Apostolical Tradition THis is a false suggestion and exceeds all modesty for although the Church of Rome ascribes too much to Tradition as in many other things yet the Ancient Fathers as Cyprian Nazianzen Chrysostom with divers others as is before shewn plead Baptism to come in the room of Circumcision and that Infants have right thereto from the Infants of the Jews having right to Circumcision whereby 't is evident that Tradition hath not been primarily asserted to be the ground of Infant-Baptism 2. He farther saith The Protestants since the Reformation have chose to fly to some consequential Arguments deducted as they suppose from the Scriptures to prove the same both which in this Chapter are brought forth and duely weighed in the Ballance of Truth We doubt not in the Process of the discourse to shew that after we have weighed what she saith we shall find it too light and to be but chaff in stead of Truth The Protestants he saith have chose to fly to consequential Arguments deduced as they suppose from Scripture But the Antipaedobaptists are of another mind and suppose themselves to be Men of deeper Reason and more piercing inspection into the sence of the Scriptures than all the Godly and Learned Protestants since the Reformation They see the mistaken conceits they have of Scripture and how ungroundedly they draw their consequences from thence An Argument indeed it is of much modesty for the Author to speak at this rate I would ask any of these Men who are so highly conceited of their Scripture-Knowledg why Paedobaptists that are humble searching praying Christians may not understand so much of God's mind in Scripture as they Doth the Word of God come out from them or doth it come to them only John 17.14 1 Cor. 14.37 or have they only the Spirit of Illumination or are they the only Masters of right Reasons Or dare they say 't is unlawful to make use of Consequences Or may not we be permitted to use them for Infant-Baptism aswel as they against it Do not they argue from Matt. 28.18 19. and Mark 16.16 None ought to be Baptized but such who are first taught and consequently that no Children ought to be Baptized because they be not capable of teaching Vide Tombes Is not this their constant way of Arguing Now how unreasonable is it for men to practise that themselves which they will not allow of in others I remember Mr. Staltmarsh in his shadows flying away doth much condemn Consequences and saith Prudence and Consequence are the two great Engins of Will-Worship good Doctrine indeed and a fine preparative to an Implicit Faith But Mr. Baxter chastiseth the folly of these men in his Plain Scripture-Proof c. Position 10. pag. 8. Evident Consequences Quae colliguntur ex Scripturiâ— sacris perinde habenda sunt ac si in illis scripta essent Gâ—eg Nazâ—anzen L. 5. Thelog or Arguments drawn by reason from Scripture are as true Proof as the very words of a Text would it not make a man pity such senseless ignorant wretches saith he that will call for express words of Scripture when they have the Evident Consequences or Sence Is Scripture-Reason no Scripture If I prove that all Church-Members must be admitted by Baptism and then prove that Infants of Believers are Church-Members is not this asmuch as to prove that they must be Baptized I suppose no man of sound judgment will deny that the sence or meaning of Scripture is Scripture as well as the Letters and Syllables in the Bible For the sence and meaning of the Letter of the Word must be drawn out by rational Consequence as the conclusion from a Proposition by a fit medium and if this were not so the searching and studying of the Scriptures were a needless undertaking and so would all Preaching and Expounding be It is a good observation of Dr. Sclater in his Comment upon the 5th verse of the 4th Chapter of the Romans That God's Spirit in Scripture speaks as well what he implyeth as what he expresseth as well what by Consequence is deduced as what in summe of Words he uttereth And instanceth in that of James 4.5 saith the Scripture in vain c. It is usual for our Adversaries to cavil against this Theological Axiom Say the Papists and Anabaptists for in this like Sampson's foxes they are joyned together by the tayls whilst their heads look several ways where have we it taught that Infants should be Baptized in all the Scripture To which we answer we have it not in Express terms but by just Consequence Where find we that Christ's Righteousness is imputed to us for Justification saith Bellarmine Why in Express terms we have it not but Virtually and by just Consequence we have it 2 Cor. 5.21 In the Equivalent we have it Rom. 5.17 18 19. You are wont to boast saith Bellarmine of the Word of God and to reduce all your Opinions to this one head but in the Case of Justification by Faith only that help fails you for you were never able to shew in the Scripture that particle only To this we Reply that if we have it by Consequence from Scripture and if we have it in the Equivalency we have it in the Scripture That Tradition hath been the first and principal ground of Infant-Baptism he would prove from Austin and Chrysostom's sayings But how and in what sense do they call it a Tradition of the Church why certainly not as if the Church had been the Author but the Subject of it as before as continued therein all along down from the Apostles And if any of the Fathers speak too hyperbolically of Tradition what is that to us who plead Scripture as its primary ground for it Besides Anciently the greatest points of Faith were called by the name of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. Divine Doctrines or Ordinances for so it is rendred 1 Cor. 11.2 and the same word is rendred Traditions 2 Thes 2.15 So that Austin's Intendment by that expression of Apostolical Tradition is nothing else but Apostolical Ordinance or Doctrine as appears from his own words saying The Custom of our Mother the Church in Baptizing little Infants is not to be despised nor to be judged Superfluous nor to be Believed unless it were an Apostolical Tradition Lib. 10. de Gen. c. 23. i. e. an Apostolical Ordinance What follows from 153 p. to the 155th is mostly borrowed from Mr. Tombes his Praecursor Sec. 20. p. 86 89. As first The Assertion of the Cardinal Ragusi in his Oration in the Council of Bazil Tombes indeed hath it in Latin but the Author is at the pains to translate it And since it is so notorious and intolerable a piece of Plagianism thus to take and conceal from whence he had it contrary to the Laws of ingenuity provided in that behalf we shall make discovery thereof by a Paralel H. D i.e. The Author In the Council of Bazil in the Oration of of the
sufficient so that in this long train of Authors which our Antagonist quotes he doth but magno conatu nugas agere take a great deal of pains in trifling But that which he cites from Mr. Daniel Rogers seems to have more weight who in his Treatise about Baptism Part 29. Confesseth himself to be unconvinced by demonstration of Scripture for it This is taken from Mr. Tombe's Examen Tombes Examen p. 2. pag. 2. To which I answer one man may be fully convinced by Scripture-demonstration when another is not but 't is fit the Reader should know all that Mr. Rogers saith there upon the point for it is unhandsome to bring in scraps out of Authors He tells us he no less doubts of the warrantableness of Infant-Baptism than he doth of the Creed saying that sundry learned men have undertaken to stop their Schismatical mouths that oppose it and to answer their peevish Arguments and though he saith his scope tends another way yet gives his reasons for it 1. Because Circumcision was applyed to the Infants on the 8th day in the Old-Testament 2. There is no word in the New-Testament to infringe the liberty of the Church in it nor special reason why we should bereave her of it 3. Sundry Scriptures afford friendly proofs by Consequence 4. The holiness of the Child External and Visible is from their Parents therefore the seed being holy and belonging to the Govenant the Lord graciously admits them to the Seal of it by Baptism Farther he brings a passage out of Mr. Baxters plain Scripture-proof for Infants Church-membership and Baptism Where he confesseth pag. 3. That Infant-Baptism is not plainly determined in Scripture Hear what he saith Reader and then judge what he gains from Mr. Baxter all that he saith is as follows viz. The Scripture speaks fully of those particular controversies that were on foot in those times but more sparingly of those not then questioned and then names divers questions which the Scripture fully and plainly determines But saith he many others as difficult which then were no Controversies have no such determination and yet mark it the Scripture is sufficient to direct for the determination of these too if we have wisdom to discern the Scope of the Spirit to apply general rules to particular cases Such is the Case of Infant-Baptism Afterward in the 9th page we have this The grounds saith he upon which Infants are Baptized are very easy and plain though to many it be difficult to discern how it is from those grounds inferred and therefore