and so it was made with the wickedst of Noahs seed and even with the beasts of the field yet doth it import a special favour to Noah and his seed as one whom God would shew a more special respect to as he had done in his deliverance and upon this special favour to him the creatures fare the better For though the word Covenant be the same to man and beast yet the diversity of the promissary and his capacity may put a different sense on the same word as applied to each And indeed it should seem but a sad blessing to Noah to hear an increase and multiply if all his Infant posterity must be cast or left out of the visible Church and so left as common or unclean This were to encrease and multiply the Kingdom of the Devil If he that was so mercifully housed in the Ark with all his children must now be so blest as to have all their issue to be out of the Church it were a strange change in God and a strange blessing on Noah And an uncomfortable stablishing of a Covenant with his seed if all that seed must be so thrust from God and dealt with as the seed of cursed Cain Moreover it is certain that Noah did prophetically or at least truly pronounce the blessing on Shem and Japhet And in Shems blessing he blesseth the Lord his God shewing that God was his God and so in Covenant with him And it is plain that it is not only the persons but the posterities of his three sons that Noah here intended It was not Cham himself so much as Canaan and his succeeding posterity that were to be servants to Shem and Japhet that is to their posterity And the blessing must be to the issue of Shem as well as the curse to the issue of Cham. And indeed a Hebrew Doctor would take it ill at that Expositor or Divine whatsoever that should presume to exclude the Infant seed of them out of Gods Church And well they may if in the blessing God be pronounced to be their God Saith Ainsworth in loc under this Shem also himself receiveth a blessing for blessed is the people whose God Jehovah is Psal 144.15 and eternal life is implied herein for God hath pre-prepared for them a City of whom he is not ashamed to be called their God Heb. 11.16 and Shem is the first man in Scripture that hath expresly this honour Moreover in Gen. 9.27 in Japhets blessing there is much though in few words to this purpose intimated First note that the Jewish Church is called the tents of Shem. From whence it appeareth that the Church priviledges of that people begun not with or from Abraham but were before And that it is the same Church that was of Shem and of Abraham and after all the additional promises to Abraham the Jewish Church is still denominated the tents of Shem now they were the tents of Shem before Abrahams days And therefore it is clear that it being the same Church must be supposed to have the same sort of members or materials and therefore Infants must be members before Abrahams days as well as after That Church which was Shems tents had Infant Church-members for the Jews Church is so called into which Japhet was to pass But the Church both before and after Abraham was Shems tents Ergo. Yet further let it here be noted that it is into Shems tents that Japhet must pass I suppose that the evidence is better here for that exposition that applyeth the word dwell to Japhet than to God and so that this is spoken of the conversion of the Gentiles as many Expositors have cleared at large And so as Ainsworth saith the sense is that Japhet shall be united with the Churches of the Jews the posterity of Shem which was fulfilled when the Gentiles became joynt-heirs and of the same body and joynt-partakers of Gods promise in Christ the stop of the partition-wall being broken down c. Ephes 3.6 2.14 19. Although it may further imply the graffing of Japhets children into the stock of the Church when Shems posterity should be cut off c. vid. ult Now if it be Shems tents even the same Church that Japhets children must dwell in then as Shems Infants were Church-members so must Japhets and not all his Infant seed be cast or left out So that here is a promise of Infant Church-membership unto the Gentiles in these words Reply To all this the summ of Mr. T. 