Cardinal of Ragusi It is asserted that in the beginning of this Sacrament of Baptism they only were to be Baptized who could by themselves answer Interrogatories concerning their Faith and that it was no-where read in the Canon of Scripture that a new-born Infant was Baptized who could neither believe with the heart to Justification nor confess with the mouth to Salvation yet nevertheless saith he the Church hath appointed it H. D. Whereas some Object that Bellarmine and others do also bring Scripture for it Becan Lib. 1. c. 2. Sec. 24. answers that some things may be proved out of Scripture when the Church's sence is first heard about the Interpretation thereof for so he saith it is concerning Infants-Baptism which is proved from John 3.5 But the sense whereby to prove it is only manifest by Tradition H. D. and it is confirmed in the Canon-Law and School-Men that Infant-Baptism was not reckoned perfect till the Bishop laid on hands which was called Confirmation viz. of the imperfect Baptism in Infancy and therefore saith Caistans secundum Jewel that an Infant wanting instruction in the Faith hath not perfect Baptism H. D. Dr. Field Lib. 4. p. 375. saith That Infant-Baptism is therefore called a Tradition because it is not expresly delivered in the Scriptures that the Apostles did Baptize Infants or that they should do so Here the Author stops and goes no farther being afraid of the next lines H. D. Prideaux controv Theol. Sec. 392. Infant-Baptism saith he rests upon no other Divine right than Episcopacy viz Diocesan Episcopacy in use in these Nations Here he adds as before he substracted from what Mr. Tombes said out of Field I. T. i.e. John Tombes In the Council of Bazil in the Oration of the Cardinal of Ragusi it is asserted Item nusquam legitur in Canone Scripturae S. quod parvulus recenter Baptizatus qui nec corde credit ad justitiam nec ore confitetur adsalutem inter fideles credentes computetur nibilominus Ecclesia ita determinavit statuit c. And in principio hujus Sacramenti Baptizabantur solum illi qui per se sciebant fidem interroganti respondere I. T. And whereas it is Objected that Bellarmine and others do bring Scripture for it Becan Manual Lib. 1. C. 3. Sec. 24. answers aliqua possunt probari ex Scriptura quando constat de vero legitimo Scripturae sensu So he saith it is concerning Infant-Baptism which is proved from John 3.5 but that the sense whereby to prove it is only manifest by Tradition I. T. Which is confirmed in the Canon-Law and School-Men an Infants-Baptism was not reckoned perfect till the Bishop layd on hands which act was called Confirmation viz. of the imperfect Baptism in Infancy Jewel alledgeth it as Caistans Tenent that an Infant for that he wanteth instruction in Faith therefore hath not perfect Baptism I. T. Dr. Field of the Church 4th Book Chap. 20. of this sort is Infant-Baptism which is therefore called a Tradition because it is not expresly delivered in Scripture that the Apostles did Baptize Infants nor any express Precept that they should do so Tombes is so ingenious as to set down the rest yet is not this so received by bare and naked Tradition but that we find the Scripture to deliver unto us the grounds of it I. T. Dr ' Prideaux Fasci Controv. Theol. Loc. 4. Sec. 3. q. 2. Paedobaptism rests on no other Divine right than Episcopaey Now to all this we have said enough before as to the Substance of it and I love not needless repetitions only let me mind you with this That though Papists and others attribute too much to the custom of the Church or Tradition yet all sound Protestants when they use that word they do it in Sensu sano quite different from the corrupt sense of the Romish Church And because the Author saith Dr. Taylor doth so fully and strenuously argue against us in his Lib. Proph. p. 237 viz. Tradition saith he must by all means supply the place of Scripture and there is pretended a Tradition Apostolical That Infants were Baptized I think it not amiss to bring in Dr. Hammond to cope with him in his Letter of Resolution Quaere 4th of the Baptizing of Infants Sec. 104. pag. 277. where having before spoken of what sort of Traditions have been rejected by the Reformed Churches he then adds Having no necessity to descend to any more minute Considerations the whole matter will be resolved into this one Enquiry whether the Baptizing of Infants doth sufficiently appear to be of the Institution of Christ or Practice Apostolical And if it do we have all that we pretend to upon the score of Tradition and if it do not we are obliged to disclaim that means of maintaining our plea or inferring our conclusion And because the way of satisfying this enquiry is but the saying over again all that hath been formerly said on this subject this whole Discourse having laid the weight of all upon this one Basis the Institution of Christ and Practice of the Apostles it will be unreasonable to do this any farther save only upon a brief Recapitulation to refer it to the judgment of any sober Christian Whether first by Christs founding of the Institution of this Sacrament in the Jewish Custom of Baptizing of Proselytes Baptism in use in the Jewish Church and applyed to Infants aswel as grown men The Learned Mr. Selden Light-foot speak the same which appears to have belonged to the Infant Children of the Proselytes as is before shewn out of Goodwin Ainsworth others Chap. 1. and Secondly by his being so far from excepting against the Age of Children as a Prejudice or hinderance to their coming to him that is to their Proselytism that he affirms them to be the pattern of those Though Children are brought to him by others yet they are sayd to come unto him in Mark 10.14 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the very words of which Proselyte is made of whom his Kingdom is to be made up and though he be not affirmed in the Gospel to Baptize such for he Baptized not at all Mark 10.16 Which being the Ceremony usual in the Church for those that were fitted for Baptism and distinctly Preparative to it they that were by Christ afforded that cannot be thought by him less capable of Baptism than of that And Thirdly by the express Words of the Apostle that their Children are Holy interpreted by the Context so as to infer from the Apostles way of Arguing that it was the Custom of those Apostolick times to Baptize the Children of the Christian Parents and so interpreted by the Christian Writers of the First and Purest Ages And Fourthly by the Testimonies of all the Ancients that are found to speak of this matter without any one pretended to dissent that this was the Practice of the Apostles Whether I say these four things being put together the truth of each of
