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
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
Matth. 19. Suffer little Children to come unto me and forbid them not and they tell us of one Hincmarus a Bishop how sharply he reproved one that was against it for the Bishop said that in denying it he did that Quod nullus unquam Christianorum facere ausus est Which no Christian ever durst to do Cent. 9 cap. 4. pag. 140. CENT X. UNder this Century in their 6th Chapter Circa ritus Baptismi about the Rites of Baptism they have this passage that in this Age tam Insantes quam Adultos Baptizabant They Baptized both grown Persons and Infants â—atrini adhibiti etiam sunt Magd. Cent. 10. p. 293. Cent. 10. pag. 293. Besides they give instances of several Infants Baptized and tell us that God-fathers were in use in this Age that they strictly enjoyned that they look to it that the Children that were Baptized be instructed in the Christian Faith when they come ad sustain et atem to ripeness of years Cap. 6. Pag. 292. yet is not the Author ashamed to insinuate as if they had been against Infant-Baptism even in this Age also For first he brings in Auslbertus the Magdeburgenses call him Ausbertus and what of him Why he hath this expression which the Author quotes out of the Magdeburgenses namely That the Faithful are born not of Blood but of God viz. of the Word of God preached and of the Baptism of God duly administred by which Sacraments God's Children are begotten Cent. 10. pag. 189. Good Doctrine indeed and much to the purpose Baptism is one of the Sacraments and the Word preached another The next is Smaragdus on Mat. 28. Ordo Baptizandi in Adultis a Smaragdo traditur say the Magdeburgs What saith he why first Men are to be taught that is Heathens afterward baptized That this is his meaning take his own word for it pag. 188. where he thus expresseth himself Little Children are to be baptized because it is said Suffer little Children to come unto me c. Last of all the Author cites Theophylact from the Magdeburgenses and would fain have it also believed that he was against Infant-Baptism because of that saying of his Whosoever is truly baptized hath put on Christ pag. 189. I cannot but think the Author doth wilfully mistake and sets himself on purpose to blind the Reader for he cannot but observe the Magdeburgenses quoting that passage of his on the 15th of Luke Cent. 10. pag. 190. where Theophylact lays down this Position That an Infidel or Pagan must needs die in his sins Why because he hath not put off the old-man sacramentally that is he hath not been baptized This Ancient Doctor speaks in that place only of such and what is this to the Baptism of Believers Children CENT XI HEre Anselm is introduced by him as if he were against us because he saith Believers are baptized into the Death of Christ Cent. 10. pag. 186. I perceive the Author's pulse begins now to beat very low For the Magdeburgenses do in this Century bring in a passage most express for Infant-Baptism in the Comment on the third of Matthew Octavus dies in quo Circumciditur Infans dies est Baptismatis in quo Neophytus quisque exuitur labe pr … ae generationis The eighth day in which the Infant was circumcised is the day of Baptism Also on Rom. 6 Anselm hath this saying Profecto parvuli qui Baptizantur in Christo c. pag. 260. They tell us farther that in this Age they did baptize not only Adult persons but such as were newly born pag. 260. and also give instances of divers Children baptized in this Age citing a passage out of Meginhardus de fide That in this Age Sureties were in use which answered for the Children CENT XII RVpert Lombard Aquinas and the rest of the Popish Schoolmen were zealous Asserters of Infant-Baptism and whatever they speak of Confession or Profession before it be administred is meant as before of Pagans and the Magdeburgenses cite divers passages of Lombard how that Children although they have no Faith of their own may be baptized in the right of others Faith that present them to the Ordinance Johannes Boemus the Author mistakes and calls him Bohemius is indeed of Strabo's mind and besides these two I may truly say that from the beginning of the Centuries hitherto this unfaithful man hath perverted the sayings of all the Authors which he hath quoted and upon consideration of his carriage herein I am confident of these two things First That never did any Writer more prevaricate and shew more fashood than he hath done Secondly That he would certainly have forborn it if he had thought any man would have been at the trouble to examine and search whether he spake truth or not PART II. We now come to the Second Part of his Treatise which is to disprove infant-Infant-Baptism under this Head That the Baptizing of Infants is no Ordinance of Jesus Christ CHAP. I. Containing his first Argument against infant-Infant-Baptism because there is no Scripture for it which is in form as followeth If saith he infant-Infant-Baptism had been any Appointment or Ordinance of Jesus Christ there would have been some Precept Command or Example in Scripture to warrant the same but inasmuch as the Scripture is so wholly silent there being not one syllable to be found in all the New-Testament about any such Practice it may well be concluded to be no Ordinance of Jesus Christ THe Argument consisting of two Branches must accordingly be answered in Parts First then to that which hath ever been objected by them there is no Precept or Command We answer 1. A thing may be said to be commanded in Scripture two wayes First Expresly or Liter thy and Syllabically that is totidem verbis in to many plain term or words Thus we acknowledg infant-Infant-Baptism is not commanded it is nowhere said Go baptize Infants if it had there would have been no controversie Secondly A thing may be commanded in Scripture Implicitly and by good consequence and what is thus commanded is as valid and obliging as if it were in so many letters and syllables and thus we affirm infant-Infant-Baptism is commanded There are in Scripture clear Grounds and Principles from whence by just and warrantable Consequences it may be deducted that the Children of Believers have right to Baptism for if they belong to the Covenant and are Holy if they are Members of the visible Church c. then they ought to be baptized So then the Argument against our Practice drawn from a want of express Precept is built upon a false Hypothesis That no direct Consequences from Scripture are mandatory and obliging contrary to the Judgment of all Orthodox Divines and the Method of Christ and his Apostles in their Arguings Christ proved the Resurrection of the Body against the Sadducees not by any express Text but by Consequence Mat. 22.31 32. So Paul proved the Resurrection of Christ by Consequence Act. 13.33
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-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-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
with Mr. Tombes we find this in his Exercit. pag. 7. Where he saith By like manner of Argumentation it will be lawful to bring in the whole burden of the Jewish Rites and who shall put a bound to mens wits and this manner of arguing will countenance the Arguments of the Papists for an universal Bishop because there was such an High-Priest among the Jews c. And that Tythes are due to Ministers Jure Divino form Analogy of Melchisedec and Aaron c. Exam. p. 86. Well since we have this Crambe bis cocta that is enough to turn ones stomach being tainted with long standing I think Mr. Gerees stomachical medicines may be proper We bring in M. Gere Vind. Padebaptismi saith he no new Rite by Analogy but only apply that which God hath brought unto those to whom by Analogy it doth appear to belong And again Baptism is not instituted or bronght in as a new Rite by us but being appointed of God is applied by us by proportion to Infants And for that of countenancing the Papists in their High-Priest-Hood neither doth that follow for this Argument proceeds as though we set up Circumcision it self whereas we neither set up Circumcision nor Baptism but apply Baptism instituted of God to Infants And therefore for you saith he to Tombes to infer the bringing in of things not in their kind mentioned or appointed in the New Testament is an apparent non sequitur your instances being far unparallel to ours of applying an instituted Ordinance to children by way of proportion I shall expect a good answer to this from the Author or Mr. Tombes ad Graecas Calendas He next applauds my Lord Brooks who gives not them a very good character for that saying of his viz. That the Analogy which Baptism now hath with Circumcision in the Old Law is a fine rational Argument to illustrate a point well proved before but he somewhat doubts whether it be proof enough for that which some would prove by it besides the vast difference in the Ordinance the persons to be circumcised are stated by a positive Law so express that it leaves no place for scruple but it is far otherwise in Baptism where all the designation of persons fit to be partakers for ought I know saith he is only such as believe for this is the qualification which with exactest search I find the Scripture requires in persons to be babtized and this it seems to require in all such persons now how Infants can be properly said to believe I am not yet fully resolved This is very true which he relates of my Lord Brooks who speaks not positively but modestly that he somewhat doubts and is not fully satisfied as to the way of Argumentation from Circumcision to Baptism and withal doth yet commend it for a fine rational Argument to illustrate a point well proved before that 's something and more than our Author would have had him spoke but I must acquaint the Reader with more which he speaks little to their advantage I will not I cannot saith he take upon me to defend that men usually call Anabaptism yet I conceive that Sect is twofold Some of them hold free will community of all things deny Magistracy and refuse to baptize chilren These truly are such Hereticks or Atheists that I question whether any Divine should honour them so much as to dispute with them There is another sort of them who only deny Baptism to their children till they come to years of discretion and then they baptize them but in other things they agree with the Church of England Truly these men are much to be pitied And I could heartily wish before they be stigmatized with that opprobrious brand of Schismaticks the truth might be cleared to them For I conceive to those that hold we may go no farther than Scripture that is the express word for Doctrine and Discipline it may be very easie to erre in this point in hand since the Scripture seems not to have clearly determined this particular but for his part he saith many things prevail with him in this point as First for ought he could ever learn it was the constant custom of the purest and most primitive Church to baptize Infants of believing Parents For saith he I could never find the beginning and first rise of this practise whereas t is very easie to track Heresies to their first rising up and setting foot in the Church Again I find all Churches even the most strict have generally been of this judgment and practice yea though there have been in all ages some that much affected novelty and had parts enough to discuss and clear what they thought good to preach yet was this scarce ever questioned by men of note till within these last ages and sure the constant judgment of the Churches of Christ is much to be honoured and heard in all things that contradict not Scripture Nor can I clear that of S. Paul 1 Cor. 7.14 Else were your children I know some interpret it illegitimate and holy legitimate but saith he I believe the Apostle means that Relative Church-Holiness which makes a man capable of admission to holy Ordinances and to Baptism Except Lastly the Author excepts against the Argument we usually bring for the Baptism of children Else our priviledge under the Gospel will be less than theirs under the Law for theirs were circumcised they were taken into the Covenant with the Parent and were sealed whereby they were distinguished from the world and this was a great priviledge and to deny Baptism to children which succeeds Circumcision is to restrain Gods Grace and make us loosers by Christs coming To which he answers not at all 1. Because they were not circumcised because they were children of Believers or sealed with a New Covenant Seal as being in the New Covenant thereby as before proved c. But what an absurd conceit and idle dream this is we have shewn before to which I refer the Reader 2. Because it ought to be esteemed no more loss of a priviledge than our not enjoying literally a Holy Land City Temple Succession of High-Priest c. for all those Types are spiritualiz'd to us under the Gospel and so far we are better Tombes again Eramen p. 101. and not worse Answ But take heed of disparaging the Grace of God in vouchsafing them the Seal of his Covenant now under the Gospel For as Mr. Marshal says in answer to such cavilling as this None of those City Temple Succession of High-Priest c. were of the substance of the Covenant of Grace for though Circumcision was a part of their administration yet it did belong to the fubstance it belonged to it saith he not as a part of it but as a means of applying it and though it be a priviledge to have nothing succeed Circumcision as it bound to that manner of administration yet it is a privilege to have somewhat succeed it as a Seal
days ought not to be rebaptized It seems by the way Sprinkling is of ancient date They tell us farther that Cyprian in his 3d Book 8th Epistle hath this Argument for Infant-Baptism viz Infantes Circumcidebantur ergo Baptizandi Infants were Circumcised therefore they may be Baptized Cent. 3. Cap. 4. P. 57. Which passage may shame the Author and his party who usually object that Tradition is the main Argument which we take up in defect of others to justify our Practice and that this is all the ancient Fathers say for it in want of Scripture-ground Lastly The Magdeburgenses wonder at Tertullian's Simplicity for he held say they Miram Opinionem Se ntit Tertullianus mirâ Opinione c. a strange Opinion that Children should not suddenly be Baptized and then set down his reasons in opposition to those words Math. 19. Veniant dum Adolescunt veniant dum discunt dum quo veniunt docentur Fiant Christiani cum Christum nosse potuerint Quid festinat innocens aetas ad remissionem peccatorum c. Suffer little Children to come to me and forbid them not viz. Let them come saith Tertullian when they grow elder when they learn when they are taught when they come according to which Dotage the Disciples did wisely in forbidding Children to come and Christ did weakly in rebuking them for so doing and inviting them to come What follows is fetcht from Mr. Baxter concerning Origen and Cyprian that in the Primitive times none were Baptized without express covenanting c. is still meant of Aliens so is that of Origen's being a Teacher of the Disciples at Alexandria and others that succeeded him in that work so that to bring instances of this Nature is but trifling and not to the question before us yet we cannot but observe the Author's humor who when we quote any thing for Infants Baptism out of the works of those Fathers he brands it for spurious but when he pleaseth to make use of any of their sayings which he would have interpreted against the same then they are authentique and must pass for current CENT IV. HIS discourse upon this Century is veryinjurious to the Magdeburgenses who have not a word of very many things which he fathers on them as First That it was the universal Practice of this Age to Baptize the Adult upon Profession of Faith as if Infants had been excluded for so we are to understand him or else he speaks nothing wherefore I desire the Reader to observe what the Century-Writers speak concerning the matter and I shall give him a just account thereof We have before shewn say they out of Cyprian and Origen Infantum Baptismum in Ecclesiis Africanis in usu fuisse supra ex Cypriano Origene demonstratum est hoc vero seculo eundem durasse ex Athanasii questione 124. Constat that Baptizing of Children was in use in the African Churches and that the same continued in this Age is evident from the 124th Question of Athanasius Besides Nazianzen speaking of the Churches of Asia saith that Infants ought to be Baptized in case of danger of death De Asianis Ecclesiis Nazianzenus loquens Infantes Baptizandes esse ait and the said Father also grounds it upon Circumcision but if they were not in eminent danger of death he advised they should delay Baptism for three years or there-about till they could be taught some of the Mysteries of Religion We must look upon this say the Magdeburgenses as his peculiar Opinion Nazian Orat. 3. in S. Lavacrum Cent. 4. Cap. 6. Pag. 417. And verily Nazianzen's delay for three years that they may be taught Mysteries is a weak conceit for what can a Child be capable of at that Age or if he be taught to say something it is like that of a Parrot without understanding But the same Gregory Nazianzen in his 40th Oration is for Baptizing Children 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not only in case of danger but absolutely Hast thou a Young-Child let it be Baptized from an Infant let it be early Consecrated by or to the Spirit Secondly He puts a gross abuse upon the Magdeburgenses in representing them to affirm that all the Eastern Churches did only Baptize the Adult or Aged We may judge what credit to give him by these following instances First he perverts the saying of Athanasius as if it were directed against Infant-Baptism when meant only of Infidels who according to Christs Commission must first be taught then Baptized Athanasius was for Infant-Baptism and it was Practised in his days Athan ad Antioch qu. 114. as appears by that passage of his to Antiochus 114th Question Where he resolves a doubt that might arise from the death of Infants whether they go to Heaven or no. seeing saith he the Lord said Suffer little Children to come to me for of such is the Kingdom of Heaven And the Apostle saith Now your Children are Holy it is manifest that the Infants of Believers which are Baptized do as unspotted and faithful enter into the Kingdom Where mark again how unworthily Antipaedobaptists abuse the Fathers in saying their strongest Argument for Childrens Baptism is from Tradition which they fly to for want of Scripture Next he cites Hilary and we are of his mind that confession and profession is requisite to precede the Baptizing Aliens but what is this to exclude the Infants of Believers from that Ordinance And whereas he saith the Eastern Churches did only Baptize the Adult this is abominably false His first instance is of a saying of Basil contra Eunomium Lip 3. Must the Faithful be fealed with Baptism-Faith must needs precede and go before And in his Exbortation to Baptism he saith that none were to be Baptized but the Catechumens and those that were duly instructed in the Faith Now this is sufficient to impose a fallacy upon any Ordinany Reader that hath no acquaintance with that Father and understands not in what sense he speaks who would hot think that this Antient Dr. was against Infant-Baptism and that no such thing was owned in the Church in his days Whereas the same Father in the very next lines to what the Author hath above cited speaks thus What then say you of Infants Quid vero de Infant ibus ais qui neque quid gratea quidve sit paend dognorunt num illos Baptizeious maxime quidem idque nobis designat post octavum diem Circumcisio illa c. which neither know good nor evil may we Baptize them Yea saith he For so we are taught by the Circumcising of Children c. Hence forward have a care Reader how you trust the Authors Quotations for the palpable abuse done to this Father The next is Nazianzen that the Baptized in his time used in the first place to confess their Sins but I am before hand with them in respect of this Ancient Dr. of the Church and love not to repeat Nazianzen saith he advised that the Baptism