's answers are 1. A denial of the senses given of some Texts which I leave to the Readers examination being resolved not to tire him with a tedious Reply 2. He grants that their persons were blessed God their God and their seed in the Church As if Gods open Covenant and promise made them not visible members but invisible SECT LXX to LXXIX R. B. WE come next to the Promise made to Abraham which I shall say the less to because you confess it But again note that whereas your self make the beginning of Gods taking the Jews to be his people and so of Infants to be members of the Church to be at Abrahams call from Ur 1. There is no one word of that in the Text. 2. Lot came out of Ur with Abraham yea and from Haran and lived with him were not Lot and his Infants Church-members then 3. The chief note I intend is this that there is no more said then to prove Infants Church-members than what we have shewed was said long before and is said after of the Gentiles Infants no nor so much If therefore the passage of Abraham out of Ur yea or the promise made to him in Haran Gen. 12.2 3. will prove Infants Church-membership then have we as good proof of it to the Gentile Church as to the Jews And here I note further that in the beginning before the command for Circumcision you plainly yield that Infants Church-membership is a thing separable from Circumcision and begun not with it but before And indeed I have evinced that to you in my Book of Baptism Abraham himself was not made a member by Circumcision but circumcised because a member of Christs Church by faith Ishmael was a member before and so was Isaac and the Infants born in Abrahams house Whether there were any promise or precept of this but a meer transeunt fact let the Text last mentioned and the following bear witness Gen. 12.2 3. In thee shall all families of the earth be blessed and Gen. 17.7 9 10. And I will establish my Covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee and I will be their God And God said to Abraham Thou shalt keep my Covenant therefore thou and thy seed after thee in their generations This is my Covenant which you shall keep between me and you c. to vers 15. In all this let these things be noted 1. That here is an express promise or Covenant to Abraham and his seed after
his offer was accepted I should have mentioned this first and therefore will begin with the proof of this By these terms Covenant promise grant or deed of gift c. we understand that which is common to all these viz. A sign of Gods will conferring or confirming a right to or in some benefit such as we commonly call a Civil act of Collation as distinct from a mere Physical act of disposal I call it a sign of Gods will de jure because â—hat is the general nature of all his legal moral acts they are all signal determinations de debito â—f some due 2. I say conferring or confirming â—ight to some benefit to difference it from preâ—epts which only determine what shall be due from us to God and from threatnings which determine what punishment shall be due from God to us Mr. T. If we prove by another grant or deed of gift Physical or Moral which is not a promise or by any Law which is not such a precept he contradicts not my speech c. Reply Your words are I do not confess that there was any Law or Ordinance determining that it should be so that Infants should be members of the Jewish Church but only a fact of God which is a transeunt thing and I think it were a foolish undertaking to prove the repeal of a fact Peruse his words Reader SECT XIX XX XXI R. B. HAving thus explained the terms I prove the proposition If Infants Church-membership with the priviledges thereof were a benefit conferred which some had right to or in then was there some grant covenant or promise by which this right was conferred But the antecedent is most certain Ergo so is the consequent I suppose you will not deny that it was a benefit to be the covenanted people of God to have the Lord engaged to be their God and to take them for his people to be brought so near him and to be separated from the common and unclean from the world and from the strangers to the Covenant of promises that live as without God in the world and without hope If it were asked what benefit had the Circumcision I suppose you would say much every way If Infant Church-membership were no benefit then they that had it were not when they came to age or their Parents in the mean time obliged to any thankfulness for it But they were obliged to be thankful for it Ergo it was a benefit Mr. T. Denyeth not the benefit but denyeth that this is to be Visible members formally or connexively for they may have all this benefit who are not visible Church-members viz. some believing Saints that are dumb Reply Mark Reader what an issue our Controversies with these men come to Men may be the covenanted people of God and have the Lord engaged to be their God and to take them for his people and be separated from the common and unclean from the world from strangers to the Covenant c. and yet be no visible Church-members with them Doth a dumb man signifie his consent to the Covenant by any signs or not If he do that is visible covenanting If not how is he one of these covenanting and separated people And do you think that Mr. T. knew not that I talk to him of visible covenanting and separation and not only of a secret unexpressed heart-consent What will make a Church-member then with such men He next saith that To be the circumcision is not all one as to be visible Church-members Cornelius and his house were visible Church-members yet not the