but especially in Chap. 4. Part 1. about the ends of Baptism of which this is named for the third 2. That it truly figures and represents a Death Burial Resurrection and yet do nothing but sprinkle or pour a little Water on the Face This is another repetition being brought by the Author for the 4th End of Baptism and answered Chap. 4. Part 1. likewise again Chap. 4. Part 2. 3. That Faith and Repentance are required in Persons to be Baptized and that it is ridiculous yea impious and prophane to do it without and yet confess that Children to whom they apply it have neither Say no more of this for your honours sake which hath already suffered much for abusing Authors you know Baxter Piscator Perkins Paraeus Calvin all speak of grown Persons and the last with an Asterisk Notandum haec verba fieri de Adultis Therefore saith he that Men offer themselves rightly to Baptism Confession of sin is required otherwise the whole action would be but sport But you must note saith he that these words are spoken of Adult Persons but as for the Infant Seed of Believers the case alters there for they being taken into Covenant with their Parent it is instead of Profession Calv. upon Mat. 19.28 and Mark 16.16 look to the first Chap. Part 1. There you have a Vindication of our Divines from the Infamy cast upon men as to their sayings about Baptism in contradiction as he would have people believe to their own Practices 5. That the Baptismal Covenant enters into the visible Church and yet deny Church-members the priviledg thereof This is co-incident with what we have before and spoken to already 6. That separate from Rome as a false Church and yet own their Baptism the foundation thereof A little before he hath this Odious Reflection upon infant-Baptism that it confirms the whole Antichristian Interest and now the Assertors of it are condemned for owning their Baptism I conceive it therefore fit that something be briefly said for our Vindication First then I take this to be the common Judgment of Divines That Parents ought not to tender their Children to be Baptized by Hereticks or by Romish Priests in a Superstitious way yet being done Baptism so Administred ought not to be reiterated For even Austin himself as zealous as he was for Baptism Danaeus ex lib. 1 August de Bapt. contra Donatistas is express upon the Case in his first Book de Baptismo against the Donatists Non damnari Baptismum Christi ab Haereticis Pastoribus ut nullus censeatur sed damnamus illos qui scientes illic accipiunt That Baptism is not to be condemned for a Nullity which hath been received from Hereticks but such are to be condemned who knowing them to be such do yet receive it of them Bucan states the Case in his 16 Question de Baptismo Bucan Institutiones Theolog. Loc. 47. Quest 16. p. 614. thus Anne qui vere Christianam Religionem edocti sunt parvulos suos sacrificulis pontificiis Baptizandos bonâ conscientiâ offerre possunt Whether they who are truly taught the Christian Religion may with a good conscience tender their Children to Mass-Priests to be Baptized he holds it negatively for divers weighty reasons As 1. Because by that Act we own their false and Antichristian Ministry Quia corruptelis tum Doctrinae tum Sacramentorum superstitiosis Cultibus falsae item illegittimae vocatâ—â—ni Antichristi Ministrorum exemplo nostro probandis confirmandis nullam occasionem praebere debemus c. and confirm them in their Superstitions Whereas we are bound to abstain from all appearance of evil and not to partake with them in their sins 2. Because we are not to do evil that good may come thereof 3. Because we are to depart and go out from amongst them and touch no unclean thing Is 52. 11. and to abstain from Idols 1. Joh. 5.21 4. Because if our Infants dye unbaptized we refusing to have them Baptized in a Superstitious manner which is best they are not thereby deprived of their interest in the Covenant of God's Grace and Salvation is from the Covenant and not the Seal for it is not the want but the contempt of Baptism that is damnable It was on this account that the Waldenses kept their Children from Baptism for Perin in his History of that people tells us Paul Perin Hist Walden Cap. 4. p. 15. That they delayed the Baptism of their Children until their Pastors came home who were imployed abroad in the service of the Church because they had in detestation those human inventions which were added to that Holy Sacrament which they held to be but pollutions thereof which the Popish Priests observing stigmatized them with that calumny that they were against the Baptism of Children and from their Mouths the Author hath taken up that false report and published it to the World but God will not bless such unjust courses On the other hand the Rule holds true in many Cases Fieri quod non licet factum valet A thing which ought not to be done yet being done it may be of force and valid as in other Cases so likewise in this of Baptism though none should tender their Children to be Baptized by Romish Priests in a superstitious way yet being done Baptism so Administred ought not to be reiterated Austin gives divers Reasons in his first Book of Baptism against the Donatists that were for Rebaptization shewing most convincingly that because Baptismus ex personarum Ministrorum dignitate non pendet neque dantis aut accipientis Baptismum error delet mutat id quod a domino constitutum est Because Baptism depends not upon the dignity of Persons or Ministers Danaeus ex L. August contra Donatist p. 674. the Error of him that gives or receives it doth not nullify the Ordinance of Christ yet this is alwayes to be remembred that if the essential form of Baptism hath been corrupted in the Administration thereof the Baptism becomes invalid and is a meer nullity and persons taking up the Ordinance de novo in a right way cannot be said to be rebaptized because the former was not Christ's Baptism but a Nullity for as Zanchy speaks he that Baptizeth but not in the name of the Father Son and the Holy Spirit but is corrupt in the Doctrine of the Trinity as the Arrians and Manichaeans were such a Baptism is none of Christ's Baptism Decst enim vera Baptismi forma the right forme of Baptism is wanting I shall conclude this with the Judgment of two Divines of the Congregational way The first is Mr. Cotton of New-England in his Grounds and Ends of Infant-Baptism where he answers this Objection How can we think that Baptism Valid and not Null which is Administred by Dumb-dogs c viz. Answer Though God delighteth not to make use of such instruments yet I dare not say that their Administration of the Seals which
Opinion of Antipaedobaptism having been as Mr. Sydenham observes always Ominous and of a wonderous strange influence to destroy Vnity and Peace amongst Christians accompanied also with the most Retinue of Errors since the first Embrio of it was brought forth Whether by a secret Judgement of God or from the natural and secret Connexion with other Principles of Darkness I will not saith he determine Only God hath shewed some black Characters of it in every Nation where it hath prevailed though we cannot but say many Saints are under the power of it Yea and I do also farther attest that there are some very worthy Persons and eminent Christians of that way whom I exceedingly honour for their Gifts and Graces Moderation and sweetness of Spirit and Liberality towards all Christians such as these I prize as much as any Christians in England that are Paedobaptists and could as willingly imbrace them and entertain Christian Fellowship with them as with any that are of my own Judgement in the point of Baptism We ought to put a difference between humble and heady Men between factious Persons that affect Singularity and decline Communion with us because we differ from them in some Circumstances about an External Administration and such as disown Infant-baptism out of simple Perswasion looking on it as a Corruption and without Scripture ground Mr. Gerce Vind. Paedobaptismi and so cannot submit unto it lest thereby they defile their Consciences as they conceive with Will-worship when notwithstanding if other Christians be of another mind they can own them as Brethren and not divide in regard of Christian Affection and Communion Some such there are though few and such a frame of spirit was there in that Man of God Mr. Jessey as may be seen in his Book intituled A Store-house of Provision in sundry Cases of Conscience He to my knowledge was an Antipaedobaptist of long standing as holy I conceive as any of that Judgement of good Learning and of a very tender Conscience and of so healing and uniting a Spirit that he esteemed it his Duty and press'd others to it to keep up Christian Communion with those that feared God though they differed about Baptism We have his Arguments for the same published in Print and grounded upon Rom. 14.1 which are so clear and have in them such strength of Evidence that I never yet could hear them answered nor do ever expect it I wish there were more such Antipaedobaptis as he and have good ground to believe many of them would come off from their Rigidness were they not afraid of offending their weak Brethren and fettered with some engagements at first entrance into their Churches and would readily afford us the right hand of Felloship I know what a dangerous thing it is to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an accuser of the Brethren and whence that Spirit comes and can appeal to Heaven that I now appear in the defence of what I conceive to be the Truth without a malevolent mind against any of our Dissenters I have had an intimate and friendly Correspondency with many Antipaedobaptists both in this place where I now inhabit and elsewhere by reason of which some have thought I comported with them in their Opinions But this is a mistake I own what I see of God in them and in all Professors of Religion whatsoever and would have none to engross Religion to themselves And if I know my own heart where ever I see aliquid Christi any thing of Christ it attracts my Affection God's People being all alike equally dear to me as they are his and have a Conversation becoming the Gospel My Love is not confined to a Party but extensive to all Saints And though some may count me an enemy for telling them the truth and withdraw their Affection it is no more than I expect and shall encourage my self with what I long since learned from a Heathen viz. Amicus Plato amicus Socrates sed magis amica Veritas I foresee how likely I am to purchase the displeasure and dispraise of those that cannot endure to have their Opinion spoken against at which I hope to be no more dejected than elated if others shall own my poor performance under the Notion of Approbation well knowing that all Polemical and Controversial Discourses carry a face like that of a Picture suitable to the situation and light the Beholders stand in or are guided by Nor do I so much as hope to reduce any of our Opposites for the men of their Way are inflexible and seem to be as much assured the Truth is on their side as they are of the divine Athority of the Scriptures I have heard of some Quakers that have been turned but could never yet hear of one of them that changed his Opinion unless he happened to fall into some worse Errour And certainly it is a strange Presumption no less Vnchristian than Prodigious for men to assume a Prerogative of judging those to be in the dark as is the common humour of our Opposites that differ from them in this point of Baptism when they cannot but confess that in other things they are of more clarified Intellectuals than themselves and have a deeper inspection into Scripture And yet their Vnderstandings at least must be condemned whilst they impose the scanty Measure of their own as an unquestionable Standard for others to submit to Forgetting in the mean while that many who were of their own Judgment have at the long run espoused some gross Errors and renounced water-Water-baptism as a low contemptible Ceremony and owned no other Baptism but that of the Spirit It was long since observed that some of the hottest Zealots against Infant-baptism have grown so cold as to turn Seekers and to deny the lawful Administration of Ordinances So common is it for men to run from one Extreme to another But though I despair of gaining over to us any of those who are so rivetted in their Opinions considering withal how succesless politer Pens have been yet do I hope by what shall follow to put some Remora and stop to weak and wavering Souls that they be not over-hasty in coming over to the Tents of our Opposites and to establish and confirm others that are at present satisfied in the practice of Infant Baptism And because some of both Parties may take offence at what I have done for as Aristotle saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It is difficult if not impossible to please all I am obliged to signifie some Reasons amongst others that moved me to enter the Lists of a publick Dispute 1. Because the Pompous Treatise of my Antagonist being put into my hand by one of his Judgment and cried up for an incomparable and unanswerable Piece I read some part of it cursorily and confess I was amuzed at the Multitude of Quotations from Fathers Councils ancient Doctors of the Church School-men besides Modern Writers together with the Testimonies of Waldenses and Old Britains
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-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
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
are given not for Conversion but Confirmation of Grace are meer Nullities or that the Baptism Administred by them is to be reiterated Take an instance in the Circumcision of the 10 Tribes after Jeroboam's Apostacy and the casting out of the Priests and Levites 2 Chron. 11.14 15. It was generally Administred by wicked Priests and Men that had no regular call thereunto when the Priests and Levites were cast out of Office in the 10 Tribes Jeroboams Priests came in their room which were as ignorant and unskilful to expound the Law as those ye call Dumb-Dogs 1 Kings 13.33 2 Cor. 15.3 2. We must put a difference betwixt the Essentials of an Ordinance and some Circumstantial Additions and Corruptions if there be a Corruption in the Essenee or substance of the Ordinance as for Instance if Persons be not Baptized in the Name of God the Father Son and Holy-Ghost but into the Name of a Creature then such Baptism is void and null and the party ought to be Baptized again But if there be a Corruption only in the External Administration of the Ordinance though every Christian should labour to avoid such Corruption and if he hath been intangled therewith humble himself deeply before God for it yet such Baptism is valid for the substance of it and should not be reiterated At this day the Protestant Reformed Churches do hold it unwarrantable to Rebaptize those Persons who were Baptized in the Church of Rome which being administred in the Name of the Father Son and Holy-Ghost is held for true Baptism for the substance of it The other is Mr. Bartlet in his Model of the Congregational way pag. 70. Those Christians saith he which of late days calling into question the Truth and Lawfulness of their Baptism have fallen upon the Practice of Rebaptizing and taking up the Ordinance of Baptism de novo are utterly void and altogether to seek of a true and just ground from the Scripture for their Practice herein and so this latter Baptism of theirs will be found as unlawful because unlawfully Administred For if the Administration of the Seals be now tyed to ordinary Officers and those to a particular Church since the Apostles times that give them their lawful and right Call to Administer the Ordinances then it will follow that there is no Lawful Baptism but by him that is an Officer of some particular Church and he that is an Officer of some particular Church must have a Lawful Calling from the Church to which he is an Officer for all extraordinary Officers that had their Call and Commission immediately from Heaven are ceased Now those that Rebaptize cannot prove the taking up of that Ordinance again after this manner but are enforced to hold that a Disciple in Common that by the exercise of his gifts doth convert a Sinner from the evil of his ways may also Baptize him which Doctrine Mr. Hooker calls a Frenzy of the Anabaptists Mr. Hooker of new-England in his Survey of Church-Discipline C. 2. part 3. p. 9. which begins to labour with the loathsomness of itself For if that were true what need of Christ's Ordaining Officers in his Church for these purposes or why may not a Godly Woman by her good exhortations and chast conversation Converting her Husband Baptize him CHAP. VI. Wherein the Author endeavours to shew the Nullity and utter insignificancy of Infant-Baptism THus he proceeds That it is no-way safe for any to rest contented with that Baptism which they received in their Infancy may appear because such their Baptism is a meer Nullity How doth he make this out Why thus Because saith he as the right matter so the true Form is wanting for the External Form as before is shewed is not Sprinkling or pouring a little Water upon the Head or Face but a Dipping the whole Person under Water and raising him up again to figure out Death Burial and Resurrection as before if then Matter and Form be wanting which is so essential to its Being it must needs be a Nullity Although enough hath been said already to confute this in the 6th Chap. of the first Part of our Book to prove Infants of Believers fit Matter for the Church and consequently Subjects of Baptism besides what hath been said in the 4th Chap. Part 2. concerning the Ceremony of Baptism yet being willing to give the Author full measure pressed down and running over We shall say something more to evince the weakness of his Assertion in this Chapter First 't is observable that he who hath undertaken to write a Treatise of Baptism mark well should mistake both the Matter and Form of it for certainly he is out in both 1. First for the Matter of Baptism all Divines hold it is Water meer pure Water without mixture Take the Judgment of two very eminent Divines The first is the Learned Zanchy Tom. 1. Lib. 1. pag. 404. Materia Externa Baptismi est Aqua Interna Sanguis Spiritus Christi The External Matter of Baptism is Water the Internal the Blood and Spirit of Christ The other is Bucan Professor of Divinity in Academia Lausanensi He in his Theological Institutions or Common places answereth several Questions concerning Baptism this is the 18th Quae est Materia Baptismi What is the Matter of Baptism To which he gives this answer it is two-fold Externa Interna External and Internal the External is Aqua pura munda naturalis sine discrimine simplex vulgaris non prius peculiaribus Consecrata non mixta non Oleum c. That is it is pure clean simple common Water without mixture of Oyl Spittle and such kind of things as the Papists add to it de Baptismo locus 47. p. 616. The Materia Interna the Internal Matter of Baptism is Sanguis Spiritus Jesu Christi the Blood Spirit of Jesus Christ de Bapt. loc 47. Quest 22. 2. For the Form of Baptism they agree in this that it is those Words of Institution I Baptize thee in the Name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost So saith Zanchy in the aforementioned place and he brings the Words of the Apostle for both Matter and Form Ephes 5.26 That he might Sanctify and cleanse it by the Washing of Water through the Word citing that famous speech of Austin Accedit verbum ad Elementum fit Sacramentum The word joyned to the Element i.e. the Word of Institution makes the Sacrament So Bucan Quest 22. Quae est igitur forma Baptismi scil Externa what is therefore the External Form of Baptism Ans The rehearsing the words of Institution by a Minister of the Word of God viz. I Baptize thee in the Name of the Father c. which he cals aspersio aquae and then Internâ— Baptismi Forma est Interna illa actio quae Jesu Christi ipsius per Spiritum Sanctum agentis propria est The Internal Form is that Internal action of Christ working by his Spirit c.