though some few learned and Godly and humble Men do doubt of it yet in the whole known Christian part of the World there is but few After this we have something brought out of Dr. Taylor 's Lib. of Proph p. 239. concerning Previous dispositions that are requisite to Baptism of which Infants are not capable But to prevent transcribing I refer the Reader to his latter Piece of the Consideration of the Practice of the Church in Baptizing Infants where he himself confutes what he had said in his Liberty of Proph. you have it pag. 25 26. Here also we have a parcel of Authors introduced who do all are rolundo express fully their judgments That nothing must be done in Gods Worship without Scripture-Warrant Mr. Ball is one of them whose saying our Antagonist fetcheth out of Mr. Tombes Exerc. pag. 9. M. Tombes Exercit pag. 9. so it is also in his Exam p. 2. Tombes Examen p. 2. joyned to that of Mr. Rogers before-mentioned Mr. Balls words are We must look to the Institution and neither stretch it wider nor draw it narrower than the Lord hath made it For he is the Institutor of the Sacraments according to his own good pleasure and it is our part to learn of him both to whom how and for what end the Sacraments are to be administred c. But why doth he not set down all that Mr. Ball hath in that place Circumcision and Baptism saith he are both Sacraments of Divine Institution and so they agree in the substance of the thign signified the persons to whom they are to be administred and the order of Administration if the right proportion be observed as Circumcision sealed the entrance into Covenant the Righteousness of Faith and Circumcision of the heart so doth Baptism much more clearly As Abraham and his Houshold and the Infants of Believing-Jews were to be Circumcised so the Faithful their Families and their Seed are to be Baptized At last he thinks to rout us quite with a saying of Bellarmin's whose very name gives us an Allarm and sounds Bellum Arma War Arms. The Anabaptists saith Bellarmine call for plain Scripture-proof for the Baptizing of Infants and their Argument from defect of Command or Example have great force against the Lutherans foras much as they use that Principle every where viz. That the Rite which is not in Scripture having no Command or Example there is to be rejected Yet it is of no force against Catholicks who conclude that Apostolical Tradition is of no less Authority with us than the Scripture but that this of Baptizing Infants is an Apostolical Tradition c. To which I Reply that the Author might well have omitted this of Bellarmin since it is but acunning insinuation of that Jesuitical Sophister to set Protestants at greater distances amongst themselves to advance the esteem of their adored Tradition And yet he himself speaking elsewhere of Infant-Baptism saith satis aperte ex Scripturis colligitur c. Infant-Baptism is plainly enough gathered out of Scripture CHAP. II. The Historical Account which the Author gives of Iafant-Brptism in its Rise and Establishment Examined and Condemned In this Chapter he presents us with the History of Infant-Baptism and tells strange news if you will credit him of its Original since the Apostle's days Thus he begins 1. From the learned Authorities before given we have gained thus much that as there was no Precept in Scripture for the Baptizing of Infants so neither was there the least Practice to be found thereof in the Apostles days as was so ingeniously before Confessed by the Magdeburgenses Luther Calvin Erasmus Rogers 1. BUt we have made it appear Sr. that you reckon your gains too fast and have much erred in casting up the Sum as the Reader may find in the preceding Chapter I question not if he be impartial he will conclude you have not gained a farthing but are rather a loser hitherto For among all those Learned Authorities before given there is no passage although never so much strained that saith any more than this There is no Express precept in Scripture for the Baptizing of Infants and this every Child knows but in saying there is no Express one they intimate thereby there is an Implicite one I love not to repeat the Reader may if he please reflect upon what they say And in asmuch as the point relates to matter of Fact
Cardinal of Ragusi It is asserted that in the beginning of this Sacrament of Baptism they only were to be Baptized who could by themselves answer Interrogatories concerning their Faith and that it was no-where read in the Canon of Scripture that a new-born Infant was Baptized who could neither believe with the heart to Justification nor confess with the mouth to Salvation yet nevertheless saith he the Church hath appointed it H. D. Whereas some Object that Bellarmine and others do also bring Scripture for it Becan Lib. 1. c. 2. Sec. 24. answers that some things may be proved out of Scripture when the Church's sence is first heard about the Interpretation thereof for so he saith it is concerning Infants-Baptism which is proved from John 3.5 But the sense whereby to prove it is only manifest by Tradition H. D. and it is confirmed in the Canon-Law and School-Men that Infant-Baptism was not reckoned perfect till the Bishop laid on hands which was called Confirmation viz. of the imperfect Baptism in Infancy and therefore saith Caistans secundum Jewel that an Infant wanting instruction in the Faith hath not perfect Baptism H. D. Dr. Field Lib. 4. p. 375. saith That Infant-Baptism is therefore called a Tradition because it is not expresly delivered in the Scriptures that the Apostles did Baptize Infants or that they should do so Here the Author stops and goes no farther being afraid of the next lines H. D. Prideaux controv Theol. Sec. 392. Infant-Baptism saith he rests upon no other Divine right than Episcopacy viz Diocesan Episcopacy in use in these Nations Here he adds as before he substracted from what Mr. Tombes said out of Field I. T. i.e. John Tombes In the Council of Bazil in the Oration of the Cardinal of Ragusi it is asserted Item nusquam legitur in Canone Scripturae S. quod parvulus recenter Baptizatus qui nec corde credit ad justitiam nec ore confitetur adsalutem inter fideles credentes computetur nibilominus Ecclesia ita determinavit statuit c. And in principio hujus Sacramenti Baptizabantur solum illi qui per se sciebant fidem interroganti respondere I. T. And whereas it is Objected that Bellarmine and others do bring Scripture for it Becan Manual Lib. 1. C. 3. Sec. 24. answers aliqua possunt probari ex Scriptura quando constat de vero legitimo Scripturae sensu So he saith it is concerning Infant-Baptism which is proved from John 3.5 but that the sense whereby to prove it is only manifest by Tradition I. T. Which is confirmed in the Canon-Law and School-Men an Infants-Baptism was not reckoned perfect till the Bishop layd on hands which act was called Confirmation viz. of the imperfect Baptism in Infancy Jewel alledgeth it as Caistans Tenent that an Infant for that he wanteth instruction in Faith therefore hath not perfect Baptism I. T. Dr. Field of the Church 4th Book Chap. 20. of this sort is Infant-Baptism which is therefore called a Tradition because it is not expresly delivered in Scripture that the Apostles did Baptize Infants nor any express Precept that they should do so Tombes is so ingenious as to set down the rest yet is not this so received by bare and naked Tradition but that we find the Scripture to deliver unto us the grounds of it I. T. Dr ' Prideaux Fasci Controv. Theol. Loc. 4. Sec. 3. q. 2. Paedobaptism rests on no other Divine right than Episcopaey Now to all this we have said enough before as to the Substance of it and I love not needless repetitions only let me mind you with this That though Papists and others attribute too much to the custom of the Church or Tradition yet all sound Protestants when they use that word they do it in Sensu sano quite different from the corrupt sense of the Romish Church And because the Author saith Dr. Taylor doth so fully and strenuously argue against us in his Lib. Proph. p. 237 viz. Tradition saith he must by all means supply the place of Scripture and there is pretended a Tradition Apostolical That Infants were Baptized I think it not amiss to bring in Dr. Hammond to cope with him in his Letter of Resolution Quaere 4th of the Baptizing of Infants Sec. 104. pag. 277. where having before spoken of what sort of Traditions have been rejected by the Reformed Churches he then adds Having no necessity to descend to any more minute Considerations the whole matter will be resolved into this one Enquiry whether the Baptizing of Infants doth sufficiently appear to be of the Institution of Christ or Practice Apostolical And if it do we have all that we pretend to upon the score of Tradition and if it do not we are obliged to disclaim that means of maintaining our plea or inferring our conclusion And because the way of satisfying this enquiry is but the saying over again all that hath been formerly said on this subject this whole Discourse having laid the weight of all upon this one Basis the Institution of Christ and Practice of the Apostles it will be unreasonable to do this any farther