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-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-Infant-Baptism saith satis aperte ex Scripturis colligitur c. infant-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-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
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
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-Infant-Baptism 2. He farther saith The Protestants since the Reformation have chose to fly to some consequential Arguments deducted as they suppose from the Scriptures to prove the same both which in this Chapter are brought forth and duely weighed in the Ballance of Truth We doubt not in the Process of the discourse to shew that after we have weighed what she saith we shall find it too light and to be but chaff in stead of Truth The Protestants he saith have chose to fly to consequential Arguments deduced as they suppose from Scripture But the Antipaedobaptists are of another mind and suppose themselves to be Men of deeper Reason and more piercing inspection into the sence of the Scriptures than all the Godly and Learned Protestants since the Reformation They see the mistaken conceits they have of Scripture and how ungroundedly they draw their consequences from thence An Argument indeed it is of much modesty for the Author to speak at this rate I would ask any of these Men who are so highly conceited of their Scripture-Knowledg why Paedobaptists that are humble searching praying Christians may not understand so much of God's mind in Scripture as they Doth the Word of God come out from them or doth it come to them only John 17.14 1 Cor. 14.37 or have they only the Spirit of Illumination or are they the only Masters of right Reasons Or dare they say 't is unlawful to make use of Consequences Or may not we be permitted to use them for Infant-Baptism aswel as they against it Do not they argue from Matt. 28.18 19. and Mark 16.16 None ought to be Baptized but such who are first taught and consequently that no Children ought to be Baptized because they be not capable of teaching Vide Tombes Is not this their constant way of Arguing Now how unreasonable is it for men to practise that themselves which they will not allow of in others I remember Mr. Staltmarsh in his shadows flying away doth much condemn Consequences and saith Prudence and Consequence are the two great Engins of Will-Worship good Doctrine indeed and a fine preparative to an Implicit Faith But Mr. Baxter chastiseth the folly of these men in his Plain Scripture-Proof c. Position 10. pag. 8. Evident Consequences Quae colliguntur ex Scripturiâ— sacris perinde habenda sunt ac si in illis scripta essent Gâ—eg Nazâ—anzen L. 5. Thelog or Arguments drawn by reason from Scripture are as true Proof as the very words of a Text would it not make a man pity such senseless ignorant wretches saith he that will call for express words of Scripture when they have the Evident Consequences or Sence Is Scripture-Reason no Scripture If I prove that all Church-Members must be admitted by Baptism and then prove that Infants of Believers are Church-Members is not this asmuch as to prove that they must be Baptized I suppose no man of sound judgment will deny that the sence or meaning of Scripture is Scripture as well as the Letters and Syllables in the Bible For the sence and meaning of the Letter of the Word must be drawn out by rational Consequence as the conclusion from a Proposition by a fit medium and if this were not so the searching and studying of the Scriptures were a needless undertaking and so would all Preaching and Expounding be It is a good observation of Dr. Sclater in his Comment upon the 5th verse of the 4th Chapter of the Romans That God's Spirit in Scripture speaks as well what he implyeth as what he expresseth as well what by Consequence is deduced as what in summe of Words he uttereth And instanceth in that of James 4.5 saith the Scripture in vain c. It is usual for our Adversaries to cavil against this Theological Axiom Say the Papists and Anabaptists for in this like Sampson's foxes they are joyned together by the tayls whilst their heads look several ways where have we it taught that Infants should be Baptized in all the Scripture To which we answer we have it not in Express terms but by just Consequence Where find we that Christ's Righteousness is imputed to us for Justification saith Bellarmine Why in Express terms we have it not but Virtually and by just Consequence we have it 2 Cor. 5.21 In the Equivalent we have it Rom. 5.17 18 19. You are wont to boast saith Bellarmine of the Word of God and to reduce all your Opinions to this one head but in the Case of Justification by Faith only that help fails you for you were never able to shew in the Scripture that particle only To this we Reply that if we have it by Consequence from Scripture and if we have it in the Equivalency we have it in the Scripture That Tradition hath been the first and principal ground of Infant-Baptism he would prove from Austin and Chrysostom's sayings But how and in what sense do they call it a Tradition of the Church why certainly not as if the Church had been the Author but the Subject of it as before as continued therein all along down from the Apostles And if any of the Fathers speak too hyperbolically of Tradition what is that to us who plead Scripture as its primary ground for it Besides Anciently the greatest points of Faith were called by the name of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. Divine Doctrines or Ordinances for so it is rendred 1 Cor. 11.2 and the same word is rendred Traditions 2 Thes 2.15 So that Austin's Intendment by that expression of Apostolical Tradition is nothing else but Apostolical Ordinance or Doctrine as appears from his own words saying The Custom of our Mother the Church in Baptizing little Infants is not to be despised nor to be judged Superfluous nor to be Believed unless it were an Apostolical Tradition Lib. 10. de Gen. c. 23. i. e. an Apostolical Ordinance What follows from 153 p. to the 155th is mostly borrowed from Mr. Tombes his Praecursor Sec. 20. p. 86 89. As first The Assertion of the Cardinal Ragusi in his Oration in the Council of Bazil Tombes indeed hath it in Latin but the Author is at the pains to translate it And since it is so notorious and intolerable a piece of Plagianism thus to take and conceal from whence he had it contrary to the Laws of ingenuity provided in that behalf we shall make discovery thereof by a Paralel H. D i.e. The Author In the Council of Bazil in the Oration of of the
Cardinal of Ragusi It is asserted that in the beginning of this Sacrament of Baptism they only were to be Baptized who could by themselves answer Interrogatories concerning their Faith and that it was no-where read in the Canon of Scripture that a new-born Infant was Baptized who could neither believe with the heart to Justification nor confess with the mouth to Salvation yet nevertheless saith he the Church hath appointed it H. D. Whereas some Object that Bellarmine and others do also bring Scripture for it Becan Lib. 1. c. 2. Sec. 24. answers that some things may be proved out of Scripture when the Church's sence is first heard about the Interpretation thereof for so he saith it is concerning Infants-Baptism which is proved from John 3.5 But the sense whereby to prove it is only manifest by Tradition H. D. and it is confirmed in the Canon-Law and School-Men that Infant-Baptism was not reckoned perfect till the Bishop laid on hands which was called Confirmation viz. of the imperfect Baptism in Infancy and therefore saith Caistans secundum Jewel that an Infant wanting instruction in the Faith hath not perfect Baptism H. D. Dr. Field Lib. 4. p. 375. saith That infant-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-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
how could he oppose it 2. But we must give the names of those that were for it as before he must know where Cyprian's Council was held or else he could not assent to the being of it But how many names will suffice him I know not What if I say Origen was one for I hope by this time he may stand rectus in curia and not be excepted against for a Witness he speaks point blank to the Case Ecclesia ab Apostolis Traditionem accepit parvulis dare Baptismum The Church hath received a Tradition from the Apostles to give Baptism to little Children as we have it in his Comment upon the sixth Chapter of the Romans And though Ruffinus riffled his works as is said yet Jerom Translated that out of Greek and so also his other Comment upon Luke where he is express to the same purpose and this is attested by Erasmus and Jerom's Prefaces to both Books puts it beyond doubt Let me add what I find in Mr. Baxter for farther satifaction You saith he Baxter plain Scripture-proof p. 157. to Mr. Tombes think the worse of it because it is pleaded by Origen as a Tradition from the Apostles I think very much the better for it both because it the more fully resolveth the question concerning the matter of fact and Apostolical Custom and shews that it was no late invention or Innovation And the Fathers as is hinted before took not the word Tradition in the Popish Sence for that which hath been delivered in Doctrine from Age to Age above what is delivered in Scripture as to supply the supposed defect of Scripture But for the very written word it self by which the Apostles delivered the Truth and for their Examples and the report of it and of some other passages especially in matter of Fact tending only to the explication of their Doctrines and not to the adding of new-Doctrines as if the former were defective What if I name once more Irenaeus Qui proximus fuit temporibus Apostolorum S. Basil de S. Sto. Cap. 25. That was next to the Apostles who is calculated to live within some fourty-three years of St. John I find the Author hath passed him by and yet as hath been before shewn he was for Infant-Baptism otherwise what sence shall we put upon those Words of his Lib. 2. C. 39. which are before spoken to and which occasioned Dr. Taylor to say The Tradition of Infant-Baptism passed through his hands in his Consideration of the Practice of the Church in Baptizing Infants Sec. 29. pag. 55. 3. We shall by no means grant that Tertullian was against Infant-Baptism we have given some hints why already But shall reserve our discourse about that till we come to its proper place that is the Examination of the Witness produced against Paedobaptism whereof Tertullian is the first The AUTHOR's Exceptions against Scripture-grounds for Infant-Baptism Examined NExt he falls upon Scripture-grounds usually produced for Infant-Baptism which he is pleased to select for us leaving out that in Rom. 11.17 which is the most principal place of all and so to encounter them in that way and manner as he sees best And herein he hath shewed cunning not much unlike to that before in conjoyning the condemned Ecclesiastical Authorities for Infant-Baptism with those which Protestants own for Authentick Reply 1. Had I been to choose my own Weapons I would have let alone some of those the Author pitcht upon Secondly Neither would I have ordered the the Proofs from some of the Texts in so flight a manner as he doth for if a Weapon be sharp and keen yet if an Enemy have the handling of it how can we expect unless he be the more ingenious but that he will blunt the edg of it And that Adversary shews but sorry valour which knocks in the head some Arguments of straw which he hath framed to shew his skill on In my Opinion it had been more ingenuity in the Author 1 To have chosen for usonly the pertinent places that carry the clearest evidence and to have pretermitted the rest For if the chiefest places will hold good the rest which are dark and disputable whether they belong to the point may well be let alone and if the chiefest will not carry it much less will the other yet this is certain that if the strength of every one of those Texts which he produceth for us were eluded save one yet that one would carry it for though two Witnesses be needful for men yet one single one is as valid for God as if there were many thousands 2. To have pitcht only upon those Texts wherein all Protestants both Lutherans and Calvinists i.e. Paedobaptists concurr in as pertinent to the point whereas he knows it is controverted among them whether some of the Scriptures produced have any thing to do with Infant-Baptisme as both the second and third Texts instanced in Nay the third which contains Christs Commission for Baptism is that which the Author and his party judge to be the main ground for Baptizing Believers and excluding Infants And we know that this is their main Argument that Infants are not to be baptized because they cannot believe and truly we were very sparing of places to prove childrens Baptism if we should pitch upon Mark 16.16 for it And here I profess my self to be of Mr. Baxters mind Pos 7. pag 7. of his plain proof I cannot deny saith he but that some Divines have brought some mis-applyed Scriptures for infant-Infant-Baptism Now it is easie to write against these and seem to triumph and yet the cause be no way shaken some silly people think when they hear an impertinent Text put by that all is done when it may be all the most plain Scriptures and best arguments have never been answered with sense or reason Having said thus much I come now to his exceptions 1. The first is against that place Mat. 19.15 Suffer little children to come unto me and forbid them not c. To this our Author Objects May we not say How doth Baptism come to be concerned in this Text c. To which I reply First I conceive none did ever bring this place as of it self a full and direct proof for Infants-Baptism But secondly it doth prove two points which lay a good ground work for the same First That the Kingdom of God is made up as well of Infants as of grown persons if any by Kingdom of Heaven will needs understand it of the Kingdom of Glory let him consider that none are of that Kingdom who were not first of the Church first of the Kingdom of grace here and so it comes all to one understand it of which you please The Kingdom of God is made up as well of Infants as Adult persons Quùm jubet Infantes ad se accedere nihil clariùs quà m veram Infantiam notari Instit Christ Relig. Calv. compend per Launeum cap. 17. p. 325. for Christ saith it is of