Infant-Baptism ASSERTED VINDICATED By SCRIPTURE And ANTIQUITY IN ANSWER To a Treatise of Baptism lately published by Mr. HENRY DANVERS Together with a full Detection of his Misrepresentations of divers Councils and Authors both Ancient and Modern WITH A Just Censure of his Essay to Palliate the horrid Actings of the Anabaptists in Germany AS ALSO A Perswasive to Unity among all Christians though of Different Judgments about Baptism By OBED WILLS M. A. Vt Christus Infantes ad se venire jussit ità nec Apostoli eos excluserunt à Baptismo quidem dum Baptismus Circumcicisioni aequiparat Paul Col. 2. apertè indicat etiam Infantes per Baptismum Ecclesiae Dei esse inserendos c. Magdib Cent. 1. l. 2. c. 4. p. 354. LONDON Printed for Jonathan Robinson at the Golden Lyon in St. Paul's Church-yard 1674. THE PREFACE THere is a New Treatise come forth concerning Baptism the Design whereof is to prove the Baptism of Believers and to disprove that of Infants There is great Cracking about it and some cry it up for a None-such that it is unanswerable and as I hear the Author himself Ixion-like falls in love with his own shadow and being Philautia nimis inflatus puffed up with the excellency of his performance glories much and pretends that he hath not only proselyted many of the Vulgar sort but some also of the Ministry And it is very certain that at its first appearance last Summer divers persons were Dipped in these parts and as I have been informed 7 or 8 in a day in the City of Bristol and in all likelyhood we may hear of many more this Summer for those who are inclinable to the Way are now grown so politick as not to profess their Faith till warm Weather This I do assure the Reader that the Book as to any thing material in it hath been many times answered before ever it came forth and that 's the reason belike we have heard of no Reply since it hath seen the light which is now about twelve Months All the Mediums he useth to maintain his Opinion are such trite and out-worn things that they have been in effect trampled upon and confuted again and again Nevertheless such is the Clamorousness of some men that they affect to have the last word when in modesty they ought to be silent and consider that it is their duty to unlearn a darling Errour and no dishonour to strike sail to convincing Reason Great Endeavours have been used to undeceive the Antipaedobaptists and 't is the unhappiness of many Godly and Learned Divines instead of meeting with answerable success to have their Pains contemned and their Persons loaded with Aspersions The Author of the Treatise I am to examine hath only affixt H. D. to the Title-page that is as appears by a Second Edition lately come forth Henry Danvers although in regard of the principal Materials the Book hath more reason to pretend to J. T. that is John Tombes for its Author For although H D. hath for some years lived a solitary contemplative Life and hath had opportunity for study yet owneth he not so much Scholarship if they say true that know him as to compose such a Piece nor is he so well acquainted with Fathers Councils Schoolmen had not most of it been prepared to his hand Indeed I find he is somewhat vers'd in the Magdiburgensian History though he hath made very ill use of it But for the Argumentative part especially the Opposition made against Infant-Baptism both the Method and Matter of his Treatise declares where he hath been fishing for I find very little in it besides what is borrowed from Mr. Tombes his Exercitation and Examen long since answered by M. Marshal Dr. Homes Mr. Gerce Mr. Blake Mr. Baxter But forasmuch as the Contest hath taken a Nap for about 20 years it was thought fit to give it one lusty jog more and awaken it again And in regard those Polemical Discourses are rarely found in Vulgar hands but are thrown aside into Corners and lie solitary as neglected things in Studies and Booksellers Shops the Author and his Coniederates out of their dear love to their Darling Opinion thought meet to make some good improvement of the late Liberty granted by his Majesty's gracious Declaration and to take up the Gantlet again and fall to the old Trade of Wrangling For some men are of a restless Spirit and if their Hands be tied up from fighting they will do it with their Tongues and Pens The Preface is made up of Invectives against the Assertors of Infant Baptism but mostly against Mr. Baxter by reason of some Passages of his in a late Book called The Christian Directory against which he seems to have a very great zeal but I fear his envy against his Person doth exceed it For do but compare the Preface with the Epilogue of our Authors Treatise and you will find he seems to entertain a better opinion of John of Leyden then of him I understand Mr. Baxter will speedily write something for his own Vindication and I long to see it that so nothing that he hath said in his Christian Directory may prove a Stumbling-block to the Weak and more confirm the Antipaedobaptists in their Errour The truth is those people are very sensible how much he hath wounded their Cause and are glad with an occasion of wounding his Reputation But I profess I could not but smile to observe how he seems to bewail the Indiscretion of Mr. Baxter and rebukes him for Printing his Judgement in some Points that refer to Baptism and other things at such an unseasonable time as if he had hit upon the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or the fittest opportunity to declaim against Infant Baptism But doth he take this to be a fit time of the day to use his own Phrase to widen Differences and set us at farther distances when we are almost sinking under fears and daily expectations of troubles Is it a fit season for us to be wrangling when Gods Rod is shaking over all our Heads Must he at such a time enter upon the old Obfolete Controversie and inveigh against Childrens Baptism which evermore hath occasioned heart-burnings and fruitless contendings especially when 't is disputed against with a lofty bitter and disdainful Spirit of which we perceive too much in this last attempt Ah! what a restless Genius is there attending some Opinions and how careless of the Churches Peace are the Abettors of them What the Author himself speaks pag. 308. from Clopenburg's Epistle of the Anabaptists heretofore in Germany is too true of some of those in England viz. That they suffer not the pure Reformed Churches to be edified without daily conflicts For not only heretofore in times of Liberty but even now under restraint some hot-spirited Persons publish their Tenents with such a rigid and condemning Spirit that it proves the greatest hinderance of Union and Conjunction amongst us in this Nation The
saved and consequently our Children cannot be saved because they cannot believe The same condition being required to precede Baptism that is required to precede Salvation You see whether the Argument may be carried and what little ground of comfort such doctrine affords in the death of our children To conclude then whereas they argue from this place of Mark we must believe and be baptized but Infants cannot believe therefore may not be Baptized will it not as directly follow that since they can't believe they must be damned let them frame an answer to the one and then they have answered both for look saith Mr. Marshall by what distinction they will maintain the Salvation of Infants against this Argument by the same will I more clearly justifie the Baptism of Infants against this Argument Having thus cleared the Texts from the false glosses Antipaedobaptists put upon them we shall next examine the passages out of Authors which my Antagonist quotes for his opinion The first he brings is Mr. Baxter who having so notably wounded their cause in his plain Scripture proof for Infant Church-Membership and Baptisme is become the man of their indignation and Indeed I fear the Author with whom I have to do is possest with a malevolent spirit against that Learned and Godly Divine and is glad of any occasion to wound his reputation as appears by his dealing with him in his Preface and divers other places in the Treatise Mr. Baxter saith he doth fully acknowledge in his Book called the second Disputation of Right to Sacraments pag. 149 150. Where he saith This speaking of the Commission of Christ to his Disciples is not like some occasional mentioning of Baptisme but it is the very Commission it self of Christ to his Disciples and purposely expresseth their several works in their several places and orders Their first Task is to make Disciples which are by Mark called Believers The second work is to baptize them whereto is annext the promise of their Salvation The third work is to teach them all other things which are after to be Learned in the School of Christ to contemn this order saith he is to contemn all Rules of Order for where can we expect to find it if not here I profess my Conscience is fully satisfyed that the Minister must expect a profession of Faith before Baptism To discover the Craft and Sinister dealing of our Opponent I must first acquaint the Reader that Mr. Baxter disputing with Mr. Blake who was for a large Admission to the Sacraments explains the Thesis in his second disputation thus viz. That Ministers must not Baptize the Children of those that profess not saving faith upon profession of any Faith that is short of it these are his very words pag. 53. And after it nine lines lower that he might not be mistaken hath this by way of caution viz. That he would have the Reader to understand that all along in the discourse of the whole Book the dispute is about the aged themselves whether they may be baptized so that it is none of our work at this time saith he to defend the Subjects as to their age against the Anabaptists but our present business is to enquire what that faith is that quallifieth persons to be just subjects of Baptism or to be such whose children may receive it upon the account of their faith or profession Disp 2. p. 4. Moreover in his fourth Disputation he hath this passage We take it for granted that the Right of Infants is upon the account of their Parents Faith therefore we manage this discourse with respect to the Adult P. 351. What could any man in the World say more to prevent the Cavils of unworthy persons And certainly he had not said so much unless he had known how our opposites lye at the Catch and yet we see this would not do for we have found a man of so much dis-ingenuity as to traduce and pervert the sayings of this worthy person to countenance his errour I have been the larger in setting down Mr. Baxters words that it may leave some impression on the Readers Memory when he finds any thing quoted out of Mr. Baxters Disputations about the Right to Sacraments that so it might be as a Key to open his meaning in all those numerous passages the Author hath pikt up out of that Dispute which indeed fills up many pages of his Book Next we have Mr. Calvin introduced as speaking something in favour of their opinion Ergò ut se ritè ad Baptismum offerant homines peccatorum confessio ab illis requiritur alioqui nihil quam inane esset ludicrum tota actio Notandum est de Adultis his verba fieri Calv. in Mat. 3.6 Verùm quia docere prius jubet Christus quam baptizare tantum credentes ad Baptismum vult recipi videtur non ritè administrari baptismus nisi fides praecesserit c. Eos qui fide in Ecclesiam Dei ingressi sunt videmus cum sua sobole censeri in Christi membris in salutis haereditatem simul vocari Nec modò seperatur hoc modo Baptismus a fide Doctrina quia licet pueri Infantes nondum per aetatem fidem babent Deus tamen eorum parentes compellans c. whereas few ever wrote so smartly against them it is from that same passage of his on Mat. 6. c. Therefore that men may rightly offer themselves to Baptisme Confession of sin is required otherwise the whole action would be but Sport The words indeed are Mr. Calvins so that I confess my Antagonist speaks truth but he should have done well to have spoken the whole truth For Mr. Calvin also cauteously adds It is to be Noted that these words are spoken of Adult persons And that we may see his judgement fully take notice of his Paraphrase upon the 28. of Mat. 19. and that other Text Mark 16.16 But because saith he Christ commandeth us to teach before he commands us to Baptize and he would have believers only admitted to Baptism it seems Baptism is not rightly administred unless faith goeth before From this place saith Calvin the Anabaptists oppose Infant Baptism To which he presently answers That those whom we see by a Profession of their Faith to be admitted into the Church we are to look upon them together with their off-spring as the members of Christ and to be jointly called to the inheritance of the Saints neither is Baptism hereby separated from Faith and Teaching because though children have not yet faith by reason of their Age. Nevertheless God taking their Parents into Covenant they themselves are also to be imbraced in the same Covenant After Calvin comes Piscator to as little purpose whose words on Mark 1.4 are these It is called the Baptisme of Repentance because John Preached remission of sins to the penitent Believers But why should this worthy Author be thus curtail'd whenas he farther expresseth himself thus Baptismus
will amount unto in this Chapter His first Testimony is from Luther de Sacrament Tom. 3. fol. 168. where he saith Luther hath these words viz. That in times past it was thus that the Sacrament of Baptism was Administred to none except it were to those that acknowledged and confessed their faith c. The which when I read I was not well assured but that my Antagonist might be guilty of Forgery knowing Luther to be a most fierce and zealous opposer of their way wherefore I did very carefully examine the third Tome of Luther concerning Sacraments I read the 168. pag. and read it again with a friend and do profess that there is not one syllable to the purpose for which the Author brings him no nor in any page thereabout The next that he Cites is Bullinger who it â—â—ns hath such words as these in his houseâ—â—k 48 Sermon Baptism hath no prescribed â—e by the Lord and therefore it is left to the â— choice of the Faithful I have not the book by me to examine the â—â—th of this but however I am certain there â—othing in that passage against Infant-Baptism â—hat this testimony can do us no hurt and we â—â—w very well how large a book Bullinger hath 〈◊〉 Contra Anabaptistas against the Anabaptists â—hat I wonder the Author should bring him 〈◊〉 The Reader may observe how zealous an â—rtor of Infant-Baptisme this Learned and â—â—ly Divine was by that one passage of his in 〈◊〉 Compendium of the Christian Religion de â—cto Baptismo ac de Infanâ—s Baptizandis lib. 8. pag. 〈◊〉 viz. Quoniam autem Christianorum liberi in faedere Dei suni Christus etiam Infantium salvator est cumque ad ipsos pertineat ut veteris ac novi Testamenti literae testentur-Baptismus Faeperis figillum iis negari non debet That because the â—dren of Believers are in â—â—nant with God and 〈◊〉 is their Saviour and â—romise also belongs to 〈◊〉 as both the Old and 〈◊〉 Testament do witâ—â—â—â— Baptisme which is the 〈◊〉 of the Covenant is not to be denyed them 〈◊〉 And after this concludes Hortor autem â—â—omnes pios ac verè Christianos ut studiose â—â—terque sibi a contentiosa venenata Anaâ—â— arum sectâ caveant quae externa specie quiâ—â— Hypocrisi splendet reverà autem paestilenâ—â— est haeresis atque plurimas baereses quibus oâ—â—te aliquot secula Ecclesia Chrsti turbata lacerata fuit in se complectitur illisque plurimos homines inficit I forbear to English it out of respect to some which I believe are Godly and yet opposite to the Baptisme of believers Children Lastly The Author quotes a great deal out of Mr. Baxters Disputations with Mr. Blake about Right to the Sacraments but we have before spoil'd his Market by giving the Reader a Key out of the same Book by which he may understand him So that all those Examples from John the Samritans the Eunuch Paul Lydia the Jaylor Crispus c. doth but mind us again of the Authors dis-ingenuity in traducing that Worthy Divine CHAP. IV. Wherein he labours to prove Believers the only Subjects of Baptisme from the Spiritual ends of the Ordinance where he gives us an Induction of the particular ends of Baptisme as follows 1. THe first end of Baptisme saith he is that the Baptized might have that represented in a Sign or Figure and Preached to his Eye in the Ordinance which had been Preacht to his Ear and Heart by the word and Spirit respecting the whole Mystery of the Gospel and his duty and obligation therein A Sign being as Paraeus observeth some outward thing appearing to the sence through which some inward thing is at the same time apprehended by the understanding Repl. I. I deny this to be the primary end of Baptism For not to insist upon that which hath given too great advantage to Antipaedobaptists That the first end of Baptisme is to give a solemn entrance or admission into the Church I conceive it to be more true to affirm That the first and chief end of Baptisme is to be the Initiatory sign or seal of Gods Covenant and favour to us in Christ For as Dr. Ames observes in his Bellarminus enervatus Tom. 2. lib. 2. unless persons are to be reputed Members of the Church Nisi habendi tales essent viz. fidelium infantes pro membris ecclesiae non deberent Baptizari Baptismus enìm suâ naturâ est sigillum insitionis jam factae in Christum atque adeò in Ecclesiam Act. 10.47 48. they ought not to be Baptized for Baptism in its own nature is the seal of our being already ingrafted into Christ and so consequently into the Church Acts 10.47 48. He speaks concerning the Baptism of the Children of Believers and affirms they ought not to be Baptized but under this consideration that they are members of the Church which we shall hereafter make good in its proper place 2. I acknowledge that to Adult persons Baptisme reprefents in a sign that to the eye which is Preacht to the eare respecting the Mysteries of the Gospel c. Although I see not how it can be so in the way of Dipping for how can persons under water see apprehend or hear any thing during that time when and whereby the Sences and Understandings of men are so confounded that they have no power to exercise their faith or reason as they should and since plunging over head and ears puts people into such an amazing condition not without frights especially in the more tender Sex some being neer throtled or drown'd it is to be susspected to be none of Christs appointments for one would think that at such a juncture of time especially when an Ordinance is celebrated representing so many Gospel Mysteries it is requisite the mind should be in a more omposed posture then theirs are like to be in whose heads are under Water We grant Baptism to be a sign of spiritual Mysteries represented to the eye of such as are grown up and rightly Baptized As Circumcision was a sign of the same import to Abraham and it is of present and immediate use to the aged Rom. 4. Abraham reeived the sign of Circumcision as the Seal of the righteousness of Faith and we acknowledge also both the Sacraments are of immediate and present use to the aged and in this sence we are to understand Paraeus speaking of Sacramental Signes but let it be considered that the children of Abraham received the sign of Circumcision as well as Abrabam and yet they were void of understanding and judgment and knew no more of the spiritual Mysteries represented therein then our Infants do in the Ordinance of Baptism Circumcision represented the same Mysteries that Baptism doth and yet those poor Israelitish Babes that were Circumcised knew not that the cutting-off the fore-skin shadowed out the corruption of nature and the nature of Mortification the blood shed in the act also held