save only upon a brief Recapitulation to refer it to the judgment of any sober Christian Whether first by Christs founding of the Institution of this Sacrament in the Jewish Custom of Baptizing of Proselytes Baptism in use in the Jewish Church and applyed to Infants aswel as grown men The Learned Mr. Selden Light-foot speak the same which appears to have belonged to the Infant Children of the Proselytes as is before shewn out of Goodwin Ainsworth others Chap. 1. and Secondly by his being so far from excepting against the Age of Children as a Prejudice or hinderance to their coming to him that is to their Proselytism that he affirms them to be the pattern of those Though Children are brought to him by others yet they are sayd to come unto him in Mark 10.14 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the very words of which Proselyte is made of whom his Kingdom is to be made up and though he be not affirmed in the Gospel to Baptize such for he Baptized not at all Mark 10.16 Which being the Ceremony usual in the Church for those that were fitted for Baptism and distinctly Preparative to it they that were by Christ afforded that cannot be thought by him less capable of Baptism than of that And Thirdly by the express Words of the Apostle that their Children are Holy interpreted by the Context so as to infer from the Apostles way of Arguing that it was the Custom of those Apostolick times to Baptize the Children of the Christian Parents and so interpreted by the Christian Writers of the First and Purest Ages And Fourthly by the Testimonies of all the Ancients that are found to speak of this matter without any one pretended to dissent that this was the Practice of the Apostles Whether I say these four things being put together the truth of each of
nulli adulto conferendus est nisi prius ediderit confessionem peocatorum i.e. We must not Baptize any person that is grown up unless he first make a Profession of his Faith c. If we would know his mind more fully we may see it in his Comment upon the 28. of Mat. 19. It was saith he the Duty of the Apostles to Preach the Gospel all abroad throughout the World to all Nations Apostolorum officium fuit Evangelium-praedicare passim in orbe terrarum c. Verō pastorum illis suceedentium est Evangelium praedicare apud certam Ecclesiam a quae peculiaritèr sunt vocati praterea Infantes qui in illa Ecclesia noscuntur per Baptismum Deo consecrare Piscat Observ in Mat. 28. p. 746. Edit 2. Herbornae Nassoviorum Porrò ad Ecclesiam pertinent non solum adulti Credentes ac fidem profitentes sed etiam ipsorum liberi ut patet ex verbis Apost 1 Cor. ◠Quare dubium videri non debet quin illi quoque liberi inquam Infantes fidelium baptizandi sint etsi fidei non sunt capaces and by Baptism to incorporate them into the Church who make Profession of their Faith c. And it is the duty of all Pastors that succeed them to preach the Gospel to that particular Church whereunto they are called and farthermore to consecrate to God by Baptism those Infants which are born in that Church And then adds Not only Adult persons that do believe and profess their Faith belong to the Church but also their Children as appears from the words of the Apostle 1 Cor. 7. else were your Children unclean but now are they holy where saith he the Apostle calls their children holy that were born though but one of the Parents were a Believer forasmuch as they belong to Gods Covenant made with his Church and by consequence they belong to the Church wherefore we need not doubt but they also I say the Children or Infants of Believers are to be Baptized although they are not capable of Faith even as the Infants of the Jews were circumcised belonging likewise to the Covenant and to the Church And as if all our eminent Divines had heedlesly spoken something in favour of their way he hath the confidence to bring in more still Mr. Perkins saith he in concurrence here with these words Teaching all Nations Baptizing them saith I explain the terms thus Mark first of all it is said Teach them 1. make them my Disciples by calling them to believe repent Here we are to consider the Order which God observes in making with men a Covenant in Baptism First of all he calls them by his word and commands them to believe and to repent Then in the second place God makes his promise of mercy and forgiveness And thirdly be seals his promise by Baptism They that know not nor consider this Order which God used in Covenanting with them in Baptism deal preposterously over-slipping the Commandment of Repenting and Believing Who would not think by this that the Renowned Perkins were of his side a down right Antipaedobaptist whereas not a word of what he saith is intended against Infant-Baptisme but only to shew in what order Baptisme is to be Administred to Aliens and Pagans as appears by what he saith upon the same Text. Mat. 28.29 Which is disingeniously conceal'd by the Author Go teach all Nations Baptizing them c. In these words saith Mr. Perkins the Baptism of Infants is prescribed and the Apostles by vertue of this Commission Baptized whole Families Act. 16.15 33. As knowing Gods former Administration to his people the Children were taken into Covenant with the Fathers as the Israelites both Old and Young were baptized into Moses in the Cloud 1 Cor. 10.4 As the Nation of the Jews were first taught and then they and their Infants being confederates were circumcised so saith our Saviour Do you go Teach and Disciple the Nations and then Baptize them The last quoted in this Chapter is the famous Paraeus and what saith he he tells us saith the Author in his Comment on Mat. 3.5 That the Order was That confession as a testimony of true repentance go first Hoc enim damus Anabaptistis in Ecclesiam fuscipiendos non esse nisi praeviâ confessione fidei paenitentiae quem morem vetus servavit ecclesia nostrae hodie observant si vel Judaeus vel Turca Adultus c. Paraeus in Mat. 3.5 and then Baptism for Remission of sins afterward Very good but is this all No certainly for he presently adds this we grant to the Anabaptists that persons are not to be taken into the Church and be Baptized speaking of Aliens or those that are without as the Apostle phraseth it unless a Profession of Faith and Repentance hath gone before which custome saith he the Antient Primitive Church kept and ours at this day still observe when a Turk or a Jew that is grown is to be initiated by Baptism Thus Reader I have given thee a taste of the ingenuity of my Antagonist and I leave thee to judge of it CHAP. II. Containing his second Argument to prove the Baptisme of Believers the only true Baptism and that is if we will believe him from the Apostles Doctrine teaching the same Reply ALthough what we have before said to invalidate his main Argument drawn from the Institution of Christ be sufficient to overthrow whatsoever is brought in the two following Chapters yet we shall further add that it is not to be denyed that the Apostles assert Believers Baptisme to be a true Baptism but that they teach us that it is the only true Baptisme is utterly false and we have only the Authors word for it The Texts cited out of Act. 2.37 Act. 8.36 37. Act. 10.42 Act. 16.29 prove that grown persons unbaptized ought to be required to believe before their Baptism which we grant but to inferr thence that the Children of Baptized Believers are not to be Baptized is more then these Texts or any else that I know can yeild We read of none de facto that the Apostles Baptized A non dicto ad non factum non valet consequentia Because it is not exprest in so many words therefore it was not done is not Logical but Believers therefore none but such de jure ought to be Baptized is a sorry way of arguing The words of Dr. Taylor in his Discourse of Baptisme part 2. pag. 34. are very weighty viz. A Negative argument for matters of fact in Scripture cannot conclude c. And therefore supposing that it be not intimated that the Apostles did Baptize Infants it follows not saith the Dr. that they did not and if they did not it does not follow that they might not or that the Church may not The Scripture speaks nothing of the Baptisme of the Virgin Mary and of many of the Apostles therefore they were not baptized is a weak arguing The