circumcision Reply Reader dost thou not marvail to find him so plead for me against himself or speak nothing to the case To be circumcised then or baptized now is not all one as to be visible Church-members But sure all the Circumcised were and all the Baptized are invested in visible membership Is it not so And if Cornelius and more of the uncircumcised also were members you see it was not inseparable from Circumcision And whom is this against me or him He addeth nor were the benefits Rom. 3.1 2. the oracles of God c. conferred to them as visible Church-members For then all visible Church-members had been partakers of them Reply But it was to them as members of the Jewish visible Church And if you plead for the extent of the Church to others also I thank you for it When I say Infant Church-membership was a benefit He saith Visible Church-membership simply notes only a state by which was a benefit Reply Only is an exclusive term Reader by this thou maist perceive the mystery of making Church-members by a transeunt fact without a Law or promise It is no benefit with these men but a state by which was a benefit Either they or I then know not at all what Church-membership is And are not all our Volumes wisely written to trouble the world about that Subject that we are not agreed what it is and about a term which we agree not of the sense of I take a visible Church-member to be a visible member of Christ as Head of the Church and of his Church as visible To be a Member is to be a Part It is therefore as the member of a Family School Kingdom a related part And is it no benefit in it self besides the consequents to be visibly united and related to Christ and his body to be relatively a member of the Houshold of God Sure were it but for the exclusion of the miserie of the contrary state and for the Honour of it such a Relation to God the Father Son and Holy Ghost and the Church is some little benefit and great to me And whether he and Major Danvers and such others should make such a vehement stir about it as they do if it be no benefit let it be considered SECT XXII R. B. THE next thing in the antecedent to be proved is that there was a right conferred to this benefit and some had a right in it And 1. If any had the benefit then had they right to or in that benefit But some had the benefit Ergo. The consequence of the major is certain 1. Because the very nature of the benefit consisteth in a right to further benefits 2. If any had the benefit of Church-membership Covenant-interest c. without right then they had it with Gods consent and approbation or without it Not with it For he is just and consenteth not that any have that which he hath not some right to or in Not without it For no man can have a benefit from God against his will or without it 2. If no Infants had duly and rightfully received this benefit God would have somewhere reprehended the usurpation and abuse of his ordinances or benefits But that he doth not as to this case Ergo. 3. God hath expressed this right in many Texts of Scripture of which more afterward Mr. T. The Infants of the Jews were visisible Church-members not
I impute our calamities to directly But it is next to Church Tyranny the spirit of separation I mean when men cannot so far differ in judgement from others but a perverse zeal for their opinion as some excellent truth of God doth instigate them to run away from those that are against it as if they were the enemies of the truth and God and unworthy of the Communion of such as they which is nothing but a conjunction of Pride Ignorance and Vncharitableness or Malice § 12. I have told these men that when they have spoken never so sharply against Persecutors it is apparent that there is much of the same spirit in themselves One saith of Dissenters Away with such unworthy persons out of the Ministry or out of the Country and the other saith Away with such unworthy persons from your Communion And both contrary to Christs sheep-mark which is Love and both tend to make their Brethren seem unlovely And whom they serve by this means whether the Prince of Love or the Prince of Malignity it 's pity but they knew or at least would consider of it instead of being angry with us when we tell them of it § 13. I am not therefore half so zealous to turn men from the opinion of Anabaptistry as I am to perswade both them and others that it is their duty to live together with mutual forbearance in Love and Church-Communion notwithstanding such differences For which they may see more reasons given by one that once was of their mind and way Mr. William Allen in his Retractation of Separation and His Perswasive to Vnity than any of them can soundly refel though they may too easily reject them § 14. I am perswaded that the formal Ministers and people who make little more use of Baptism than to give it to Infants and to receive it in Infancy have