such i.e. Children not of grown men resembling Children For first That had been no good reason why such should come to him and be blessed of him 2. That had been no reason why Christ should manifest so great displeasure against his Disciples for going about to hinder them The word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 rendred in the New Translation much displeased The vulgar hath it indignè tulit he took it ill at their hands indignatus est saith Beza be lookt upon it with indignation Second The second point which it proves which is also a good ground-work for the same is That Infancy is no bar or exclusion of any from coming to Christ and receiving a Blessing Infants are capable of benefit by Christ although they do not actually believe though they cannot lay hold on Christ yet Christ can lay hold on them Obj. But Baptism is not concerned in the Text except it can be made out that that blessing was Baptizing Ans 1. It is certain that Blessing is not Baptizing but t is something more and Christ in blessing them vouchsafed that to them which usually was an Ordinance administred after Baptism and which is of a higher nature Acts 8.17 18 19. 19.6 and so we may argue from this to Baptism Inclusively or a majori from the greater 2. Though Blessing be not Baptism yet in as much as they were of the Kingdom of Heaven whom he blest it follows they were qualified Subjects for Baptism for grant to Infants a Church relation and their Baptism will follow upon it if one stands good the other will and this is all we plead for from the Text. For that which follows out of Dr. Taylor Christ Blessed Children and so dismissed them therefore Infants aré not to be Baptized It is a very idle one For First from a particular Omission to conclude an universal unlawfulness is most unreasonable as Dr. Hammond speaks It is as if one should thus argue Christ when he Preached in the Mount did not then pray but only preach therefore 't is not lawful to pray Secondly Christ did not that we know baptize any John 4.2 And if an Argument drawn from his Example Negative be pressing it would conclude as well against Baptizing those of riper years as children 3. Since Christ did that for them which did transcend Baptism we may rather conclude that certainly if he had Baptized any he would those children since he shews more respect to them then any grown persons Mr. Sydenbam in his Christian and sober Exercitation Fourthly Christs Blessing them holds forth as much as if he had baptized them for in that outward rite the Holy Ghost was convey'd and by laying on of hands others received it as appears from Acts 8.17 18 19. 19.6 And why not in this Act of Christ upon the Infants as Mr. Sydenham argues And if this Act of Christ were not a complement only but an outward sign of the receiving the Holy Ghost Who should hinder Water that Infants should not be Baptized seeing they have received the Holy Ghost as well as we Act. 10.47 And the same Author farther adds What can be more then for Christ to take up Infants in his Arms lay his hands on them as an outward sign to consecrate them to himself and to shew their capacity of receiving the Holy Ghost and then to bless them And yet we must with scorn deny them a little water and think it too much to have them named among the lowest sort of visible Saints and when Christ owns them publickly and saith that of such is the Kingdom of God But I shall rather believe Christs Testimony then any mans forward opinion And to what intent should Christ do all this but to confirm their old state in the Church and not to cast them out of it and from the participation of all outward signes of falvation Let mens consciences not gulph'd in prejudice judge This Text if there were no more will fly saith he in the consciences one day of the most confident contemners of Infants and their Baptism A Second Scripture instanced and excepted against is that John 3.5 Second Scripture instanced and excepted against Except a man be born of Water and the Spirit he can in no wise enter into the Kingdom of God From whence saith the Author 't is concluded That there is no other way to Regenerate and save Infants and add them to the Church but by Baptism But who are they that conclude thus from that Text The Papists as himself confesseth And what I pray is that to us who disclaim such inferences as he also acknowledgeth we do and for very good reasons and he might have done well to have set them down for the benefit of his Reader some of them I shall name as First Because as Calvin speaks in his Institutions Instit Christ Relig. Calv. Compend p. 322. per Launeum edit 2d Salus consistit in promissione Salvation depends upon Gods Covenant Gen. 17.7 which he cites adding in the same place Infants may be capable of Salvation without Baptism as the Israelites who dyed without Circumcision Though there be an absolute necessity that whoever are saved they must be saved by the Covenant yet there is not an absolute necessity of the Seal Before the law the Covenant was made for our comfort in respect of our Infants The seed of the Woman shall break the Serpents head Gen. 3.15 yet there was no seal to it for 2000. years nor was there such absolute necessity afterward in the days of circumcision for those that dyed before the eighth day The necessity of Salvation by the Covenant was absolute but the necessity of the seal only Conditional so far forth as it may be had 2. If Baptism be of absolute necessity to Salvation that regeneration is affixt to it and none can be saved without it then it is in mans power to save and to destroy if they will baptize their children they may save them if they neglect it damn them which is a horrible absurdity to conceive Secondly Now to the Text it self we shall next enquire what it affords with great respect to the Learned which may judge otherwise of it Either this Scripture is to be understood of Baptism or not if of Baptism then either generally belonging to all men Dr. Sclater on the 4. Rom. ver 9. or limitedly to Infants only If of Infants only then saith Dr. Solater 1. What meant Christ to propound it to Nicodemus an old man Was it his purpose to teach him that in as much as he was not Baptized in his infancy he could not enter into the Kingdom of God then sure I shall not wonder if Nicodemus conceited a necessity for an old man desiring to come to Heaven to return back into his Mothers Womb and be born again 2. Will they say it must have this gloss by limitation if a man want Baptism by contempt and not otherwise
of the Covenant in as much as a Covenant with a Seal is a greater benefit than to have a Covenant without it Thirdly He saith if it should be granted that Circumcision was a Seal of the New Covenant belonging to all the children of Israel then would not the baptizing children of Believers answer it Neither amount to so great a priviledge And why 1. There were all the Familes and Tribes of Israel and all proselyted strangers with their children without distinction of good and bad to be circumcised But here only one of a City or two of a Tribe for Believers are but thin sown and the children of unbelievers and wicked men are to receive no such benefit in the Judgment of so many Answ I repent the losing of so much time as I am put upon in answering such frivolous objections but such wrangling will never advantage their cause First Then it is not true that all their children were circumcised for in the case of Excommunication if a person persisted in impenitency amongst other punishments this was one his Male-children were not circumcised Godwin's Moses and Aaron l. 4. c. 2. 2. Let it be considered that the Church of God is now of Greater extent under the Gospel that it was then Isaiah 54.12 The desolate hath more children than the married enlarge the place of thy Tents and let them spread the Curtains of thy habitation c. So chap. 60.6 The multitude of the Sea shall be converted unto thee and the riches of the Gentiles shall come unto thee who are these that fly like clouds and as the Doves to the Windows v. 8. And when these come in their children come in with them and so the number of the baptized do infinitely exceed the circumcised the extent of the Gentile Church so much exceeding that of the Jews we find three thousand came in a day and five thousand at another time in the Acts. 3. Whereas he saith wicked men are to receive no such Benefit that is for their children in the judgment of so many It is the judgment of many more that they ought if they profess the Christian faith although I conceive not the priviledge of ignorant and scandalous persons Secondly He adds another reason which is exceeding weak and that is Because we are at an utter uncertainty when we have a right Subject for if the Parent be an Hypocrite or no elect person which is beyond our reach to understand we cannot know whether the child be fit for Baptism Answ And how can those of his way tell when they have a fit Subject for Baptism are they sure all whom they baptize are elect persons and sincere we have told him before de occultis non judicat Ecclesia A serious profession is sufficient and we are to judge such professors in probability Believers and may on that ground admit their children to Baptism We have a rule for baptizing and that we are to follow and a rule to know those that are baptizable but none for an infallible judgment of mens sincerity we are not called to judge of this matter nor is it in our power and 't is not our sin if we be deceived Mr. Baxter says well to this in his Answer to Mr. Tombes how do you know saith he to him whom you should baptize whom doth the Scripture command you to baptize If you say as Apol. p. 94. that it is those that make free serious understanding profession I would know whether it be the profession it self the bare profession which God bestoweth this privilege on or whether it be the faith professed if it be real faith then without that there is no Baptism if it be bare profession or if we may call it false faith then false faith or profession without faith is the condition of baptizing And if it be real faith the Baptizer cannot know that if it be said that in common estimation they are Believers then common estimation renders one capable of Baptism When these men have answered the point for themselves they have answered it for us Thirdly and Lastly he saith Neither can the child when he is grown up have any certain knowledge that such a Ceremony hath past upon him in Infancy he having no infallible mark thereof whereas the circumcised Infant had an indelible character and mark in his flesh to assure him that he had received that Rite Answ That they had a sensible mark to mind them of their Circumcision is true though some of them had an art to make it invisible as Beza notes upon that place 1 Cor. 7.18 Let him not gather his Circumcision We have the note in our Margent Bible which was done as he quotes it out of Celsus and Epiphanius when the Surgeon by art draweth out the skin to cover the part circumcised Godwin hath the same in his Moses and Aaron and puts the question how it is possible for a man after once he hath been marked with the sign of Circumcision to blot out that character and become uncircumcised For thus some Jews for fear of Antiochus made themselves uncircumcised 1 Mac. 1.16 Others for shame after they were gained to the Christian Faith uncircumcised themselves and then tells us what is before This by the way But the Author saith he that was circumcised had a character or mark to assure himself that he had received that Rite To this I reply in the words of Mr. Brinsley True such a sensible mark they had But how did they know that that mark was given them for any such religious end and purpose That they received it as a Sacrament a Seal of the Covenant betwixt God and them Other nations there were and that many who used Circumcision even as the Turks do at this day and I find in Mr. Godwin the same in his sixth Book of Miscellaneous Rites It was used saith he though not as a Sacrament by many other nations by the inhabitants of Colchis the Ethiopians the Trogloditae and the Egyptians Now then how did the Israelites know it was given them to such a religious intent why herein they were to give credit unto the testimony of others viz. the Parents and other witnesses and Mr. Godwin in the aforesaid Book tells us from the Jewish Doctors that when a little child was to be circumcised one who supplied the place of a witness whom they called by the name of Baal Berith and Sandak that is the Master of the Covenant held the child in his arms whilest it was circumcised that so he might bear witness to the Circumcision and of the name given the child at that time Such was the use of the later Jews and it seemeth that the practice was ancient even as ancient as Isaiah's time So those two learned expositors Junius and Tremelius interpret that place Isa 8.2 He took unto him faithful Witnesses Witnesses to what saith Mr. Brinsly why to the Circumcision of his Son of whom he speaketh in the verse
6.6 and alledgeth 't was God's Ordinance that the people of Israel should swear by his Name Deut. 16.53 And lastly for Infant-Baptism the matter in dispute Perin gives this account pag. 15. which I desire the Reader to observe it because we have so ancient a declaration of their faith in this particular That they being constrained for some hundred years to suffer their Children to be Baptized by the Priests of the Church of Rome they deferred the doing thereof as long as they could having in detestation those Humane inventions which were added to the Sacrament which they held to be but pollution thereof And forasmuch as their Pastors were many times abroad imployed in the service of the Churches they could not have Baptism Administred to their Infants by their own Ministers For this cause they kept them long from Baptism which the Priests perceiving charged them thereupon with this imposture viz. That they were against Infant-Baptism Which saith Perin not only their Adversaries have believed that is the Papists and from hence came all that Bedrole of Decrees Councils Decretal Epistles and Edicts against them but also others saith he who have well approved of their Life and Faith in all other points amongst the number of which we must reckon Mr. Tombes and the Author of this late Treatise of Baptism now under examination This ample account given by such an excellent impartial Historian so many years since before the World was so troubled with disputes about Baptism and from one of their own Country-men a man unconcerned as to interest or dissenting parties in this controversy and being so faithful in his relations of the Faith and sufferings of the Waldenses that he was never that I could hear of questioned or suspected will undoubtedly be credited by all ingenious Persons and is sufficient to dismount thousands of those Canons Edicts c. the Author brings Besides this that I may if possible undeceive the Antipaedobaptists who are hardly brought to believe any thing that is against them I will add two other Testimonies from whence we may conclude the Body of the Waldenses were not against Infant-Baptism one of them is Luther the other Bullinger both of which have written smartly against Anabaptists and would never have given such a large Encomium of the Waldenses had they apprehended them to be touched with the error of denying Baptism to the Children of Believers Luther professeth that he hated the Waldenses whilst a Monk as desperate men until he knew their piety and truth of their Belief by their own Confessions and Writings whereby be perceived that those good men were much wronged and that the Pope had condemned them for Hereticks being rather worthy of the praise that is due to the Martyrs And Bullinger that wrote a Book against the Anabaptists saith in his Preface to his Sermons upon the Revelations That above 400 years since the Waldenses have made Profession of the Gospel of Jesus Christ throughout France Italy Germany Poland Bohemiah and other Kingdoms 4. If this be not enough to cleer the Waldenses from what the Author would have us believe from the Testimony of their Enemies the Papists we are willing to give him full measure pressed down and running over and that is by the Testimony which they give of themselves in their Publick General Confessions of Faith We have before shewn the Author could find nothing in any of their Confessions against Infant-Baptism let us now see whether we can find any thing for it First they purge themselves from the imputation of denying Infant-Baptism Hist Wald. Lib. 1. c. 4. p. 15. So Lib. 1. c. 6. p. 43. and shew the reason why for some hundred years they forbore it as before he that writes the History professedly sets down in his 3d part of it the Doctrine of the Waldenses and Albigenses and particularly what their Faith was touching Baptism in these words of their own viz. And whereas Baptism is Administred in a full Congregation And for this cause it is that we present our Children in Baptism which they ought to do to whom the Children are nearest as Parents c. In the year of our Lord 1535 an Assembly of the Waldenses from all their Valleys met at Angrongne Perin Hist Wald. L. 2. Cap. 4. pag. 57. and there was signified what they understood of their Brethren of Provence and Daughine namely that they had sent into Germany their Pastors George Morell and Peter Mason to confer with Oecolampadius Bucer and Capito touching the belief which they had time out of mind Mark hereby the way how unworthily the Author Prevaricates and endeavours to blind the Reader pag. 329. of his Book as if all the Waldenses were declining or Apostatizing towards the Antichristian Abomination of being present at Mass if some of them of Provence were faulty yet this Assembly at Angrongne stood fast in the Truth where saith Perin when they had read certain Letters of encouragement sent from Oecolampadius both to those of Provence Dhugtony and to themselves Afterward concluded on certain Propositions and Articles of Faith which were read and approved signed and sworn to by all the Heads of the Families and their Pastors with one mind and consent to Conserve Observe Believe and retain amongst them inviolably without any contradiction as being conformable to the Doctrine which hath been taught them mark it from the Father to the Son for these many hundred years out of the Word of God If therefore among any of these Articles we can find Infant-Baptism owned what becomes then of all the Crack that the Author makes as if they had been of his judgment The Articles there agreed on were in number 17 too long to be inserted the last is about Baptism and thus it is to a Syllable Article 17. Touching the matter of the Sacrament it hath been coneluded by the H. Scriptures that we have but two Sacramental signs the which Christ Jesus hath left unto as the one is Baptism the other the Eucharist which we receive to shew what our perseverance in the faith is as we have promised when we were Baptized being little Infants This is the Confession of the Faith of the Assembly at Angrongne where a letter was read from Oecolampadius to those of Provence who it seems out of fear were sometimes present at Mass with the Papists or at least some of them who did in heart doubtless abhor it but how doth this prove they were not heartily for Infant-Baptism And because the Letter is so Excellent a Disswasive from any Complyance with Superstitious and Idolatrous Worship I shall here insert it Oecolampadius his Letter to the Waldenses of Provence 1530. WE understand that the fear of Persecution hath made you to Dissemble in your Faith and that you bide it Now we believe with the heart to Righteousness and confess with the mouth to Salvation But they that fear to Confess Christ before the World shall not be received