sufficient so that in this long train of Authors which our Antagonist quotes he doth but magno conatu nugas agere take a great deal of pains in trifling But that which he cites from Mr. Daniel Rogers seems to have more weight who in his Treatise about Baptism Part 29. Confesseth himself to be unconvinced by demonstration of Scripture for it This is taken from Mr. Tombe's Examen Tombes Examen p. 2. pag. 2. To which I answer one man may be fully convinced by Scripture-demonstration when another is not but 't is fit the Reader should know all that Mr. Rogers saith there upon the point for it is unhandsome to bring in scraps out of Authors He tells us he no less doubts of the warrantableness of Infant-Baptism than he doth of the Creed saying that sundry learned men have undertaken to stop their Schismatical mouths that oppose it and to answer their peevish Arguments and though he saith his scope tends another way yet gives his reasons for it 1. Because Circumcision was applyed to the Infants on the 8th day in the Old-Testament 2. There is no word in the New-Testament to infringe the liberty of the Church in it nor special reason why we should bereave her of it 3. Sundry Scriptures afford friendly proofs by Consequence 4. The holiness of the Child External and Visible is from their Parents therefore the seed being holy and belonging to the Govenant the Lord graciously admits them to the Seal of it by Baptism Farther he brings a passage out of Mr. Baxters plain Scripture-proof for Infants Church-membership and Baptism Where he confesseth pag. 3. That Infant-Baptism is not plainly determined in Scripture Hear what he saith Reader and then judge what he gains from Mr. Baxter all that he saith is as follows viz. The Scripture speaks fully of those particular controversies that were on foot in those times but more sparingly of those not then questioned and then names divers questions which the Scripture fully and plainly determines But saith he many others as difficult which then were no Controversies have no such determination and yet mark it the Scripture is sufficient to direct for the determination of these too if we have wisdom to discern the Scope of the Spirit to apply general rules to particular cases Such is the Case of Infant-Baptism Afterward in the 9th page we have this The grounds saith he upon which Infants are Baptized are very easy and plain though to many it be difficult to discern how it is from those grounds inferred and therefore though some few learned and Godly and humble Men do doubt of it yet in the whole known Christian part of the World there is but few After this we have something brought out of Dr. Taylor 's Lib. of Proph p. 239. concerning Previous dispositions that are requisite to Baptism of which Infants are not capable But to prevent transcribing I refer the Reader to his latter Piece of the Consideration of the Practice of the Church in Baptizing Infants where he himself confutes what he had said in his Liberty of Proph. you have it pag. 25 26. Here also we have a parcel of Authors introduced who do all are rolundo express fully their judgments That nothing must be done in Gods Worship without Scripture-Warrant Mr. Ball is one of them whose saying our Antagonist fetcheth out of Mr. Tombes Exerc. pag. 9. M. Tombes Exercit pag. 9. so it is also in his Exam p. 2. Tombes Examen p. 2. joyned to that of Mr. Rogers before-mentioned Mr. Balls words are We must look to the Institution and neither stretch it wider nor draw it narrower than the Lord hath made it For he is the Institutor of the Sacraments according to his own good pleasure and it is our part to learn of him both to whom how and for what end the Sacraments are to be administred c. But why doth he not set down all that Mr. Ball hath in that place Circumcision and Baptism saith he are both Sacraments of Divine Institution and so they agree in the substance of the thign signified the persons to whom they are to be administred and the order of Administration if the right proportion be observed as Circumcision sealed the entrance into Covenant the Righteousness of Faith and Circumcision of the heart so doth Baptism much more clearly As Abraham and his Houshold and the Infants of Believing-Jews were to be Circumcised so the Faithful their Families and their Seed are to be Baptized At last he thinks to rout us quite with a saying of Bellarmin's whose very name gives us an Allarm and sounds Bellum Arma War Arms. The Anabaptists saith Bellarmine call for plain Scripture-proof for the Baptizing of Infants and their Argument from defect of Command or Example have great force against the Lutherans foras much as they use that Principle every where viz. That the Rite which is not in Scripture having no Command or Example there is to be rejected Yet it is of no force against Catholicks who conclude that Apostolical Tradition is of no less Authority with us than the Scripture but that this of Baptizing Infants is an Apostolical Tradition c. To which I Reply that the Author might well have omitted this of Bellarmin since it is but acunning insinuation of that Jesuitical Sophister to set Protestants at greater distances amongst themselves to advance the esteem of their adored Tradition And yet he himself speaking elsewhere of Infant-Baptism saith satis aperte ex Scripturis colligitur c. Infant-Baptism is plainly enough gathered out of Scripture CHAP. II. The Historical Account which the Author gives of Iafant-Brptism in its Rise and Establishment Examined and Condemned In this Chapter he presents us with the History of Infant-Baptism and tells strange news if you will credit him of its Original since the Apostle's days Thus he begins 1. From the learned Authorities before given we have gained thus much that as there was no Precept in Scripture for the Baptizing of Infants so neither was there the least Practice to be found thereof in the Apostles days as was so ingeniously before Confessed by the Magdeburgenses Luther Calvin Erasmus Rogers 1. BUt we have made it appear Sr. that you reckon your gains too fast and have much erred in casting up the Sum as the Reader may find in the preceding Chapter I question not if he be impartial he will conclude you have not gained a farthing but are rather a loser hitherto For among all those Learned Authorities before given there is no passage although never so much strained that saith any more than this There is no Express precept in Scripture for the Baptizing of Infants and this every Child knows but in saying there is no Express one they intimate thereby there is an Implicite one I love not to repeat the Reader may if he please reflect upon what they say And in asmuch as the point relates to matter of Fact
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-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
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
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