been the greatest occasion of Anabaptistry among us when the people see that all being Baptized in Infancy many afterwards live all their days and never understand what Baptism is and few ever solemnly and distinctly own and renew that Covenant when they come to age unless coming to Church and receiving the Lords Supper with as little understanding be a renewing it this tempteth serious people that understand not the matter well themselves to think that Infant-baptism doth but pollute the Churches by letting in those who know not what they do and after prove prophane or Infidels And they think that it is the only way to reformation to stay till they are ready to devote themselves understandingly to God But this is their mistake For 1. If it were deferred till ripeness of age one part would neglect it and continue Infidels and another part would do all formally as we see they do now at the other Sacrament where the same Covenant is to be renewed 2. There is a better remedy § 15. For we hold that all that are Baptized in Infancy should as understandingly and as seriously and if it may be conveniently as solemnly own and make that Covenant with God when they come to age as if they had never been baptized if not more as being more obliged The reasons of this I have given long ago at large in a Treatise of Confirmation written when we had hope of setting up this Course under the name of Confirmation which some of us practised in our Assemblies not without success To be seriously devoted to God by our Parents first and to be brought at age as seriously to devote our selves to him as any Anabaptist can do is a much liklier way to fill the Church with serious Christians than to leave all men without the sense of an early Infant obligation § 16. I am as fully perswaded that Infants Church-membership and Baptism is according to Gods will as ever I was when I was most engaged in the Controversie And I am perswaded that these Papers of mine to Mr. Tombes are so unsatisfactorily answered as is worse than no Answer and sheweth how little is to be said § 17. Though the Act of Baptizing be a duty and so necessary necessitate praecepti yet Protestants hold that it is not so necessary necessitate medii but that in some cases those that are unbaptized may be saved As in case the Child die before it can be done or in case the absence or delay of the Baptizer be the cause It is true-consenting to his Covenant for our selves and those that we have power to consent and accept it for which Christ hath made necessary to salvation and if he should damn a true Consenter he should damn one that hath the Love of God and one to whom he promiseth salvation John 3.16 18. § 18. It is utterly incongruous to the rest of the Law of Grace which is spiritual and to Christs alterations who took down the Law of burdensom Ceremonies to think that he should lay so great a stress upon the very outward washing as that he would damn true Believers that Love God for want of it when he hath done so much to convince the world that God seeketh such to worship him as will do it in spirit and truth and that Circumcision or Uncircumcision is nothing but Faith that worketh by Love And if Penitent Loving Believers shall not be saved Gods promises give us no assurance or security § 19. When the Apostle Ephes 4.4 5. putteth one Baptism among the necessaries of Church-Concord by Baptism is meant our solemn devoting our selves and ours under that trust to Christ in the Baptismal Covenant which can mean no more but that as there are three things on our part in Baptism 1. Heart-consent ◠Profession of that consent 3. The Reception of washing as the professing symbol So 1. The heart-consent is necessary to our membership of the Church as invisible that is to our union with Christ and our salvation 2. The Profession of Consent as there is opportunity is necessary both to prove the sincerity of Consent it self and to other mens notice of it and so to our membership of the Church as visible 3. And our Professing it by being Baptized is necessary to the regular and orderly manner of our Profession And so far to our concord § 20. And he that knoweth Baptism to be hic et nunc his duty and yet will not receive it sheweth his unsoundness by his disobedience § 21. As Baptism is made our great duty under that name so Profession or Confession of Christ as such is oft mentioned as necessary even to salvation Rom. 10.9 10. 1 Joh. 4.2.3.15 Mat. 10.32 Phil. 2.11 2 John 7. And Baptism being our Open confessing and Owning Christ by a solemn Vow and Covenant it is principally as such that it is necessary to salvation yea and to a perfect membership of the visible Church § 22. Therefore if any man that in a desart or dry Countrey could have no water or that lived where there is no Minister should openly before all the people