34. 2. There needed no express Command in the New-Testament that Infants should be signed and sealed by Baptism when the Covenant is not abolished that took in the Seed with the Parent as there needs no express Command for the Lord 's Day or First-Day Sabbath in the New-Testament because the fourth Commandment for substance is still in force So there needs no new Command for Baptizing the Infant-seed of Believers because the Command for sealing such is for substance still in force It is also well noted by Mr. Gerce that there is a great difference between an Ordinance it self and some particular Circumstance or Subject to which that Ordinance is to be applied As for the Ordinance it self the setting up of Baptism as a Sacrament of the Gospel-Covenant renewed by Christ this requires express warrant in the Word of God but when we have such warrant for the Ordinance it self to whomsoever we find by grounds and principles in Scripture that it doth of right belong there we may apply it though we want express Command for it if we have none against it 3. We farther add what is well argued by some Divines That if the Children of Believers have a right to be Baptized by the word of Promise Mr. Stephens and Mr. Sydenham then they have a right to be Baptized by the word of Command but the Children of Believers have a right to be Baptized by the word of Promise therefore they have a right to be Baptized by the word of Command Now that Children have a right to be Baptized by the word of Promise appears from Act. 2.39 For the Promise is made to you and to your Children c. The exceptions which the Antipaedobaptists make against this Text shall be removed in its proper place Now for the other Branch there is no Example of Infants being baptized therefore it is no Ordinance of Christ The Consequence stands upon a lame Leg for as is before shewn a negative Argument in matters of Fact is not valid For Christ did many things that were not recorded and so did the Apostles whereof this was one for ought we know the Baptizing Infants and it is the more probable upon a twofold account First because we find such frequent mention of their Baptizing whole Families as Stephanus and his houshold Lydia and her houshold and divers others as soon as we read of the head of the Family to believe the whole houshold was baptized As when Abraham believed he and his whole Family were circumcised and so when the Head of a Family became a Proselyte ordinarily He and His were Circumcised Now in so many Families as were baptized it cannot rationally be supposed that there were no Children and if there were any they were baptized for they are a part of the Family or Houshold And secondly Because we never read in Scripture of any Children of Believing Parents who were Baptized afterwards Our Opposits will not believe the Apostles baptized Children because we can give no particular instances of it but this Negative Argument may be thus retorted against themselves The Children of Believing Parents were baptized in their Infancy for they cannot find in Scripture any of them that were baptized when they came to years of discretion and not before I urge not this as a concluding though probable Argument that in the Apostle's days Children were Baptized however I am certain that to say Infant-Baptism is no Ordinance of Christ because we have no examples in the Scripture of any that were Baptized is a pittiful Argument Next saith he That there is neither Precept nor Example for any such thing as Infant-Baptism in the Scripture we have the ingenuous Confession of the parties themselves The Magdeburgenses do say That concerning the Baptising the Adult both Jews and Gentiles we have sufficient proof but as to the Baptizing of Infants they can meet with no Example in the Scriptures Very good Sr. now you have learnt to set down things right but why did you say in the 56 page of your Treatise referring to the same place Cent. 1. L. 2. pag. 496. That the Magdeburgenses as to the Subjects of Baptism tell us that in this Age they only Baptized the Adult was that lapsus calami or mentis And do you not know that in the same place they tell us notwithstanding particular instances cannot be found as all the Paedobaptists confess yet 't is evident from the Writings of the Apostles that they did not exclude Infants from Baptism and then bring Arguments for the lawfulness of it as before For that of Luther in his Epistle of Anabaptism I have not the Book by me to Examine it yet I am sure by what the Author cites it hurts us not The Scriptures saith he do no where clearly and plainly with these or the like words say Baptize your Children for they believe and we must needs yield to those that drive us to the Letter This is still no more than what we all say we all acknowledg it is no-where written Children do believe as Lutherans hold they do and again we say as Luther did it is no-where written clearly and plainly with these words Baptize your Children for they Believe Nor have Antipaedobaptists any command in so many words Go and Baptize actual and visible Believers If they say such were Baptized we may reply with Mr. Sydenbam that is not to the purpose for it is a verbal command which they require to give warrant to an Ordinance and for ought we can learn from Christ's Commission Matt. 28.19 Whosoever are taught be the parties never so wicked they must be Baptized if they will for there is no mention made of their entertainment of the Gospel Next he Fathers that upon Erasmus which was never spoken by him in his Comment upon Rom. 6. Namely That Baptizing of infants was not in use in St. Paul's time There is no such word I assure thee Reader there Again in his 4th Book de Ratione Concionandi he saith That they are not to be condemned that doubt whether Childrens Baptism were Ordained by the Apostles But why Sir did you not speak out all You know Erasmus his words are these Probabile est tingere Infantes institutum fuisse ab Apostolis non damnaretur tamen qui de hoc dubitaret It is probable the Baptism of Infants was instituted by the Apostles nevertheless if one doubt thereof he should not be condemned In this Erasmus speaks like an honest moderat-Spirited man that would not have weak Christians Anathematized as the Papists use to do for their dissent in Circumstantial and Disputable points 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 Apostles Baptized to the same purpose are Staphilus Melancthon Zwinglius quoted to which I only say That whereas they all tell us there is no express Command or express Example an Implicite one is
notwithstanding the confidence of the adverse party unless they can produce one Express place of Scripture where it is said No Infant was Baptized or some Express Command not to Baptize them their calling for an Express Command concludes nothing against our Practice 2. Moreover we affirm against their Practice that there is no Express Command in all the Book of God to plunge persons Head and Ears under water nor can they by any convincing Circumstance about the manner of Baptizing make it appear though thousands were Baptized in a day that any one was so severely dealt with in the primitive times we shall shew when we come to it that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 among Heathen and Ecclesiastical Writers doth promiscuously signify to dip into or wash with Water by pouring on of it and in the Scripture it is more frequently taken for Washing than dipping 3. They have no Express Command or Example to Baptize or plunge themselves as they do with their Cloaths on which is rather a Baptizing Garments than Bodies Since they are so much for Express Command and Example let them first justify their own Practice by it before they condemn us for want of it 2. He tells us That the approved Practice and known custom of the Primitive Church was to Baptize the Adult as all Ages acknowledg and only they at least for the first as is so fully attested by Eusobius Beatus Rhenanus Lud. Vives Bullinger Haimo the Neocaesarian Council Look back Reader to that saithful Account I have given from the Magdeburgensian Century-Writers and thou shalt be able to judg of the truth of what he speaks I am necessitated to touch upon it again what Eusebius speaks of Origens being a Teacher before Baptism refers to the Pagans what that Old Popish St. Beatus Rhenanus saith of the Ancient custom which was to Baptize those that were come to full growth with the Bath of Regeneration if it relates to Heathens it is no more to purpose than the former out of Eusebius but if we are to understand him so as if no Children were anciently admitted to Baptism no not those of Believers then we plead an older custom even as old as Origen and Tertullian that Children were Baptized in the Church and as Mr. Calvin hath it in his Instruction against the Anabaptists The Holy Ordinance of Infant Baptism hath been perpetually observed in the Christian Church for there is no ancient Writer that doth not acknowledg its Original even from the Apostles which was the Reason why Austin hath that Expression concerning it namely Nullus est Scriptor tam vetustus qui non ejus Originem ad Apostolorum saculum pro certo referat Calvini Instit cap. 17. part 8. pag. 227. Ecclesia semper habuit semper tenuit The Church always had it always held it And for Lud. Vives his saying That they Baptized the Adult in some Cities of Italy his Testimony hath been always looked upon as very incompetent because he was but of yester-day and we have nothing but his bare word for it and not to be compared with Austin's a man of great integrity and that lived above thousand years nearer the Apostles who affirms it was not only Practised in his day but before and quotes Testimonies for it Then for Haim◠all that he sais upon Matt. 28 will not prejudice us his words are Here is set down a rule how to Baptize that is that Teaching should go before Baptizing c. which we confess ought to be so when we have to deal with Pagans and he speaks of such And as none of the Popish School-men are for the Authors turn though we have many passages quoted out of them to no other end but to blind the Reader and make the Book swell so I am mistaken if that which he quotes out of Albertus Magnus the Conjurer be much for his turn you have it in the 12th Cent. p. 85. of his Treatise And lastly for the Neocaesarian Council that business is of a very ridiculous nature and impertinent to the question for the matter under debate in that Council was about a Woman that was pregnant who being an Infidel came to be Baptized and the Canon speaks of such a one and not of a Woman that was within the Church of a Child born of a believing Parent as is fully shewn before in Cent. 4. 