their hurt Therefore he hath not at all repealed it The sufficiency of the enumeration in the major Proposition even Mr. Tombs himself could not deny in that famous dispute at Kederminster for it must needs be for the good or hurt of Infants that they are put out and so must needs be in mercy or justice for God maketh not such great alterations in his Church and Laws to no end and of no moment but in meer indifferency The minor Mr. Baxter proves in both parts 1. That God hath not repealed this to their hurt in justice for if God never revoke his Mercies nor repeal his Ordinances in justice to the parties hurt till they first break Covenant with him and so procure it by their own desert then he hath not in justice revoked his mercy to the hurt of those that never broke Covenant with him But it is certain God never revoketh a mercy in justice to the hurt of any that never broke Covenant with him Therefore to such he hath not revoked it 1. That Church-Membership is a mercy and of the Covenant is plain Deut. 29.10 11 12. 2. That God doth not in justice revoke such to any but Covenant-breakers may be proved 1. From the merciful nature and constant dealing of God who never casteth off those that cast not off him 2. From his truth and faithfulness for else we should make God the Covenant-breaker and not man which is horrid blasphemy 3. His Immutability and Constancy his gifts and calling being without repentance Now this is also certain that many Jews did believe and not forsake the Covenant of God even most of the Apostles themselves and many thousands more and how then can these or their Infants be put out of the Church in justice to their hurt who did not first break Covenant with God Mr. Tombs was hard put to it how to extricate himself from the difficulties of this Argument although a man of great Dexterity and a very Oedipus in the controversy yet it is said he was near to a nè plus ultrà but at length took Sanctuary in this Answer and mark it well Reader viz. That the Ordinance was in mercy repealed for their good To which Mr. Baxter gives a neat reply It can be no mercy to take away a mercy except it be to give a greater instead of it But here is no greater mercy given to Infants instead of Church-membership Therefore it can be no mercy to them that it is revoked Other Arguments besides this that are invincible may be drawn from that place Rom. 11.17 A Scripture which I perceive was too hot for the Authors fingers to meddle with and therefore he gives not one touch upon it throughout all this Treatise of Baptism whereas he knows very well that this is the principal Text that gives clear evidence that Children are yet Church-members with their parents and if they have a Church-relation they must not be denyed Baptism because the same thing which qualifies any persons for Church-membership qualifies them also for Baptism But to the Text before us There are three things which the words do plainly hold forth 1. That though the Collective body of the Jews or the generality of that people were broken off from the Church through unbelief yet all of them were not broken off for it is said If some of them were broken off not all of them for as was said before most of the Apostles and thousands of Jews believed 2. The Believing Gentiles are ingrafted in their place 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in amongst them so Grotius hath it positus es inter ramos illius arboris thou art set amongst the branches of the Tree referring to those words if some be broken off implying that some remained still and the believing Gentiles were inoculated amongst them or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to Beza and Piscator pro ipsis instead of them or in their place and room in ramorum defractorum locum into the place of the branches broken off 3. The Jews shall be restored again to the Church at the latter end of the world they shall be in statu quo priùs become the Church and people of God again as formerly but in a more glorious manner From all which issueth three unanswerable Arguments for the Church-membership of believers Infants still continued The first we have already insisted upon namely That the same Jewish children which were visibly of the Church immediately before their Parents became Christians at the first continued to be so after And the reason is because they were not under the dis-churching Cause of as many of the Jews as were discharged and that was unbelief of which they could not be guilty by any Act of their own More of this may be seen in a late Book called A Perswasive to Peace and Vnity among Christians Sold at the Three Pigeons in Cornhil or of their Parents as imputed to them Because of Vnbelief saith S. Paul they were broken off If it be said saith the Author of that ingenious and pious piece intituled A Perswasive to Peace and Vnity they were dis-church'd in the dissolution of the Jewish Church-State in general it is but an evasion which will not help them for the fore-cited Text is flatly against them For all that were not broken off by unbelief did continue unbroken off that is they still kept their place and standing in the Church of God And therefore to assign any other cause of dis-churching any than the Scripture hath assigned or at least any other without this here assigned and determined by the Apostle is too great presumption and such as will not satisfie an impartial mind and as Mr. Baxter enforceth the Argument very strongly They who kept their Station kept also their priviledges for themselves and their children if they were not broken off their children were not broken off for as the Infants came in with their Parents so they are not cast out whilst their Parents continue except when they are grown up they cast out themselves by their own personal unbelief It is not to be conceived that God should cast out the child that came in for his fathers sake while the Parents remain in the same Church 2. Those Jews who were broken off from the Church their children also being before Members were likewise broken off therefore it follows Believing Gentiles and their children are ingrafted in for the ingrafting must be proportionable to the breaking off they succeeding in the place of the former must enjoy the priviledge they lost 3. If after the fulness of the Gentiles be come in the Jews shall be grafted in again not with a diminution but addition to their glory and one part of their glory was that they and their seed were Gods visible Church then so shall it be with them when they are called This we have ver 26. All Israel shall be saved Which cannot be understood but from their broken off State
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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