adversaries and yet hold such an opinion and never be suspected Do the Anabaptists no better own their cause But the words he alledgeth are but such as he citeth of my own If truly cited no doubt spoken only of the adult and of what the Infants do by them But who can answer words not cited Must we read all his works again to see if there be such a word as oft as such a man will talk to us at this rate § 45. The next is Albanus a zealous godly Minister in the sixth Century was put to death for baptizing Believers though baptized in Infancy or by Hereticks Answ Still all alike 1. Baronius is cited an 413. n. 6. when in my Book there is not a syllable of any such matter 2. But thereabout he hath the History of the Donatists who rebaptized all both old and young as if our Separatists now should tell all England You are all out of the true Church which is only with us and if you come not to us and be not baptized in our Churches you have no true baptism nor can be saved And for such rebaptizing many were troubled And is this a witness against Infant-baptism Shall we not have one true word § 46. His tale of Swermers he refers us for to Merning and Rulicius or Lulicius and Glanaus men that I know not so well as himself and I had rather he had referred me to himself or Mr. Tombes § 47. He addeth p. 231. Nicephorus l. 17. c. 9. saith that In the year 550. one Peter Bishop of Apamen and Zoroarus a Monk in Syria did maintain and defend the point of dipping rebaptization or weder-dipping Answ Did Nicephorus write in Dutch 1. Is dipping any thing to the case of Infants 2. Are you really for Rebaptizing and are you justifying it If not why cite you instances of Rebaptizers Too many besides the Donatists rebaptized others to engage them to their Sect as the only Church 3. Do you know the History of the Council of Calcedon and Dioscorus and the Nestorians Reader believe not this man any further than sense or great evidence constraineth thee That which Nicephorus there saith is this Severus of Antioch and Peter of Apamea and Zooras a Monk were found to curse the Council of Calcedon and to hold but one nature in Christ praeterea anabaptismos aliaque nefandae obscoenitatis plena facinora peragere that is and also to have practised Rebaptizings and other villanies full of such obscenity that is not to be named If he rejoyce in these Witnesses is here a word of Infant-baptism When shall I come to a sentence that is true § 48. The next is Adrian Bishop of Corinth in the seventh Century did publickly oppose Infant-Baptism insomuch as he would neither Baptize them himself nor suffer them to be Baptized by others but wholly denyed Baptism to them Wherefore he was accused by Gregory Mag. Bishop of Rome to John Bishop of Larissa as appears by Gregories Letter to the said John in which among others he complains against the said Adrian that he turned away children from Baptism and let them die without it for which they proceeded against him as a great transgressor and blasphemer Answ Not one true Sentence in all this 1. It 's false that Adrian publickly opposed Infant-Baptism 2. It 's false that he was accused for it by Gregory or that Gregory laid any such thing to his charge 3. Or that they so proceeded if my books be true Reader the case in Gregories Epistles here cited is this Adrian was accused malevolently of many things not by Gregory but to Gregory Among others that through him some Infants had dyed without Baptism Gregory writeth to John Bishop of Larissa on his behalf and saith that no one of the witnesses could say that he knew any such thing by him but that they were told so by the mothers of some children whose Husbands had for their faults been removed from the Church sed nec in baptizatos eos mortis tempus professi sunt occupasse sicut accusatorum continebat invidiosa suggestio cum in Demetriade Civitate baptizatos eos esse constiterit that is Nor did the witnesses say that they died unbaptized as the envious suggestion of the accusers contained for it is manifest that they were baptized in the City Demetrias 1. Is here a word that he was against Infant-baptism 2. Could a Bishop of so great a City and Diocess have been against Infant-baptism and none to be able to prove it even in envious accusations Would not every week detect it 3. Would Great Gregory have thus justified him if he hâ—d but suspected such a thing above a hundred years after Austin said no one Christian thought Infant-baptism vain Was this great Pope an Anabaptist 4. Is it not plain by all this thâ—â— it was but the particulâ—â— children of some excommunicate mens wives who maliciously accuse him not for being against Infant-baptism no nor against their Infants baptism but for delaying it It is like to difference them from the children of Church-members And yet that they were afterward baptized See here what a witness he hath brought § 49. The next in his Catalogue is Aegyptian Divines