3 Whereas he saith not only the Children of Pagans were to be Instructed and taught in the Faith in order to Baptism but the Children of Christians also as those famous instances given from the 4th Century We have shewn in our discourse upon that Century the corrupt and silly grounds upon which they deferred Baptism till they were grown up in those days and some of the instances there given had Parents that were Heathens when they were born and so continued till they were come to Maturity and that was the reason they were Baptized though 't is true their Parents were at last converted to the Christian Faith 4. He farther saith that as there was no Scripture-Authority for it so no Human Authority till above 400 years after Christ though to justify that injunction Apostolical-Tradition to supply the want of Scripture-Institution was pretended I may almost say truly of this Quot dicta tot maledicta so many words so many foul reproaches Calumniare fortiter aliquid adhaerebit said Machiavel and our Author follows the Rule exactly he thinks he can never throw dirt enough upon Infant-Baptism hoping some will at last stick I shall Reply to this First To say there is no Scripture-Authority for Infant-Baptism and that Apostolical Tradition was on purpose brought in to supply the want of it are presumptuous weak and false dictates Since the same Men viz. The Fathers that call it an Apostolical Tradition do upon the matter all of them plead for it upon Scripture-grounds as Cyprian Nazianzen Chrysostom Ambros Epiphartius who argue for Infant-Baptism because it came in the room of Circumcision and from the right the Infants of the Jews had to Circumcision and of latter days Protestants own nothing for truth that comes under the notion of Apostolical-Tradition Proinde necessario veniendum erat ad argumenta ex Scripturis quae si rem non evincant frustrà traditionem ad vocabimus Riv. Animad in annot Grotii in Cassandrum Art 9. p. 71. unless they see ground for it in Scripture they are of Rivets mind that Tradition is in most points uncertain and thereforē if we will be certain of a thing we must see the foot-steps of it in the word And Mr. Calvin speaks to the same purpose in his Instructions against the Anabaptists Caeterum minime peto ut in eo probando nos Antiquitas ullo modo juvet c. I do not in the least desire to borrow help from Antiquity for the proof of this point any whit farther than the judgment of the Ancients shall be found to be grounded on
the Word of God For I well know that as the custom of men doth not give Authority to the Sacrament so the use of the Sacrament cannot be said to be right because regulated by Custom 2. What though there was no Human-Authority for it till above 400 years after Christ is this any Argument against it The Author borrows this from Dr. Taylors Lib. of Proph. p. 237. for he learns how to speak from him the Drs. Words are as there was no Command in Scripture to oblige Children to the susception of it so the necessity of Paedobaptism was not determined in the Church till the Canon that was made in the Milevitan Council This Milevitan African Council was Ann. Ch. 418. and belike the reason why it was not established sooner by Councils under an Anathema was because it was rarely if at all questioned or opposed till then by any person of note as to its lawfulness Hear what Dr. Hammond says in answer to Dr Taylor about this matter It being granted by the Objecter saith he that Paedobaptism was by Canon Established in the Milevitan African Council Ann. Ch. 418. yet as long as it is also confessed that it was practised in Africa before there will be little concluded against us For what stood by Apostolical Practice and known Custom needed not to be prescribed by Canon as that which prevails by force of a greater need not be assisted by a weaker Authority And indeed while the foot-steps of so Authentique a Tradition were so lively and no Adversary or Disputer started upno question or opposition yet made against a Common usage 't were ridiculous for Councils to convene and fortify it by Canons and so the only thing reasonably deducible from the lateness of those Canons is that all that while it was universally received without Opposition I mean not saith the Dr that no Infant or any Christian was unbaptized through the space of those first 4 Centuries but that the extending of the Institution to Infants was not Opposed in the Church till about Pelagius's days whose opinion of Original Sin utterly denying the guilt of it on Adam's posterity was such as might consequentily produce some change in his opinion of Paedobaptism for in the 219 page he quotes out of the 5th Hom. of Eusebius Emissenus de Pasch a passage intimating that Pelagius himself asserted the Baptizing of Infants though not propter vitam for life yet propter regnum coelorum for the Kingdom of God i. e. entrance into the Church as is conceived 3. Whereas he saith Apostolical Tradition was pretended Let not the Reader be afrighted with this word Tradition or because Origen and Austin calls it a Tradition of the Church for when the Fathers so call it they do not intend it in such a sence as if the Church were the Author but the Subject of it Magdeburg Cent. 1. L. 2. Cap. 6. p. 496. Origines Cyprianus alia Patres Authores sunt Apostolorum etiam tempore Infantes Baptizatos esse both Origen and Cyprian and other Fathers hold that Infants were Baptized in the Apostles days and Austin's Rule is a reason for it little less than a demonstration quod universa tenet Ecclesia c. that which is universally received and practised by the Church and had not its first Institution from some Council but hath been ever retained may well be believed to be an Apostolical Tradition August contrae Donat. L. 4. C. 24. Moreover when the Fathers call thi◠… n Apostolical Tradition 〈◊〉 do other Opinions it is as our Divines usually answer the Papists in regard points of this nature are not expresly in terminis in the word but may be fairly gathered thence by consequence Chemnit Exam. Concil Triden par 1. p. 68 69. To the same purpose we have Dr. Field of the Church Lib. 4. Cap. 20. The 4th head of Tradition is the continued Practice of such things as are neither contained in Scripture Expresly nor the Examples of such Practice Expresly there delivered Though the grounds reasons and causes of the necessity of such practice be there contained of this sort is the Baptism of Infants which is therefore called a Tradition because it is not expresly delivered in Scripture that the Aposties did Baptize Infants c. nor any Express Precept there found they should do so yet is not this so received by bare naked Tradition but that we find the Scripture to deliver unto us the grounds of it Thus we see both the Fathers and Protestant-Writers take Tradition in a quite different sence from that the Romanists usually take it in who equalize the Authority of Tradition with the Scripture yea indeed give it the preheminence above it And now judg Reader what the confident assertions of our Antagonist do amount to whether dignum tanto tulit hic promissor hiatu whether the proverb be not verified in him viz. a great cry and a little Wooll Now follows the Historical Account he gives us of the Apostolical Tradition pretended to as he speaks it for Infant Baptism IT is not worth while to search into so many musty Authors as are quoted by him and indeed I thought to have taken my leave of him and to have met him again in the 3d Chapter because there we shall encounter the exceptions he brings against those Authentick Testimonies we alledg from Antiquity for our Practice nevertheless having run over his History usque ad nauseam I shall pass a few Remarks thereupon 1. The multitude of Authors quoted argues great ostentation of much Reading though much of it is prepared to his hand and for certain the most is rather ad Pompam than ad Pugnum rather for shew than service 2. Yet hath he manifested some Artifice and cunning 1. In raking out of the Dung-hil all the filthy Rites used by the Romish Church in the Administration of Baptism as Exorcism Chrism Salt Albes or White-Garments Milk Honey c. And his design herein is to dazle the eyes of the weaker sort and to make them believe even Infant-Baptism it self is also a corrupt Innovation But this will not take with the judicious who are able to distinguish between the accidental Corruptions of an Ordinance and the Ordinance it self We know Antichrist hath defiled most of the Ordinances of Christ and annexed thereto many Superstitious Ceremonies as in the other Sacrament of the Communion Adoration of the Elements is enjoyned and yet these do not disparage the Ordinance it self in the Institution and Substance of it but only defile the Communicants that so superstitiously use that Sacred Appointment Besides the Papists have affixt these corrupt Rites not only to the Baptism of Infants but of those also who are grown up and so the force of arguing from them if Infant-Baptism were removed wil ly against Baptism it self We ought not therefore to impute these corruptions to God's Ordinance of Baptizing Infants and on that account deride and cashier it