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-Baptism under this Head That the Baptizing of Infants is no Ordinance of Jesus Christ CHAP. I. Containing his first Argument against Infant-Baptism because there is no Scripture for it which is in form as followeth If saith he 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-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-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
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
why then should it stand in force against Infants in their own persons not capable of contemning and whose Parents desire it but are prevented by necessity Alas poor infants that you free from contempt in your selves and your Parents also must yet away to Hell for bare want of Baptism and yet grown persons as Papists themselves acknowledge in the same want have access to Heaven so they be free from contempt Can we imagine bare want to be more prejudicial to Infants then to grown men But what Reader if it appear that the place cannot be understood of Baptism at all I must leave it to thee to judge of what is offered to shew that 't is only Regeneration and not Baptism that is concerned in the Text for Water and the Spirit here by an Exegesis are one or if you will according to the judgement of Dr. Taylor by Water is meant the effect of the Spirit Nor is this the single judgment of Dr. Taylor but very many others who in their time were the Magna Ecclesiae lumina who so interpret it amongst whom are Calvin Beza Piscator Calvin indeed acknowledgeth the ancient Expositors followed Chrysostome that the Text was to be understood of Baptism yet professeth himself of another mind Beza in his Annotations of the place declares himself to the same purpose that he understood by Water in that place is meant rather the effect of the spirit then the Sacrament of Baptism sin verò malimus Christum cum Pharisaeo disserentem Aquae nomine ad externas ablutiones allusisse c. I rather conceive Christ reasoning with this Pharisee under the name of Water doth allude to those external washing which were useless without the cleansing of the Spirit Et Spiritus nomen sit exegesis that is a figure which signifies a dark speech made clear by another word which here is the Spirit nominis aquae sicut alibi spiritus ignis in baptismo conjunguntur By the name of Water we are to understand by an Exegesis the Spirit as elsewhere the Spirit and Fire are joyned Though the Order be inverted there and he gives the reason of it So Piscator except a man be born of Water that is ex spiritu sancto exserente quasi vim aquae Of the holy Spirit which operates in the soul as Water doth in the body and he also referrs to the same place Mat. 3.5 Of being Baptized with the Spirit and with Fire We have also the great Chamier arguing the same seeing in this sense the words bear an absolute truth without any limitation The Author concludes this with sporting himself at the different grounds upon which the Assertors of Infant-Baptism hold it out as the Fathers upon one ground the Lutherans upon another the Calvinist differing from them the Episcoparians one way the Presbyterians another and the Independents have a peculiar ground varying from them all Now thanks be to Mr. Tombes his eleventh Argument against Infant-Baptism for all this Exercitation pag. 33. The Assertors of Infant-Baptism little agree amongst themselves saith he upon what ground they may build it Cyprian and others draw it from the Universality of grace and the necessity of Baptism to Salvation Austin brings the faith of the Church others the Church of England substitute the promised surety in the place of the Faith and Repentance of the Baptized The Lutherans the faith of the Infant others the faith of the next Parent in Covenant in a gathered Church Reply This saith Mr. Geree unto him hath art I will not say Sophistry in it and what though divers men have let fall different grounds yet none of those are the main upon which they ground it for that 's the Covenant of Gods grace that takes in the Child with the Parent if saith he I should from several ways or Arguments used by the Antipaedobaptists say they did oppose Infant-Baptism on several grounds therefore their opposition were invalid you would think my answer unsolid and so do I your Argument Father I desire the Author to reflect upon his own party who oppose childrens Baptism by denying that Covenant made to Abraham was a Covenant of Grace some say it was Temporary some Typical some mixt and I know not what So they much differ in the foundation of their practice Some build it on a bare confession of sin whatever the man be as to grace some on profession of Faith some on signs of grace c. Mr. Geree saith well weakness in mens sight variety of fancy and principles carry men into different ways of defending the same truth The Author now frames his exceptions against those Scriptures which hold forth a Covenant-Right to the Children of Believeers 4. Argument from federal holiness excepted against and from whence we inferr their baptizing and thus he begins Paedobaptists being loth to part with the Tradition and yet seeing the rottenness of the ancient ground upon which 't was built found out this new foundation for it of Covenant-Holiness of which Zwinglius about 120 years for aught that he can learn was the first Founder and singular from all that went before him All this is from Master Tombes The Author a notorious Plagiary having taken all in his 43. pages following from Mr. Tombes his two Books of Exerc. and Examen I mean as to the substance of it and most in his words and method only indeed he hath two quotations out of Dr. Taylor and one out of Dr. Owen Mr. Tombes Exercit. p. 11. and so throughout to the endc of this Chapter both Arguments Authorities Scriptures and Cryticismes with this difference that he varies a little in some things and doth not speak so warily as he Mr. Tombes in his Examen part 3. pag. 35. begins the Argument as framed by us from the connexion between the Covenant and the Seal but this man ends it with that and the Scriptures are in both one viz. Gen. 17.7 Acts 2.39 I need not therefore much trouble my self for an Answer to the Author for the same which Mr. Marshall gave Tombes doth the work to a hair The Author tells us that for ought he could learn Zwinglius was the first Founder of the Argument for Baptism from federal Holiness and this indeed he learnt from Mr. Tombes his Exercitation pag. 11. whose words are Whether any in the Ages before the last past expounded it of federal holiness I am not yet certain and in the two last lines of page the 79. of his Examen he hath it thus viz. None that ever I met with expounded it of federal Holiness till the controversie of the Anabaptists in Germany To this I will seek for no other answer then what Mr. Marshal gives him the cause saith he I confess depends not upon this whether such an interpretation was then first put But it discovers some defect in your reading and then shews Athanasius one of the most Ancient Greek Fathers and Tertullian one of the most Ancient of the