but after in his book before it he tells you of one Berinius an eminent learned man that professed instruction to be necessary before baptism and that without it baptism ought not to be administred to high or low and citeh Beda l. 4. c. 16. Reader the passage in Beda is but this That Ceadwall having conquered the Isle of Wight gave it to Bishop Wilfrid no friend to Anabaptists who gave it his Sisters Son Bernwin appointing him a Priest called Hildila who by his labour among the Heathens converted and baptized two of the Kings Sons who were baptized and had a strange deliverance And is there a syllable in this story that Infant-baptism is concerned in No nor a word of one Berinus an eminent learned man that professed as he saith though it be nothing to the purpose Nor was the business done as he saith in Lower Saxony but in the Isle of Wight so little is there that hath the least kin to truth in this lamentable Reporter § 50. His Testimony of Aegyptian Divines he citeth two late Papists for instead of just proof who neither of them ever dreamed that those Aegyptians were against Infant-Baptism That the adult should be Catechised and instructed before Baptism all the Christian world agreed That there were some Monasteries of the Aegyptian Monks that would not hold communion with the Church of Rome is known and what a turn was made among many of the Clergy after the Council of Chalcedon on Dioscorâ—s his account whereupon a great body of the Southern Churches cut off from Rome and disowning them are called Nestorians many injuriously to this day And Fulgentius was disswaded from going to the strict Heremites and Monasticks near Aegypt because they were separated from the Roman Communion as you
whether it be lawful for me to take all sorts then living for lyars rather than this one man that hath written us such a book and who in a negative 25 years after cannot possibly be a competent witness no nor if he had written at that time For who can say that there was or is no such thing done beyond his knowledge § 4. But if Mr. D. would perswade the world either that I wrote that of all the Anabaptists or of most or of any in any other age or that I have since said that any continue the same practice he would but deceive men for it is nothing so § 5. I must confess I did not see the persons baptized naked nor do I take it to be lawful to defame any upon doubtful reports But when it is a fame common and not denied by themselves either Ministers or people at the time I think it is to be taken so much notice of as the confuting of the evil doth require § 6. I know not by sight that there is ever a Fornicator Adulterer Murderer or Thief as I remember in England And yet if I neither Write nor Preach to call such to repentance lest I be a Slanderer in saying that there are any such I think it would be foolish uncharitable Charity and unrighteous justice § 7. Most Sects do in their height and heat at first do that which afterward they surcease with shame The Donatist Circumcellians continued not self-murder the Anabaptists held not on to do as they did at Munster or in the time of David George Our Ranters continued not open swearing and whoredom long The fame of England which I never heard gainsayed is that the Quakers at first did shake and vomit and infect others strangely And is he a lyar that saith it because they do not so now I was at Worcester my self when at the Assizes one of them went naked as a Prophet before our eyes through the high street and they said they did so in many other places I know not the mans name now nor any of the multitude of Spectators if after twenty years and more I were called to prove it I know by uncontrolled fame that Mistress Susan Pierson solemnly undertook to raise the dead taking up a dead Quaker at Claines and commanding him in vain to live But if now after more than twenty years my witnesses were called for I must travel to the place before I could produce them § 8. Yea I never saw any Anabaptist rebaptize or baptize the aged But fame saith they do so and none deny it If it prove false I shall be glad and will joyn in vindicating them And so I say of the present case And will heartily joyn with any in reforming backbiting and rash ungrounded defamations of others CHAP. VI. Of Mr. Danvers's frequent Citations of my Words § 1. WHen I read Mr. Tombes his twenty Citations of me as against my self which Mr. D. provoketh me to answer and when I find Mr. D. so often imitating them and alledging my words as justifying his cause I have no conviction on my mind that it is lawful for me to wast my time and the Readers about a particular vindication of my words so triflingly and vainly used by them § 2. Either it is the authority of the Writer which they suppose will serve them or the force of the arguments or else it is only to make the Reader believe that the Writer is so