandied too and fro that without a miraculous invention it is impossible to find out any thing New either Pro or Con and the utmost that can be done is but to improve the Old Arguments The foundation upon which we ground our practice is Gods Covenant Gen. 17.7 from whence saith he it is thus argued Those to whom the Gospel-Covenant belonged to them the Seal thereof appertained But to Believers and their seed the Gospel Covenant belonged as Gen. 17.7 I 'le be a God to thee and thy seed Acts 2.39 The promise is to you and to your children Therefore to them the seal thereof Circumcision so called Rom. 4.11 did appertain Gen. 17.10 For the Faederati were to be Signati those in the Covenant were to have the Seal thereof And therefore by consequence it naturally follows That if Circumcision the seal of the Gospel-Covenant belonged to the seed of Believers under the Law then doth the Gospel Seal Baptism much more appertain to the seed of Believers under the Gospel which comes in the place room and use of Circumcision otherwise the priviledge under the Gospel would be less then that of the law should Children be denyed such a benefit Repl. I do not find but the Author hath done us right in forming the Argument and do therefore own it as sound and good notwithstanding this quick-sighted man or rather he with Mr. Tombes his eyes hath espied many faults in it for First in general he tells us 't is fallacious and false reasoning and that there is no natural consequence at all from Scripture to inferr the Baptism of Infants nor any ground to build it on Circumcision and that divers things in the Argument are pre-supposed but cannot be proved Secondly He puts in his particular exceptions against it as Except 1. First because Circumcision was not the seal of the Gospel-Covenant to all Believers for 1. Mr. Tombes Examon pag. 36. some under the Gospel-Covenant were not sealed therewith as all Believers from Adam to Abraham neither do we find any of the Believers out of Abrahams family as Lot Melchesideck Job received any such Seal Well said Mr. Tombes They are his very words in his Answer pag. 36. and in his Exercit. pag. 4. and therefore to this there needs no other answer then what Mr. Geree gives him which is
Paedobaptists are as Godly as your selves Sanctified in Christ Jesus and called to be Saints 2. In not doing so you deprive your selves of the benefit of their Gifts and Graces and of that help which you might have from many eminent Ministers of Christ and that assistance for Conversion of Souls and Edification which in some of your Meetings you very much want and when those that are able of your way shall be removed by death you are like to be straitned for want of Men of competent and fitting parts for the carrying on the work of the Ministry as it ought to be done amongst your selves 2. Beware of Pride for where this is predominant it will not suffer men to recede from those rigid Principles and Practices they have taken up As Pride makes men unwilling to receive the Truth from others so it will keep them from retracting an Error though convinced thereof Luther confessed to Melancthon before his death that he would have retracted many things especially in those Sacramental Controversies but that he feared it would lessen the Authority of his Works So much of Pope hath every man in his own breast as to affect to be thought infallible malunt semper errare quam semel errasse videri they had rather always err than seem once to have erred But what-ever a man may lose in reputation of knowledg he shall be sure to gain in estimation of candour ingenuity and sincerity Austin got asmuch esteem by his Book of Retractations as by any other of his works 3. Take heed of a Censorious judging-Spirit do not condemn those that close not in with you to act against their light It is a very uncharitable passage which I find in Mr. Tombes his Praecursor pag. 91. Unless saith he I speak against my conscience I must needs say that it is ignorance or wilfulness holds Ministers and People in their stiff asserting Practice of Infant-Baptism But what it was that kept him so long in the practice of it in his Parish-Churches before the Assembly of Divines sate is best known to the searcher of hearts yet this very man 17 lines above in the same page hath that which amounts to self-contradiction viz. That he reverenceth many Paedobaptists as Godly Ministers of the Gospel far beyond himself The Lord banish from among you this Censorious spirit unto which some of you have been too much addicted How often have we been araigned at your bar for sinning against light for Obstinacy and Wilfulness your Censures have lighted most heavily upon Ministers sparing none neither Conformists nor Non-conformists Heretofore 't was wordly Interest Parochial Maintenance and fear of displeasing the people that blinded and corrupted them a hard Censure to be past upon the whole body of the Ministry of the Nation and how could it consist with Godliness for them to persist so many years in the Practice of that which they thought in their own consciences to be but a meer Tradition and Innovation But you have lived to see your mistake herein and tell us now if you can what the temptations are that blind the