Type of Heaven and an Explanation of the primary grand promise to be their God giving intimation that he would as cetrainly bring them to the Heavenly as to the Earthly and to the spiritual everlasting glorious rest as well as to that Temporal or Corporeal rest upon which Reverend Mr. Cotton hath an excellent observation Mr. Cottons grounds and ends of Baptism of children p. 40. viz. That it was from hence that Jacob gave such solemn charge by Oath unto Joseph and Joseph to his Brethren the one to bury his dead body in Canaan the other for the Transportation of his bones to Canaan which they would never have done for an earthly inheritance but to nourish in the hearts of their posterity Faith and desire of Communion in the Church Joshua Heb. Salvator Dominus Salvator The Saviour or Lord Savionr and of their rest in Heaven whereof Canaans rest was a Type whereunto not Moses but Joshua must bring them that is not the Law but Jesus Except 3. A third Exception is Because the Seed in the seventh verse to whom the Covenant belonged This is Tomb'ss again Exerc. pag. 48. was not the Carnal but Spihitual seed only which he attempts to prove by Scripture and Authority the Scriptures are Gaol 3.16 and 24. and Rom. 9.7 8. Before I shall shew how grosly these Scriptures are mistaken and wrested to a quite different sense from what the Apostle intends as shall be made appear by the context and design of the Apostle in this Chapter I shall premise a few things as 1. The Covenant of Grace contains in it only spiritual good things Temporals are more properly Additionals then of the Essence of it 2. The Covenant of Grace is but One the Identity or sameness of the Covenant Mr. Tombes confesseth to be one and the same both to Jews and Gentiles Exercit. p. 39. 3. Though this Covenant be but one yet all are not in it after one and the same manner some are in it only by participation of external Church priviledges others by being interessed in the internal saving benefits thereof by means of those priviledges 4. The whole body of the Jews as they descended from the Loyns of Abraham by propagation and before they were Regenerated were according to Scripture Testimony taken by God into Covenant and were so esteemed by God himself in one respect or other Hence God saith he made his Covenant with them all Deut. 29. speaking there of the renewing of the Covenant of Grace verse 10.12 13 14 15. And the Apostle is express Rom. 9.6 To them appertained the Covenant and they are said not to be strangers to the Covenant of promise as the Gentiles but in the same Eph. 2.11 12. And such as Apostatized from God are said to break the everlasting Covenant Isa 24.5 And in the new Testament to count the blood of the Covenant an unholy thing Heb. 10.29 Which expressions argue that in some sense they must be in and under the Covenant that is in regard of external privileges only for it is certain they were never in it efficaciously and savingly as the Elect choice seed of Abraham for then they could never have fallen away they were in it in regard of external Covenant-privileges and common graces which Hypocrites and Reprobates may partake of and in this very sense Christ speaking of the Jews collectively calls them The Children of the Kingdom Matthew 8. and the Apostle the Children of the Covenant 5. And as it was under the old Testament so is it under the new the Covenant is the same norwithsTanding the difference of Administration And as it was then so is it now Gal. 4.24 29. Some are born of Agar and some of Sarah Mr. Cottons grounds and ends of Infant Baptism some the spiritual seed Secundum propositium Electionis chosen according to Gods will and gracious intention from all Eternity God principally intending the Coventant for them these may be said to be spiritually savingly in regard of powerful efficacy operation of the Covenant upon them within e Covenant Others are in it quoad externam Oeconomiam Hypocrites in Covenant quoad externam Oeconomiam in regard of external priviledges They are in Christ only by profession Branches in appearance not spiritually and savingly engraffed Joh. 15. There profession speaks them within the Covenant in facie visibilis Ecclesiae as Mr. Marshal speaks by virtue whereof they derive a right to the Seals and Sacraments of the New Testament 6. There are two sorts which may be reputed in Covenant under the New Testament as well as under the Old in regard of external and visible Oeconomy or external Church priviledges 1. Such as stand by their own visible profession as all first Covenanters do so te Proselytes under the Old Testament and all visible Saints or else 2. Such as stand in a Political Moral consideration as in the right of another through a free promise The distinction is common amongst our Divines but I quote it from Mr. Sydenham cap. 4. p. 31. Of his Christian Exercitation And he illustrates it by a Princes giving a Title of Honour or a piece of land to one and his Heirs they are all interested in it yet some prove fools or traitors and are afterwards incapable and this distinction he shews holds in the New Testament for if men deny a being in Covenant in regard of external priviledges as well as special grace or as he speaks if they deny an external as well as an internal being in Covenant Then 1. None can administer an external Ordinance an outward sign to any for we must go by external rules in these actings 2. We set a Seal to a blank to all grown persons who are baptized without we know them certainly in the Covenant and that who knows for our Judgment will no more hinder the Seal from being a blanck to grown Professors than to Infants without they prove real at last much more he speaks there which I omit Having premised these Propositions we shall now examine what force there is in the Scriptures for to prove what he would have referring what is said to the judgment of the impartial Reader The first Text is that in the 3. Gal. 16 Now to Abraham and his Seed were the promises made he saith not to Seeds as of many but as of one and to thy Seed which is Christ And if ye be Christs then are you Abrahams Seed v. 29. The other is Rom. 9.7 8. Neither because they are the Seed of Abraham are they all children but in Isaac shall thy Seed be called that is they which are the children of the flesh these are not the children of God but the children of the promise are connted for the Seed And Rom. 4.13 For the promise that he should be Heir of the World was not to Abraham or to his Seed through the Law but through the righteousness of Faith c. Hence Mr. Tombs the