why then should it stand in force against Infants in their own persons not capable of contemning and whose Parents desire it but are prevented by necessity Alas poor infants that you free from contempt in your selves and your Parents also must yet away to Hell for bare want of Baptism and yet grown persons as Papists themselves acknowledge in the same want have access to Heaven so they be free from contempt Can we imagine bare want to be more prejudicial to Infants then to grown men But what Reader if it appear that the place cannot be understood of Baptism at all I must leave it to thee to judge of what is offered to shew that 't is only Regeneration and not Baptism that is concerned in the Text for Water and the Spirit here by an Exegesis are one or if you will according to the judgement of Dr. Taylor by Water is meant the effect of the Spirit Nor is this the single judgment of Dr. Taylor but very many others who in their time were the Magna Ecclesiae lumina who so interpret it amongst whom are Calvin Beza Piscator Calvin indeed acknowledgeth the ancient Expositors followed Chrysostome that the Text was to be understood of Baptism yet professeth himself of another mind Beza in his Annotations of the place declares himself to the same purpose that he understood by Water in that place is meant rather the effect of the spirit then the Sacrament of Baptism sin verò malimus Christum cum Pharisaeo disserentem Aquae nomine ad externas ablutiones allusisse c. I rather conceive Christ reasoning with this Pharisee under the name of Water doth allude to those external washing which were useless without the cleansing of the Spirit Et Spiritus nomen sit exegesis that is a figure which signifies a dark speech made clear by another word which here is the Spirit nominis aquae sicut alibi spiritus ignis in baptismo conjunguntur By the name of Water we are to understand by an Exegesis the Spirit as elsewhere the Spirit and Fire are joyned Though the Order be inverted there and he gives the reason of it So Piscator except a man be born of Water that is ex spiritu sancto exserente quasi vim aquae Of the holy Spirit which operates in the soul as Water doth in the body and he also referrs to the same place Mat. 3.5 Of being Baptized with the Spirit and with Fire We have also the great Chamier arguing the same seeing in this sense the words bear an absolute truth without any limitation The Author concludes this with sporting himself at the different grounds upon which the Assertors of Infant-Baptism hold it out as the Fathers upon one ground the Lutherans upon another the Calvinist differing from them the Episcoparians one way the Presbyterians another and the Independents have a peculiar ground varying from them all Now thanks be to Mr. Tombes his eleventh Argument against Infant-Baptism for all this Exercitation pag. 33. The Assertors of Infant-Baptism little agree amongst themselves saith he upon what ground they may build it Cyprian and others draw it from the Universality of grace and the necessity of Baptism to Salvation Austin brings the faith of the Church others the Church of England substitute the promised surety in the place of the Faith and Repentance of the Baptized The Lutherans the faith of the Infant others the faith of the next Parent in Covenant in a gathered Church Reply This saith Mr. Geree unto him hath art I will not say Sophistry in it and what though divers men have let fall different grounds yet none of those are the main upon which they ground it for that 's the Covenant of Gods grace that takes in the Child with the Parent if saith he I should from several ways or Arguments used by the Antipaedobaptists say they did oppose Infant-Baptism on several grounds therefore their opposition were invalid you would think my answer unsolid and so do I your Argument Father I desire the Author to reflect upon his own party who oppose childrens Baptism by denying that Covenant made to Abraham was a Covenant of Grace some say it was Temporary some Typical some mixt and I know not what So they much differ in the foundation of their practice Some build it on a bare confession of sin whatever the man be as to grace some on profession of Faith some on signs of grace c. Mr. Geree saith well weakness in mens sight variety of fancy and principles carry men into different ways of defending the same truth The Author now frames his exceptions against those Scriptures which hold forth a Covenant-Right to the Children of Believeers 4. Argument from federal holiness excepted against and from whence we inferr their baptizing and thus he begins Paedobaptists being loth to part with the Tradition and yet seeing the rottenness of the ancient ground upon which 't was built found out this new foundation for it of Covenant-Holiness of which Zwinglius about 120 years for aught that he can learn was the first Founder and singular from all that went before him All this is from Master Tombes The Author a notorious Plagiary having taken all in his 43. pages following from Mr. Tombes his two Books of Exerc. and Examen I mean as to the substance of it and most in his words and method only indeed he hath two quotations out of Dr. Taylor and one out of Dr. Owen Mr. Tombes Exercit. p. 11. and so throughout to the endc of this Chapter both Arguments Authorities Scriptures and Cryticismes with this difference that he varies a little in some things and doth not speak so warily as he Mr. Tombes in his Examen part 3. pag. 35. begins the Argument as framed by us from the connexion between the Covenant and the Seal but this man ends it with that and the Scriptures are in both one viz. Gen. 17.7 Acts 2.39 I need not therefore much trouble my self for an Answer to the Author for the same which Mr. Marshall gave Tombes doth the work to a hair The Author tells us that for ought he could learn Zwinglius was the first Founder of the Argument for Baptism from federal Holiness and this indeed he learnt from Mr. Tombes his Exercitation pag. 11. whose words are Whether any in the Ages before the last past expounded it of federal holiness I am not yet certain and in the two last lines of page the 79. of his Examen he hath it thus viz. None that ever I met with expounded it of federal Holiness till the controversie of the Anabaptists in Germany To this I will seek for no other answer then what Mr. Marshal gives him the cause saith he I confess depends not upon this whether such an interpretation was then first put But it discovers some defect in your reading and then shews Athanasius one of the most Ancient Greek Fathers and Tertullian one of the most Ancient of the
Arise and be Baptized and wash away thy Sins hath a favorable aspect upon Gods designing and blessing that Ordinance for the sealing of pardon in reference to grown Persons 2. To work Grace and Regeneration This is Mr. Tombes his 7th Argument against Infant-Baptism Exer. pag. 30. and to effect Salvation by the work done Although the Author knows all Protestants disclaim this and condemn it for a damnable Error yet he seems indirectly at least to charge it upon the Church of England which for my part I look upon it as very unjustly done What means else those reflections of his pag. 148. upon that passage in the Service-Book in the Rubrick before the Catechism viz. That Children being Baptized have all things necessary for their Salvation and be undoubtedly saved and then after Baptism the Priest must say We yield thee hearty thanks that it hath pleased thee to Regenerate this Infant with thy Holy Spirit just comporting saith he length and breadth with Pope Innocent's first Canons Answer 'T is fit the Church of England should be believed in what sence she intends those words Baptism by the Ancients was commonly called Regeneration or a new-Birth so 't is by the Scripture Tit. 3.5 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Washing of the new-Birth or Regeneration and we may learn it in her Articles which speaks her at an infinit distance from the absurd and irrational Error of Salvation by merit or ex opere operato and 't is not for others to put what interpretation they think meet especially such as are Obnoxious to her Lash Will you hear what Mr. Cotton of New-England an Independant as they call them speaks in Vindication of the Church of England in this particular matter and at a place where he needed not her favour and as I take it at a time when she could not help him which are circumstances that will not suffer us to suspect him