infant-Infant-Baptism ASSERTED VINDICATED By SCRIPTURE And ANTIQUITY IN ANSWER To a Treatise of Baptism lately published by Mr. HENRY DANVERS Together with a full Detection of his Misrepresentations of divers Councils and Authors both Ancient and Modern WITH A Just Censure of his Essay to Palliate the horrid Actings of the Anabaptists in Germany AS ALSO A Perswasive to Unity among all Christians though of Different Judgments about Baptism By OBED WILLS M. A. Vt Christus Infantes ad se venire jussit ità nec Apostoli eos excluserunt à Baptismo quidem dum Baptismus Circumcicisioni aequiparat Paul Col. 2. apertè indicat etiam Infantes per Baptismum Ecclesiae Dei esse inserendos c. Magdib Cent. 1. l. 2. c. 4. p. 354. LONDON Printed for Jonathan Robinson at the Golden Lyon in St. Paul's Church-yard 1674. THE PREFACE THere is a New Treatise come forth concerning Baptism the Design whereof is to prove the Baptism of Believers and to disprove that of Infants There is great Cracking about it and some cry it up for a None-such that it is unanswerable and as I hear the Author himself Ixion-like falls in love with his own shadow and being Philautia nimis inflatus puffed up with the excellency of his performance glories much and pretends that he hath not only proselyted many of the Vulgar sort but some also of the Ministry And it is very certain that at its first appearance last Summer divers persons were Dipped in these parts and as I have been informed 7 or 8 in a day in the City of Bristol and in all likelyhood we may hear of many more this Summer for those who are inclinable to the Way are now grown so politick as not to profess their Faith till warm Weather This I do assure the Reader that the Book as to any thing material in it hath been many times answered before ever it came forth and that 's the reason belike we have heard of no Reply since it hath seen the light which is now about twelve Months All the Mediums he useth to maintain his Opinion are such trite and out-worn things that they have been in effect trampled upon and confuted again and again Nevertheless such is the Clamorousness of some men that they affect to have the last word when in modesty they ought to be silent and consider that it is their duty to unlearn a darling Errour and no dishonour to strike sail to convincing Reason Great Endeavours have been used to undeceive the Antipaedobaptists and 't is the unhappiness of many Godly and Learned Divines instead of meeting with answerable success to have their Pains contemned and their Persons loaded with Aspersions The Author of the Treatise I am to examine hath only affixt H. D. to the Title-page that is as appears by a Second Edition lately come forth Henry Danvers although in regard of the principal Materials the Book hath more reason to pretend to J. T. that is John Tombes for its Author For although H D. hath for some years lived a solitary contemplative Life and hath had opportunity for study yet owneth he not so much Scholarship if they say true that know him as to compose such a Piece nor is he so well acquainted with Fathers Councils Schoolmen had not most of it been prepared to his hand Indeed I find he is somewhat vers'd in the Magdiburgensian History though he hath made very ill use of it But for the Argumentative part especially the Opposition made against Infant-Baptism both the Method and Matter of his Treatise declares where he hath been fishing for I find very little in it besides what is borrowed from Mr. Tombes his Exercitation and Examen long since answered by M. Marshal Dr. Homes Mr. Gerce Mr. Blake Mr. Baxter But forasmuch as the Contest hath taken a Nap for about 20 years it was thought fit to give it one lusty jog more and awaken it again And in regard those Polemical Discourses are rarely found in Vulgar hands but are thrown aside into Corners and lie solitary as neglected things in Studies and Booksellers Shops the Author and his Coniederates out of their dear love to their Darling Opinion thought meet to make some good improvement of the late Liberty granted by his Majesty's gracious Declaration and to take up the Gantlet again and fall to the old Trade of Wrangling For some men are of a restless Spirit and if their Hands be tied up from fighting they will do it with their Tongues and Pens The Preface is made up of Invectives against the Assertors of Infant Baptism but mostly against Mr. Baxter by reason of some Passages of his in a late Book called The Christian Directory against which he seems to have a very great zeal but I fear his envy against his Person doth exceed it For do but compare the Preface with the Epilogue of our Authors Treatise and you will find he seems to entertain a better opinion of John of Leyden then of him I understand Mr. Baxter will speedily write something for his own Vindication and I long to see it that so nothing that he hath said in his Christian Directory may prove a Stumbling-block to the Weak and more confirm the Antipaedobaptists in their Errour The truth is those people are very sensible how much he hath wounded their Cause and are glad with an occasion of wounding his Reputation But I profess I could not but smile to observe how he seems to bewail the Indiscretion of Mr. Baxter and rebukes him for Printing his Judgement in some Points that refer to Baptism and other things at such an unseasonable time as if he had hit upon the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or the fittest opportunity to declaim against Infant Baptism But doth he take this to be a fit time of the day to use his own Phrase to widen Differences and set us at farther distances when we are almost sinking under fears and daily expectations of troubles Is it a fit season for us to be wrangling when Gods Rod is shaking over all our Heads Must he at such a time enter upon the old Obfolete Controversie and inveigh against Childrens Baptism which evermore hath occasioned heart-burnings and fruitless contendings especially when 't is disputed against with a lofty bitter and disdainful Spirit of which we perceive too much in this last attempt Ah! what a restless Genius is there attending some Opinions and how careless of the Churches Peace are the Abettors of them What the Author himself speaks pag. 308. from Clopenburg's Epistle of the Anabaptists heretofore in Germany is too true of some of those in England viz. That they suffer not the pure Reformed Churches to be edified without daily conflicts For not only heretofore in times of Liberty but even now under restraint some hot-spirited Persons publish their Tenents with such a rigid and condemning Spirit that it proves the greatest hinderance of Union and Conjunction amongst us in this Nation The
Opinion of Antipaedobaptism having been as Mr. Sydenham observes always Ominous and of a wonderous strange influence to destroy Vnity and Peace amongst Christians accompanied also with the most Retinue of Errors since the first Embrio of it was brought forth Whether by a secret Judgement of God or from the natural and secret Connexion with other Principles of Darkness I will not saith he determine Only God hath shewed some black Characters of it in every Nation where it hath prevailed though we cannot but say many Saints are under the power of it Yea and I do also farther attest that there are some very worthy Persons and eminent Christians of that way whom I exceedingly honour for their Gifts and Graces Moderation and sweetness of Spirit and Liberality towards all Christians such as these I prize as much as any Christians in England that are Paedobaptists and could as willingly imbrace them and entertain Christian Fellowship with them as with any that are of my own Judgement in the point of Baptism We ought to put a difference between humble and heady Men between factious Persons that affect Singularity and decline Communion with us because we differ from them in some Circumstances about an External Administration and such as disown infant-Infant-baptism out of simple Perswasion looking on it as a Corruption and without Scripture ground Mr. Gerce Vind. Paedobaptismi and so cannot submit unto it lest thereby they defile their Consciences as they conceive with Will-worship when notwithstanding if other Christians be of another mind they can own them as Brethren and not divide in regard of Christian Affection and Communion Some such there are though few and such a frame of spirit was there in that Man of God Mr. Jessey as may be seen in his Book intituled A Store-house of Provision in sundry Cases of Conscience He to my knowledge was an Antipaedobaptist of long standing as holy I conceive as any of that Judgement of good Learning and of a very tender Conscience and of so healing and uniting a Spirit that he esteemed it his Duty and press'd others to it to keep up Christian Communion with those that feared God though they differed about Baptism We have his Arguments for the same published in Print and grounded upon Rom. 14.1 which are so clear and have in them such strength of Evidence that I never yet could hear them answered nor do ever expect it I wish there were more such Antipaedobaptis as he and have good ground to believe many of them would come off from their Rigidness were they not afraid of offending their weak Brethren and fettered with some engagements at first entrance into their Churches and would readily afford us the right hand of Felloship I know what a dangerous thing it is to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an accuser of the Brethren and whence that Spirit comes and can appeal to Heaven that I now appear in the defence of what I conceive to be the Truth without a malevolent mind against any of our Dissenters I have had an intimate and friendly Correspondency with many Antipaedobaptists both in this place where I now inhabit and elsewhere by reason of which some have thought I comported with them in their Opinions But this is a mistake I own what I see of God in them and in all Professors of Religion whatsoever and would have none to engross Religion to themselves And if I know my own heart where ever I see aliquid Christi any thing of Christ it attracts my Affection God's People being all alike equally dear to me as they are his and have a Conversation becoming the Gospel My Love is not confined to a Party but extensive to all Saints And though some may count me an enemy for telling them the truth and withdraw their Affection it is no more than I expect and shall encourage my self with what I long since learned from a Heathen viz. Amicus Plato amicus Socrates sed magis amica Veritas I foresee how likely I am to purchase the displeasure and dispraise of those that cannot endure to have their Opinion spoken against at which I hope to be no more dejected than elated if others shall own my poor performance under the Notion of Approbation well knowing that all Polemical and Controversial Discourses carry a face like that of a Picture suitable to the situation and light the Beholders stand in or are guided by Nor do I so much as hope to reduce any of our Opposites for the men of their Way are inflexible and seem to be as much assured the Truth is on their side as they are of the divine Athority of the Scriptures I have heard of some Quakers that have been turned but could never yet hear of one of them that changed his Opinion unless he happened to fall into some worse Errour And certainly it is a strange Presumption no less Vnchristian than Prodigious for men to assume a Prerogative of judging those to be in the dark as is the common humour of our Opposites that differ from them in this point of Baptism when they cannot but confess that in other things they are of more clarified Intellectuals than themselves and have a deeper inspection into Scripture And yet their Vnderstandings at least must be condemned whilst they impose the scanty Measure of their own as an unquestionable Standard for others to submit to Forgetting in the mean while that many who were of their own Judgment have at the long run espoused some gross Errors and renounced Water-baptism as a low contemptible Ceremony and owned no other Baptism but that of the Spirit It was long since observed that some of the hottest Zealots against Infant-baptism have grown so cold as to turn Seekers and to deny the lawful Administration of Ordinances So common is it for men to run from one Extreme to another But though I despair of gaining over to us any of those who are so rivetted in their Opinions considering withal how succesless politer Pens have been yet do I hope by what shall follow to put some Remora and stop to weak and wavering Souls that they be not over-hasty in coming over to the Tents of our Opposites and to establish and confirm others that are at present satisfied in the practice of Infant Baptism And because some of both Parties may take offence at what I have done for as Aristotle saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It is difficult if not impossible to please all I am obliged to signifie some Reasons amongst others that moved me to enter the Lists of a publick Dispute 1. Because the Pompous Treatise of my Antagonist being put into my hand by one of his Judgment and cried up for an incomparable and unanswerable Piece I read some part of it cursorily and confess I was amuzed at the Multitude of Quotations from Fathers Councils ancient Doctors of the Church School-men besides Modern Writers together with the Testimonies of Waldenses and Old Britains
not depends on variable circumstances of the State of the Persons to whom Christs Ministers are sent be they such as the Apostles were then sent to they must be Discipuli facti made Disciples by Preaching and then be Baptized But be they the seed of Disciples they are Discipuli nati born Disciples by the Relation of the covenant and so may have the seal set on them without any preceding teaching 4. Lastly not to insist upon that that Infants are Christs Disciples because all Nations must be Discipled and Infants are included in those Nations we conceive we have no obscure ground for the Baptizing the Children of Believers because as Mr. Ainsworth on Gen. 17. Mr. Tombes saith in his Examen pag. 89. That it is well known Baptisme was in use among the Jews in the initiating Proselytes for many years together with Circumcision quotes Selden and Ainsworth for it and Mr. Godwyn in his Moses and Aaron lib. 1. cap. 3. pag. 10. do inform us Baptism was in use as a kind of Initiation among the Jews though it was not a Sacrament till Christ his Institution and therefore this Rite seemed no strange thing unto them as appeareth by their coming to John questioning not so much his Baptisme as his Authority by what authority he Baptized John 1. 25. For as the Learned Dr. Hammond observes the Institutions of Christ who came first Messias to that people was born of that Nation lived regularly under their law and observed their customes were by him drawn from their former practices in the old Testament and so were lightly changed and accomodated to his own purposes he instanceth in divers things and at length comes to this of Baptisme or Washing a known right for initiating the Jews and Proselytes into the Covenant of the Lord. For he doth abundantly shew out of the Talmud and Rabbies that the way of entring into the Covenant was by Circumcision and Baptism so says Mr. Godwyn also in the place before mentioned And as the Natural Jews were thus entred so were the Proselytes and as the Proselytes of age so also were their Infant-Children Baptized So the Gemara Babyl tit Chetub c. 1. They baptize the little or young stranger or Proselyte as the Hebrew hath it And Maimonides in tit Isuri bia c. 13. They Baptize the Infant or little Stranger upon the knowledge of the house of judgement i.e. on their desire in behalf of their Children From all which it appears that the Jewish Ceremony of Baptizing was accomodated by Christ to the Right of our initiation of the Profession of Christ whereof saith he we have as little reason to doubt as that a Picture was taken from that Face which it resembleth to the life And from hence we have as he conceives and that very rationally a clear foundation for our practice namely to baptize not only those who make a profession of their Faith in Christ but likewise their Children with them And though some men of late years have denyed the warrantableness thereof and darkned the truth by their arguings against it yet one may well suppose it was clear and obvious enough to the Apostles from the knowledge they had of the former administration which took-in the Children with the Parents into Covenant for if it had not been Christs mind believers Children should be sealed with Baptism under the new administration he would certainly have given some intimation thereof and given his Apostles some such caution as this when he sent them to Disciple all Nations and Baptize them See that you do not baptize Children Lastly we may from hence also gain light that the Essence of Baptism doth not lye in being immerst or plunged under water for it can never be proved that this was the manner of the Jewes Baptizing persons or things I shall shut up this with a passage of the Learned and Godly Bucer upon these words Sane dum non habent locum quo praecipitur tantum doctos baptizari nihil roboris suae sententia hinc adferent etenim nos docemus antequam baptizemus Ne quid vel his vel iospiam alibi Scripturarum habetur neminem baptizari debere nisi ille Doctrinam Christi per se quoque perceperit Bucer in locum Go teach all Nations Baptizing them Since the Anabaptists saith he have no place of Scripture that commands us to Baptize none but those that are taught they cannot strengthen their opinion from this Text For we our selves do teach i.e. Adult-Aliens before we do baptize neither can we from hence or any other Scripture prove that no one ought to be Baptized unless he shall understand or learn the Doctrine or Christ The Evangelist Mark varies the words of the Commission thus Go ye into all the World and Preach the Gospel to every Creature The one hath it Nations the other World and the terms are equipollent signifying the same Rom. 11.15 But what must they do in all the World preach the Gospel i.e. publish abroad to all without exception the freeness and fulness of Gods rich Grace in the New Covenant even that same Gospel that was preached long before to Abraham Gal. 3.8 And this blessing of Abraham is come upon the Gentiles ver 14. And this is to be Preacht 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to every Creature i.e. with a distinction to every humane creature which the opposers of Infant-Baptisme may do well to consider since they stand so rigidly upon the Syllabical Letters of every word in the Commission so as they will not allow us liberty to draw out the sence of some places that relate to infant-Infant-Baptism from the Letter by rational deduction and consequence and according to the Harmony of Scripture but we must superstitiously adhere to the very Syllables of the Text whereas whatsoever appears truth from the Analogy of Faith or by just consequence is as practicable and obliging as if it were written with a Sun-beam in so many Capital Letters It would be a senseless undertaking indeed to Preach the Gospel to every individual creature in the World and therefore it is to the understood restrictively of mankind poor lost man for whom Christ dyed Lastly the Connection too he he that believeth and is Baptized shall be saved hath some difficulty in it and the sence is not so obvious to every capacity for if it had many of those controversies between us and the Papists had never been as Whether Baptism be of absolute necessity to salvation which Protestants deny and many Papists affirm And let the Antipaedobaptists well consider that this Evangelist doth as closely conjoyn believing and being Baptized to Salvation as the other doth teaching and being baptized and if we must so exactly stand upon the Order of words to prove the Institution We may saith Sydenham argue from Mark as well as they from Matthew as none must be baptized but they who are taught so none but those who believe and are Baptized shall be