foolish as not to know when he contradicteth himself The first I may well presume it is not If it were the same persons authority would be as much more against them as his judgement is If it be the second why do they use any arguments of mine when they are able to form such of their own as seem much more useful to them than any that I can give them And why then do they not insist only on the Argument and neglect the Author But seeing I must believe that the last is their business I can have leisure to say little more than this to them that it is not my business to prove my self no fool but to prove Infants Church-members nor will it make me smart if all of their mind in England so judge of me But yet I am not so foolish but that I know my own mind better than they do and can reconcile my words when they cannot If this satisfie not them it satisfieth me § 3. In summ the words of mine which they alledge against my self need but these two things to be said for them against such silly cavils 1. That most of them speak to the Question What is the kind of Covenant consent required in baptism Whether a meer dogmatical faith professed Or the profession of a saving faith as to the matter believed and the sincerity of the belief and consent And I prove that it is no other sort of faith but a true saving faith as to object and act which is required and accepted of God the searcher of hearts as the Condition of his Covenant And that it is not the Profession of any lower sort of faith as to object or act but of this saving faith which the Church must accept to the admission of members A lower profession will serve for none 2. But I still maintain and I think fully proved that God so far taketh the child as if he were a part of the Parent nature and grace having committed him to his will and disposal for his good till he have a will to choose for himself as that by this sort of faith and consent the Parent is to enter his Child into Covenant with God as well as himself and that in Gods acceptance the Child doth thus truly consent by the believing Parent and doth Covenant with God as a child Covenanteth and consenteth reputatively among men who by his Parents is made a Party in a Contract as in a lease for his life or the like Not that in sensu physico the person of the Child being the same with the Parents doth consent in his consent but that the Parent having the treble interest in the Child of an Owner a Governour and a Lover God by Nature and Grace conjunctly alloweth and requireth the Parent to dedicate the Child to God and to consent that he shall be a member of Christ and his Church according to his capacity and by that Covenanting consent to oblige the Child to live as a Christian when he cometh to age And this shall be as acceptable to the Childs Covenant-relation and rights as if he had done it himself and in this sense may be said reputatively to have consented or Covenanted by his Parents which in proper speech is They did it for him at Gods Command § 4. He that is not satisfied with this General Answer let him either peruse the words themselves in my Writings with those before and after that explain them or else if he will do as this man doth abuse
the Baptism of water but it is necessary to receive it when the opportunity of circumstance is offered And seeing whatever cometh to pass doth come to pass of necessity it maybe said that such a one cannot be saved without such Baptism And to the question of an old woman Baptizing children in necessity he saith Credimus tamen quod quaecunque Vetula vel abjecta persona rite lavante hominem cum verbis sacramentalibus Baptismum flaminis Deus complet The Reader must pardon the Latine to the Author or Printer which may thus be Englished But we believe that what old woman soever or abject person rightly washeth one with the Sacramental words God fulfilleth the Baptism of the spirit It seemeth that whereas Tertullian Mr. D.'s first witness was for Lay-mens Baptizing in case of necessity but not for womens that Wickliffe was for womens also And to the next quâ—stion Whether Infants unbaptized when Baptism could not be had be all damned he answereth Et per haec respondeo ad c. that is And by this I answer your third objection granting that God if he will may damn such an Infant and do him no wrong and if he will he can save him And I dare not define either part nor am I careful about reputation or getting evidence in the case but as a dumb man am silent humbly confesing my ignorance using conditional words because it is not yet clear to me whether such an Infant shall be saved or damned But I know that whatever God doth in it will be just and a work of mercy to be praised of all the faithful And let not them like presumptuous fools pour out themselves that of their own authority without knowledge define any thing in that matter Qui autem dicit c. But he that