Saints and our Saviour tells us that of such is the Kingdom of Heaven and they are to be no other then Saints and we are warranted by a Divine Testimony to look upon them as such which in their present Infant-state they cannot be liable to any suspicion of defeating by Hypocrisie as grown persons may The Author brings in Dr. Taylor whom he looks upon as his dear friend and he hath reason for it having helpt him to a great part of his Book The said Dr. saith he tells us very elegantly in his Lib. of Prophecy pag. 242. That this is truly to be Baptized whatsoever is less then this is but the Symbole only a meer Cere mony an opus operatum a dead Letter an empty shadow an Instrument without an Agent to manage or force to actuate it Repl. The Dr. wants not words but this signifies nothing against Infant-Baptism for all this may be as truly said of those that are Baptized when grown up that have not truth of grace But because I observe with what Reverence this Doctor is mentioned as if all were Canonical which he saith in their behalf and I find the Authors Book to swell with his Sesquipedalia verba I shall for prevention of delusion inform the Reader with some news which may be worth his hearing Know therefore that the said Doctor put forth a Book about 20. years since entituled The Lyberty of Prophecy in which he pleads for a Toleration as for others so also for those that dissent from Infant-Baptisme There he personates an Anabaptist and tells us he will draw up a Scheme or Plea for them and saith he though they be deceived yet they have so great excuse of their side that their Error is not impudent lib. of Proph. p. 223. and therefore may be tolerated Then doth he shew what they may say for themselves and concludes Thus far the Anabaptists may argue and they have been incouraged in their Error more by the accidental Advantages we have given them by our weak arguings then by any Truth of their cause or excellency of their wit The Doctor therefore having a mind it seems to shew the excellency of his own wit A worthy Testimony to be brought against Infant-Baptisme hath said more for them then ever they could before or since say for themselves so that his strong arguings for them hath eventually proved a greater encouragement to them then ever any of our weak arguings did before And yet after all the goodly Harrangue he makes in their behalf he at last shuts up with this viz. The use I make of it never dreaming what use H.D. would make of it is That since there is no direct impiety in their opinion they are by all means Christian fair and humane to be convinced and instructed but if they cannot be perswaded they must be left to God and I am of his mind And lastly adds for his own part he believes infant-Infant-Baptism to be a truth but because some have thought the Doctor had spoke more in their behalf then he himself could well answer as Conjurers sometimes raise spirits they cannot lay he hath since put forth an Excellent piece stiled A Consideration of the practice of the Church in Baptizing Infants of Believing Parents and the Practise justified Printed by J. Elesher for R. Royston at the Angel in Ivy-lane M. DC L. II. in the Preface to which we have this account That as for those Arguments which in The Liberty of Prophecying Sect. 18. are alleadged against Paedobaptisme and in the opinion of some do seem to stand in need of answering he had it once in thought to have answered them but upon these considerations he forbore 1. Because those Arguments are not good in themselves or to the question precisely considered but only by relation to the preceeding Arguments there brought for Paedobaptisme they may seem good one against another but those in the Plea for the Anabaptists have no strength but what is accidental as he conceives 2. Because in this Discourse for Infant-Baptisme he hath really laid such grounds and proved them that upon their supposition all those arguments in the Liberty of Prophecy and all other which he ever heard of will fall of themselves 3. Because those Arguments to his sense are so weak and so relying upon failing and deceitful Principles that he was loath to do them so much reputation as to account them worthy the answering 4. Because he hath understood that his very worthy friend Dr. Hammond Dr. Hammonds Letter of Resolution to 6 Quaeties Printed by J. Elesher for R. Royston at the Angel in Ivy-lane 1653. hath in his Charity and Humility descended to answer that Collection I have transcribed all this that the Reader may mind this Information when ever he meets with any thing quoted out of Dr. Taylor as he shall at least eighteen times and sometimes very largely whole pages nay two pages and more at a time by our Antagonist in his Treatise of Baptisme And truly a man would wonder at his weakness that since the Doctor in his Lib. of Proph. doth profess himself for Infant-Baptisme notwithstanding all that he says against it personating an Anabaptist as he confesseth and since he doth so villifie them for their error and weakness the Author should undervalue his cause so much as to make use of such fallacious reasonings as the Dr. himself calls them Next we have him again at Mr. Baxter wronging both him and his Reader in what he citeth out of his Disputation with Mr. Blake as formerly Mr. Baxter saith the Author in his 10 Argument pag. 117 118. speaks to the same purpose viz. Christ hath instituted no Baptisme but what is to be a sign of present Regeneration c. Here he curtailes Mr. Baxters words on purpose to blind the Reader for Mr. Baxter adds at least to men of age The 4. End is signally to represent the Covenant and promise that the Believer enters into hereby viz. to dye to sin and live to Christ for which he cites Mr. Perkins Baxter and Dr. Taylor the two former we have spoken enough of in the first Chapter where we find them most professedly for Infant-Baptisme and have condemned the Author for wresting their sence they speaking of Adult persons or Aliens and not in opposition to the Baptisme of Believers children and for that of Dr. Taylor That Baptisme is called the answer of a good conscience towards God 1 Pet 3.21 which saith he can by no means be applyed to the Infant since they are not capable thereof till they know to refuse the evil and choose the good Repl. I. To this Dr. Hammond answers namely This is as true of that Baptisme which belongs to children as to any other only the duty of it is not required till they come to years and ability to perform it and then if they keep not a good conscience it will be little available And if this be of any force
against Baptizing Infants it will be of the same force against Circumcising them since S. Paul Rom. 2.28 doth as much invalidate the external part of Circumcision as St. Peter here doth that of Baptisme 2. 'T is therefore a meer Parologisme so to argue for the Apostle Peter speaks of the Adult that could give a reason of their faith and not of Infants for the Apostle had then to deal with such who upon their being Baptized were to make profestion of a good Conscience And this as we shall hereafter shew out of the Magdeburgenses was the practice of the Primitive Church in this Case for having to deal with Infidels they first Catechised and Taught them the first Elements and Principles of the Christian Religion whereupon they were called Catechumeni i.e. persons that were to be Catechised that being done and they brought to some competency of knowledge they then openly declared and testified their Repentance and Faith before the Congregation where they were to be baptized And this they did by answering to some questions proposed by the Minister To this the Apostle seems to allude when he calls Baptism 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i.e. The answer of a good Conscience towards God so our Translation renders it though as Beza notes upon the place not so fully expressing the force of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which properly signifies an Interrogation or questioning so the vulgar Latin renders it Interrogatio bonae conscientiae The Interrogation of a good Conscience Beza translates it Stipulatio bonae conscientiae The Stipulation of a good Conscience Now Stipulation is properly an Answer to a Question when one being demanded concerning a thing he returns Answer and by his answer engageth himself to do somewhat that is required Now this practice of giving an account of ones faith by way of answering to questions as Beza notes upon this place of Peter was drawn from the Primitive use in after ages out of a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Beza Annotat. in 2. Pet. 3.21 a perverse imitation and applyed to the Baptisme of Infants not so fitly as he conceives they being not able to answer for themselves 3. Nevertheless though children cannot personally and actually answer for themselves I see no reason to the contrary why they may not be said to Stipulate passively in and by their parents who accept the Covenant not only for themselves but for their little ones The people of Israel did by Gods appointment enter their children into Covenant with God as appears from Deut. 20.10 11 12. and doubtless the interest of Believing Parents in their Children Dr. Taylorr consideration of the Church in Baptizing Infants is as great now as then and God as gracious to accept such covenanting under the Gospel as he was under the Law 4. In Civil Contracts it is usual with Parents to Covenant and engage for and in behalf of their Children and they are obliged to the performance of the Agreement when they come to years of discretion though they did not give their actual consent whilst in their Minority when the Agreement was made The very law of Nature teacheth Parents to Covenant for their Children when 't is for their good Mr. Eaxter 5. Let Dr. Taylor in his latter discourse wherein he justifies the practise of Baptizing Infants of Believing Parents confute what himself says in his Liberty of Prophecy He speaks his judgement concerning the point page 53 54. thus It were well saith he speaking of the engagement or promise made for Infants in Baptism if men would rather humbly and modestly observe that constitution of the Church then like scorners deride it in which they shew their own folly as well as immodesty for what undecency or incongruity is it that our Parents should stipulate for us when 't is agreeable to the practise of all the Laws and Transactions of the World an effect of the Communion of Saints and of Christian Oeconomy For why may not Infants Stipulate as well as we All were included in the Stipulation made with Adam he made a losing bargain for himself and we smarted for his folly And if the faults of Parents and Kings and Relatives do bring evil upon their Children and Subjects and Correlatives it is but equal that our children may have benefit also by our Charity and Piety But concerning making of an agreement for them we find that God was confident concerning Abraham that he would teach his Children Further Joshua did expresly undertake for his houshold I and my house will serve the Lord. And for children we may the better do it because till they be of perfect choice no Government in the world is so great as that of Parents over their children in that which concerns the parts of this Question And it is a rare art of the Spirit to engage Parents to bring them up in the Nurture and Admonition of the Lord They are persons obliged by a superinduced bond they are to give them instructions and holy Principles as they give them meat c. The 5 End of Baptisme is to be a Sign of the Covenant of Gods part of washing away a Believers sin by the Blood of Christ and to give spiritual Life and Salvation Act. 2.38 39. Act. 22.16 1 Pet. 3.21 This also is as true of that Baptism which belongs to the Children of Believers as that which is given to Believers themselves Repent and be Baptized every one of you for the Remission of sins for the promise is to you and to your seed c. And Baptism even to Infants is a seal of Gods pardoning grace in doing away the guilt of Original sin in regard of those that belong to Gods Election if not also actual which afterward shall be committed if they live to age The 6. End mentioned by the Author is That it might be a signal Representation of a Believers Vnion with Christ called therefore a being Baptized into Christ and a putting on of Christ for which we have Dr. Taylor quoted Which cannot be says he of those who remain in their incapacities c. Which he saith is the case of Children But we shall see by and by the said Dr. confuting himself in his latter discourse of Baptism 1. To this I reply in the words of Wendeline Wendelin Christ Theo. lib. 1. c. 12. p. 166. upon the Text viz. Apostolus loquitur tantùm de Baptizatis fidelibus tùm enim Adulti ex Judaismo Gentilismo recèns conversi baptizabantur i.e. The Apostle speaks this of Believers that were Baptized for then Adult persons newly converted from Judaism and Paganisme were Baptized 2. Though children cannot put on Christ by an external Act yet they may be an infused seed of grace and we have good ground to believe all elect Infants dying have in their infant-State done so And farther if Adams sin be imputed to them for sin why may not Christs Righteousness be also imputed to them for Righteousness
Christ in whom the Covenant was confirmed to them and their seed Cottons Dialogue of Childrens Baptism p. 130. For as Mr. Cotton observes The Axe was laid to the Root of the Tree even to the stock of Abraham and all the Branches that grew upon it and were ingrafted into it so that now if they brought not forth this good fruit to believe in Christ who was then come whom the Jews generally rejected as an Impostor they and their children were cut off from the Covenant of Abraham and must say no more We have Abraham to our Father but if they held forth Repentance and Faith in Christ then the Covenant that was made to them and to their Children before did still continue to them and to their children and that 's the ground and meaning of Peters exhortation Act. 2.38 39. Repent and be Baptized every one of you in the Name of the Lord for the promise is to you c. Now what prejudice can this be to the Baptisme of Believers Infants who are admitted in the right of their Parents laying hold on the Covenant for themselves and their seed now under the new Administration as Members of the Church of Christ and in Covenant with God 2. Neither will we take the Authors word for what follows Nothing now but fruit meet for Repentance gives right to Baptisme without some qualification For first I demand what fruit of Repentance John saw in that great multitude which he then Baptized viz. Jerusalem Judea and all the Regions round about Jordan ver 5. which could not be less then some thousands of whom he could have no cognizance as to their fruits of repentance 2. I farther demand whether he could judge this great multitude which were strangers to him to be all the Spiritual seed of Abraham And since the Author observes from Johns words they had no right to Baptism from being Abrahams natural seed neither could he look upon them all as the spiritual seed let him tell us on what account he baptized them 3. It is like he will tell us they confessed their sins ver 6. and so were Baptized But will any man think they did all do so or is it said he baptized no other but such It will be hard for any man to prove that John did impose this upon them We find as Mr. Marshal notes that he Baptized them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to Repentance not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as state in Actual Repentance and his calling upon them for Repentance and Preaching the Baptism of Repentance shews that this was the lesson which they were all to learn not that they all manifested it before he Baptized them For ought we can find from the Text the Pharisees and Sadduces were Baptized by him and had they been such Penitents it had been great uncharitableness to call them Vipers We have the Author over-lashing again in the next words for he lies open every where Nothing saith he short of the spirits birth can orderly admit to Water-birth and Spiritual ordinances But since you are not Infallible let it be supposed you have been mistaken in your judgment and have baptized a person which afterward appears to be unregenerate Did you admit him orderly or no you will say you did because he was Baptized under the apprehension of being regenerate The Church lookt upon him as such and saw nothing to the contrary Very good now you are come about to what I would have and indeed if the New Testament-Church did consist only of the spiritual seed real Godly ones how abominably is the Ordinance prophaned when it so happens as it often doth that any Hypocrites are Baptized and when it appears that the Title which they had to Baptisme was but seeming will it not follow that all that was done in reference to them was a Male-Administration and Null ab initio Mr. Blakes Covenant sealed and as God looks upon them as unbaptized though they have been dipt so ought the Church to look upon them and if these Hypocrits shall repent and be converted are they not bound to offer themselves a-fresh to Baptism and can the Church refuse them and thus according to the Authors principle there will be need of a Multiplication of Baptisms He concludes this Chapter with the sayings of two Doctors as wide in judgement from each other as the two Poles yet it seems he can make them meet to serve his purpose The first is Dr. Owen who is much engaged for his Elogy but nothing at all for wresting his sentences from his intention 'T is well known the learned Dr. like to the rest of his Brethren of the Congregational way is a zealous Assertor of Infant-Baptism and the import of what he says in his Catechisme is no more then what all Congregational men hold namely That the matter of the Church is a Society or Fellowship of visible Saints and this according to the singular dexterity of this Antagonist who beats us still with our own Weapons is found to be point blank against Infant-Baptism But we shall clear this point in the next Chapter under which it falls properly to be spoken of The other Gentleman is Dr. Taylor we have said enough of him before how much he was for Infant-Baptism notwithstanding he plays the Orator and tells us he will act the part of an Anabaptist and shew what may be said for them though they are in an Errour but let us hear what he says for according to the Author he doth rarely accomodate that which he thinks is truth when as it is only by bestowing a few complements upon an error we shall seldom meet with such a parcel of affected words delivered in such a strain as did notably fuit with the Genius of the times when he writ them that is before the turn of times when men were high flown and above Ordinances The Baptism of Children saith he is an outward duty a work of the Law a Carnal Ordinance it makes us adhere to the Letter without regard to the spirit to be satisfied with shadows to return to Bondage to relinquish the mysteriousness the substance the spirituality of the Gospel c. This is brave stuff indeed high towring language I never met with the like unless it were in Mr. Saltmarsh his shadows flying away and beams of Glory And is not the Baptism of Believers think you bravely accomodated with these Rhetorical Flowers Is there one grain of Logick or Reason in all he saith And then at last the Doctor doth so well accommodate that which H.D. calls the truth that he attempts to maintain it by two gross errors delivered in one breath for saith he if the Mystery goes not before the Symbol yet it always accompanies it but never follows it in order of time But first I would fain know who told the Doctor that Grace always accompanies Baptisme for that I take to be the plain English of Mystery and Symbol without the help