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
Surely it must be so or else there is no way how Infants can be saved 3. Dr. Taylor in his last discourse of Baptism gives a good Rule for the understanding Scriptures of this sort which if attended to would bring us and Antipaedobaptists a little neerer together which is this viz. That when the Scripture speaks of the effects of or dispositions to Baptisme it speaks in general expressions as being most apt to signifie a common duty or general effect or a more Universal event or the proper order of things but those general expressions do not supponere universalitèr that is they are not to be understood exclusively to all suscipients or of all the subjects of the proposition And he makes it clear by divers passages of Scripture There are many Synecdoches in the word where many only are to be understood when it speaks of all The secret effects of Election and of the spirit are in Scripture attributed to all that are of the outward Communion 1 Pet. 1.2 So Peter calls all the Christian strangers of the Eastern dispersion Elect according to the fore-knowledge of God the Father And Paul saith of all the Roman Christians and the same of the Thessalonians that their Faith was spoken of in all the world and yet among them it is not to be supposed that all the Professors had an unreproveable faith or that every one of the Church of Thessalonica was an excellent and charitable person and yet saith he 2 Thes 1.2 your faith groweth exceedingly and the charity of every one of you all towards each other aboundeth So to the question before us As many of you as are baptized into Christ have put on Christ That is so it is regularly and this is the designed event but from hence we cannot conclude of every person and in every period of time This man hath been baptized therefore now he is clothed with Christ he hath put on Christ nor thus This person cannot in a spiritual sense as yet put on Christ therefore he hath not been baptized that is he hath not put him on in a Sacramental sense To conclude We cannot understand the Apostle in those words of putting on Christ to intend a saving union to Christ or a putting on of Christ spiritually and effectually in regard of all that are Baptized for all these Galathians did not so put him on and innumerable persons that are Hypocrites when baptized at age do not so put him on Wherefore the words are to be understood Sacramentally as 1 Cor. 10.4 5. Heb. 10.29 And thus Infants put on Christ as well as grown persons 7th End of Baptism saith he is that the Baptized person may orderly thereby have an entrance into the visible Church c. For as Circumcision heretofore was the visible door of entrance into the old Testament-Church So also was Baptisme such a door and visible entrance into the New Testament-Church c. Act. 2.41 42. They who gladly received the word were baptized and the same day there was added to them about 3000. souls and they continued stedfastly in the Apostles doctrine and fellowship and in breaking of Bread and in Prayers So that after baptisme not before the believers were said to partake of all the Church-priviledges Posito uno absurdo mille sequuntur Upon this false Hypothesis do our Opposites build their dividing Practices Wherefore we deny that Baptisme doth give formality or make a man a member of a Visible-Church it is not that which gives entrance into it as the Author would have it so as if only by its Administration and in their own way too persons must be Baptized or else they are not to be reputed Church-Members or to be admitted into the participation of Church-priviledges But for this we have divers of our Divines quoted as Vrsinus The Assembly in their Catechisme And lastly Mr. Baxter with whom he is again at Hocus Pocus Mr. Baxter saith he in his plain Scripture proof pag. 24. As a Soldier before listing and a King before Corwning and taking his Oath so are we Church-Members before Baptisme But as every one that must be admitted solemnly into the Army must be admitted by listing as the solemn ingaging sign so every one that hath right to be solemnly admitted into the visible Church must ordinarily be admitted by Baptism But mark Reader the Authors ingenuity Baxters words are So are we and Infants Church-Members But being quite out of charity with those Innocent Babes this man leaves out Infants and one would think by the partial Citation that Mr. Baxter also did shut the Church-door against them It cannot be denyed that Orthodox Divines have frequently termed Baptism the Sacrament of our initiation into the Church and have ascribed our Admission or entrance into it thereunto and hereby have given the Antipaedobaptists some seeming ground for their rigidity And yet I find that they are not agreed among themselves about the point for Mr. Paul a great Zealot against Communion with any that are not Baptized in their way doth in his serious reflections disown the Position That Baptism is an initiating Ordinance and tells us in that Diminitive Volume of his p. 3. That he knows none that asserts it to be the in-let into praticular Churches though it prepares them for Reception Mr. Kiffin it seems is of the same judgement for he bestows an Epistle upon the piece Of the same judgment is John Bunyan a more moderate Antipaedobaptist that is for Vnion and Communion with Saints as Saints and condemnes the Rigidity of his Brethren and maintains in his Answer to the scurrilous not serious Reflections of Paul That differences in judgement about Water-Baptisme ought to be no Bar to Communion Printed for John Wilkins in Exchange Alley which is the Title of his Book and sees no cause to repent after severe checks from his Brethren to call them Babes and Carnal that attempt to break the peace and communion of Churches though upon better pretences than Water and declares God never made Water-Baptism a Wall of Division between us And whereas Paul denies Baptisme to be an initiating Ordinance he retorts very rationally upon him that if it be not that but another and if visible Saints may enter into Fellowship by that other and are no where forbidden so to do because they have not light into Water-Baptisme it is of weight to be considered by all unprejudiced persons Mr. Tull also a moderate and very ingenious Antipaedobaptist is of Mr. Bunyans judgment But Mr. Henry Jessey of precious Memory hath published his judgment to the same purpose grounding it upon Rom. 14. v. 1.3.7 such as are weak in the faith receive you c. From whence he argues most strongly and convincingly that it was the duty not only of the then present Church at Rome to whom the Epistle was writ as also to all beloved of God called to be Saints at that time ver 7. But also of all Churches and
Saints Beloved and called throughout the world in succeeding ages to receive into Church-communion and Fellowship such whom we have ground to believe God hath received into Communion with himself For that 's the Argument or Motive verse 3. God hath received him and saith he if it be a good Argument to receive such as are weak in any thing whom the Lord hath received Then there can be no good Argument to reject for any thing for which the Lord will not reject them The like argument we have chap. 15. ver 7. of Christs Receiving Receive you one another as Christ hath received us c. Then that holy man breaks out into pathetical strains Oh! how is the heart of God the Father and the Son set upon this to have his children in one anothers hearts as they are in his c. and 't is the work of the Devil saith he to divide them Thus much to shew how they differ amongst themselves about this Position that Baptism gives formality or makes a member of a visible Church which the moderate party amongst them utterly deny now that it gives neither essence or being either to a Church or Membership further appears by these Arguments 1. If there be a Church That dividing Principle That Baptism formes a Church or makes Church-Members refuted and so Members before Baptism then Baptism cannot give the formality or essence because forma is causal and so is in nature before formatum But the Church considered as totum essentiale is before Baptism for Ministers are before baptism And there must be a Church of Believers to chose a Minister lawfully for none but a Church can give him a call and without a call he cannot administer as Mr. Hooker argues in his survey of the sum of Church-discipline cap. 5. part 1. pag. 55. adding moreover that if Baptism cannot be without a Ministerial Church nor that before a Church Congregational which must make choice of a ministry then such a Church is much before Baptism Besides let it be supposed saith he that at the coming of some Godly Zealous Christian and Scholar into the Country and a company of Pagans many are converted to the Faith I ask whether these may not joyn in Church-Fellowship and choose that man Pastor and whether that choice was not lawful according to God Therefore here is a Church before a Minister and so before Baptism The demand which Mr. Jessey makes upon the same arugments is somewhat like this if Baptism saith he be the manner of forming Churches how would it suit a Country where many are converted and willing to be Baptized but there being no Church to be baptized into how shall such a Church-State begin The first must be baptized into no Church that is particular and the rest into him as the Church or the work stand still for want of a Church 2. A Church may be without Baptism and yet as real a Church as the Israelites were so long in the Wilderness without Circumcision which without dispute was the initiating Ordinance according to Divine Institution Gen. 17.13 3. One Argument I shall borrow more from Mr. Hooker and that is If Baptism give the form to visible-membership then while that remains valid the party is a visible Member for where the form is the formatum must needs be if the principles of reason may take place But there is true Baptism resting in the party who hath no visible Membership as in an Excommunicate in him that renounceth the fellowship of the Church or when the Church is utterly dissolved then all Church-Membership ceaseth for Relata mutuò se ponunt tellunt And yet Baptism is valid And as it is an undeniable position That that which gives the form or being to a Church must cease when the Church ceaseth or when a member ceaseth to be a member it must cease with it so it follows that that must be renewed namely Baptism as often as Membership is renewed so shall we have a multiplication of Baptisms as often as the person is cast out of the Church and taken in again upon his repentance As for those two Scriptures which the Author brings for his opinion they will hardly be found to serve his turn 1. The main place stood upon is Act. 2.41 As many as received the word gladly were baptized and there was added that day about 3000. souls Hence they conclude they were added by Baptism and that they were only added this way Sol. 1. It is more then the Text affords for to conclude that they were added by Baptism much less can it be argued from thence that they were only added this way the words say not they were added by Baptism but puts a full point or stop after that sentence As many as gladly received the word were baptized There that sentence ends as Mr. Sydenham notes upon the place And the Apostle goes on a new account and saith There were added that day 3000. souls but doth not at all shew the manner of their adding so that these words are rather a recapitulation and summing up the number of Church-Members added that day then any description of the way of their taking into the Church and the former reasons prove it cannot be interpreted as our Author would have it The other place that he urgeth for his opinion is 1 Cor. 12.13 We are all baptized into one body hence 't is concluded Baptism imbodies Members 1. In answer to this let it be considered what those of their one party say that are for Dipping The Text saith Mr. Bunyan that treateth of our being baptized into one body tells us expresly it is done by the spirit For by one Spirit we are all baptized into one body Here is the Church presented as under the â—â—tion of a Body here is Baptism mentioned by which they are brought or initiated into this body Now that this is the Baptisme of Water is utterly against the words of the Text For by one Spirit are we all Baptized into one body So Mr. Jesse The Baptism intended in the Text is the Spirits-Baptism and not Water-Baptism and the Body the Text intends is not principally the Church of Corinth but all believers both Jews and Gentiles being Baptized into one Mystical Body and the reason why it cannot be meant of Water-Baptism is because all the Body of Christ Jews and Gentiles bond and free partook not thereof Thus here we see how they clash amongst themselves as touching the sense of the place 2. We add That as we conceive the Apostle speaks there primarily of the Baptism of the Spirit not of Water so by one spirit we are baptized into one body is not so much of Baptism by Water and yet supposing it to be meant of Baptism by Water Yet as Mr. Sydenham observes it proves nothing that Baptism is the form of that body Sydenhams Christian Exercitation cap. 20. pag. 168 169. which hath its matter and form holiness and
union before Baptism baptized into one body doth not here shew the essential constitution of a Church but the confirmed union and the argument is inserted more to prevent Schism then to express the way of first imbodying or constitution of Churches as the whole context demonstrates CHAP. V. Containing his fifth Argument That Believers Baptism is the only Baptism from the New Testament-dispensation so differing from that of the old THe Argument is taken from the New-Testament-Dispensation so different from the Old The Old Testament-Church saith the Author was National consisting of the Natural and Fleshly seed of Abraham therefore were Infants by Circumcision added thereto but the new Testament-Church was by Christs appointment to be a separated people out of all Nations consisting only of the spiritual seed of Abraham and therefore Believers upon profession of Faith by the Ordinance of Baptism were added thereto Repl. 1. What of all this If there any ground from hence that Believers Baptism is the only true Baptism 'T is true the Church Dispensation is altered Mr. Baxters plain proof for Infants Church-Membership and Baptism but the Covenant of Grace is not altered The Dispensation differs under the new Testament only in regard of Ceremonial accidents as Temple Priesthood Sacrifice but the Essentials of the Covenant still remain viz. I will be thy God and the God of thy seed and this is the grand Charter of Church-Membership which takes in the Child with the Parent and consequently entitles it to Baptism as shall be hereafter shewn for if their Church relation can be made good their Baptism will follow upon it If therefore the Author could have proved that the covenant had been altered as to its essentials he had said something worth a hearing 2. Whereas he says the old Testament Church was National it is a Truth and yet the Nation of the Jews was not the Church of God as they descended from the Loyns of Abraham by Natural Generation according to the Flesh but only with reference to Gods gracious Covenant made with Abraham and his seed which I wish the Opposers of Infant-Baptisme would consider and as this Covenant was made with Abraham and his seed after the flesh so likewise is it still the same with Believers and their natural seed under the Gospel-Dispensation by virtue of the same gracious covenant made to them and their seed Act. 2.39 For the promise is unto you and to your children and to all that are afar off the Gentiles 3. Antipaedobaptists may do well to consider yet farther what Mr. Baxter makes good in his plain proof viz. That Infant Church-Membership did take place as an Ordainance of God before Cirscumcision was enjoyned or the Ceremonial law Instituted and why then it should cease with it is more then ever yet could be shewn He makes it appear it was no part of the Typical Administration of the old Testament but a moral Institution of God even from the beginning of the World God ever made a distinction between the seed of the faithful and the seed of the wicked as visibly belonging to two several Kingdoms the Kingdom of God and the Kingdom of Sathan Mal. 2.15 therefore are they called a Holy Seed and a Holy Seed are Members of the Church and so consequently the Subjects of Baptism the Seal of Admission thereunto 4. Notwithstanding the Dictates of H. D. that the Baptism of Believers is the only true Baptism we shall retain our practice in Baptizing our children and thankfully own and acknowledge it as a Gospel-priviledge till the opposers thereof can produce some clear proof out of Scripture