saith that in this case put an Infant shall be saved as it is pious to believe he doth superfluously uncertain himself more than will profit him But there are some things in Parents power though lapsed into a thing Past for which it is necessary by Gods just judgement that so it should come to pass Therefore he that defineth that neither Parents nor people so sinned that it should so come to pass doth speak as a Pie on the head of his own knowledge But we believe it as a point of faith that nothing befalls a man after the first grace unless some part of mankind either merit or demerit that this shall come to pass In the next thirteenth Chapter he proceedeth to answer the question Quomodo animae talium Infantium sine peccato actuali decedentium punientur Having before spoken of Infants dying unbaptized unavoidably that is How the souls of such Infants shall be punished whether all equally or unequally and whether only with the punishment of loss or also of sense And he concludeth contrary to the greater part of the Papists that they shall have both the punishment of Loss and Sense and Note that that Necesse est peccata originalia hominum esse inaequalia sicut decedentes in originalibus sunt propter illa inaequaliter condemnandi Nam juxta dicta omnes condemnati pro originalibus sunt condemnandi tam poena damni quam poena sensus sed impossibile est quod condemnentur aequaliter omnino illis poenis ergo relinquitur quod peccata quibus illas poenas demeruerunt inaequalia sunt dicenda That is It must needs be that the Original sins of men are unequal as those that die in Original sins are unequally to be condemned for them For as is said all that are condemned for original sin are condemned both with the punishment of Loss and of Sense But it is impossible that they should be damned altogether equally with those pains Therefore it remaineth that the sins by which they deserved those punishments be said to be unequal Reader I have been the larger in transcribing and translating the words of Wickliffe because an Author is not so well understood by a line or two dismembred from the rest as by whole discourses and so that his sense may be past all controversie Here it is visible that Wickliff was so far from denying Infant-Baptism that 1. He expresly asserteth it 2. He never so much as noteth it for any controversie nor maketh any doubt or question about it 3. Yea he taketh it to be bold presumption for any to take upon them to know whether an Infant that dyeth unavoidably unbaptized be saved or not but only saith God can do it if he will and he can damn him 4. And to those that say that the Parents are not in the fault nor the people seeing they intended his Baptism he saith that many things come to pass for past sins of Parents and people and therefore that cannot be concluded and nothing after the first grace cometh to pass unmerited 5. And he concludeth that those of them that are damned for original sin are punished with pain of loss and sense but unequally having unequal original sins 6. But Baptism he asserteth doth put away all sin in the rightly Baptized 7. And that when Infants are rightly Baptized with water they are Baptized with the third Baptism having Baptismal grace 8. That it is according to Christs rule that Infants be brought to the Church to be Baptized And now Reader judge what a sad case poor honest ignorant Christians are in that must have their souls seduced troubled and led into Love-killing alienations and separations and censures of Christs Church and of their particular brethren by such a man as this And whether they that dare use souls at this rate are so much better than us as to be above our communion Nay whether those that lately revile the Zeal of dissenters as cherishing the most odious crimes be not too much scandalized and hardened by such dealings When a man as pleading for Christ and Baptism dare not only print such things but stand to them in a second edition and defend them by a second book and Rage and be Confident in reviling those that tell him of his untruths § 10. But he hath many pretended reasons to prove that Wickliff was against Infant-Baptism and some of them out of the very Chapters which I have transcribed 1. Saith he He asserted two Sacraments 2. That believers must be baptized in pure water And what are these to the purpose 3 That believers are the only subjects of Baptism A gross untruth But he giveth you the words that prove it Ideo absque dubitatione si iste insensibilis baptismus affuerit baptizatus à crimine est mundatus si ille defuerit quantumcunque essent priores baptismus non prodest animae ad salutem I gave you the words before And did the man think that this is any thing to his purpose Wickliff saith Water Baptism saveth no soul young or old without the Baptism of the Spirit Therefore saith Mr. D. Wickliff saith that Believers are the only