of a Dictionary No doubt he learnt this good Doctrine from the Schoolmen who maintain that Baptism conferrs grace We may know the mind of them all by that passage of Suarez Suarez in tertiam partem Thom Tom. 3. quest 68. Disp 24. Art 4. sect 2. pag. 250. Per Baptismum datur gratia si aliquis est rectè dispositus ad effectum Baptismi consequendum in instanti quo receperit Baptismum recipiet gratiam By Baptisme grace is given if any man be rightly disposed to receive the effect of Baptisme in the instant that he receives Baptism he shall receive grace These men speak as if they were acquainted with the Cabinet Councel of Heaven They can tell if you will believe them the Punctum temporis the very moment when the spirit will breathe and quicken a soul And then again the Doctor is as peremptory in that which follows Grace saith he never follows Baptism which at first found is enough to scare tender souls from medling with it for if the Doctor says true you that are for Dipping upon the profession of Faith look well to your selves for if you have not grace when you are baptized you are never like to have it afterward grace saith he never follows it you are like to live and die graceless This we deny not but God may if he please make use of Baptism to confer grace but look upon it as a Popish errour that grace is in separably annext to it and a grosser one that Baptisme confers grace ex opere operato The Ancients themselves as highly as they speak of it did not hold that grace was an inseperable companion of it Austin lib. 4. contra Donatistas hath this saying Quid prodest Baptismum c. What profits Baptism to them that receive it unless they be inwardly changed And yet though it may not profit at the present yet it may for the future and not only the Adult but Infants too may receive good by it To conclude this I shall oppose to what the Doctor speaks in derogation of infant-Infant-Baptism the judgement of a more Orthodox Divine viz. Mr. Daniel Rogers who speaks more warily thus I see no cause to deny that even in and at and by the Act of Baptisme the Spirit may imprint grace on the soul of an Infant CHAP. VI. Containing his sixth Argument That Believers Baptism is the only true Baptism from the constitution of the Primitive Churches which were not saith he formed of ignorant Babes but professing men and women with an answer thereunto LEst we should contend in the dark it is necessary we agree upon the terms By Constitution must be meant the essential nature of the primitive Church and in this I suppose we are one and whereas he saith these Churches were not formed of ignorant Babes that is of those alone for so we must understand him in regard of the Antithesis which follows viz. but of Men and Women it is very true the primitive Churches were not of this make that is formed only of ignorant Babes for if they had they would have been but sorry Churches But whatever sence his words may bear we know his meaning is that Children are not included as Church-Members in the Constitution of the New Testament-Churches these being formed as he imagines altogether of professing men and women which he attempts to prove by Christs Commission where Teaching goes before Baptizing By the practice of the Apostles in planting Churches and by the Dedications and Contents of the Epistles c. To which I reply 1. That we must mind the Author with what is before said in the first chapter namely That the import of Christs Commission to his Apostles was de Ecclesia colligendâ to direct them how and in what manner they should gather Churches they being at first sent out to preach only to such as were Aliens in respect of the New Administration And we acknowledge all persons under such a Circumstance are to be Taught before they are to be Baptized or admitted into the Church But in Ecclesia collectâ a Church actually gathered wherein there are Infants the Case alters for such are to be esteemed as Portions of their Parents as being one with them in a moral account and belonging to the Church of which their Parents are Members And to avoid repetition the same answer may serve for what is urged from the example and practice of the Apostles in planting the New Testament-Churches at Jerusalem Acts 2.41 Samaria Act. 8.12 Caesarea Act. 10.47 48. Philippi Acts. 16.14 and elsewhere But I must follow him having to deal with a sort of people who take all of theirs which is not particularly answered for unanswerable By which Scriptures saith he it manifestly appears that the New Testament-Churches were formed only of Baptized Believers wherein we neither find one ignorant Babe c. But what demonstration doth he bring to make this good The Argument if he had us'd any must have run in form thus viz. If we have no examples of any other that were Members of Churches under the New Testament-Dispensation but professing believers then no others are to be accounted Church-Members but such But we have no examples of any other c. Ergo. The consequence of the Major proposition is unsound and the Minor proposition is false 1. The consequence is not sound for suppose it be granted under the Gospel the Scripture makes no mention of any childrens being Church-Members Yet to conclude from thence there were none is no good argumentation Because mention is made of the Apostles taking in professing men and women into the Church Act. 8.12 to argue thence that therefore the children of such belonged not to the Church is childish arguing But this is a more Masculine or Logical way of argumentation namely The children of the faithful were Members of the Church before Moses time before the law and why not after Moses now under the Gospel God took them into his Covenant with their Parents and for the space of 2000 years from Abraham to Christ they were Church-Members and since Christ is come in the flesh we find not this gracious Ordinance repealed There is not the least hint of any such thing in the New Testament therefore it is not repealed and the children of Believers continue Members still 2. The Minor also is false for we have intimation given us that the children of Believers are Church-Members and the Apostle writes to them as such as appears Eph. 6.1 2 3. Col. 3.20 And to make this yet more evident I shall produce an Argument or two The first shall be that of Mr. Baxter in his plain Scripture-proof of Infant Church-Membership and Baptism viz. If God have repealed the ordinance and revoked this merciful gift of Infants Church-Membership then it is either in mercy or in justice either for their good or for their hurt But he hath neither repealed it in mercy for their good nor in justice for
they shall be grafted into the Church again as before for as Mr. Marshall notes in his Defence of Infant Baptism pag. 134. At their first grafting in they and their children were grafted in at their casting out they and their children were broken off and when they shall be taken in again they and their children shall be taken in This Mr. Tombs himself grants that the Jews and their seed were rejected together yea and that they shall be taken in together pag. 66. of his answer Thus then we argue if it must be so with them it must be so with believing Gentiles now or else there will be a Schisme between Jew and Gentile in point of priviledges else there will be too distinct estates in the Christian Churches one of the Jews holy Fathers and children another of the Gentiles who have only personal priviledges none for their seed which is an absurd conceit as Mr. Geree speaks and would set up or keep up a partition-wall still contrary to that Eph. 2. I shall say nothing of other absurdities which are very numerous which come from the denying the Church-Membership of the Infant seed of believers The Author adds It is incongruous to reason and sense to imagine that little Children are any way concerned as Church Members either in the Dedications of the Epistles sent to the Churches or the Epistles themselves for they were dedicated to those who were called to be Saints c. I answer First that this is a meer Paralogism for what if we confess the Apostle directed his Epistles to such as were profest Believers and Saints by calling were none other but those or such like them concern'd in the Epistles What shall we think of carnal persons and unbelievers are they unconcerned in them This minds me with a passage in Mr. Paul's serious Reflections such another rigid Antipaedobaptist as our Antagonist He tells us pag. 9. That the Epistles were writ to particular Churches and that it will be difficult to prove they were also directed to particular Saints but saith Bunian a more moderate man although an Antipaedobaptist If this be true there is vertue indeed and more then ever I dreamed of in partaking of Water-Baptisme For if that shall take away the Epistles and consequently the whole Bible from all that are not Baptized he means after their mode of dipping being grown Christians then are the other Churches and also particular Saints in a very deplorable condition Would to God saith he of his Brethren they had learnt more modesty then thus to take from all others Nè autem existiment Corinthii hanc Epistolam ita ipsis propriam esse ut ad alios non pertineat addit Cumomnibus qui invocant nomen Domini nostri Jesus Christi in quovis loco tum ipsorum tum nostri Piscator in locum and appropriate to themselves and that for observing a circumstance c. But he better instructs Mr. Paul and turns him to St. Paul Rom. 16.5 and to the first Epistle written to Corinth and shews that the first Epistle of John was wrote to some who at that time were out of Fellowship that they might have fellowship with the Church Joh. 1.1 2 3 4. Secondly we grant the Epistles were directed some of them to professing Believers joyn'd in Fellowship directly and immediately and to their children if they had any and the children of all Believers in succeeding ages remotely and the contents of the Epistles concern both the Parents at present and the children when come to years of discretion A Father that hath several children some grown up to understanding others Minors or Babes may direct a Book or Epistle to them all Whatsoever was writ was written as much for our instruction as the Primitive Christians We know Moses and the Prophets directed what they writ to the Church under that Administration whereof their Children were a part and yet they were ignorant Babes and could not understand any thing or perform any duties But let it be considered that though they understood nothing of those divine Exhortations yet being within Gods Nursery and School they were in a nearer capacity to be taught their duty than Aliens and their Parents were injoyned to teach them the Ordinances of God and God gave this Testimony concerning Abraham that he knew he would teach his children and in the New Testament it was the commendation of Lois that she had instructed Timothy 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ab Infantia when he was an Infant or little Child 3. Whereas the Epistles are inscribed with those Titles To the Saints Saints by calling sanctified in Christ Jesus chosen adopted which cannot saith our Author be spoken of Infants To this it may be thus replyed 1. Some of those titles may be predicated of children some not 2. The Apostle calls the Churches Saints either as looking upon them all as such i.e. truely regenerate for this is the famosius significatum of the word Saint but this could not be for he pointed at some that were sad Saints in the Church of Corinth and Galatia or else he calls them Saints Synechdochically because he judged the most of them to be such and so the whole Communion were judged Saints à Potiori from the better part 3. He calls them Saints by calling i.e. by the preaching of the word and so we acknowledge Infants are not and yet the same Apostle calls the Infants of Believers Saints 1. Cor. 7.14 Else were your Children unclean but now 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they are Saints or holy and 't is the same word the Apostle useth in his inscriptions of the Epistles to the Churches 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the Saints and being he maketh use of the same word applying it to the children of believers it hints thus much to us that in Saint Pauls account who was guided by the Spirit of God in what he speaks the Infant seed of Believers are as much Saints as any who are such by calling Nor are they only foederally holy but they may be also inherently sanctified saith Mr. Tombs in his Examen They may receive the new birth and we say more they must receive it if saved Job 3.5 It is much controverted concerning the Text whether it intends grown persons or any persons of whatsoever age or sex but the Original if heeded would put an end to it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Except one be born including all ages all sexes Children are so polluted in their first birth that they can never get to Heaven by that and therefore what the first birth cannot a second must saith Dr. Taylor And if it be objected that to the new birth is required dispositions of our own which are to be wrought by and in them that have the use of Reason besides that this as the Learned Doctor speaks is wholly against the Analogy of à New-birth in which the person to be born is wholly passive and hath put into him the Principle
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
such i.e. Children not of grown men resembling Children For first That had been no good reason why such should come to him and be blessed of him 2. That had been no reason why Christ should manifest so great displeasure against his Disciples for going about to hinder them The word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 rendred in the New Translation much displeased The vulgar hath it indignè tulit he took it ill at their hands indignatus est saith Beza be lookt upon it with indignation Second The second point which it proves which is also a good ground-work for the same is That Infancy is no bar or exclusion of any from coming to Christ and receiving a Blessing Infants are capable of benefit by Christ although they do not actually believe though they cannot lay hold on Christ yet Christ can lay hold on them Obj. But Baptism is not concerned in the Text except it can be made out that that blessing was Baptizing Ans 1. It is certain that Blessing is not Baptizing but t is something more and Christ in blessing them vouchsafed that to them which usually was an Ordinance administred after Baptism and which is of a higher nature Acts 8.17 18 19. 19.6 and so we may argue from this to Baptism Inclusively or a majori from the greater 2. Though Blessing be not Baptism yet in as much as they were of the Kingdom of Heaven whom he blest it follows they were qualified Subjects for Baptism for grant to Infants a Church relation and their Baptism will follow upon it if one stands good the other will and this is all we plead for from the Text. For that which follows out of Dr. Taylor Christ Blessed Children and so dismissed them therefore Infants aré not to be Baptized It is a very idle one For First from a particular Omission to conclude an universal unlawfulness is most unreasonable as Dr. Hammond speaks It is as if one should thus argue Christ when he Preached in the Mount did not then pray but only preach therefore 't is not lawful to pray Secondly Christ did not that we know baptize any John 4.2 And if an Argument drawn from his Example Negative be pressing it would conclude as well against Baptizing those of riper years as children 3. Since Christ did that for them which did transcend Baptism we may rather conclude that certainly if he had Baptized any he would those children since he shews more respect to them then any grown persons Mr. Sydenbam in his Christian and sober Exercitation Fourthly Christs Blessing them holds forth as much as if he had baptized them for in that outward rite the Holy Ghost was convey'd and by laying on of hands others received it as appears from Acts 8.17 18 19. 