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
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
Ordinance he began to rise up and thunder against Luther himself crying out that Luther was in as much fault as the Pope of Rome and as bad as the Pope and that all the Gospel he preached was a Carnal Gospel till at length the common People being stirred up by this Trumpet and inticed with the seeming sweetness of Liberty began every where to imbroile themselves in dangerous mutinies and troops and all reverence to Magistrates was contemned and cast off Hereupon the Duke of Saxony cleared his Country of Munzer who wandered here there through Germany and came at length to Mulbuysen a famous Town in Thuringia there as before Preached he up the same Doctrine of Liberty from Oppressours many addicted themselves to him some of the richer sort having been overprest with Taxes others of small and beggarly estates whom he made sure to himself by telling them not only the Monasterirs should be prey and spoil to them but likewile Preached up Community of all things according to the Example of the primitive Churches Having thus gotten a party of factious Persons fit for his turn he became at length a Senator whatsoever he commanded was done his pleasure was a law and his direction in all thing as he said a divine Revelation His first work was to displace the Magistrates and to take all power into his own hand In Zwevia and Franconia near 40000 Pesants took Arms upon this occasion who robbed a great part of the Nobility and plundered many Towns and Castles Munzer being their chief Captain At length the German Princes sensible of the danger prepare forces set upon them and kill some Thousands Munzer himself was apprehended and brought to the Duke of Saxony and Landgrave being asked why he had thus abused the miserable Pesants and raised these Tumults his answer was he had done but his duty and that such Princes as hindered the Reformation of the Church ought to be opposed The Landgrave on the contrary proved by Scripture that Governours ought to be had in honour that all Sedition is forbidden by God and that by the Laws of the Gospel no Christian may take arms against their lawful Prince upon any pretext whatsoever To this when he reply'd nothing he was first put upon the Rack to know what his purpose was and who were his confederates afterward he was brought on the Stage and was so extreamly confounded and dejected that he was not able to give any tolerable account of his Faith yet in general terms Confessed his Fault and his Error and his Head being cut off was carried upon a Spear through the Army After the same mode the Anabaptists carried themselves in Switzerland there they likewise troubled the famous Zwinglius that eminent Servant of Christ in the work of the Ministry at Zurith This Zwinglius was a person of that note that Bishop Jewel in his Defence of the Church of England gives this honourable Testimony of him and of Luther pag. 360. Mirtin Luther saith he and Hulderick Zwinglius are most excellent Men even sent of God to give light to the whole World This same Zwinglius whilst he was busy in carrying on the work of Reformation as we are informed by Melchior Adamus was interrupted by the Anabaptists First they declaimed against Infant-Baptism and rebaptized themselves as before was hinted Zwinglius was very tender of them and treated them with much gentleness Quod Autores anoics erant docts oves cives familiariter egit Melchior Adam in vita Zwinglii p. 30. for some of them were his friends and of his own Flock until he found much falshood and untruth in what they said and that they made a grievous rent broke off communion and erected a new Church This moved Zwinglius to try his strength with them and indeed the Anabaptists first made a challenge on the 6th November 1525 to dispute the point with any of the Reformed Divines Hereupon Zwinglius and some others had the patience to argue with them publickly in the Court before the Senate three several days and when as Spanhemius tells us they were by strength of argument in full demonstration of Spirit and of power confuted they fell to Railing and poured out reproachful speeches Melchior Adamus gives the same account in the History of Zwinglius his Life Habita sunt disputationes cum ipsis seriae in quibus errorum convicti Blasphemiis conviciis despumarunt in Antagonistas Melchior Adam The said Zwinglius so overpowred them with Arguments at that time that one of them had a pretty conceit beyond the rest and said Zwinglius was a learned man and could prove any thing but saith he O Zwinglius I adjure thee by the living God to speak thy Conscience and tell us truth I will said he Thou art a seditious Fellow since milder answers will not serve the turn I speak plain and home After which disputation on the 15th November the Senate made a Decree against them and declared that Zwinglius had said enough to convince them established Infant-Baptism commanding the Anabaptist Teachers to be silent and quiet Notwithstanding which the trouble of the place ceased not for the Anabaptists increased and others adjoyned to them and they fell to preaching and disputing again that the Tumult was great and the Citizens fell together by the Ears The Magistrate once more taking cognizance of the matter how that by these contentions the City became obnoxious to the forces of the house of Austria and the Idolatry of Rome for the prevention hereof Tandem carcere proscriptionibus morte contra perjuros inabedientes seditiosos non jam Catabaptistas Senatus agere coactus ut malum intestinum averruncaret Melchior Adam passed a severe Edict against them not as Anabaptists but as perjured disobedient seditious persons which was done in the year 1530. five years after they first began to dispute with Zwinglius Vid. Spanhemius Melch. Adam 2. In the next place the Author tells us how the Anabaptists spread themselves about this time over all the low Countries which is very true both in Westphalia Friesland Holland to the horrour and confusion of those parts for the light of the Gospel which brake out but a little before in High-Germany darted down its beams to the Low-Countries and the blessed work of Reformation was carrying on apace had not the same sort of People broken in again to distract the Churches then planting and disturb the Ministers Take but one instance which is instar-omnium At Munster in Westphalia this troublesom Sect first appeared there they soared high pretended Divine Revelations they insinuated themselves into the esteem of men by an appearance of Sanctity at first and in a short time gained a great multitude of people over to them We must know that at this time Popery was the prevailing Religion here as in other Towns of the Netherlands and the people began to relish the sweetness of the Gospel and Truth