of flattering or fawning We have it in his grounds and ends of Children's Baptism Notwithstanding saith he those expressions in the Service Book yet the Church of England doth professedly teach the contrary Doctrine not only in their Pulpits but in Books allowed by publique Authority She doth assert that the Scraments do not beget Faith nor Regeneration ex opere operato but they are signs and seals thereof Nor do I find that the publique Prayers of the Church are contrary hereunto but as in judgment they do believe that God by Covenant promiseth to pour clean Water upon us and our Seed Ezek. 26.25 Is 48.3 and that he Sealeth the Covenant and Promise by Baptism 3. That it was an Apostolical Tradition And for that we have the Testimonies of Origen and Cyprian as before Mr. Tombes his 4th Argument against Infant-Baptism Exerc. p. 28. Chap. 3. Part 2. who lived near the Apostles days and in which Chapter we have also shewn how Tradition is both by the Fathers of old and Reformed Churches taken in a safe sence different from that corrupt one of the Papists and not derogatory to the authority of the Scripture 4. That Children have Faith and are the Disciples of Christ Answer No Paedobaptists ever held Children had personally actual Faith for their condition is insufficient for the production of Intellectual Acts but as for the habit and grace of Faith the inherent infused power of believing it is more than any Antipaedobaptist in the World can prove they have not for 1. Their condition makes them not uncapable of Sin and Corruption in the Roots and Principles of it most of them confess it Anabaptistae ut Paedobaptismum prorsus tollerent peccatum negârunt Originale ut non sub esset causa cur Infantes Baptizarentur Dr. Prideaux Lect. 22. pag. 331. though some of them deny Original Sin and therefore not of the Roots and Principles of grace of which Faith is one for the acts of both are Moral and Intellectual But whether Infants Baptized have any such thing as a distinct habit of Faith or no this question of their Baptism depends not upon it It is a hidden thing The ground on which we give them Baptism must be visible and so it is viz. their being the Seed of Believers and hereby visibly entitled to the Covenant and so to the Seal of it We look not to what they have but to whom they pertain viz. to God as being the Seed of his Servants That they are Disciples is sufficiently proved Chap. 1. Part. 1. 5. That all Children of Believers are in the Covenant and federally Holy That 's abundantly made good Chap. 3. Part 2. 6. By defiling and polluting the Church viz. 1. By bringing false matter therein who are no Saints by calling being neither capable to perform duties nor enjoy priviledges Notwithstanding their inability to perform Duty yet they are capable of enjoying Priviledges as we have abundantly made good Chap. 6. Part 1. and are as true matter for the Church now under the Gospel as formerly under the Law as is there made out 2. By laying a foundation of much Ignorance and Profaness Cujus contrarium est verissimum The contrary is most true for 1. Infant-Baptism layes a singular good foundation for knowledg for in that Children are taken into Christs School they are in a near capacity to be taught and those who recommend them to that Ordinance are obliged to promote their knowledg and to see them brought up 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Nurture and Admonition of the Lord. And we know the Liturgy of the Church of England But the neglect hereof is much to be lamented the Children are not lookt after as they should be nor do Ministers mind them of their duty gives charge You must remember that it is your part and duty to see that this Infant be taught so soon as he shall be able to learn And that he may know these things the better ye shall call upon him to hear Sermons and chiefly you shall provide that he may learn the Creed the Lords-Prayer and the ten-Commandments in the English Tongue and all other things that a Christian man ought to know and believe to his Souls health c. Secondly it laies a good foundation for Holiness They are minded by their Baptism to cast of the Devil's service as soon as they are able to reflect that they were from their very Cradles dedicated to God whose Livery they have worn And some have repelled great temptations by virtue of their engagement to God by Baptism in their Infancy hence saith Mr. Ford in his 2d Dialogue concerning the Practical use of Infant-Baptism pag. 87. There is a very Prophane Spirit fomented under the Wings of Anabaptism for how can it be otherwise than such which endeavours to extirpate so considerable a means for the advance of Conversion and Sanctification as he shews Infant-Baptism to be Hence saith he arise grievous prejudices against those Ministers Societies and Ordinances in which God hath been wont
which you do although contrary to our customs But they answered they would do none of these or own him for Arch-Bishop What now is become of Fabian that sandy Foundation upon which the Author builds his belief and assertion that the Ancient Britains were against Infant-Baptism When therefore Austin perceived that they were so refractory he told them if they would not take Peace with their Brethren they should receive War with their Enemies And if they disdained to preach the way of life to the English Nation they should suffer by their hands the revenge of Death And which Austin accomplished faith Fabian accordingly by bringing the Saxons upon them to their utter ruine This also is supposed to be another Paraphase of Fabian's upon Austin's Words which according to * Sicque completum est praesagium isti pontifici Augustini Hist Bed L. 2. c. 2. Editione whelochianâ Bede were delivered by way of Prophesie and not that he had an intention to revenge himself by bringing in Enemies upon them for their destruction And we find Mr. Fox in his Act. and Mon. put a favourable construction upon the Words of Austin and layes most of the blame upon the British Bishops whose Words are Of both these parties the Reader may judg what he pleaseth I cannot see but both together were to be blamed and as I cannot but accuse the one so I cannot defend the other First Austin in this matter can in no wise be excused who shewed no more humility in this Assembly to seven Bishop's coming at his commandment to the Council Again the Britains were asmuch or more to blame who so much neglected their Spiritual duty in revenging their Temporal injury that they denyed to join their helping labour to turn the Idolatrous Saxons to the way of Life and Salvation in which respect all private cases ought to give place and be forgotten For which cause it is no great marvel that thestroak of God's punishment light upon them according to Austin's saying that if they would not take Peace c. We shall now leave all to the Reader and let him consider if it be worth his while and weigh the Story with all circumstances and believe as he please I shall add one thing more and that is Let it be taken for granted that these Britains were against Infant-Baptism Nevertheless about 200 years before Infant-Baptism was owned by Pelagius himself although he denyed Original Sin which was a Britain and a member of the Monastery of Bangor as the Author himself quotes in his History of Christianity pag. 11. And Mr. Tombes himself in pag 20. of his Answer says the Pelagians did grant the Baptizing of Infants c. And I have better Authority than he even Austin himself that had so much to do with Pelagius in his Book de peccato Originali Cap. 32. hath this saying Pelagius etsi Baptisma Infantium verbo concedit re tamen ipsa tollit negat Though Pelagius grants Infant-Baptism in word yet he takes it away and denyes it in deed And again Cap. 18. upon the same point of Original Sin Austin hath this passage Baptizari parvulos ut in regnum Dei ingrediantur ex Pelagii Sententia Danaei Opus omnia Genevae ex Lib. Aug. de peocato Orinali p. 692. 'T was Pelagius his opinion that Children were to be Baptized that they may have entrance into the Kingdom of God So ex Lib. Aug. Cap. 19. de peccato Originali there is more Thus then you see we have a more ancient Testimony for Infant-Baptism by this Britain than those whom the Author fancies strongly to be against it who lived 200 years nearer the Apostles times than they I will conclude it in the Words of Mr. Fuller in his Church-History Pelagius saith he was bred in the Monastery of Bangor where he lived with 2000 Monks whose hands were the only Benefactors for their Bellies Abby-labourers not Abby-lubbers like their Successors in after Ages Infinit are the deductions and derived consequences of Pelagius his Errors amongst which Mr. Fuller says there are these two in reference to Infants 1. That Infants were born without Original sin 2. That they were Baptized not to be freed from Original sin but thereby to be Adopted into the Kingdom of God as was before noted out of Aust There are yet remaining 4 or 5 trifling Arguments to prove the Ancient Britains did oppose the Baptizing Infants 1. Because they received the Christian Faith Doctrine and Discipline from the Apostles and Asiatick-Churches who hath no such thing as Baptizing Infants amongst them as you have largely heard When the Magdeburgenses tell us expresly that it was in use in the Asiatick Churches Cent. 3. C. 6. p. 124. In this Age they say Baptismus Infantibus datur Children were Baptized and this we have abundantly shewn before from the Testimony of Cyprian 2. Because it appears they so fully prised and faithfully adhered to the Scriptures c. And no such thing is to be found there This is the old Objection which we have often answered See Chap. 1. Part 1 of our Answer So Chap 5. Part 2. 