19.6 And why not in this Act of Christ upon the Infants as Mr. Sydenham argues And if this Act of Christ were not a complement only but an outward sign of the receiving the Holy Ghost Who should hinder Water that Infants should not be Baptized seeing they have received the Holy Ghost as well as we Act. 10.47 And the same Author farther adds What can be more then for Christ to take up Infants in his Arms lay his hands on them as an outward sign to consecrate them to himself and to shew their capacity of receiving the Holy Ghost and then to bless them And yet we must with scorn deny them a little water and think it too much to have them named among the lowest sort of visible Saints and when Christ owns them publickly and saith that of such is the Kingdom of God But I shall rather believe Christs Testimony then any mans forward opinion And to what intent should Christ do all this but to confirm their old state in the Church and not to cast them out of it and from the participation of all outward signes of falvation Let mens consciences not gulph'd in prejudice judge This Text if there were no more will fly saith he in the consciences one day of the most confident contemners of Infants and their Baptism A Second Scripture instanced and excepted against is that John 3.5 Second Scripture instanced and excepted against Except a man be born of Water and the Spirit he can in no wise enter into the Kingdom of God From whence saith the Author 't is concluded That there is no other way to Regenerate and save Infants and add them to the Church but by Baptism But who are they that conclude thus from that Text The Papists as himself confesseth And what I pray is that to us who disclaim such inferences as he also acknowledgeth we do and for very good reasons and he might have done well to have set them down for the benefit of his Reader some of them I shall name as First Because as Calvin speaks in his Institutions Instit Christ Relig. Calv. Compend p. 322. per Launeum edit 2d Salus consistit in promissione Salvation depends upon Gods Covenant Gen. 17.7 which he cites adding in the same place Infants may be capable of Salvation without Baptism as the Israelites who dyed without Circumcision Though there be an absolute necessity that whoever are saved they must be saved by the Covenant yet there is not an absolute necessity of the Seal Before the law the Covenant was made for our comfort in respect of our Infants The seed of the Woman shall break the Serpents head Gen. 3.15 yet there was no seal to it for 2000. years nor was there such absolute necessity afterward in the days of circumcision for those that dyed before the eighth day The necessity of Salvation by the Covenant was absolute but the necessity of the seal only Conditional so far forth as it may be had 2. If Baptism be of absolute necessity to Salvation that regeneration is affixt to it and none can be saved without it then it is in mans power to save and to destroy if they will baptize their children they may save them if they neglect it damn them which is a horrible absurdity to conceive Secondly Now to the Text it self we shall next enquire what it affords with great respect to the Learned which may judge otherwise of it Either this Scripture is to be understood of Baptism or not if of Baptism then either generally belonging to all men Dr. Sclater on the 4. Rom. ver 9. or limitedly to Infants only If of Infants only then saith Dr. Solater 1. What meant Christ to propound it to Nicodemus an old man Was it his purpose to teach him that in as much as he was not Baptized in his infancy he could not enter into the Kingdom of God then sure I shall not wonder if Nicodemus conceited a necessity for an old man desiring to come to Heaven to return back into his Mothers Womb and be born again 2. Will they say it must have this gloss by limitation if a man want Baptism by contempt and not otherwise
to both Now Reader see some of the dismal consequences of their Doctrine who deny the children of Believers to be taken into Covenant with them 1. It puts a sacrilegious restraint upon the Covenant and makes an essential variation in it without warrant 2. It excludes them from the ordinary way of Salvation for if they have no visible interest in the Covenant no not so much as externally in regard of Gods visible dispensation then they have no visible interest in Christ the Mediator of the New Covenant 3. It exempts and shuts them out from a participation of the Spirit and sanctification of their natures whereby they may be made meet for the inheritance of the Saints for all the influences of the Spirit is by virtue of the Covenant 2 Pet. 1. Now Mr. Tombes himself acknowledgeth that Infants may be sanctified 4. They have no ground of comfort in the death of their children no more than they have concerning a Turk or unconverted Indians child for that which affords a visible ground of hope of the salvation of another is his visible interest in the Covenant of Grace to be an Aliene to the Covenant of promise is to be without hope in the Apostles Account Eph. 2.12 So that we may say with Mr. Ford concerning all the children of Heathens dying in Infancy They are taken into the hands of God who indeed may for any thing we know save them by Prerogative and an undiscovered depth of mercy but he hath afforded us no ground so much as to hope that any of them are saved because the Statute-Law of the Kingdom doth not extend Salvation beyond the Covenant Now an Anabaptists Faith concerning the Infants of believing Parents even his own puts them into the same irrelative condition as to God and the Covenant with the children of Infidels and by consequendce under the same hopelessness of Salvation Now let tender Parents consider who undoubtedly would think it a sad thing to bring forth children to the destroyer what sad principles theirs are by and according to which they must kiss their beloved Babes when they are a dying with that sad Farewel which the dying Heathen gave his departing soul Animula vagula blandula c. And truly one of their Opinion in this town and supposed godly said in my hearing they had no ground of it 5. And consequently they have no ground of hope ever to see them again with comfort at Christs appearance for there is no foundation of hope of a glorious resurrection unto life but by virtue of the Covenant Luke 20.36 37 38. Heb. 11.16 Act. 26.7 8. The other Scripture that he encounters with is that Act. 2.38 A parallel place to that in Gen. 17. The Argument which we bring for Infant Baptism from hence is this Those to whom the promise doth belong to them belongs Baptism but to those that repent and their children the promise belongs therefore to them and their children belongs Baptism Against this he hath a double Exception 1. By the promise there is not meant the Covenant of grace but the giving of the Spirit called the promise of the Father prophecied of by Joel 2.28 To which we answer That though in the fourth and seventeenth verse Whereis mention of the extraordinary gifts of the Spirit which refers to Joels Prophecy yet the promise in the eight and thirtieth verse is of another nature and not meant of those extraordinary Gifts for 1. Because it is such a promise as is still a fulfilling and shall be throughout all the times of the New Testament paralled to that Isa 44.3 I will pour out my Spirit on thy Seed and my blessing on thy Off-spring It is such a promise as appertains to Parents and to their children and all that shall be called to the end of the world whereas the promise of extraordinary Gifts was but pro tempore for a certain time and relating to that season 2. It cannot be understood of extraordinary Gifts because Peters hearers had no such Gifts nor had the Jews or Gentiles who were afar off and afterward called such miraculous Gifts and as Mr. Stephens notes if the promise to you and to your children be meant of extraordinary Gifts how will the parts of the Text agree with each other The Apostle exhorts them be baptized every one of you in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ for the remission of sins and then gives this reason For the promise is to you and to your children If therefore the promise be meant of extraordinary Gifts then the command be baptized every one of you will stand in immediate relation to such a promise And so the matter will come to this Issue that all that are baptized and particularly they that renounce their old to take up a new Baptism they will have a promise made to them and to their children to speak with diverse kinds of languages Which promise I never understood-was made good amongst them for few of them have any more than their Mother Tongue On the other side if the promise be taken for the promise of Christ and for remission of sin by his blood in this case it will be easie to shew the connexion of the words for what can be more aptly spoken than this Be baptized every one of you in the name of the Lord Jesus for the remission of your particular sin for the promise of the pardon of sin by the blood of Christ doth belong to you and to your children 3. The promise here mentioned was to give hope to those poor creatures and to prevent the despair which they were ready to fall into upon conviction that they had crucified the Lord of Life and what comfort could this bring to their wounded consciences to tell them they should have the miraculous gifts of tongues 2. 'T is farther objected by children are no other meant than the posterity of the Jews To which we reply with Mr. Sydenham 1. The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies off-sping though never so young Joh. 16.21 Luk. 1.31 Mat. 1.26 Luk. 1.57 2. 'T is an indefinite word therefore must not be restrained to grown children except God had exprest it in a peculiar phrase 3. It must be understood of their Infants because he useth the phrase of speech to these Jews which they had been trained up in from their fathers I 'll be the God of thee and thy Seed and the Jews must needs understand him speaking in this Dialect of their children included in the promise 4. Why should the Apostle name children if he had not meant Infant Seed otherwise it had been sufficient to have said the promise is to you and as many as the Lord shall call but therefore names children because it had relation to the Covenant It is true what the Author saith concerning Dr. Hamond that he conceives children to be there really the posterity of the Jews and not particularly their Infant children but that is but one Doctors
Opinion in opposition to an innumerable company of our judgment and that not without sufficient ground if the forementioned reasons be well weighed The other is Dr. Taylor who speaks not his own sence upon the Text but personates as he tells us an Anabaptist we may see his own proper judgment in his last piece viz. The consideration of the practice of the Church in baptizing Infants of believing Parents pag. 48.49 It is saith he in our case as it was with the Jews children our children are a holy Seed for if it were not so with Christianity how could S. Peter move the Jews to Christianity by telling them the promise was to them and their children For if our children be not capable of the Spirit of promise and holiness and yet their children were holy it had been a better Argument to have kept them in the Synagogue than to have called them to the Christian Church And indeed if the Christian Jews whose children are circumcised and made partakers of the same promises title and inheritance and Sacrament which themselves had at their first conversion to the faith of Christ had seen their children shut out from the new Sacrament of Baptism it is not to be doubted but they would have raised a storm greater than could easily be suppressed since about their circumcision they had raised such tragedies and implacable disputations and there had been great reason to look for a storm for their children were circumcised and if not baptized then they were left under a burthen which their fathers were quit of for S. Paul said unto you whosoever is circumcised is a debtor to keep the whole Law these children therefore that were circumcised stood obliged for want of Baptism to perform the Laws of ceremonies to be presented to the Temple to pay their price to be redeemed with silver and gold to be bound by the Law of pollutions and carnal ordinances ad therefore if they had been thus left it would be no wonder if the Jews had complained and made a tumult they used to do it for less matters and this may serve to ballance what the Author quotes form the Doctors lib. of Proph. p. 233. Except 4. Because saith he Circumcision was only a Seal to Abraham not to believers and their Seed a Seal of the Faith that Abraham had long before he was circumcised but so could it not be said of any Infant that had no faith Repl. In this the Author doth quadrare with the Papists So say the Jesuites and so say the Antipaedobaptists Bellarmin and after him others object that Circumcision in Rom. 4. Bellarmin lib. 1. de Sacramentis is not said to be a Seal vniversally to any faith but only a Seal of the individual faith of Abraham which is clear saith he in that it is expresly said it was a Seal of the righteousness of the faith that he had being yet nncircumcised that he might be the father of all that believe but only Abraham could be such a father c. your collection saith he is naught when you say Circumcision was a Seal of Abrahams faith that therefore it is so to others for you conclude a general from a particular So he and his followers limits the use of Circumcision as a Seal of the righteousness of faith to Abraham only Paraeus gives an acute reply to this Paraus ad locum Quod omni Speciei inest toti generi recte tribuitur sicut igitur valet Homo Equus quodvis animal sentit movetur sensus motus differentia Systatica generis recte dicitur Sic. valet circumcisio est 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 addita foederi obsignationis causâ ergo Dr. Sclater on the fonrth of Romans thus That which belongs in common to all the Species may well enough be attributed to the general for that which all the Species have in common they have from their general But why saith Dr. Sclater should circumcision be a Seal to Abraham only and not to others as well as him was the Covenant made with him only or with his Seed also or was Circumcision a sign of the Covenant to Abraham only or else to his Seed also if the Covenant belong to all if Circumcision was to all a sign of their being in the Covenant why not to all also a Seal of righteousness Forsooth say the Papists one end of Abrahams Circumcision was peculiar to Abraham as that he should be the father of all Believers therefore this also of being a Seal of the righteousness of faith Answ And I wonder why we may not conclude by like reason that to Abraham only it was a Sin of the Covenant because this end they mention had place in Abraham only But let us more nearly view the reasons it was Abrahams privilege only to be the father of all Believers both circumcised and uncircumcised ergo his privilege only to have circumcision a Seal of righteousness how prove they that consequence Because Paul joins both together and therefore they are of like privilege Answ Why may we not say ut supra that the necessity of the sign of Circumcision was also Abrahams privilege because it also is joined to the rest But for fuller satisfaction view the scope of the Text which is this to shew that justification belongs to Believers of both people the proof is from a sign Abraham had righteousness in uncircumcision therefore righteousness belongs to the uncircumcised for this was that the Lord mystically intended to signifie in justifying of Abraham before Circumcision and in commending Circumcision to him justifyed but why doth he mention that end of Circumcision as sealing up the righteousness of faith Answ To obviate an objection which might be made in this manner if Abraham was justified before Circumcision what profit received he by that Sacrament Answ It sealed unto him the righteousness of faith and shall we say now it was Abrahams privilege to be confirmed in perswasion of righteousness belike then his posterity either needed not such confirmation and so Abrahams privilege shall be to be the only weakling in faith that needs means of confirmation or else his Seed shall lack that help that Abraham had for establishment though the Covenant was equally made to them Thus far Dr. Sclater and I repent not may pains he hath so cleared the point that I know not what either Papist or Antipaedobaptist can say against it I shall add that which every one will subscribe to that the children of Abraham stood in much more need of a Seal to confirm their faith then he himself with whom the Covenant was originally made and for that reason was called the father of the faithful as well as for the eminency of his faith It could not be saith the Author a Seal to an Infant that had no faith Repl. I perceive he hath read Bellarmin for he jumps in with him his words are these If it be a Seal of Faith in that Baptism comes