which you do although contrary to our customs But they answered they would do none of these or own him for Arch-Bishop What now is become of Fabian that sandy Foundation upon which the Author builds his belief and assertion that the Ancient Britains were against Infant-Baptism When therefore Austin perceived that they were so refractory he told them if they would not take Peace with their Brethren they should receive War with their Enemies And if they disdained to preach the way of life to the English Nation they should suffer by their hands the revenge of Death And which Austin accomplished faith Fabian accordingly by bringing the Saxons upon them to their utter ruine This also is supposed to be another Paraphase of Fabian's upon Austin's Words which according to * Sicque completum est praesagium isti pontifici Augustini Hist Bed L. 2. c. 2. Editione whelochianâ Bede were delivered by way of Prophesie and not that he had an intention to revenge himself by bringing in Enemies upon them for their destruction And we find Mr. Fox in his Act. and Mon. put a favourable construction upon the Words of Austin and layes most of the blame upon the British Bishops whose Words are Of both these parties the Reader may judg what he pleaseth I cannot see but both together were to be blamed and as I cannot but accuse the one so I cannot defend the other First Austin in this matter can in no wise be excused who shewed no more humility in this Assembly to seven Bishop's coming at his commandment to the Council Again the Britains were asmuch or more to blame who so much neglected their Spiritual duty in revenging their Temporal injury that they denyed to join their helping labour to turn the Idolatrous Saxons to the way of Life and Salvation in which respect all private cases ought to give place and be forgotten For which cause it is no great marvel that thestroak of God's punishment light upon them according to Austin's saying that if they would not take Peace c. We shall now leave all to the Reader and let him consider if it be worth his while and weigh the Story with all circumstances and believe as he please I shall add one thing more and that is Let it be taken for granted that these Britains were against Infant-Baptism Nevertheless about 200 years before Infant-Baptism was owned by Pelagius himself although he denyed Original Sin which was a Britain and a member of the Monastery of Bangor as the Author himself quotes in his History of Christianity pag. 11. And Mr. Tombes himself in pag 20. of his Answer says the Pelagians did grant the Baptizing of Infants c. And I have better Authority than he even Austin himself that had so much to do with Pelagius in his Book de peccato Originali Cap. 32. hath this saying Pelagius etsi Baptisma Infantium verbo concedit re tamen ipsa tollit negat Though Pelagius grants Infant-Baptism in word yet he takes it away and denyes it in deed And again Cap. 18. upon the same point of Original Sin Austin hath this passage Baptizari parvulos ut in regnum Dei ingrediantur ex Pelagii Sententia Danaei Opus omnia Genevae ex Lib. Aug. de peocato Orinali p. 692. 'T was Pelagius his opinion that Children were to be Baptized that they may have entrance into the Kingdom of God So ex Lib. Aug. Cap. 19. de peccato Originali there is more Thus then you see we have a more ancient Testimony for Infant-Baptism by this Britain than those whom the Author fancies strongly to be against it who lived 200 years nearer the Apostles times than they I will conclude it in the Words of Mr. Fuller in his Church-History Pelagius saith he was bred in the Monastery of Bangor where he lived with 2000 Monks whose hands were the only Benefactors for their Bellies Abby-labourers not Abby-lubbers like their Successors in after Ages Infinit are the deductions and derived consequences of Pelagius his Errors amongst which Mr. Fuller says there are these two in reference to Infants 1. That Infants were born without Original sin 2. That they were Baptized not to be freed from Original sin but thereby to be Adopted into the Kingdom of God as was before noted out of Aust There are yet remaining 4 or 5 trifling Arguments to prove the Ancient Britains did oppose the Baptizing Infants 1. Because they received the Christian Faith Doctrine and Discipline from the Apostles and Asiatick-Churches who hath no such thing as Baptizing Infants amongst them as you have largely heard When the Magdeburgenses tell us expresly that it was in use in the Asiatick Churches Cent. 3. C. 6. p. 124. In this Age they say Baptismus Infantibus datur Children were Baptized and this we have abundantly shewn before from the Testimony of Cyprian 2. Because it appears they so fully prised and faithfully adhered to the Scriptures c. And no such thing is to be found there This is the old Objection which we have often answered See Chap. 1. Part 1 of our Answer So Chap 5. Part 2. 3. Because they did so vehemently reject Human Traditions in the Worship of God especially all Romish Innovations Rites and Ceremoneis We find no such vehemency of spirit in the Story as the Author speaks of unless it was against Austin's pride or beacuse Austin shewed them not that honour which their own proud hearts expected And whereas he saith they so rejected Romish Rites but Infant-Baptism came from Romes Ordination and Imposition This is pittifully poor for it was practised as we have shewn in Africa and Asia hundreds of years before this time e're any Popes as Universal Bishops were in being It was practised in Tertullian's and Cyprian's days this none denyes 5. Because Constantine the Great the Son of Constance and Helena both Christians born in Britain in the year 305. was not Baptized till Aged as before And we have before given you the reason why his Baptism was put off I refer the Reader to Chap. 7. Part 1. of my Answer you have it in Cent. 4. p. 18. 5. Because of the Correspondency and Unity that was betwixt the French Christians afterward called Waldenses and them And for this very reason if we had none else we conclude the Britains were for Infant-Baptism because the Waldenses were as we have sufficiently made appear There is one Reason more so weak that I think not meet to say thing to it and in reference to the confidence of my Antagonist that the Waldenses Donatists Britains were all against Infant-Baptism when neither of them were I shall conclude with a Distich which I think may not improperly be applyed to his whole Discourse Ridiculus tandem ecce cavis mus prodit ab antris Quem gravidi Montes parturiere diu ANACEPHALAEOSIS Or a Recapitulation of the History of the Magdeburgenses concerning Infant-Baptism from the first to the thirteenth
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