that the Old Ordinance of the Church-Membership of Believers is repealed We see how imperiously another sort of people do impose their conceits and how confidently they call for our subscription to their Light as they term it as if it were a duty to deliver up our Reason captive to their absurd imaginations We respect Antipaedobaptists as a more sober people yet strangely over-grown with self-conceitedness as if the word of God came out from them and it came to them only in regard of the true knowledge of the spirits mind in it Let them produce but one plain Scripture that God hath made void the Antient Charter and Grant and we will readily yield up the cause But we have Scripture and reason as well as they and are the more confirmed in what we hold by observing how weakly they dispute against it All the Reason the Author brings to make good his Assertion is Because under the New Testament dispensation Christ hath appointed the Church to be a separated people out of the Nations consisting only of the spiritual seed of Abraham and therefore believers only upon profession of faith are to be admitted to Baptism and so added to the Church To which I answer First That under the New Testament-Dispensation Christ hath appointed the Church to be a separated people out of the Nations is a certain truth but that this Church consists only of the spiritual seed of Abraham is false Qui benè distinguit benè docet He that distinguisheth well teacheth well What our Antagonist says is true in regard of the Invisible Mystical Church of Christ which is a company of real Saints that have spiritual Union and Communion with Christ and with one another but not so with respect to the outward visible Church which is the Society of those that profess true faith for the exercise of Church-union and Communion among themselves and many of these are Hypocrits and shall perish Dr. Ames an excellent person that understood what the New Testament-Church was a little better then our Author Med. lib. 1. c. 32. art 9. tells us the same And such saith he was the Church of Corinth and Ephesus wherein all held not Communion for life and of such Christ spèaks Joh. 15.2 Every branch in me that beareth not fruit And hath these words in Opposition to what Bellarmine falsely chargeth on Protestants viz. Falsum est internas virtutes recuiri a nobis ut aliquis sit in Ecclesia quoad visibilem ejus statum It is false that inward vertues Grace are required of us to put a man into the Church according to the visible state of it The Lord Dupless is in his Excellent Treatise of the Church distinguisheth aright The Invisible Church containeth none but good or in the Authors Dialect the Spiritual seed of Abraham The Visible both good and bad that only the Elect this all those indifferently that are brought into her by the Preaching of the Gospel By all which it is evident that the Author stragles out of the Road of Protestant Divines and is fallen upon the confines of Thomas Colliers General Epistles or the wild Notion of Mr. Dell who in his Book intituled The way of Peace pag. 6. gives this definition of the Church viz. The New Testament-Church is a spiritual Invisible Fellowship gathered up into the Unity of Faith Hope and
not in use in the first times he goes about to prove it very simply from Austin's being Baptized at full years as if Austin's times had been the first times whereas we have shewn before it was in practice many hundred years before he was born and Austin himself that lived many hundred years before Strabo was born affirms That the Church always had it always held it It was a solid Observation of Mr. Geree in his Vindiciae paedobaptismi That if the Antiquity of Infant-Baptism had been dubious amongst the Ancients surely some of the Latin or Greek Churches that held the delay of Baptism more convenient and perswaded it would have been the more perswaded against the use of it from its Novelty and given at least some hint of that in their Arguings Thirdly I observe a pittiful escape in Walfridus Strabo who saith infant-Infant-Baptism took its rise and foundation afterwards when Christians came to understand Original Sin and when was that I pray doth he think never till Austin's days I suppose Christians understood this as soon as ever Baptism was enjoyned the Scripture is so express touching Original corruption Nay the very Heathens by the light of Nature knew that we were Originally depraved although they could not tell which way it came about as Duplessis largely shews in his Verity of Christian Religion This also was shadowed forth to the Jews in Circumcision In sin was I conceived saith David c. What a strange imagination then is it in this Writer That the Baptism of Infants was an Invention found out in Austin's time to wash away Original Sin of which Christians till then had been ignorant It is very true the Fathers were of opinion that it was of use for that and that long before Austin They knew Infants were defiled although they had lived but one day upon Earth as Origen speaks Hom. 8. in Luk. although Origen mistakes as to the manner how they came to be defiled For this fancy of Strabo minds me with another of Origen's a little more extravagant who thought Baptism served to wash away those sins which the Soul was guilty of whilst it was in some other Body a Pythagorean fancy before it entered into the body of the Child whence it appears that Origen was not for the Traduction of Original Sin from our Parents but a patron of the Pelagian heresy afterward so called Fourthly Strabo is much out too about his God-fathers and God-mothers which were in use in the Church many hundred years before Austin was born even in the 3d Century in Tertullian's days and yet he tells us they were first invented in Austin's days Fifthly Lastly this Srabo doth at last kick down the good pail of Milk which he before gave our Adversaries for declaring his own Opinion upon the matter he saith that it was a sign of the growth of Religion after a diligent search to take up the practice of Infant-Baptism and amongst other Testimonies citeth the Fathers in general for it in opposition to the prolonging of Austin's Baptism till he was Adult And concludes at last thus Wise Christians Baptized their Infants being not as some heretical persons opposing the Grace of God and contend that Infants are not to be Baptized Some others my Antagonist brings and quotes Authors for persons not Baptized till grown up which whether true or no I shall not enquire nor undertake to determine of the reasons why their Baptism was delayed which very likely may be the same with those before-mentioned or â—or other causes which shake not the Basis upon which Infant-Baptism is setled nor strike at the general Practice of the Church CENT V. HE tells us again That in this Age Believers Baptism was Asserted and the grounds thereof by many learned Writers and here take notice Reader how egregiously he Faulters for he instanceth only in two Chrysostom and Austin the former saying That the time of Grace and Conversion was the only fit time for Baptism which was the season the three-thousand were Baptized in the 2d of the Acts and the five-thousand afterwards Acts 4. The latter that is Austin in his Book de fide bonis Operibus Cap. 6. saith That none without due Examination both as to Doctrine and Conversation ough to be admitted to Baptism In these Quotations the Author seems to have forgotten himself for see what he says in his Treatise Pag. 121. there he gives an account of the Doctors of this Age Cent. 5. that approv'd Infant-Baptism the first is Chrysostom the words cited by him are these That Infants ought to be Baptized as universally received by the Catholick-Church And again That which the Church throughout the World unanimously teacheth and practiseth about the Baptizing of Children ought not carelesly to be slighted Magdeburg Cent. 5. Pag. 375. Then he instanceth in Austin who saith he was as a great Patron so a great Defender of Infant-Baptism in his Contests both against the Donatists and the Pelagians and the Celestians and then sets down some passages out of his works for it so that here we have these Fathers according to the account he gives of them diametrically opposite to themselves and how shall we reconcile them very easily even as we may do with the sayings of the rest for when they speak of the Baptizing persons after examination as to Doctrine and Conversation they mean Pagans and when they Assert Infant-Baptism The Fathers Reconciled it is in the behalf of the Children of Believers born in the Church And just as the Author hath served these Fathers so hath he constantly dealt with Mr. Baxter in all the Quotations taken from him concerning a profession of Faith which he maintained as necessary before Baptism in his Disputation with Mr. Blake although Mr. Baxter did so cautelously advertise the Reader that a Profession which he so much insisted upon was to be understood only in reference to Adult Persons and that the dispute had no reference at all to the Children of visible Believers Let us now for a Conclusion of this Century hear what the Magdeburgenses say concerning this Age Baptisati sunt porrô tum Adulti tum Infantes that is both grown Persons and Infants were Baptized Cent. 5. Cap. 6. Pag. 654. And they tell us how they dealt with the Adult in this Age Ae Adultorum quidem fuit ea conditio ut prius in Catecheseos parti-bus recte solidè instituerentur unde ipsis nomen Catechumenorum fuit namely First they were rightly and solidly instructed in the parts of the Catechism and from hence they were named Catechumenists of which we have such frequent mention in Ecclesiastical Writers CENT VI. IN this Age saith the Author The Adult upon Profession of Faith were Baptized This is no news and yet 't is observable he gives no instance of any such that were Baptized which if he had it had been nothing to the purpose unless he could have proved that in this Age the
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
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-Infant-Baptism is unlawful CHAP. III. Containing his Exceptions against infant-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
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
to both Now Reader see some of the dismal consequences of their Doctrine who deny the children of Believers to be taken into Covenant with them 1. It puts a sacrilegious restraint upon the Covenant and makes an essential variation in it without warrant 2. It excludes them from the ordinary way of Salvation for if they have no visible interest in the Covenant no not so much as externally in regard of Gods visible dispensation then they have no visible interest in Christ the Mediator of the New Covenant 3. It exempts and shuts them out from a participation of the Spirit and sanctification of their natures whereby they may be made meet for the inheritance of the Saints for all the influences of the Spirit is by virtue of the Covenant 2 Pet. 1. Now Mr. Tombes himself acknowledgeth that Infants may be sanctified 4. They have no ground of comfort in the death of their children no more than they have concerning a Turk or unconverted Indians child for that which affords a visible ground of hope of the salvation of another is his visible interest in the Covenant of Grace to be an Aliene to the Covenant of promise is to be without hope in the Apostles Account Eph. 2.12 So that we may say with Mr. Ford concerning all the children of Heathens dying in Infancy They are taken into the hands of God who indeed may for any thing we know save them by Prerogative and an undiscovered depth of mercy but he hath afforded us no ground so much as to hope that any of them are saved because the Statute-Law of the Kingdom doth not extend Salvation beyond the Covenant Now an Anabaptists Faith concerning the Infants of believing Parents even his own puts them into the same irrelative condition as to God and the Covenant with the children of Infidels and by consequendce under the same hopelessness of Salvation Now let tender Parents consider who undoubtedly would think it a sad thing to bring forth children to the destroyer what sad principles theirs are by and according to which they must kiss their beloved Babes when they are a dying with that sad Farewel which the dying Heathen gave his departing soul Animula vagula blandula c. And truly one of their Opinion in this town and supposed godly said in my hearing they had no ground of it 5. And consequently they have no ground of hope ever to see them again with comfort at Christs appearance for there is no foundation of hope of a glorious resurrection unto life but by virtue of the Covenant Luke 20.36 37 38. Heb. 11.16 Act. 26.7 8. The other Scripture that he encounters with is that Act. 2.38 A parallel place to that in Gen. 17. The Argument which we bring for Infant Baptism from hence is this Those to whom the promise doth belong to them belongs Baptism but to those that repent and their children the promise belongs therefore to them and their children belongs Baptism Against this he hath a double Exception 1. By the promise there is not meant the Covenant of grace but the giving of the Spirit called the promise of the Father prophecied of by Joel 2.28 To which we answer That though in the fourth and seventeenth verse Whereis mention of the extraordinary gifts of the Spirit which refers to Joels Prophecy yet the promise in the eight and thirtieth verse is of another nature and not meant of those extraordinary Gifts for 1. Because it is such a promise as is still a fulfilling and shall be throughout all the times of the New Testament paralled to that Isa 44.3 I will pour out my Spirit on thy Seed and my blessing on thy Off-spring It is such a promise as appertains to Parents and to their children and all that shall be called to the end of the world whereas the promise of extraordinary Gifts was but pro tempore for a certain time and relating to that season 2. It cannot be understood of extraordinary Gifts because Peters hearers had no such Gifts nor had the Jews or Gentiles who were afar off and afterward called such miraculous Gifts and as Mr. Stephens notes if the promise to you and to your children be meant of extraordinary Gifts how will the parts of the Text agree with each other The Apostle exhorts them be baptized every one of you in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ for the remission of sins and then gives this reason For the promise is to you and to your children If therefore the promise be meant of extraordinary Gifts then the command be baptized every one of you will stand in immediate relation to such a promise And so the matter will come to this Issue that all that are baptized and particularly they that renounce their old to take up a new Baptism they will have a promise made to them and to their children to speak with diverse kinds of languages Which promise I never understood-was made good amongst them for few of them have any more than their Mother Tongue On the other side if the promise be taken for the promise of Christ and for remission of sin by his blood in this case it will be easie to shew the connexion of the words for what can be more aptly spoken than this Be baptized every one of you in the name of the Lord Jesus for the remission of your particular sin for the promise of the pardon of sin by the blood of Christ doth belong to you and to your children 3. The promise here mentioned was to give hope to those poor creatures and to prevent the despair which they were ready to fall into upon conviction that they had crucified the Lord of Life and what comfort could this bring to their wounded consciences to tell them they should have the miraculous gifts of tongues 2. 'T is farther objected by children are no other meant than the posterity of the Jews To which we reply with Mr. Sydenham 1. The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies off-sping though never so young Joh. 16.21 Luk. 1.31 Mat. 1.26 Luk. 1.57 2. 'T is an indefinite word therefore must not be restrained to grown children except God had exprest it in a peculiar phrase 3. It must be understood of their Infants because he useth the phrase of speech to these Jews which they had been trained up in from their fathers I 'll be the God of thee and thy Seed and the Jews must needs understand him speaking in this Dialect of their children included in the promise 4. Why should the Apostle name children if he had not meant Infant Seed otherwise it had been sufficient to have said the promise is to you and as many as the Lord shall call but therefore names children because it had relation to the Covenant It is true what the Author saith concerning Dr. Hamond that he conceives children to be there really the posterity of the Jews and not particularly their Infant children but that is but one Doctors