much advance it above Circumcision what is there in it of it self since they keep such ado about it more than in Circumcision It is altogether in it self as carnal as Circumcision and the people that submit to it as carnal as others and as carnal and perverse an use do some of them make of it as the Jews did of Circumcision Some I know are more wise and sober than the rest but too too many make an idol of their Baptism they make it a fire-brand of contention and the beginning and end of all Religion When as to speak plainly the Baptism of water of it self due reverence being still had to all Gods Ordinances in their places is as low and carnal a thing as poor a Ceremony as empty a sign and shadow as Circumeision Baptism and Circumcision as to the letter are just alike as to any intrinsecal worth the one relates to the letting out of a little blood the other to the washing of the filth of the flesh The cleansing of ones hands and feet from dirt is the same with it Mr. Sydenham 's sober Exercit. and as efficacious and acceptable as this of it self In a word there is a Circumcision in the flesh and a Circumcision in the heart the former carnal the later spiritual and so there is a Baptism of the flesh and a Baptism of the spirit The Apostle derides Circumcision in the flesh where that of the heart was wanting by giving it the contemptible name of Concision Blakes Covenant sealed And as Circumcision was Uncircumcision so Dipping is non-Non-Baptism where that of the spirit is wanting 4. Lastly he saith Circumcision was to be a Bond to keep the whole Law Repl. The place is Rom. 2.25 Circumcision verily profiteth if thou keep the whole Law The Apostle intends both ceremonial and moral Law as else where he speaks He that is circumcised is a Debtor to the whole Law the meaning is he that is circumcised with an opinion that he shall be justified thereby that same man is fallen from Grace that is from the way of justification by a Covenant of Grace Mr. Blakes Covenant sealed and puts himself under a Covenant of works and so is bound to keep the Law in every punctilio nevertheless Circumcision in it self was properly a Bond binding the faithful to Evangelical Obedience walk before me and be upright or sincere Gen. 17.1 Circumcision which was the Seal of the righteousness of Faith did oblige Abraham to walk perfectly or sincerely before God and hereunto also Baptism obligeth us 5. He adds Circumcision was administred to all Abrahams natural Seed without any profession of Faith whereas Baptisim is to be administred to the spiritual Seed of Abraham only upon profession Repl. Here 's a double mistake for first we have shewed before that the children of excommunicated persons that were impenitent were denyed Circumcision Godwin's Moses and Aaron lib. 5. cap. 2. pag. 181. So Buxtorf Secondly we find some baptized in the fourth of Matthew and Lydias house when none that we hear of professed Faith but her self 6. Lastly He draws low is come to the Dregs Note here Mr. Tombs and he differs for Tombs grants they are both the same Sacraments for the spiritual part viz. Sanctification by the Spirit and juslification by the Blood of Christ Examen p. 83. tells us Circumcision was a sign of Temporal Blessings and Benefits to be enjoyed in the land of Canaan whereas Baptism was to be a sign of spiritual Benefits Repl. But I pray what Temporal Blessings and Benefits in the land of Canaan did they enjoy who never entred into it But this is but an evasion learn'd from the Jesuites as before For Canaan or temporal Blessings were not the only things which Circumcision sealed neither yet the main thing for Gen. 17.7 God promised Abraham to be his God and the God of his Seed this was the grand promise the main of the Covenant which Circumcision sealed up temporal Blessings were but an Additament The Text saith Circumcision was a Seal of the righteousness of Faith and so of all spiritual mercies as much as Baptism Nor is Baptism only a seal of spiritual blessings this will not be owned for a true position in Divinity for Baptism sealeth our deliverance out of afflictions as well as out of corruption yea it sealeth to us the raising our bodies from death out of the grave Cottons Grounds and Ends of Infant-Baptism as well as our souls out of the death in sin Baptism sealeth a much temporal as spiritual blessings for he that gives Christ how shall he not with him give us all things else and indeed Mr. Tombes like a Divine acknowledgeth that both Circumcision and Baptism signifie the righteousness of Faith and sanctification of the heart Exerc. p. 6. and Exam. p. 83. After all this unsound stuff the Author is pleased to grant there is some Analogy little without doubt betwixt the one and the other and since he toucheth it only with a light finger I shall give you the Analogy between them more fully The Analogy betwixt Circumcision and Baptism 1. Circumcision was a Seal of the Covenant made with Believers and their Seed 2. By Circumcision Believers and their Seed had entrance into the Church of the Jews 3. Circumcision shadowed forth the corruption of our nature by cutting off the foreskin of the flesh 4. Circumcision shadowed out also mortification to sin or regeneration by cutting of the fore-skin and casting it away 5. In Circumcision there was blood-shed which pointed at our Redemption by Christ 6. Circumcision was a Bond to Evangelical Obedience Gen. 17.1 Walk before me and be upright So is Baptism 1 Pet. 3.21 So are Believers and their Seed by Baptism into particular Gospel Churches Baptismal washing points at the same 1. Pet. 3.21 The same is signified by Baptism Rom. 6.3 4. called by Peter the laver of Regeneration The water in Baptism represents the same viz. the doing away the guilt of sin by his blood So also is Baptism 1. Pet. 3.21 Notwithstanding all this if we will follow the Authors advice we must not by any means conclude that Baptism comes in the room of Circumcision and for this reason which lies at the bottom because then he must renounce his opinion for it will thence follow that Infant-Baptism is an Ordinance of Jesus Christ But he hath learn'd from Mr. Tombes to give a ponderous reason why though there be some Analogy we must not own it to come in the room and stead of Circumcision Tombes again Exercitation p. 7. viz. Because there is an Analogy between other things and Baptism and we may on the same account say it comes in the room and stead of them As the Ark Manna Rock and from such like Arguments drawn from Analogies what Jewish Rites may by our wits be introduced to the countenancing the Papists in their High-Priest-Hood Tythes But will he never have done
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-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
Take notice Reader what a pittiful mistake it is in the Author to call Dipping the Form of Baptism for if that were it then any man may Baptize himself and every Boy that baths and dives under Water may be said to be Baptized But one would think he were conscious to himself of a wilful mistake by the Objection he frames for us Object But 't is said there was the right words of Baptism it was done in the Name of the Father the Son and the holy-Holy-Spirit Answer So there was saith he in Baptizing Bells Churches But doth he take this for a sufficient Answer Are Bells Subjectum capax a Subject capable of a Sacrament Quia in ipso initio Regenerationis cujus sigilium est Baptismus homo se habet merè passive undè etiam homines vel Circumcindendi vel Baptizandi nulla actio Externa requiritur sed tantum receptio passâ—â—aâ— Infantes igitur sunt capaces hujus Sacramenti respectu praecipui ejus usus atque Adulti Children were heretofore and so they are still as Dr. Ames in his Medulla Theologiae Lib. 1. c. 11. p. 186. Baptism saith he comes in the room of Circumcision Col. 2.11 12. and belongs as much to Children of Believers as Circumcision did formerly for at our first Regeneration saith he of which Baptism is a Seal Man is meerly passive As it was in Circumcision so is it in Baptism he is not Active but Passive and therefore Infants in respect of its chief use of being a Seal are as capable of the Sacrament of Baptism as the Adult Now though this may suffice yet having promised to be liberal We will suppose Dipping to be of use in the Apostles days yet it will not follow that it is essential to the Sacrament of Baptism so that in the want of it Baptism is a Nullity For the clearing of which we must know 1. That in every Ordinance there are some things essential which failing the very being of the Ordinance is destroyed 2. Some things requisite because enjoyned but yet not essential but only needful to the compleat and well-being of an Ordinance 3. Some things meerly indifferent as being the determination of some Circumstances left undetermined in the Institution of it As in the Lords Supper the hour when the kinds of Bread and Wine the posture and number of the Partakers either sitting or standing or the like So in Baptism whether the Person be Baptized by day or by night in Rivers or Pools or Vessels so he be able to bear it whether the Water pass on all his Body or some parts the rest unwashed And so for this of Dipping it comes under the nature of an indifferent Circumstance although some place Superstitiously such necessity in it I say it may be accounted an indifferent Circumstance so that Baptism in other things right is true Sacramental Baptism whether done by way of Sprinkling or Dipping which is thus proved 1. That which equally represents the grace signified is of indifferent use but the Baptism either by Dipping or Sprinkling doth equally represent the grace signified The first Proposition is clear for in a Sacrament are but two things necessary viz. 1 The matter or Element 2 The use for representation of the Grace The Minor or Assumption is evident by considering the Grace of Baptism which is principally two-fold viz. First our putting on of Christ our Vnion to and Communion with him in which respect we are said to put him on therein and to be Baptized into him Gal. 3.27 into his death Rom. 6.3 that is by Baptism we are Sacramentally enrighted into him and his death and the fruits of it in which respects we are in the same place v. 4. said to be buried with him by Baptism into death Now this putting on of Christ is as fully signified by putting on of water on us as by putting us into water Application of Water to the Person either in one way or other is a Sign of our Union to him and so of our putting him on our burying and rising with him and Communion with him in all the effects of his death which flow from the Union But it is Objected that Sprinkling doth not represent our burying with him as Dipping doth Ans It is a fancy to imagine that every Metaphorical ☞ expression used in Scripture signifying our Communion with Christ should be punctually expressed in the Sacrament for the expressions are various putting him on burying with him Sprinkling with his Blood one sign cannot represent our Communion with him in all these Metaphors A partaking a Communion with Christ and his death is the Sacramental Grace intended by those various expressions that being represented as well by Sprinkling as Dipping it follows that water in either way of application is Sacramental 2dly Our washing or cleansing from Sin by the Blood of Christ this is the principal effect of Christ's death represented and Sealed in the Sacrament which is equally set out by Sprinkling as by dipping First in asmuch as washing may be done by both and indeed it is the application of Water under the formality of Washing not either of Dipping or Sprinkling which is the ☜ Sacramental use of it so that were Washing with Water though neither by Dipping nor Sprinkling yet it were a Sacrament as well as either for the Sacramental consideration in the use is the Washing 2. Numb 19.18 Heb. 9.13 Under the Law the Sacramental cleansing was done by Sprinkling in some cases and by Dipping in other and the purifying by Christ's Blood equally represented by both 3. The Blood of Christ in respect of this purifying and washing virtue and use of it is called the Blood of Sprinkling Heb. 12.24 and the Sprinkling of his Blood 1. Pet. 1.2 All which are abundant proof that the Grace of the Sacrament is as well and as fully represented in the use of Water by Sprinkling as by Dipping 2dly Those Vses of Water which are equally included in the Scripture-acceptation of the Word under the word Baptizing are of equal and indifferent use but both these Dipping and Sprinkling are so ergo The Major proposition is undoubted the Assumption is confirmed from Texts of Scripture where the Word is used to signify Washing by Sprinking as Mar. 10.38 where is a washing by Blood which could not be by Dipping but by Aspersion 1 Cor. 10.2 Is a Baptism by Sprinkling but not by dipping So Mark 7.48 Heb. 9.10 where all the Ceremonial Washings under the Law are called Baptisms now we know some of them were done by Sprinkling and some by Dipping 3. That which in all the examples and instances of Baptism we find not restrained or defined that is in this Sacrament of indifferent and arbitrary Vse But this manner of Baptizing in Scripture-examples and practice we do not find restrained or defined either to Dipping or Sprinkling We read of many Baptized but no-where specified by which of these ways whereby we may gather that
before for even this Father himself allowed of their Baptism rather than they should dye unbaptized And thus we see the Author hath made a great cry of a little Wooll Concerning the Witness pretended to be born by the Waldenses against Infant Baptism 4 Waldenses IT is a miserable cause indeed whose Advocates must still have recourse to lies for its defence and an Argument of the want of honesty and conscience for men to persist in this course when more than enough hath been said to convince them of the evil thereof It was a solemn rebuke which Job gave to his mistaken friends when they put such false interpretations upon God's dealings with him Will ye lie said he for God surely he hath no need of nor doth he require us by any sinister and sinful way to justify him in his Attributes providences cause or truth As touching the matter in hand before us if the Antipaedobaptists have the truth on their side yet certainly it is little beholding to some of them who have attempted to defend it by so many unwarrantable ways In particular I shall make it appear that the present Author with whom I have to deal is foully criminal in laying out the utmost of his skill in traducing those famous ancient Christians the Waldenses as if in their several generations they had witnessed against Infant-Baptism when he cannot but know being so well read in the Histories of that people written by Perin and Dr. Vsher that they were falsly and malitiously charged here with by their cruel Antichristian enemies Besides the Author whose Treatise about Baptism is a Compendium of what Mr. Tombes hath long since written upon that subject knows well enough and is therefore the more inexcusable how much Mr. Tombes was rebuked by two Reverend Divines Mr. Marshal Mr. Baxter for endeavouring to defend his opinion by popish Frgeries and Slanders I find by the Authors discourse that he is well read in Mr. Baxter's Plain-Proof for Infant-Baptism who in his Apologetical Preface Pag. the 10th tells us That the lying Papists do accuse the Albigenses and Waldenses our first Reformers to be Witcher Buggerers Sorcerers and to deny the Baptism of Infants Hereupon they raise war against them put them to the Sword and burn their Citys to ashes These Godly men deny their Accusations and shew that their Ministers being much abroad to spread the Gospel they kept their Children unbaptized till they came home because they would not have them Baptized by the Priests in the Popish fashion Upon this mark it the Slander was raised that they would not have Infants Baptized which they purge themselves of and profess their judgment for Infant-Baptism all which being so well known to the Author as appears by his often quoting of Perin who treats of these things it is a strange boldness to say no worse that he should dare affirm that the Waldenses amongst other Ordinances of Christ that they defended and witnessed to to death banishment and bonds that of Baptizing Believers in opposition to that of Infants was not the least Which he attempts to prove 1. By their publick Confessions of Faith 2. By some particular Witness that some of their principal Men bare thereto 3. In the more general Witness born by the body of the people as appears by the decrees of Councils decretal Epistles and general Edicts given forth against the whole party for the same 4. In the foot-steps that we find thereof in the several Countries whre they have heretofore imprinted the same Reply There are two sorts of People that 't is like will be imposed upon by the flourishes which this Champion makes those who are Ignorant and those who are prejudiced against Infant-Baptism no doubt but all this will pass for Gospel amongst such But I may say of the Author multa loquitur sed nihil dicit or rather probat and that what he says is but Vox praeterea nihil a great sound of words but no proof And this I shall make appear in order First for the Witness born in their Publick Confessions he cites Perin and if he can find any thing in that Author to serve his purpose I am much mistaken I shall shortly produce the same Author verbis rotundis most expresly against him But my Adversary hath a notable dexterity to prove quidlibet ex quolibet let us now hear what he quotes out of Perin and then judge Reader whether it be answerable to what he affirms under this first Head First of all the Author tells us out of Perin That in their ancient Confession of Faith bearing date 1120 Article 13. they say We acknowledg no other Sacraments but Baptism and the Supper of the Lord. P. Perin 87. Reader thou hast here every Syllable of the Article and is not this a knocking Argument against Infant-Baptism that they acknowledged two Sacraments Baptism and the Supper of the Lord This is a Witness indeed but 't is of the Authors weakness to produce it The next is Article the 28. of an other Confession viz. God hath Ordained certain Sacraments to be joyned with the Word as a means to unite us unto and to make us partakers of his Benefits and that there be only Two of them this is a Witness with a witness here is alsO altum Silentium a deep Silence as to Infant-Baptism not a word pro or con and he that sees any thing against it in this Article wears Antipaedobaptistical Spectacles And in another Ancient Confession of Faith Article 7. saith the Author we have this viz. We do believe that in the Sacrament of Baptism water is the visible and external sign which represents to us that which is within viz. Renovation of the Spirit and mortification of our Members in Jesus Christ Perin 89. There is a Harmony between all the Protestant Churches in the World and the Waldenses in this Article we all who are for Infant-Baptism believe the same After this we have a passage out of Vigniers Ecclesiastical History namely That they do expresly-declare to receive the Canon of the Old and New-Testament to reject all Doctrines which have not their foundation in it therefore all the Traditions and Ceremonies of the Church of Rome the condemn and abominate saying she is a Den of Thieves and the Apocalyptical Harlot This is all very good but what have we in all this against Infant-Baptism but the Author would put their words upon the Tenter-hooks it may be and strain them farther than their intention and would have us think doubtless that they judged infant-Baptism to be a Romish Tradition and to have no foundation in the Word of God and is it not strang that it should be a Romish Tradition when it was in use in Tertullian's days as the Author himself intimates a little before But the Waldenses themselves have declared their judgment otherwise and seconded it with their Practice as shall be shewn by and by They were indeed against the