Non-conformists since their Ejection and keeps them from coming over to you They were in number as they say about 3000. and I think you cannot shew us a Catalogue of one in a County no not in ten Counties that is proselyted to you God by his inscrutable and wise Providence hath found out a strange way to clear the innocency of his Servants that were so often branded for Hirelings and there hath been an effectual course taken to clear their eye-sight had Wordly Interest blinded them They are now out of the reach of Compliances on that account 4. I would also humbly advise you to take heed of dividing Principles that are inconsistent with the Word especially in this Circumstance of the Church wherein we are in danger to be overwhelmed with other difficulties if it were tolerable and venial to divide at other times yet now the fault is irremissible and irrational Luther counselled the Synod at Norimberg to silence the Disputes until a fitter oportunity Meum Consilium est ut causam hanc sinatis ad tempus sopitam jacere hoc tempore enim animis sic affestis venenum est disputare I counsel you that in this juncture of time and when your minds are so much out of tune you would let this Controversy sleep and not dispute about it for it will prove poysonous 5. Take heed of rejecting those Overtures for Union which are made by your Brethren We are commanded to follow after those things that make for Peace and shall we run away from them You say they differ from you and do not you likewise from them We all see but in part and know but in part and therefore should bear with one another Why should you not have the like freedom which your Brethren have Their Arms are open to receive you You are straitned in your own Bowels and not in theirs O why will you not imbrace where Christ imbraceth and receive those whom God receiveth Or why do you refuse Communion with those here in Ordinances that you have ground to believe you shall have Communion with in Glory Perswasive to Peace If you say because they are not Baptized after Believing This can be no more necessary for Church-Communion than it is unto Salvation for the means cannot be more necessary to the subordinat end which is Church-Communion than it is to the Principal which is Salvation And Baptism is necessary to Salvation but by way of duty where opportunity concurs but not by way of means where opportunity is wanting And if to be Baptized after Faith were indeed the Paedobaptists duty the true reason why they do not perform it is the want of a Moral opportunity that is the want of Conviction that it is their duty they verily believing they were sufficiently Baptized in their Infancy and that it is not lawful for them to be rebaptized And all the while they remain under this perswasion they can no more lawfully receive an after-Baptizing by a voluntary submission to it than they can who desire to be Baptized but want the opportunity of health or such an Administrator as you call it as is necessary thereto And if their Right to Salvation under these Circumstances be not cut off as doubtless it is not for the reason before given then no more can their Right to Church-Communion thereby be cut off for the same reason To conclude let us all pray for the Peace of Jerusalem that our Father which is in Heaven the God of Peace would look down upon his Divided Children and create Peace among them That Christ Jesus who is the Peace-maker and Prince of Peace that prayed for it and bequeathed it to his Disciples as his last Legacy would reconcile our hearts one to another That the Spirit of Peace whose fruit is Peace would compose our differences and make up our breaches and give us enlarged hearts to embrace each other That the Blessed Trinity which hath nothing so proper to it self as Vnity would pitty Zion and raise up healing Instruments and rebuke fiery Spirits and remember the Promise that is made to the Church to be fulfilled in the times of the Gospel That all her Children shall be taught of the Lord and great shall be the Peace of her Children 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Mat. 5. 7. FINIS Errata PART 1. Page 2. line 2. for our read your P. 9. l. 3. r. only manner Chapt. 4. P. 51. l. 29. for one r. own Ch. 7. P. 4. l. 11 for not Dipping r. not only Dipping PART 2. Chap. 3. P. 152. l. 7. r. on l. 9 dele is meant ibid P. 154. l. 22. r. we idem P. 165. l. 22. Dele when Ch. 7. P. 105. l. 23. r. as idem P. 106. r. prejudic'd Ib. P. 120. l. 7 for this r. the for Kidderminster r. Beaudly c. To the Bookbinder By reason of the Author 's remote distance from the Press some great mistakes have happened so that several Leaves must be cancelled the Alphabet is also confused wherefore observe these directions The Title is a quarter of a Sheet after that place the Preface then B C. cut off 25. and 26. Pages and supply them with a leaf printed on the Title sheet D E F G. Then A a B b C c* a half-sheet then G g H h I i K k L l M m N n O o P p Q q R r S s T t a half sheet after T t place C c but cut of the 2 first leaves of the said C c D d E e F f but be sure to cut off the 4 last leaves of the said F f then G g g H h h I i i K k k a half sheet and a leaf marked K k k* printed with the Title sheet lastly L l l.