but rather as the Magdeburgenses do Cent. 2. p. 111. to the Mystery of Iniquity Mr. Geree of vind Paedobapt which so works in the Church of Rome in their corrupting and contaminating the simple forme of Baptism Indeed saith Mr. Philpot the Martyr to his fellow-sufferer that scrupled Infant-Baptism and afterward was satisfied by the strength of his Arguments if you look upon the Papistical Synagogue only which have corrupted God's Word by false interpretation and hath perverted the true use of Christs Sacraments you may seem to have good handfast of your opinion against the Baptism of Infants but for as much as it is of more Antiquity and hath its begining from God's Word and from the use of the Primitive Church it must not in respect of the abuse in the Popish Church be neglected or thought inexpedient Nor hath the Baptism of Adult Persons in former times been free from many corrupt and ridiculous Human inventions as Dr. Homes out of Binius and Epiphanius shews at large The Council of Carthage tells us Bin. Ca. 34 de rebus Eccles Cap. 26. that sick men lying speechless might be Baptized upon the witness of men touching their former condition The 4th Council of Carthage orders That those of ripe years to be Baptized must be dyered Bin. Cap. 85. and kept from Fesh and Wine a long time and after that having been examined several times must be Baptized Epiphanius declares that the Eunomians called Anabaptists do Rebaptize all that come to them Epiphan Anacephal pag. 108. Edit lat Bazil turning their Heads downward and their Heels upward Some of the Anabaptists called Hemerabaptists thought that none could be saved unless they were daily-Baptized whence they were called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Gerard. Joh. Voffus de Anaebaptismo Thes 17. Gastius de Anaebap Exod. p. 50. daily Baptists and so were cleansed from their Sins Singulis diebus mergerentur ita ut Abluantur Sanctificentur ab omni culpa Secondly Another small plot or piece of tunning lyes in linking some spurious Authors with those which are Authentick to render also their Authority Suspicious There are some Ancient Writers which are very express for Infant-Baptism of great Authority in the Church of Rome which are rejected as spurious or interpolate by the Protestants such is that of Dimysius the Areopagite and the Decretal Epistles who notwithstanding have in high account the Testimonies of those Ancients viz. Justin Martyr Irenaus Origen Cyprian c. which are reputed as Authentick and of undoubted truth 3. There is much Impertinency in his Historical Account that is not concerned in the Question As the Story of Constantine Dedication Consecration or Baptizing of Churches and Bells Exposure of the Reliques of Saints for adoration Prohibiting Priests Marriages with much more ejusdem farinae But what is all this to Infant-Baptism 4. There are some errors or falsities in it As Tertullian's standing up against Infant-Baptism in the 3d Century when he stood up no more against it than he did against the Baptizing of Young-men that were unmarried and Young-Widows also whose Baptism he would have delayed 'T is certain he argues for the delay of Baptism in some cases praecipue circa paroulos Tertul. de Bapt. C. 8. especially that of little ones meaning the Children of unbelievers as is conceived by Estius Pamelins and divers others A Second Error respecting this Century is That the Magdeburgenses tell us they altered the form of Baptism from dipping to sprinkling referring us to Cent. 3. pag. 129. where they speak no such thing nor any-where else in the whole History of Baptism A Third Escape is That Infant-Baptism was not in use in the greatest part of the 4th Century either in the Latin or Greek Church Now this is very false nor will that help him which he adds afterward Scil. It is true saith he towards the latter end of this Century it is said that in some parts of Africa they did Baptize Children as Magdeburg Cent. 4. p. 415. but they say no such thing it is only the Authors own saying and really it troubles me to see so much prevarication every-where Take Reader the true account of what the Magdeburgenses say de Ritibus circa Baptismum about Baptismal Rites They are large in this Chapter and begin it thus That the power of Baptizing was in this Age in the Priests and principally in the Bishops and then in Presbyters and Deacons and then a few lines after they tell us Baptizabantur autem publice in templis cujuscunque sexus aetatis conditionis homines Persons of each Sex and of all Ages and Conditions were publickly Baptized in the Temples Nor hath this Chapter any such passage at the beginning middle or latter end that in some parts of Africa they did Baptize Children 5. I will not say there is a Tincture of prophaneness but am sure of something like it in that saying of the Authors pag. 128. of his Treatise viz. In this 6th Century saith he we meet with a dreadful piece of Infant-Baptism viz. The Heads of 6000 Infants that had been murdered buried in a Warren near a Monastery as testified by Vldricus to P. Nicolas Cent. 6. p. 338. But the Magdeburgenses are not so bold as the Author to call such horrid murder Infant-Baptism A tender conscience me thinks should be afraid thus to play with Holy things 6. This History of his affords some contradiction to himself I mean to what he hath before written for in the first part of his Book Cap 2. pag. 7. he quotes Bede for a Testimony that the Baptizing of Believers is the only true Baptism Bede saith That Men were first to be instructed unto the Knowledg of the Truth then to be Baptized as Christ hath taught c. Cent. 8. p. 220. Whereas in this his Second part of the Treatise which is for disproving Infant-Baptism pag. 130. Bede also concludes for the Baptizing of Infants Cent. 8. p. 218. 7. We observe too great a boldness in those scandalous Reflections which he casts upon the Churches of the Reformed Religion sparing none neither Lutherans nor Calvinists nor Episcoparians nor Presbyterians But me thinks 't is a piece of great indiscretion to fly out so much against the Church of England for if she be contented to give the Antipaedobaptists indifferent good quarter although they do not conform to her why should any of them vilify her in this manner As for the Kirk of Scotland the Author may more securely mock at it and there is no danger in having a fling at the Directory or at the old Parliament's Ordinance of May 2d 1648. which made it imprisonment to affirm Infant-Baptism is unlawful CHAP. III. Containing his Exceptions against Infant-Baptism because built as he says upon 1. Fabulous Traditions 2. Mistaken Scriptures with an Answer thereto 1. The first and Principal ground saith he that hath been asserted for this Practice is Ecclesiastical and