Romish Ceremonies used in Baptism as Exorcism Chrysm c. but not against infant-Infant-Baptism itself Another Citation is out of an Ancient Confession Artic. 11. The words are We esteem for an Abomination and as Antichristian all Humane Inventions as a trouble and prejudice to the liberty of the Spirit And in their Ancient Catechism Perin de Doct. de Vaud Liv. 1.168 169. When Humane Traditions are approved for Gods Ordinances then is he Worshipped in vain Is 19. Matt. 15. Which is done when grace is attributed to the external Ceremonies and persons enjoyned to partake of Sacraments without Faith and Truth This also is insignificant to the purpose for which the Author quotes it and doth not in the least touch Infant-Baptism It is a good Testimony against Humane Traditions and they tell us what they mean which is done say they when Grace is attributed to the External Ceremonies and 't is one of the Popish Errors we know that Baptism confers grace ex opere operato it is also a good Testimony against Compulsion to the Sacraments and that wicked practice of the Spaniards in forcing the Indians to be Baptized and whoever shall compel ignorant and scandalous persons to receive the Lords Supper Lastly we have something brought out of their ancient Treatise concerning Antichrist writ 1120. And if we can find nothing there against our Practice then may we say of this Antagonist Promisit montes nascitur ridieulus mus The words of that Treatise are That Antichrist attributes the Regeneration of the Holy Spirit unto the dead outward work of Baptizing Children and teacheth that thereby Regeneration must be had And here at last by good hap we have the word Children named but not a jot serving the Author's design for they do not hereby except against Childrens Baptism but only against the corrupt ends that Antichrist hath in it for whether it be in Children or grown Persons it is an Antichristian or Popish Tenent to ascribe Regeneration to the dead outward work of Baptism and this is that before mentioned that Baptism confers grace ex opere operato By what hath been said any unprejudiced Reader may see how meanly the Author hath acquitted himself in the beginning of his undertaking to prove the Waldenses against Infant-Baptism from their publick Confessions of Faith and 't is not unlikely we shall find him as defective in what follows We have seen much confidence in the man but not a grain of proof and 't is impossible any mans belief should be shaken by what he hath hitherto faid touching the Lawfulness of Infant-Baptism 2. His second proof is the Witness of the eminent and leading Men. The first he begins with is the Famous Beringarius of Turain in Anjou and he quotes the Magdeburgenses Cent. 11. c. 5. p. 240. That Beringarius did in the time of Leo the 9th about the year 1049. publickly maintain his Heresies which they set down to be denying Transubstantiation and Baptism to little ones Now we must have to do with Mr. Tombes again Mr. Tombe's Praecursor Examen p. 20. Reply 1. That Beringarius was a famous Champion for the Truth against Popish Errors and Superstitions is beyond all dispute but still 't is questionable whether he was against Infant-Baptism Why saith the Author the Magdeburgenses tell us so that is 4 Protestant Divines that drew up the History of the Church Here the incautelous Reader is in danger of a snare for those Divines accuse him not of this but only tell us what the Popish records speak of him Beringarius say the Magdeburgenses maintained his Heresies which they that is the Papists set down to be denying Transubstantiation and Infant-Baptism who being such false accusers may very well be excepted against as insufficient evidence We know what Calumnies they have cast upon those eminent Reformers Luther Calvin Beza that lived nearer our times what errors they charge them with both Intellectual and Moral as if they had been very Heretical in judgment and men of debaucht lives they have their witnesses too more than a Iury to justify all their malicious charges Books written by divers Authors enough to make up a considerable Library If we must credit them against one why not against all the Testimony is the same 2. Since this instance of Beringarius is taken out of Tombe's let us hear what answer Mr. Marshal gave him pag. 65. of his defence of Infant-Baptism It is true saith he that Deoduinus Leodienses took it up as a common fame upon his credit Guitmond a Popish Bishop relates it that Beringarius opposed the Corporal presence in the Eucharist and the Baptism of little ones Usher de Success Cap. 7. Sect. 37. but saith Bishop Vsher in his Succession of the Church in so many Synods beld against Beringarius we never find any thing of this nature laidto his charge and Bishop Vsher farther adds that to him it appears that they who in those days were charged to hold that Baptism did not parvulis proficere ad salutem held nothing but this that Baptism doth not confer Grace ex opere operato And indeed in those Popish times to deny the greasy Ceremony of Chrism was ground enough for a charge of denying Infant-Baptism as you shall hear suddenly Next we have an impertinent citation out of Clark's Martyrology where it is said that God raised up Beringarius who did boldly and faithfully preach and witness against Popish errors whereupon the Gospellers were called Beringarians for above an hundred years after but Clark gives no hint that any of these Gospellers were against Infant-Baptism but relates the quite contrary for saith he in the same place and in the words following what is before quoted by the Author They Baptized their Children taught them the Belief and ten Commandements and carefully kept the Sabbath day upon which Lewis the 12th of France that had been otherwise informed but now satisfied of the truth of their faith and practice by his commissioners and Confessors said and bound it with an Oath that they were honester than he and his Catholick Subjects To as little purpose as the former is that he quotes out of Dr. Vsher in his Succession of the Church out of Thuanus Dr. Usher That Bruno Archbishop of Tryers did expel several Beringarians that had spread his Doctrine in several of those Belgick Countries and that several of them upon examination did say that Baptism did not profit Children unto Salvation And well might they say so all Protestants are of the same judgment and in the same we have Dr. Vsher's Paraphrase on it nec aliud videntur negavisse c. They seemed saith he to deny nothing else but this that Baptism doth not confer Grace by the work done and so we have done with his first witness 2. The next he brings are Peter Bruis P. Bruis Arnoldus and Henricus three famous Waldenses they were of their Barbes that is Teachers I shall speak of the first and
lived in the Country and times where and when these things were acted may not be credited then we may call in question the truth of all History whatsoever Add hereunto the Testimony of those famous Men Peter Martyr Calvin Beza Bucer who can scarce speak of the German-Anabaptists with patience or give them any other title what-ever the charitable Author says than Furies Blasphemous Unclean Seditious Frantâ—ck wretches c. Two material Objections he hath a mind to clear 1. The first is concerning the Miscarriages of these Men. 2. The Second is some of the Waldensian Confessions which seem to own the Baptizing of Infants But it had been more to his honour to have let those Objections lain dormant unless he had said more to the purpose To the first he saith That take it for granted that things were so as to matter of fact that is that many Anabaptists did prove so horribly wicked as is reported yet 't is both unreasonable uncharitable to render all the people either in those times or since to be such persons also and to judg an Error in the Principle from the Error in the Conversation of some that Profess it Reply Thus far the Author speaks well for it is not fair dealing to judg at such a rate and Mr. Tombes before him argues rightly in the case in his Praecursor p. 56. I am sure saith he it is no Rule to judg a Doctrine false by this that the Professors miscarry but only to make Men wary and fearful if it be we must judg the same Doctrine false by reason of some mens miscarriages and true because of others godly living Nevertheless we may safely affirm that Doctrine is to be suspected false which is usually attended with gross miscarriages in the Professors of it for that speaks the Doctrine Ominous and looks like a Spiritual Judgment of God upon it And I heartily wish there were no ground to say that of such a nature is the Doctrine of Baptizing grown Persons in opposition to that of the Infant-Seed of Believers For not to insist upon the horrid Errors and wicked Lives of those in Germany nor of the Blasphemies and Immoralities of divers Persons here in our own Nation the very principle it self of Anabaptistry is of a dangerous nature which in that rigidity as some men hold it is of such a disquieting tendency that as Mr. Bunyan speaks before it is not fit for any Age or State of the Church I cannot but sigh to consider the ways of some men whose Spirits are impregnated there-with so that their very constitution inclines them to nothing more than to rent and tear and divide the Church The Zeal for their Opinion hath and doth still prove the greatest hinderance to the conjunction of Christians here in this Nation For as soon as they become Baptists as some call them and our opposites love to appropriate the name to themselves they fall off from Godly Ministers and People differing from them though never so Holy But let Men calmly consider whether this be not an effect of ignorance and pride and more from an erring than well instructed Conscience and what a scandal and shame it is to the Christian Religion to make it thus a fomenter of faction and disturbance in the World and what an injury is hereby done to Christ by contracting and narrowing his Interest in such a manner But I see not how it can be otherwise if men adhere and strictly keep themselves to the Antipaedobaptistical Principle for if our Ministers be no true Ministers and our Baptism a Nullity and consequently our Churches no true Churches how can they hold Communion with us though some that are for the Baptism of Believers only do yet it must be imputed to their good nature and not their Principle which they cross in so doing Farther saith he if it be granted many Anabaptists did prove so horribly wicked in Germany yet others that owned that Principle were Men of another Spirit both in that as well as in former times for which we have most ample and authentick Testimonie from their greatest enemies Witness that honourable Character that Raynerius the bloody Inquisitor gives of them in those days in France Cassander Bellarmine and Baronius of those in Germany and Mr. Baxter of them in this Nation But hold Sir I doubt your ample and authentick Testimony will fail you and first I must tell you Rainerius is not for your turn for he never gave any honourable Character of Anabaptists That favourable Character which he gives relates to another sort of People called the Waldenses which you and I had some discourse of not long since and found to be none of your kindred for they were for Infant-Baptism Verily Dr. Featly's Roma Ruens Rainer contra Wal. C. 4. Inter omnes sectas quae adhuc sunt fuerunt non est periculosior Eccles Leonistarum idque tribus de causis Prima quia est diuturnior aliqui entm dicunt quod duravit a tempore Sylvestri alii a tempore Apostolorum Secunda quia est generalior fere enim nulla terra est in qua haec Secta non sit Tertia quiae cum omnes aliae Sectae immanitate blasphemiarum in Deum audientibus horrore m inducant Haec sc Leonistarum magnam habet speciem pietatis eo quod coram omnibus juste vivant bene omnia de Deo credant omnes Articulos qui in Symbolo continentur Solummodo Roman Eccles Blasphemant clerum saith Dr. Featly who wrote a Book against Anabaptists Rainerius the Inquisitor though entertained against us not against the Author's party yet speaks he so much for us that he deserveth a Fee of us The Sect saith he of the Waldenses or Lyonists is more pernicious to the Church of Rome than all other Sects 1. Becanse it hath been of longest continuance for some say it hath continued ever since the Apostles time 2. Because it is more general than any other for there is almost no Country into which it doth not creep 3. For that all other Sects do bring an horrour with the hainousness of their Blasphemies against God but this hath a great appearance of Godliness because they live justly before Men and believe all things well concerning God neither of which could be said of the German-Anabaptists and all the Articles which are contained in the Creed only they speak evil of the Roman Church and the Clergy And that Rainerius did not look upon the Waldenses as Anabaptists is demonstrated by this because he gives not the least hint of it in the Catalogue of their Errors which follows upon the former words The Waldenses saith he do not receive the Canon of the Mass they say the Church doth err in forbidding Priest's Marriages they allow not the Sacraments of Confirmation and extream Unction they condemn Latin Prayers and affirm prayers for the Dead do not profit the Souls of the departed but never a word
188 189. Under this 9. Cent. H.D. brings in Rabanus in both his Editions This Rabanus was an Abbot He was for infant-Infant-baptism as appears by that Saying of his That the Spirit of God enters into the Infant before he comes out of the Font though we know not how The Magdib quote it out of his 10. Chap. of his Book of the Eucharist Cent. 9. C. 4. p. 143. Again he saith concerning little ones that are uncapable of teaching they that offer them up in Baptism must answer for them H. D. brings Remigius for Believers Baptism in opposition to Infants or else he trifles This Remigius was also a Monk of the Order of Benedict and was for the Worshipping the Virgin Mary as the Magdiburgs tell us but not a word against Infant-baptism Cent. 9. c. 10. p. 533. CENT X. They tell us in their 6. Chap. pag. 293. that in this Age they baptized both the Adult and Infants CENT X. It was not opposed in this Age that we find from the Magdiburgenses and Smaragdus is no Witness for H D. for he is express for Infant-baptism as they snew us he grounding it upon that Passage Sinite parvulos c. Suffer little children to come c. Cent. 10. C. 4. p. 138. and who hath also this Expression Infants are made pure by Baptism which they quote from his words upon the 2. Chap. of the Epistle of Peter Ausbertus speaks nothing pro or con but only of the Virtues of Baptism and the danger of Mortal Sins Theophilact is not for H. D. his turn for he saith That the Faith of him that offereth the Child in Baptism or baptizeth it cleanseth the Child quam vis nondum valet corde credere ad justitiam ore confiteri ad salutem i.e. though he be not able to believe unto righteousness nor confess with the mouth Cent. 10. c. 4. p. 187. de Doctrina CENT XI They tell us that in this Age they baptized not only Adult persons but such as were newly born Cent. 11. C. 6. p. 260. And then giving divers Instances of Children that were baptized 〈…〉 They quote Anselm 〈◊〉 it that the Dies Baptismâ—â—â— the Day of Baptism as the 8th day he grounding it upon Circumcision Cent. 11. c. 4. p. 169. They quote also his Note upon that place And her daughter was made whole the self-same hour how the Mothers Faith stood the Child in good stead Mat. 15. So the Faith of the Parent saith he may avail for the Infant in Baptism though he be at present uncapable of good or evil Cent 11. C. 4. p. 171. and not withstanding all this Anselm is brought by H. D. in opposition to Infant baptism CENT XI None againsT Infant-baptism that we can find upon good ground in this Age for as for that which H. D. brings concerning Peter Bruis Arnoldus and Henricus they are only Popish Calumnies as we have shewn in the Examination of the History of the Waldenses Durandus also is under this Century brought in by H. D. as a Witness against Infant-baptism though most severe against Anabaptists CENT XII They baptized as they tell us as well Infants as grown persons and give instances of Children baptized Cent. 12. C. 6. p. 872. CENT XII None that we find who opposed it in this Age. H. D. misapplies Peter Lumbard as if he had been for Believers Baptism in opposition to that of Infants when his words are Children are cleansed from Original Sin by Baptism Cent. 12. c. 4. p. 596. H. D. doth abuse the saying of Peter Lombard viz. The person that is to be baptized should first believe and confess We have it in h s 18. Chap on John Which is spoken of Pagans as appears by what follows Again All that are baptized saith he whether little ones or great ones receive in their foreheads the sign of the Cross in his 8. Book on the 13. Chap. of the Revelation Albertus Magnus the Conjurer another of H.D. his Witnesses hath not that I can find a word to his purpose CENT XIII The Magdiburgenses do end with the 12. Cent. and 't is remarkable that excepting the Waldenses who are calumniated by the Papists they mention but one person that was against Infant-baptism viz. Hincmarus They indeed speak of one Peter Apamen a Bishop of Syria Cent. 6. c. 5. p. 304. de Haeresibus and Zoaras the Monk that agreed with the Heretick Severus and was condemned with him in the Synod of Constantinople They have it out of Nicephorus lib. 17. c. 9. These they say were accused of Re-baptization and other heinous Crimes but not for oppugning Infant-baptism and therefore Mr. Henry Danvers needed not to have put these in for Witnesses in his 2. Edition CENT XIII The Waldenses are here falsly pretended to be against Infant-baptism See our Examination of the History before The Name of Wickliff being famous H. D. would fain get something out of him for his turn but cannot for none of the words quoted from him are against Infant-baptism unless he thinks that is Cap. 2. de Trialog viz. That they are presumptuous and foolish who affirm Children dying unbaptized cannot be saved Or because he rejected the Popish Traditions of Salt Cyl Spittle Chrism this in H. D. his account renders him an authentique Witness against us for he concludes thus And may we not from as good evidence say that he rejected Infant-baptism also Treatise of Baptism 2. Edition There he also quotes a Popish Writer which chargeth Wickliff with denying Infant-babtism and in the same place saith it was the Albigensian Heresie one as true as the other From what hath been said I see no reason why Mr. Tombes and Mr. Danvers should be so much offended with Mr. Marshal and Mr. Baxter for saying Infant-baptism was but lately opposed by the Anabaptists of Germany and I appeal to the Reader whether Mr. Baxter speaks not true in is Plain Scripture-proof p. 153. who saith That for his part he cannot find in his small Reading that any one Divine or Party of Men did certainly oppose or deny Infant baptism for many hundred years after Christ And then again p. 261. The World may see what a Cause you put such a face upon when you cannot bring the least proof so much as of one Man we will allow them one viz. Hincmarus much less Societies and least of all godly Societies that did once oppose or deny Infants Baptism from the Apostles days till about Luther 's time A Perswasive to UNITY amongst all that fear the Lord though of different judgments about Baptism enforced from Scripture-Arguments and the dangerous Consequences of Divisions IT is well advised by Jacobus Acontius in his Book entituled Stratagemata Sathana that in all disputes about points of Religion this should be engraven upon our hearts That we have not to deal with the man with whom we dispute but with Satan himself and that the main quarrel is not that point about which we argue but
