he farther adds therefore though Godly men or Infants have been Baptized yet the Churches think according to Scripture there must be somewhat more expressed to make such to own this or that Preaching Officer to be their Pastor or Teacher Whom they must obey in the Lord and have in singular respect for the works sake Heb. 13. And to cause the Minister to own them as his Flock Acts 20. if he mean not to take upon him a power Apostolical for Latitude to extend to all Baptized one Doctor Homes's answer to Master Tombes So page 193. The same Author saith several Churches of us do hold that we may Baptize them the Infants of the Godly though neither of their Parents be of our particular Churches Baptism being but as we conceive an Admission into the Universal visible Church We shall add for a conclusion That as Baptism is no actual admission into the Communion of a particular Church as before appears in the examples of the Eunuch Cornelius c. who were Baptized without any relation to a particular Church 2. It is into Christ and so into the priviledges of the Body of Christ in general No mention being made in Baptism of any restraint to this or that particular Church 3. One act of Communion in the Lords Supper doth not state a person admitted as a Member of that particular Church no more doth Baptism which is but one act of Communion 4. By Baptism a person being exhibited a Member of Christ and of the Church in general and so consequently to all the priviledges of Christ whereof church-Church-Communion is one it follows that when a Child is Baptized he is thereby acknowledged or declared to have a right to Church Communion in particular that is in breaking bread with a particular Church when he becomes capable thereof For Omne Vniversale continet particulare Every general includes all the particulars Nor can any particular Church deny it when such a one actually desires admittance into her and undertakes to walk in it in performance of all duties as a Member thereof provided he be free from scandal and visible crimes committed since his Baptism to the time of his desired admittance for whatsoever may be just ground to cast out of Church-Fellowship and Communion is also sufficient to keep him out that was never in CHAP. VII The Authors Quotations out of the Magdeburgensian History corrected and rectified wherein is farther shewn his Praevarication in relating some things partially others falsly and for the most part contrary to the intention of the Writers HE begins thus The Magdeburgenses in their Excellent History do tell us that as to the Business of Baptism in the first Century they find only the Adult or Aged whether Jews or Gentiles that were Baptized and give instances in the 2d 8th 10th 16th 19th Chapters of the Acts and have no Examples of Infants being Baptized Cent. 1 Lib. 2. Pag. 496. 1 first In examining this Century Vt Christus Infantes ad se venâ—re jussit ita nec Apostoli eos excluserunt a Baptismo quidem dum Baptismus circumcisioni aequiparat Paulus Colos 2. aperte indicat etiam Infantes per Baptismum Ecclesiae Dei esse inserendos sicut in veteri Testamento Infantes circumcidi oportebat ut in Dei faedere essent Cent. 1 L. 2. C. 4. P. 354. Baptizatos esse aedultos tum Judaeos tum Gentes Exemplae probant Infantibus Baptizatis Exempla quidem annotata non leguntur sed Origenes Cyprianus alii Patres autores sunt Apostolorum etiam tempore Infantes Baptizatos esse Cen. 1. L. 2. C. 9. P. 496. I find Lib. 2. Chap. 4. Pag. 354. that touching Baptism they say that as Christ commanded Infants to come unto him so the Apostles afterward did not exclude them from Baptism and truly since Baptism is compared by Paul to Circumcision Col. 2. it plainly shews that Infants are to be admitted to the Church by Baptism as in the Old Testament they were by Circumcision 2 In Century the first Lib. 2. Cap. 6. Pag. 496. which is the place the Author refers unto they do not say that the Apostles Baptized only the Adult or Aged but only this We have Examples of Adult persons both Jews and Gentiles that were Baptized-Farther they say concerning Infants we have no particular notice given us or Examples that they were Baptized yet presently add that Origen and Cyprian and others of the Fathers that lived near the Apostles do affirm that even in the Apostles times Infants were Baptized But let it be supposed that they did not Baptize any Infant yet it follows not that it is unlawful for us to Baptize them because they did not for as Dr. Taylor says whom the Author so much admires a Negative Argument as to matter of fact cannot conclude and therefore supposing that it be not intimated that the Apostles did Baptize Infants it follows not that they might not or that the Church may not The words and deeds of Christ are infinite and the Acts of the Apostles we may suppose the same in their proportion And therefore what they did not is no rule to us unless they did it not because they were forbidden 3. Moreover the Magdeburgenses speaking of the subject of Baptism answer an Objection which might be made against Infant-Baptism Cent. 1. Lib. 1. Cap. 4. Pag. 154. Whereas it is said they were Baptized in Jordan confessing their Sins Mat. 3. and Iohn Preached the Baptism of Repentance Mark 1. and Luk. 3. therefore only they that repent are to be Baptized which is the sum of all our adversaries can say To this Objection they thus reply such Confession was necessary from those Adult Persons being as before the first Subjects of the Ordinances And then they come to state the Question An sint Infantes quoque Baptizandi are Infants also to be Baptized Which they hold affirmatively giving several Arguments for it one of which is grounded upon Matt. 19 viz. They to whom the Promise of the Kingdom of Heaven doth belong to them belongs the Ceremony or Seal of the Promise And then they roundly tell us that although the Apostles before they were rectius edocti better learned would have kept Infants from Christs Benediction yet being so severely rebuked by Christ and guided or directed by his Spirit they did say they sine dubio without all doubt Baptize them informing us again that the Fathers who lived near to the Apostles do witness that the Practice of Infant-Baptism was derived from the Apostles and transmitted to Posterity Cent 1. Lib. 1. Cap. 4. Pag. 153. 4. The Author fathers that upon the Century-Writers which they speak not They saith he tell us that the Custom of Dipping the whole Body in Water was changed into Sprinkling a little Water in the face whereas there is not the least hint of this matter in this Century nor the following but they tell us that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