Saints Beloved and called throughout the world in succeeding ages to receive into Church-communion and Fellowship such whom we have ground to believe God hath received into Communion with himself For that 's the Argument or Motive verse 3. God hath received him and saith he if it be a good Argument to receive such as are weak in any thing whom the Lord hath received Then there can be no good Argument to reject for any thing for which the Lord will not reject them The like argument we have chap. 15. ver 7. of Christs Receiving Receive you one another as Christ hath received us c. Then that holy man breaks out into pathetical strains Oh! how is the heart of God the Father and the Son set upon this to have his children in one anothers hearts as they are in his c. and 't is the work of the Devil saith he to divide them Thus much to shew how they differ amongst themselves about this Position that Baptism gives formality or makes a member of a visible Church which the moderate party amongst them utterly deny now that it gives neither essence or being either to a Church or Membership further appears by these Arguments 1. If there be a Church That dividing Principle That Baptism formes a Church or makes Church-Members refuted and so Members before Baptism then Baptism cannot give the formality or essence because forma is causal and so is in nature before formatum But the Church considered as totum essentiale is before Baptism for Ministers are before baptism And there must be a Church of Believers to chose a Minister lawfully for none but a Church can give him a call and without a call he cannot administer as Mr. Hooker argues in his survey of the sum of Church-discipline cap. 5. part 1. pag. 55. adding moreover that if Baptism cannot be without a Ministerial Church nor that before a Church Congregational which must make choice of a ministry then such a Church is much before Baptism Besides let it be supposed saith he that at the coming of some Godly Zealous Christian and Scholar into the Country and a company of Pagans many are converted to the Faith I ask whether these may not joyn in Church-Fellowship and choose that man Pastor and whether that choice was not lawful according to God Therefore here is a Church before a Minister and so before Baptism The demand which Mr. Jessey makes upon the same arugments is somewhat like this if Baptism saith he be the manner of forming Churches how would it suit a Country where many are converted and willing to be Baptized but there being no Church to be baptized into how shall such a Church-State begin The first must be baptized into no Church that is particular and the rest into him as the Church or the work stand still for want of a Church 2. A Church may be without Baptism and yet as real a Church as the Israelites were so long in the Wilderness without Circumcision which without dispute was the initiating Ordinance according to Divine Institution Gen. 17.13 3. One Argument I shall borrow more from Mr. Hooker and that is If Baptism give the form to visible-membership then while that remains valid the party is a visible Member for where the form is the formatum must needs be if the principles of reason may take place But there is true Baptism resting in the party who hath no visible Membership as in an Excommunicate in him that renounceth the fellowship of the Church or when the Church is utterly dissolved then all Church-Membership ceaseth for Relata mutuò se ponunt tellunt And yet Baptism is valid And as it is an undeniable position That that which gives the form or being to a Church must cease when the Church ceaseth or when a member ceaseth to be a member it must cease with it so it follows that that must be renewed namely Baptism as often as Membership is renewed so shall we have a multiplication of Baptisms as often as the person is cast out of the Church and taken in again upon his repentance As for those two Scriptures which the Author brings for his opinion they will hardly be found to serve his turn 1. The main place stood upon is Act. 2.41 As many as received the word gladly were baptized and there was added that day about 3000. souls Hence they conclude they were added by Baptism and that they were only added this way Sol. 1. It is more then the Text affords for to conclude that they were added by Baptism much less can it be argued from thence that they were only added this way the words say not they were added by Baptism but puts a full point or stop after that sentence As many as gladly received the word were baptized There that sentence ends as Mr. Sydenham notes upon the place And the Apostle goes on a new account and saith There were added that day 3000. souls but doth not at all shew the manner of their adding so that these words are rather a recapitulation and summing up the number of Church-Members added that day then any description of the way of their taking into the Church and the former reasons prove it cannot be interpreted as our Author would have it The other place that he urgeth for his opinion is 1 Cor. 12.13 We are all baptized into one body hence 't is concluded Baptism imbodies Members 1. In answer to this let it be considered what those of their one party say that are for Dipping The Text saith Mr. Bunyan that treateth of our being baptized into one body tells us expresly it is done by the spirit For by one Spirit we are all baptized into one body Here is the Church presented as under the â—â—tion of a Body here is Baptism mentioned by which they are brought or initiated into this body Now that this is the Baptisme of Water is utterly against the words of the Text For by one Spirit are we all Baptized into one body So Mr. Jesse The Baptism intended in the Text is the Spirits-Baptism and not Water-Baptism and the Body the Text intends is not principally the Church of Corinth but all believers both Jews and Gentiles being Baptized into one Mystical Body and the reason why it cannot be meant of Water-Baptism is because all the Body of Christ Jews and Gentiles bond and free partook not thereof Thus here we see how they clash amongst themselves as touching the sense of the place 2. We add That as we conceive the Apostle speaks there primarily of the Baptism of the Spirit not of Water so by one spirit we are baptized into one body is not so much of Baptism by Water and yet supposing it to be meant of Baptism by Water Yet as Mr. Sydenham observes it proves nothing that Baptism is the form of that body Sydenhams Christian Exercitation cap. 20. pag. 168 169. which hath its matter and form holiness and