confidence expect to meet with better measure from them than to be condemned for an overweening conceit of my own sufficiency to undertake the Work of a Conciliator I only humbly submit what I have to say to their judicious godly Consideration Whether it be not their duty to entertain and keep up Fellowship and Communion in all other Ordinances wherein they are agreed notwithstanding this their difference about Baptism which to me seems clear for several Reasons as First Because they are Members of the same Body of which Christ is the Head Rom. 12.4 5. We being many are one body in Christ and every one Members of another the import of which is that all Believers stand to Christ in the same relation that the natural Body doth stand to the natural Head and that they all stand in relation one to another as the Members of the natural Body do stand one to another To the same purpose is that 1 Cor. 12.12 where from the 4th to the 7th verse the Apostle shews That there are diversities of Gifts and differences of Administrations and diversities of Operations but all come from the same Spirit Lord and God and are given for this end that they may be for the profiting of the whole And that we might more plainly apprehend him he further tells us that as in the natural Body there are divers Members joined and each Member hath its several office for the good of all so is Christ saith he that is Christ collectively and mystically Christ and all his Members and then he adds vers 13. That by one Spirit we are all baptized into one Body Christum intellige cum Ecclesia suâ conjunctim et quatenùs est corporis mystici caput Beza in loc whether Jews or Gentiles bond or free which cannot be meant of water-Water-Baptism saith Mr. Jesse an eminent godly Antipaedobaptist in regard all the Body of Christ Jews and Gentiles bond and free partook not of that Sacrament of Christ instituted for the Gospel-Administration and are made to drink into the same Spirit which is also to be understood metaphorically and spiritually Potionati sumus saith Piscator and so prove our selves to be of one and the same Corporation of Believers Like to this is that Eph. 4.16 from whom the whole Body fitly joyned and compacted together c. From what hath been said there follow these five Corrollaries 1. Vnity of the Body in the Church floweth from Unity to the Head first the Members are united to the Head and then to one another and with the Head 2. This Spiritual Union and Conjunction with the Lord Jesus is the foundation of all their Communion with one another 3. As in the Natural Body all the Members do not only meet in the Head as the Lines in the Center but have real Union one with another so in this Mystical and Spiritual Body all Believers have not only each for his own part Union and Conjunction with Christ but also a real Union and Conjunction with each other which is the ground of all offices of Love and reciprocal Fellowship and Communion wherein they stand obliged amongst themselves 4. Union to the whole the Catholick or Universal Church or Body of Christ gives right to Communion with any particular Church of Christ in the World and there is no Believer as Mr. Marshal observes in any part of the World but where-ever he comes might demand upon the profession of his Faith and his voluntary subjection to the Gospel his right in the Ordinances to hear and pray and receive the Sacrament with them 5. To deny Communion to any who give evidence that they are of the same Body is to be guilty of a great Schism in the Body and most opposit to the design of God's Grace in compacting all his People into one Body which was 1. That there should be no Schism in the Body 2. That therefore the Members should have the like care of one another They therefore who in contrariety hereto stand at a distance one from another and refuse Communion do that which is not practicable from Scripture for it is unnatural and destructive to the Body and not only so but fouly scandalous to the Christian Religion for as the Lord Verulam speaks Lord Bacon's Essayes like a Divine as well as a Philosopher Schism is one of the greatest Scandals yea more than corruption of Manners For as in the Natural Body a Wound or Solution of Continuity is worse than a Corrupt Humour so in the Spiritual So that nothing doth so much keep men out of the Church and drive men out of the Church as breach of Unity This then is the first Argument they are both visibly Members of Christ's Body and therefore should have Communion one with another 2. Because both parties agree in the main Fundamentals of Religion and Union in the great things of Religion should oblige them to bear with one another in lesser matters Phil. 3.15 16. If in any things ye be otherwise minded God shall reveal even that to you Nevertheless whereto we have already attained let us walk by the same Rule let us mind the same thing Here 's an excellent direction to preserve Unity amongst God's People notwithstanding difference in judgment and for composing and healing of differences when they arise 1. Christians are to consider whereunto they have already attained and how far they do agree Whether there be not a mutual Consent in the Principles and Fundamentals of Religion for if this be wanting all Union is but a daubing with untempeted mortar and a Conspiracy against Christ but when there is a Consent in Fundamentals and the Marks of Godliness upon Persons Wisdom and Charity should teach us to condescend unto and forbear one another but alas how much is this wanting may we not sigh out that doleful sentence Heu pro quantillo pacem perdidimus for what poor inconsiderable things do we jar and differ 2. To walk by the same Rule or to put in practice those Truths wherein they do agree They agree in Prayer in Hearing in the Lord's Supper let them walk together in these The best way to attain Unity in Judgment is to maintain it in Obedience and jointly to walk together in the Ordinances and Duties wherein Christians do agree 3. To mind the same thing that is I conceive to propose the same ends in Religion Nothing causeth more difference than poor narrow selfish-ends If Professors had all one common end viz. to be really Godly and to advance the Glory of God in the World there would be an end of these bickerings St. Paul hath an eye to this Phil. 2.1 2. There he useth most pathetical Arguments to Love and Union and for to further it he presseth the Philippians to be like-minded and let nothing saith he be done through strife or vain-glory v. 2 3. and in the 4th vers look not every man at his own things c. that is at his own
Interest Honour Party c. Were we better United in our ends and aims and did jointly level at God's Glory and Christ's Interest in the advancement of piety we should quickly agree in the use of means 3. Because we are Commanded not to refuse Christian Communion though the difference be in far greater matters than this of Baptism Rom. 14.1 Him that is weak in the Faith receive you c. By Faith is meant the Doctrine of Faith as Beza notes on the place Him that is weak and so weak Fides hoc in loco declarat Christianam ipsam Doctrinam in qua sit aliquis rudis ac proinde discrimen Ciborum Dierum nondum intelligat Christi beneficio fuisse sublatum as not to discern that by Christ's coming the difference of days and meats was taken away There was it seems a great difference amongst them and some were more thorowly instructed in the doctrine of Christian Liberty as touching the cessation of legal Ceremonies who held all days alike and all meats in themselves indifferent whereas others being not well informed observed still a difference both of meats accounting them clean or unclean and of days accounting them holy or servile according as they stood in under the Levitical-Law This caused no little stir and trouble amongst them Now the course the Apostle takes to heal these breaches is worth observing He doth not cast the Ballance to one side requiring the other to come up to their Practice but exhorts them to allow a Latitude and not only for Opinions but Practices and to forbear one another in love and not to censure and condemn those that differ from them Seeing the Men of contrary Perswasions in lesser matters may yet agree in the main fundamentals and the reason why the stronger should receive the weaker is because God had received him that is into Communion with himself We have the same urged again Chap. 15.6 Wherefore receive ye one another as Christ also hath received us by all which it appears that no supposed or real error can be a reason why others should not be received to Communion farther than it is a reason to prove that the Lord hath not received them the conclusion is that let the Error be where 't will either on the Paedobaptist's or Antipaedobaptist's side it is all one if God and Christ have received these of both Perswasions into Communion with himself they break the Command if they refuse to receive one another into mutual Communion 4. Is that Command of the Apostle to follow after such things as make for Peace and mutual Edification Rom. 14.19 The Word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is let us eagerly pursue after it as the Hunter doth his Prey and it denotes 1. That we are not barely to desire it or accept of any reasonable terms that are proposed for accommodation and agreement but we are to pursue and go after it if by any means we may overtake it or apprehend it The same duty is prest Eph. 4.3 where the Exhortation is to keep the Vnity of the Spirit in the bound of Peace the Word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifies a most earnest studying which way it may be effected Ita alicui rei studere ut ad eam omni impetu feraris approperes to be so intent upon a thing as to further it with might and main as we use to say The Gramarians oppose this Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifies Inconsiderate Perfunctorie extempore aliquid agere to do a thing carelesly but this in the Text signifies Diligenter intent â cogitatione efficere to be diligent and very thoughtful how to accomplish a thing and it points out this that we ought on all hands to use a sedulous endeavour to preserve the Unity of the Spirit 2. It denotes unwearied patience in the pursuit after it notwithstanding all disappointments and discouragements met with in our attempts after it We ought not to give over but persevere in so good a Work I like not that speech of Hornbeck Summa Controv. L. 9. de Luther who saith The Calvinists had done too much in overtures for a Reconciliation with the Lutherans much less can I approve of such who by word and writing endeavour to widen breaches and set Christians at farther distances Certainly the Pride Conceit and Discontent of some spirits have done much mischief this way and to speak plainly the inconsiderableness of our differences and inconsiderateness wherewith it is pursued argues that much of the Zeal of the Dissenters is not as one says that holy fire which is kindled by a Coal from the Altar but rather an Ignis fatuus that leads men quite out of God's Way or a Wild Fire that rends and tears where it goes Now in asmuch as nothing hinders endeavours like to despair and all Essays for Union hitherto have proved succesless and there are few to be found of healing and peaceable Spirits but much of Pride humor and self-conceitedness appears every-where even in those that we cannot but think are good Men in them main we may conclude if we look no farther than our selves that the differences amongst us will never be composed But we are to look higher than our selves and for the erecting of our hopes and quickning our endeavours after it we should consider 1. Christ hath prayed that all Believers may be one John 17.21 and he was heard in all that he prayed for That they All may be one All of them there is the Universal Extent of it One in Affection and not only so but also One in Worship and Communion and Ordinances although there may be variety of Opinions amongst them 2. God hath promised to bring this about Jer. 32.39 I will give them one heart and one way And in Zeph. 3.9 They shall call upon the name of the Lord and serve him with one consent the Word in the Original is one Shoulder They shall all of them have as it were but one Shoulder that they shall set to the service of God And Hosea 1.11 Then shall the Children of Judah and the Children of Israel be gathered together Here saith Mr. Burroughs we have a Promise both to Israel and Judah together great was their Enmity heretofore they Worshipped the same God though in a diverse manner Judah keeping close to God's Institutions but Israel not There was a great deal of bitterness between them though Worshipping the same God But God hath promised they shall be gathered together upon which he raiseth two Observations 1. That there shall be Union between Judah and Israel Here 's a mercy saith he a wonderful work of God! Many times between such as profess the same Religion and seem not to differ much and yet to differ their Oppositions are most bitter and irreconcilable and requires a mighty Work of God to bring them in and Reconcile them 2. God hath a time there
for it in case of death and in his 40th Oration he owns is absolutely thus Hast thou a young-Child saith he let it be Baptized from an Infant let it be early Consecrated to the Spirit Farther the Magdeburgs say they have before shewn out of Origen and Cyprian that the Baptism of Children was in use in the African Churches and they also prove it continued in this Age from the 124th Question of Athanasius and from Nazianzen that it was Practised in the Asiatick Churches Magd. ut supra Chrysostom another Greek Father who lived Anno 382 was for it so was Bazil that flourished about the same time he gives Testimony to it Lib. 3. contra Eunomium What say you of Infants may we Baptize them Yea for so we are taught by the Circumcision of Children In Concurrence with them we have the Testimony of the Latin Fathers who were their Contemporaries as 1. Ambrose who lived about Anno 381. he speaks for Infant baptism in his Book of Abraham the Patriarch 2. Jerome also contrà Pelag l. 3. and in his Epistle to Laeta he is much for it 3. Austin is for it none more he lived about 391. The Church saith he alwaies had it alwaies held it Aust Serm. 5. de Verb. Apost and in lib. cont Donatist cap. 24. disputing against the Donatists who denied Original Sin but not Infant Baptism any more than Pelagius whose Disciple he was saith That which is universally received and practised c. CENT V. In this Age Children were baptized say the Magdiburgenses Cent. 5. C. 6. p. 654. Both the Adult and Infants CENT V. Not opposed by any not the Donatists as H.D. falsly suggests for though they denied Original Sin yet not Infant-baptism and therefore not mentioned in the Catalogue of their Heresies Magd. Cent. 5. C 5. p. 628. de haeresi Donatistatum CENT VI. In this Age Infant-baptism was in use as appears by the Speech of Maxentius which the Magdiburgs quote viz. We believe Inants newly born are to be baptized Magd. Cent. 6. c. 4. p. 227. They inform us also that Gregory the Great was for it by the doubt he resolves about Abortives CENT VI. Not opposed by any we find in this Age but by one Adrianus though H. D. without any good bottom confidently affirms that the Ancient Britains were against Infant-baptism this Conceit is vain as we have shewn in the Examination of that History He doth also very weakly bring Gregory's Testimony against it and yet tells us which is true that Gregory accused Adrianus to John Bishop of Larissa that he turned away young Children from Baptism You have it Chap. 7. of the first Part of his first and second Edition Chap. 7. Cent. 6. and p. 231. of the 2. Edition Compare them together and you have a perfect Contradiction CENT VII Adult persons and Infants were both baptized in this Age as we learn from the Magdiburgenses Cent. 7. C. 6. p. 145. It should not be Constance but Constantinople It should be Constantinople CENT VII Not opposed by any that we find in the Magdiburgensian History under this Century yet doth H. D. misrepresent 3. Councils 1. The Bracarens in Spain as if they had made a Decree against it when 't was only this That none ex adultis that were grown up should be baptized that were not first indifferently well instructed in the Doctrine of Christianity Cont. 7. And in p 146 and 147. they tell us the very manner how this Bracaren Council ordained Infants should be baptized 2 The Council of Constance decreed as in the Bracaren that no Adult persons should be baptized unless as before they were instructed For say they non shall be baptized that are not instructed except Infants which by reason of age cannot speak And then they tell us this whole Council was invited to the Baptism of the Child of Heraclius p. 167. 3. Concerning the Toletan Council the Magdiburgenses say their Decree was That the Children of the Jews that were Baptizati baptized should be recommended to some Christians to be taught Magdiburg Centur. 7. p. 146. H. D. is a very heedless Writer and doth overlash again in his Story of Bâ—rinius he is named Berinus by the Magdiburgs how that he was a great Oppugner of Infant-baptism when 't is not so for all that they say of him is Eundem morem servat Berinus that is Berinus followed the Manner of the Council of Constance i.e. to baptize no Adult persons but upon Profession after Teaching but this Council shut not out Infants from Baptism as before but was for it And to make it more plain the East-Saxons whom Berinus baptized with their people as the Magdiburgs express it out of Bede were Pagans as Bede shews in his 3. Book 7. Chapt. CENT VIII From the 4. Book of Bede upon the Canticles they shew that Infants in this Century were accounted fit subjects of Baptism Cent. 8. c. 4. p. 218. CENT VIII None are found to have opposed Infant-baptism in this Age and therefore H. D. is to be blamed for wronging Haimo The Magdiburgs quote two passages amongst others which shew he was most express for it as that in Rom. 5. Item parvuli in Baptismate mundantur Children are made clean in Baptism Cent. 4. C. 4. p. 145. And again In fide parentum ait Haimo baptizari Infantes CENT IX The Magdiburgenses acquaint us with one of the Grounds upon which Inants were Baptized viz. Sinite parvulos c. Suffer little children to come unto me CENT IX It was opposed by none in this Age but by one Popish Bishop named Hincmarus Bishop of Iaudum in France who was most severely rebuk'd for it by his Uncle Hincmarus Bishop of Rhemes Etsi saith he tremendum Dei judicium te non terruit c. timere debueras nè tu solus hoc ageres quòd nullus Christianorum unquam facere ausus est He had cause to fear he did that which never any Christian did before him This man was condemned by a Synod sub Carolo Calvo Anno 870. and put out of his Bishoprick and writ his Recantation with his own hand Cent. 9. C. 9. p. 444. And afterward was restored to his Bishoprick Cent. 9. C. 9. p. 447. sub Carolo Crasso H. D. in his Abstract presents us with divers others in this 9. Century as Opposers of Infant-baptism as one Gislebert and English Monk of the Order of Benedict a precious Witness but though the Magdiburgs recite much of his bad Doctrine yet not a word of his being against Infant-baptism and therefore he wrongs his Reader and them too by referring to Magd. Cent. 10. C. 4. p. 234. of his 2. Edition This Gislebert was very erroneous he held all sin done way by Baptism ex opere operato he was for Merit and held the Virgin Mary to be without Sin and to make Intercession and is not this a pure Witness think you against infant-Infant-baptism Cent. 10. C. 4. p.