c. A third Scripture is that Act. 8.36.38 And they went both down into the Water both Philip and the Eunuch and he Baptized him and when they came up both out of the Water c. Answer I see not how this Text can serve their turn for there is nothing in it to prove that Philip plunged him over head ears if they will prove it from any thing it must be from their going down into the Water or coming up out of it but that will not do for I may go down into the Water and come up again out of it and yet not be up to my Ankles and how can it be proved hence they went any farther or whether Philip did not flash water into his Face or cast it over his Head or whether he dipt only his Head or his whole Body under water the Scripture is silent as to this and Men may conjecture what they please but must not impose upon others The Text faith they both went down into the Water but their going down into water was no part of the Baptism for then they had both been Baptized for they went both together down into the water but it is said that Philip Baptized him after they went down into the water That the Eunuch was Baptized is clear but after what manner we are yet to seek We cannot from hence learn the management of this business whether Philip took up this great corpulent Person for such Eunuchs use to be quite out of the water by the strength of his Arms and so Dipped down again or no or whether so much of him only as was above the water was Dipt that of him under the water left alone And besides as for this Eunuch if his whole body were Dipt whether it were in puris naturalibus altogether naked or in his wearing cloaths this latter cannot be conceived for they went presently up in the Chariot nor could he have any conveniency of shift for such a purpose for their meeting was accidental as to the Eunuch's part so that we conclude nothing for plunging the whole body under water can be pretended to from this Text. The last Scripture the Author mentions is tha Rom. 6.4 Buried with him in Baptism c. This is a Metaphorical expression signifying partaking of Christ's Death by vertue of Union but Plunging the whole body doth not hold similitude neither with Christ's burial nor the manner of burials in the most part of the World for as Mr. Sydenham notes Christ's burial and the manner of it was not by throwing under the Earth for his Body was wrapt up in a linnen-cloth by Joseph and laid in a Tomb or Sepulchre hewen out of a Rock and this was the custom of the Jews Matt. 27.60 to cut out a place like a Cave out of a Rock to lay their dead Bodies in and besides Christ is said to stay three days so buried and so must they under the water if they are for an exact resemblance to his Burial but of this we may have occasion to speak more in our Answer to the 6th Chapter After this the Author brings divers Learned Authors who affirm that the ancient way of Baptizing was by Dipping as Cajetan c. And amongst the rest he hath a passage out of Mr. Fox his Acts and Monuments who takes it out of Fabian viz. That Austin and Paulinus did in the 7th Century Baptize here in England great multitudes in the River Trent and the River Swall where note by the way saith Mr. Fox it followed there was no use of Fonts To this I Answer there could not well be any use of Fonts because as Bede says it was in initio Ecclesiae ubi jam cito templa non potuerunt extrui it was before Temples were built and therefore saith he passim ad Flumina turba Baptizata est Beda Lib. 2. Angl. Hist cap. 14. And I shall mind the Reader with a pretty Observation of Mr. Fuller upon this occasion we have it in his Church-History p. 66. That saith he which they bring for Dipping because they were Baptized in the River Swall makes against it For Cambden in his Preface of Britain pag. 136. cites a certain Author who reports how in the River Swall near Richmond in York-shire Austin in one day Baptized above ten-thousand Saxons Though Bede ascribes this numerous Baptizing to Paulinus Arch-Bishop of York Now faith he if so many were Baptized it may be well urged against the Anabaptists and Papists against the former that all these could not be dipt in a day and for the latter it appears that in that Age the Administration of the Sacrament was not loaded with those Superstitious Ceremonies as essential thereunto of Crossing Spittle Oyl Cream Salt c. Lastly the Author frames an Objection or two on our behalf which he undertakes to Answer thus Objection But the Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies if not to Sprinkle yet not only to Dip and overwhelm but also to Wash Mark 7.4 where there is mention of Washing of Hands Cups Pots Vessels which may be done without Dipping or Plunging under Water Answer That Baptism in a sence is Washing saith he I no ways doubt for you can not dip a thing without you wash it But may not Cups and Vessels be washed though not dipt True saith he they may though not from this Scripture the Word being 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for though all Dipping be Washing yet all Washing is not Dipping in a proper sense Well argued Sr. I perceive you are very ingenious and logical you are now at your termini convertibiles where shall we have you next No wonder that as some boast you convert many to your Judgment But by your leave I will lay a Rub in your way What think you of that place Luk. 3.16 I Baptize you with Water if by Baptism had been meant Dipping must it not have been said I Baptize you in Water Once more Act. 1.5 John Baptized with Water is not this a very improper speech if it be meant of dipping for 't is as much as to say John Dipt with Water The same may be said of Christ's coming after John whom he saith shall Baptize with the Spirit is this to be understood of Dipping or is it not rather of the pouring out of the Spirit which was promised If this will not satisfy I shall offer one Text more and that I think is beyond exception it is concerning Nebuchadnezzar Dan. 4.30 of whom it is said he did eat grass as the Oxen and his Body was wet with the dew of Heaven 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the Septuagint hath it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is here rendred Wet and that with the Dew of Heaven It is the second Aorist of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from whence comes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So now we have found that which the Author said he could never do namely that the word is simply taken for Washing by
pouring on Water or Sprinkling for if the Root signifies so then doth the Branch also And thus my Antagonist having shewn so much of his Acumen in the Greek he will also give us a tast of his skill in the Mystery of Huswifry I presume saith he you will account her but a Sâ—lut and give her no thanks for her pains that having unclean Hands Vessels or Cloaths to Wash doth only Sprinkle or pour a little Water upon them as though that would serve 'T is a commendable thing to be cleanly and let all Maids take special notice of this item and as they would not willingly incur the brand of Sluts let them be mindful of this that when ever they set about that necessary work of Washing Dishes to look well to their business and let them be sure they dip them quite under water or they will never be clean and I question whether this will do without some rinsing and rubbing for I have observed your cleanly Huswifes to fetch off the filth that way and then they will shine like Chrystal if afterward they scoure them with Sand. But we must be more ferious in a business of this nature and I hope to be excused being tempted thus 10 Answer our Author in his own kind I will leave that word of Mr. Baxter to the consideration of the Judicious viz. It would be but folly for any to think Men must needs fill themselves full of Bread and Wine because it best signifies the fulness of Christ so it is no better to say that we must needs be washed all over because it best signifies the fulness of Christ Christ told Peter that the Washing of his Feet was enough to cleanse all Eight Argument against the Administration of Baptism by Dipping 1. BEcause we are not to presume to do that which is not written that is that is not founded upon Scripture-precept either Thetice in so many express words or Dianoetice by clear consequence They will not allow us the priviledg of deducting Consequences from Scripture although never so clear yet they presume to make use of Consequences and think they can demonstrate that which is impossible to be done from Scripture There is a positive saying in Mr. Leigh's Critica Sacra upon the Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Christ nowhere requireth Dipping but only Baptizing and as for the manner and method how this should be done there is altum Silentium in the Scripture a deep silence and therefore 't is I very great boldness to say no worse for any to lay the whole essence of Baptism in Dipping 2. As there is no express Command for it so there is no President in the New-Testament they cannot instance in any one Person that ever was so severely dealt with as to be Plunged over Head and Ears Nor is there any convincing Circumstances to be collected thence that any was so served And is it not strange that upon search of all the Sacred Register from the time that John the Baptist began his Ministery to the time that John the Evangelist ended his which was above sixty years during which time thousands and ten thousands were Baptized that if Plunging over head and ears had been the way then no error ever should be committed no fainting or drowning of persons under water or some accident or another happen to demonstrate that Baptizing was after that manner Me thinks there should fall out something either of Omission or Commission that might argue the thing But we have not so much as one Circumstance of that nature 3. Because as the Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies both to Plunge and to Wash so it is mostly used in Scripture for Washing It is a good Rule to be observed that when we find a word in Scripture of a double sence and it hangs as it were in Equilibrio so that we know not which to take our safest course is then to observe which way the Scale doth most incline that is we are to imbrace that sence which is most common in Scripture But in the matter before us I think we need not be much at a loss for we shall not easily find any explicite place in all the Bible where the Word Baptize is used positively for Plunging 4. Let it be granted that in Scripture the word can be found to signify Dipping yet for asmuch as it is also in Scripture used simply for Washing we are also to observe and follow another Theological Rule that where a word is of doubtful interpretation admitting a double sense that sense is to be taken for right which agrees best with the Mind of God in other places and the general Anatogy of Faith and Evangelical Doctrine Hence then we conclude that Baptizing is not Dipping because this Practice runs directly cross to a Vital Maxime of Religion which is self-preservation required not only in the Moral-Law but Charactered in us by Nature and under the Evangelical Dispensation we find our Lord Jesus so tender of Man's health and life that rather than it should be endangered even the Sabbath it self must be dispensed with and the Reason Christ gives is because Man was not made for the Sabbath but the Sabbath for Man so may it be said Man was not made for Baptism but Baptism Instituted for Man for his good not hurt and therefore Dipping which we know hath not been only to the damage of some Mens health but the loss of some lives is to be suspected to be none of Christ's Ordinances And for this Reason Mr Cradock a great Independent as they call them in his Treatise of Gospel-Liberty saith the Practice is to be restrained by the Magistrate for the preservation of the lives of his Subjects Let us a little dive into this Dipping-Principle and we shall see how inconsistent it may in some cases be to the Life of Man 1. We know the Command of Baptizing takes place immediatly upon Believing for this is certain every one that Believeth ought presently to be Baptized if he can have it for so it was without delay as appears by several Instances in the Acts of the Apostles If then only Dipping be Baptizing what shall become of them that are weak and sickly that have Catarrhs Consumptions Palsies These if they Believe although it be in Winter in frost and snow must to the work without any delay they must I say be covered all over with water and if so may not this hasten their end which may endanger the lives of the soundest Bodies Is this think you suitable to the mercy tender Bowels of Christ whose Yoke is easy and Burden light Certainly such a penance as this to some Persons and to those that live in extream cold Countries is more unsupportable than the burthen of the Ceremonial-Law and more dangerous than what ever the Ceremonial Law requited And what though our bodies may endure it better than theirs who live under a more severe Climat yet we must know Christ's
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
are given not for Conversion but Confirmation of Grace are meer Nullities or that the Baptism Administred by them is to be reiterated Take an instance in the Circumcision of the 10 Tribes after Jeroboam's Apostacy and the casting out of the Priests and Levites 2 Chron. 11.14 15. It was generally Administred by wicked Priests and Men that had no regular call thereunto when the Priests and Levites were cast out of Office in the 10 Tribes Jeroboams Priests came in their room which were as ignorant and unskilful to expound the Law as those ye call Dumb-Dogs 1 Kings 13.33 2 Cor. 15.3 2. We must put a difference betwixt the Essentials of an Ordinance and some Circumstantial Additions and Corruptions if there be a Corruption in the Essenee or substance of the Ordinance as for Instance if Persons be not Baptized in the Name of God the Father Son and Holy-Ghost but into the Name of a Creature then such Baptism is void and null and the party ought to be Baptized again But if there be a Corruption only in the External Administration of the Ordinance though every Christian should labour to avoid such Corruption and if he hath been intangled therewith humble himself deeply before God for it yet such Baptism is valid for the substance of it and should not be reiterated At this day the Protestant Reformed Churches do hold it unwarrantable to Rebaptize those Persons who were Baptized in the Church of Rome which being administred in the Name of the Father Son and Holy-Ghost is held for true Baptism for the substance of it The other is Mr. Bartlet in his Model of the Congregational way pag. 70. Those Christians saith he which of late days calling into question the Truth and Lawfulness of their Baptism have fallen upon the Practice of Rebaptizing and taking up the Ordinance of Baptism de novo are utterly void and altogether to seek of a true and just ground from the Scripture for their Practice herein and so this latter Baptism of theirs will be found as unlawful because unlawfully Administred For if the Administration of the Seals be now tyed to ordinary Officers and those to a particular Church since the Apostles times that give them their lawful and right Call to Administer the Ordinances then it will follow that there is no Lawful Baptism but by him that is an Officer of some particular Church and he that is an Officer of some particular Church must have a Lawful Calling from the Church to which he is an Officer for all extraordinary Officers that had their Call and Commission immediately from Heaven are ceased Now those that Rebaptize cannot prove the taking up of that Ordinance again after this manner but are enforced to hold that a Disciple in Common that by the exercise of his gifts doth convert a Sinner from the evil of his ways may also Baptize him which Doctrine Mr. Hooker calls a Frenzy of the Anabaptists Mr. Hooker of new-England in his Survey of Church-Discipline C. 2. part 3. p. 9. which begins to labour with the loathsomness of itself For if that were true what need of Christ's Ordaining Officers in his Church for these purposes or why may not a Godly Woman by her good exhortations and chast conversation Converting her Husband Baptize him CHAP. VI. Wherein the Author endeavours to shew the Nullity and utter insignificancy of Infant-Baptism THus he proceeds That it is no-way safe for any to rest contented with that Baptism which they received in their Infancy may appear because such their Baptism is a meer Nullity How doth he make this out Why thus Because saith he as the right matter so the true Form is wanting for the External Form as before is shewed is not Sprinkling or pouring a little Water upon the Head or Face but a Dipping the whole Person under Water and raising him up again to figure out Death Burial and Resurrection as before if then Matter and Form be wanting which is so essential to its Being it must needs be a Nullity Although enough hath been said already to confute this in the 6th Chap. of the first Part of our Book to prove Infants of Believers fit Matter for the Church and consequently Subjects of Baptism besides what hath been said in the 4th Chap. Part 2. concerning the Ceremony of Baptism yet being willing to give the Author full measure pressed down and running over We shall say something more to evince the weakness of his Assertion in this Chapter First 't is observable that he who hath undertaken to write a Treatise of Baptism mark well should mistake both the Matter and Form of it for certainly he is out in both 1. First for the Matter of Baptism all Divines hold it is Water meer pure Water without mixture Take the Judgment of two very eminent Divines The first is the Learned Zanchy Tom. 1. Lib. 1. pag. 404. Materia Externa Baptismi est Aqua Interna Sanguis Spiritus Christi The External Matter of Baptism is Water the Internal the Blood and Spirit of Christ The other is Bucan Professor of Divinity in Academia Lausanensi He in his Theological Institutions or Common places answereth several Questions concerning Baptism this is the 18th Quae est Materia Baptismi What is the Matter of Baptism To which he gives this answer it is two-fold Externa Interna External and Internal the External is Aqua pura munda naturalis sine discrimine simplex vulgaris non prius peculiaribus Consecrata non mixta non Oleum c. That is it is pure clean simple common Water without mixture of Oyl Spittle and such kind of things as the Papists add to it de Baptismo locus 47. p. 616. The Materia Interna the Internal Matter of Baptism is Sanguis Spiritus Jesu Christi the Blood Spirit of Jesus Christ de Bapt. loc 47. Quest 22. 2. For the Form of Baptism they agree in this that it is those Words of Institution I Baptize thee in the Name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost So saith Zanchy in the aforementioned place and he brings the Words of the Apostle for both Matter and Form Ephes 5.26 That he might Sanctify and cleanse it by the Washing of Water through the Word citing that famous speech of Austin Accedit verbum ad Elementum fit Sacramentum The word joyned to the Element i.e. the Word of Institution makes the Sacrament So Bucan Quest 22. Quae est igitur forma Baptismi scil Externa what is therefore the External Form of Baptism Ans The rehearsing the words of Institution by a Minister of the Word of God viz. I Baptize thee in the Name of the Father c. which he cals aspersio aquae and then Internâ— Baptismi Forma est Interna illa actio quae Jesu Christi ipsius per Spiritum Sanctum agentis propria est The Internal Form is that Internal action of Christ working by his Spirit c.