3. Because they did so vehemently reject Human Traditions in the Worship of God especially all Romish Innovations Rites and Ceremoneis We find no such vehemency of spirit in the Story as the Author speaks of unless it was against Austin's pride or beacuse Austin shewed them not that honour which their own proud hearts expected And whereas he saith they so rejected Romish Rites but Infant-Baptism came from Romes Ordination and Imposition This is pittifully poor for it was practised as we have shewn in Africa and Asia hundreds of years before this time e're any Popes as Universal Bishops were in being It was practised in Tertullian's and Cyprian's days this none denyes 5. Because Constantine the Great the Son of Constance and Helena both Christians born in Britain in the year 305. was not Baptized till Aged as before And we have before given you the reason why his Baptism was put off I refer the Reader to Chap. 7. Part 1. of my Answer you have it in Cent. 4. p. 18. 5. Because of the Correspondency and Unity that was betwixt the French Christians afterward called Waldenses and them And for this very reason if we had none else we conclude the Britains were for Infant-Baptism because the Waldenses were as we have sufficiently made appear There is one Reason more so weak that I think not meet to say thing to it and in reference to the confidence of my Antagonist that the Waldenses Donatists Britains were all against Infant-Baptism when neither of them were I shall conclude with a Distich which I think may not improperly be applyed to his whole Discourse Ridiculus tandem ecce cavis mus prodit ab antris Quem gravidi Montes parturiere diu ANACEPHALAEOSIS Or a Recapitulation of the History of the Magdeburgenses concerning Infant-Baptism from the first to the thirteenth
but rather as the Magdeburgenses do Cent. 2. p. 111. to the Mystery of Iniquity Mr. Geree of vind Paedobapt which so works in the Church of Rome in their corrupting and contaminating the simple forme of Baptism Indeed saith Mr. Philpot the Martyr to his fellow-sufferer that scrupled Infant-Baptism and afterward was satisfied by the strength of his Arguments if you look upon the Papistical Synagogue only which have corrupted God's Word by false interpretation and hath perverted the true use of Christs Sacraments you may seem to have good handfast of your opinion against the Baptism of Infants but for as much as it is of more Antiquity and hath its begining from God's Word and from the use of the Primitive Church it must not in respect of the abuse in the Popish Church be neglected or thought inexpedient Nor hath the Baptism of Adult Persons in former times been free from many corrupt and ridiculous Human inventions as Dr. Homes out of Binius and Epiphanius shews at large The Council of Carthage tells us Bin. Ca. 34 de rebus Eccles Cap. 26. that sick men lying speechless might be Baptized upon the witness of men touching their former condition The 4th Council of Carthage orders That those of ripe years to be Baptized must be dyered Bin. Cap. 85. and kept from Fesh and Wine a long time and after that having been examined several times must be Baptized Epiphanius declares that the Eunomians called Anabaptists do Rebaptize all that come to them Epiphan Anacephal pag. 108. Edit lat Bazil turning their Heads downward and their Heels upward Some of the Anabaptists called Hemerabaptists thought that none could be saved unless they were daily-Baptized whence they were called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Gerard. Joh. Voffus de Anaebaptismo Thes 17. Gastius de Anaebap Exod. p. 50. daily Baptists and so were cleansed from their Sins Singulis diebus mergerentur ita ut Abluantur Sanctificentur ab omni culpa Secondly Another small plot or piece of tunning lyes in linking some spurious Authors with those which are Authentick to render also their Authority Suspicious There are some Ancient Writers which are very express for Infant-Baptism of great Authority in the Church of Rome which are rejected as spurious or interpolate by the Protestants such is that of Dimysius the Areopagite and the Decretal Epistles who notwithstanding have in high account the Testimonies of those Ancients viz. Justin Martyr Irenaus Origen Cyprian c. which are reputed as Authentick and of undoubted truth 3. There is much Impertinency in his Historical Account that is not concerned in the Question As the Story of Constantine Dedication Consecration or Baptizing of Churches and Bells Exposure of the Reliques of Saints for adoration Prohibiting Priests Marriages with much more ejusdem farinae But what is all this to Infant-Baptism 4. There are some errors or falsities in it As Tertullian's standing up against Infant-Baptism in the 3d Century when he stood up no more against it than he did against the Baptizing of Young-men that were unmarried and Young-Widows also whose Baptism he would have delayed 'T is certain he argues for the delay of Baptism in some cases praecipue circa paroulos Tertul. de Bapt. C. 8. especially that of little ones meaning the Children of unbelievers as is conceived by Estius Pamelins and divers others A Second Error respecting this Century is That the Magdeburgenses tell us they altered the form of Baptism from dipping to sprinkling referring us to Cent. 3. pag. 129. where they speak no such thing nor any-where else in the whole History of Baptism A Third Escape is That Infant-Baptism was not in use in the greatest part of the 4th Century either in the Latin or Greek Church Now this is very false nor will that help him which he adds afterward Scil. It is true saith he towards the latter end of this Century it is said that in some parts of Africa they did Baptize Children as Magdeburg Cent. 4. p. 415. but they say no such thing it is only the Authors own saying and really it troubles me to see so much prevarication every-where Take Reader the true account of what the Magdeburgenses say de Ritibus circa Baptismum about Baptismal Rites They are large in this Chapter and begin it thus That the power of Baptizing was in this Age in the Priests and principally in the Bishops and then in Presbyters and Deacons and then a few lines after they tell us Baptizabantur autem publice in templis cujuscunque sexus aetatis conditionis homines Persons of each Sex and of all Ages and Conditions were publickly Baptized in the Temples Nor hath this Chapter any such passage at the beginning middle or latter end that in some parts of Africa they did Baptize Children 5. I will not say there is a Tincture of prophaneness but am sure of something like it in that saying of the Authors pag. 128. of his Treatise viz. In this 6th Century saith he we meet with a dreadful piece of Infant-Baptism viz. The Heads of 6000 Infants that had been murdered buried in a Warren near a Monastery as testified by Vldricus to P. Nicolas Cent. 6. p. 338. But the Magdeburgenses are not so bold as the Author to call such horrid murder Infant-Baptism A tender conscience me thinks should be afraid thus to play with Holy things 6. This History of his affords some contradiction to himself I mean to what he hath before written for in the first part of his Book Cap 2. pag. 7. he quotes Bede for a Testimony that the Baptizing of Believers is the only true Baptism Bede saith That Men were first to be instructed unto the Knowledg of the Truth then to be Baptized as Christ hath taught c. Cent. 8. p. 220. Whereas in this his Second part of the Treatise which is for disproving Infant-Baptism pag. 130. Bede also concludes for the Baptizing of Infants Cent. 8. p. 218. 7. We observe too great a boldness in those scandalous Reflections which he casts upon the Churches of the Reformed Religion sparing none neither Lutherans nor Calvinists nor Episcoparians nor Presbyterians But me thinks 't is a piece of great indiscretion to fly out so much against the Church of England for if she be contented to give the Antipaedobaptists indifferent good quarter although they do not conform to her why should any of them vilify her in this manner As for the Kirk of Scotland the Author may more securely mock at it and there is no danger in having a fling at the Directory or at the old Parliament's Ordinance of May 2d 1648. which made it imprisonment to affirm Infant-Baptism is unlawful CHAP. III. Containing his Exceptions against Infant-Baptism because built as he says upon 1. Fabulous Traditions 2. Mistaken Scriptures with an Answer thereto 1. The first and Principal ground saith he that hath been asserted for this Practice is Ecclesiastical and