the H. Ghost hath no intent ☜ to bind and determine our Practice to this or that for seeing the word he useth is indifferent for both he would have left us some light either from precept or example which way he would have Sacramental This Assumption is confirm'd by this that no-where is it expressed that it was done by Dipping yea in some it is more than probable that it was not viz. Act. 2.41 there being in one day 3000 Baptized which might well be done by Sprinkling but not by Dipping So Act. 10.47 there be many Baptized at a time and place when there could not be accommodation of water and other conveniences for total Dipping Yea Peters phrase can any Man forbid Water imports a bringing in of Water to the place for the use which might well be done for Sprinkling but not for Dipping Also Act. 16.33 There is a Man all his Family straight-way Baptized in a Prison and in the night at which time and place Water for Dipping so many could not be had but easily for Sprinkling CHAP. VII Wherein there is a pretence to some eminent Witness that hath been born against Infant-Baptism from first to last THe first that we shall mention saith the Author is that Excellent Testimony Tertullian bore against it upon the first appearance of it in the 3d Century Reply 1. It is acknowledged that Tertullian who was the first Writer of note in the Latin Church hath divers passages seemingly against Infant-Baptism but yet withal it must be considered that his Testimony such as it is is but the Testimony of one single Dr. in opposition to the general custom of the Church and even from this instance we may learn the great Antiquity of Infant-Baptism that it hath been in use above 15 hundred years as it appears upon record for Tertullian according to Helvicus wrote his Book of Prescriptions about the year 195. which was about 97 years after St. John's Death and 't is probable Mr. Baxter of Infant-Baptism when he wrote his Book he had arrived to the years of thirty or fourty so that according to this calculation he lived about sixty or seventy years after St. John and yet as early days as these were Children were then Baptized for else why should Tertullian be so earnest in disswading them not to be over-hasty in the doing it Cunctatio utilior praecipue circa parvulos he would have them defer the Baptizing of Infants aswel as those of riper years which shews that it was then the custom of the Church to Baptize Children aswell as grown Persons Reply 2. Whereas the Author saith Tertullian lived in the 3d Century Irenaeus contra Haeretic Lib. 2. c. 39. this is true but that the first appearance of Infant-Baptism was in this Age is certainly false for Irenaeus who lived in the second Century makes mention of it Reply 3. Tertullian's Testimony in this case is so far from being excellent that it is contemptible and not to be regarded as may appear by two Reasons First Because he was very corrupt and unsound in his judgment P. Martyr loc com Clas 4. Loc. 8. Sect. 5. It is observed by Peter Martyr in his Common places that when Tertullian wrote his book de Baptismo he was fallen from the Church and from the Orthodox-Faith into the foul error of Montanism Had he been sound in the Faith in all other points it had not been enough to scruple any one touching the point of Infant-Baptism because of his dissent because he only was the man we read of that seems to be against it how much less is this authority to be valued when so corrupt that Jerom counted him little less than a Heretick The Magdeburg Divines whom the Author makes so much use of give us a Catalogue of his Naevi or errors As 1. That he did Deo corpulentiam tribuere ascribe unto God Grosseness or Fleshiness 2. That he did speak concerning Christ incommode periculose unsafely and dangerously 3. That he condemned second marriages ut stupra as Whoredoms 4. That he brought in and augmented many filthy Ceremonies in the Church which he borrowed from the Montanists as anointing the body after Baptism c. 5. And lastly though they mention many other gross errors he affirms in his Book de Baptismo that it is the peculiar prerogative of the Bishop to Baptize Dandi Baptismum jus habet summus sacerdos qui est Episcopus and none must do it but by his leave Presbyters and Deacons he allows to Baptize but not without his Authority and in case of extremity that is when one is like to dye and in the want of a Minister it may be lawful for a layman to Baptize not excepting Women provided they did it privately and not in the Church by which passage it is more than probable he was for Baptizing Infants rather than that they should dye without it now let any indifferent Reader judge what a precious witness the Author hath singled out to lead the Van against Infant-Baptism A second Reason why Tertullian's Testimony deserves not to be stiled excellent is this because his arguments are so poor and weak that they will sooner administer occasion of laughter than conviction I acknowledg the Author hath drest them up very handsomly and shewed so much artifice herein leaving out somethings that are most gross that some who have weak heads and no very charitable thoughts towards the way of infant-Infant-Baptism will think Tertullian and he were of one mind both against it and that on very good grounds 1. Because saith the Author out of Tertullian The practice of Baptizing Children was built upon the mistake of that Scripture Matt. 19.14 Suffer little Children to come unto me and forbid them not c. It is true saith Tertullian the Lord saith do not forbid them to come unto me let them come when they grow elder when they learn when they are taught why they come c. upon which the Magdeburgenses have this sentence seutit Tertullianus Mira opinione Cap. 3. Cap. 4. c. Tertullian was of a strange opinion then they repeate those weak passages before mentioned As before intimated in Chap. 7. according to which Dotage the Disciples did wisely in forbidding Children to come and Christ did weakely in rebuking them for it inviting them to come Let them come saith Christ though 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 little Children the wise men found 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the young-Child or Infant with Mary 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to Luke the exactest Historian new-born Babes or sucking Children that are carried in Arms and such wore those whom Christ invites to come unto him brought in all likelyhood by their Parents that did believe or made some profession of their Faith as appears by this because they brought their Children for a Spiritual end to receive some special favour or blessing from Christ and for this Christ would have them come
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
he farther adds therefore though Godly men or Infants have been Baptized yet the Churches think according to Scripture there must be somewhat more expressed to make such to own this or that Preaching Officer to be their Pastor or Teacher Whom they must obey in the Lord and have in singular respect for the works sake Heb. 13. And to cause the Minister to own them as his Flock Acts 20. if he mean not to take upon him a power Apostolical for Latitude to extend to all Baptized one Doctor Homes's answer to Master Tombes So page 193. The same Author saith several Churches of us do hold that we may Baptize them the Infants of the Godly though neither of their Parents be of our particular Churches Baptism being but as we conceive an Admission into the Universal visible Church We shall add for a conclusion That as Baptism is no actual admission into the Communion of a particular Church as before appears in the examples of the Eunuch Cornelius c. who were Baptized without any relation to a particular Church 2. It is into Christ and so into the priviledges of the Body of Christ in general No mention being made in Baptism of any restraint to this or that particular Church 3. One act of Communion in the Lords Supper doth not state a person admitted as a Member of that particular Church no more doth Baptism which is but one act of Communion 4. By Baptism a person being exhibited a Member of Christ and of the Church in general and so consequently to all the priviledges of Christ whereof Church-Communion is one it follows that when a Child is Baptized he is thereby acknowledged or declared to have a right to Church Communion in particular that is in breaking bread with a particular Church when he becomes capable thereof For Omne Vniversale continet particulare Every general includes all the particulars Nor can any particular Church deny it when such a one actually desires admittance into her and undertakes to walk in it in performance of all duties as a Member thereof provided he be free from scandal and visible crimes committed since his Baptism to the time of his desired admittance for whatsoever may be just ground to cast out of Church-Fellowship and Communion is also sufficient to keep him out that was never in CHAP. VII The Authors Quotations out of the Magdeburgensian History corrected and rectified wherein is farther shewn his Praevarication in relating some things partially others falsly and for the most part contrary to the intention of the Writers HE begins thus The Magdeburgenses in their Excellent History do tell us that as to the Business of Baptism in the first Century they find only the Adult or Aged whether Jews or Gentiles that were Baptized and give instances in the 2d 8th 10th 16th 19th Chapters of the Acts and have no Examples of Infants being Baptized Cent. 1 Lib. 2. Pag. 496. 1 first In examining this Century Vt Christus Infantes ad se venâ—re jussit ita nec Apostoli eos excluserunt a Baptismo quidem dum Baptismus circumcisioni aequiparat Paulus Colos 2. aperte indicat etiam Infantes per Baptismum Ecclesiae Dei esse inserendos sicut in veteri Testamento Infantes circumcidi oportebat ut in Dei faedere essent Cent. 1 L. 2. C. 4. P. 354. Baptizatos esse aedultos tum Judaeos tum Gentes Exemplae probant Infantibus Baptizatis Exempla quidem annotata non leguntur sed Origenes Cyprianus alii Patres autores sunt Apostolorum etiam tempore Infantes Baptizatos esse Cen. 1. L. 2. C. 9. P. 496. I find Lib. 2. Chap. 4. Pag. 354. that touching Baptism they say that as Christ commanded Infants to come unto him so the Apostles afterward did not exclude them from Baptism and truly since Baptism is compared by Paul to Circumcision Col. 2. it plainly shews that Infants are to be admitted to the Church by Baptism as in the Old Testament they were by Circumcision 2 In Century the first Lib. 2. Cap. 6. Pag. 496. which is the place the Author refers unto they do not say that the Apostles Baptized only the Adult or Aged but only this We have Examples of Adult persons both Jews and Gentiles that were Baptized-Farther they say concerning Infants we have no particular notice given us or Examples that they were Baptized yet presently add that Origen and Cyprian and others of the Fathers that lived near the Apostles do affirm that even in the Apostles times Infants were Baptized But let it be supposed that they did not Baptize any Infant yet it follows not that it is unlawful for us to Baptize them because they did not for as Dr. Taylor says whom the Author so much admires a Negative Argument as to matter of fact cannot conclude and therefore supposing that it be not intimated that the Apostles did Baptize Infants it follows not that they might not or that the Church may not The words and deeds of Christ are infinite and the Acts of the Apostles we may suppose the same in their proportion And therefore what they did not is no rule to us unless they did it not because they were forbidden 3. Moreover the Magdeburgenses speaking of the subject of Baptism answer an Objection which might be made against Infant-Baptism Cent. 1. Lib. 1. Cap. 4. Pag. 154. Whereas it is said they were Baptized in Jordan confessing their Sins Mat. 3. and Iohn Preached the Baptism of Repentance Mark 1. and Luk. 3. therefore only they that repent are to be Baptized which is the sum of all our adversaries can say To this Objection they thus reply such Confession was necessary from those Adult Persons being as before the first Subjects of the Ordinances And then they come to state the Question An sint Infantes quoque Baptizandi are Infants also to be Baptized Which they hold affirmatively giving several Arguments for it one of which is grounded upon Matt. 19 viz. They to whom the Promise of the Kingdom of Heaven doth belong to them belongs the Ceremony or Seal of the Promise And then they roundly tell us that although the Apostles before they were rectius edocti better learned would have kept Infants from Christs Benediction yet being so severely rebuked by Christ and guided or directed by his Spirit they did say they sine dubio without all doubt Baptize them informing us again that the Fathers who lived near to the Apostles do witness that the Practice of Infant-Baptism was derived from the Apostles and transmitted to Posterity Cent 1. Lib. 1. Cap. 4. Pag. 153. 4. The Author fathers that upon the Century-Writers which they speak not They saith he tell us that the Custom of Dipping the whole Body in Water was changed into Sprinkling a little Water in the face whereas there is not the least hint of this matter in this Century nor the following but they tell us that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