to scatter saving Grace in this Nation which are if not raised yet fomented by Anabaptism And their Principle he conceives hath been very prejudicial to the Conversion of young-ones amongst whom usually the stream of converting Grace runs because it speaks an actual disingagement from all relation to God his Covenant Church and Ordinances till of their own choice they take them up at years of discretion Now whilst persons live loose from such engagements as in their proper nature and tendency further Conversion no wonder if the work goes slowly on among them 3. By confounding the World and the Church together which Christ hath separated Not so For Baptism is God's Sheep-mark as Mr. Ford calls it to distinguish those that are of his Fold from such as graze in the wild Common of the World what confounding is there in this Principle That not only they who do actually profess Faith in and Obedience to Christ but also the Infants of one or both Believing Parents are to be Baptized and they only 7. By introducing and establishing many Humane Traditions and Inventions of Antichrist This is Mr. Tombe's his 6th Arg. Exercit. p. 1. Many of which and some of the worst attend the Baptism of grown Persons in the Church of Rome as Chrism Exorcism c. And when Mr. Tombes urged this very Argument against Infant-Baptism Mr. Geree tells him it was rather a Motive than a Reason against it to move peoples affections against the inconveniences following it rather than to convince the unlawfulness of it But that which is lawful in it self cannot reflect any scrûple of unlawfulness upon that which occasions it And if any corruption occasioned accidentally and separable from an act of Worship could cashier it then farewel Baptism it self Prayer Lords Supper and all that is Sacred for what a world of superstitious devices have the wanton and superstitious Heads and Hearts of Men taken occasion from them all to devise and practise it is so clear there needs no instances to be given 8. By being saith he such a Make-mate such a Bone of Contention and that among themselves too that own it as well as with those that oppose it The Lord open the eyes of those who are so zealous against Infant-Baptism that they may see their own nakedness consider the beam that is in their own eyes certainly whilst they judg our principle condemnation is written in their own foreheads First how furiously do they contend among themselves What a heat is there between Mr. Bunyan and Mr. Paul both of them for Baptizing Believers the former having published a little Book whose Title is Differences in Judgment about Water-Baptism no Bar to Communion or to Communicate with Saints as Saints proved Lawful of which I have before hinted complains in the Epistle to the Reader That the Brethren of the Baptized way would not suffer them to be quiet in their Christian Communion but did assault them for more than 16 years and as they had opportunity sought to break them in pieces meerly because they were not in their way all Baptized First He professeth that he denyed not the Ordinance of Baptism though they feigned it but all that he asserted was That the Church of Christ hath no warrant to keep out of their Communion the Christian that is discovered to be a visible Saint and walketh according to his light with God And for this Orthodox position they charge him to be a Machivelian a Man Devilish Proud Insolent Presumptuous words saith the poor Man fitter to be spoken to the Devil than a Brother He puts out his Confession of Faith upon which Mr. Paul makes reflections and tells him he defies all the Brethren of the Baptized way and Blasphemes them that dwell in heaven p. 3. That he belyes all Expositors p. 13. and calls upon the Heavens to blush at his insolency p. 35. that his Inferences are ridiculous top-ful of ignorance or prejudice and deserve no other answer than contempt p. 43. and then falls to prayer the Lord judg between us and this accuser to whom we shall say no more but the Lord rebuke thee And what sayes Bunyan to this in his Book of Differences in Judgment about Water-Baptism First that in his simple Opinion their rigid and Church-dividing disquieting Principles are not fit for any Age and State of the Church pag. 1. and I wish there were not too much truth in what he saith he accuseth them for endeavouring and perswading him to break Communion with his Brethren tampering with others that their Seeds of division might take and prevailed so far as to rent and dismember some from them and that the judgment of God so followed their design that the presons which then they prevail'd upon became afterward a stink and reproach to Religion I find our Author falling upon this good Man two to one is odds and lashing him to the purpose for his last Book you have it at the end of his Treatise of Baptism He chargeth Mr. Bunyan with absurdities contradictions traducing the Wisdom of Christ hainous Errors and fundamental mistakes whose Principles saith he are presumptuous savouring of ignorance and folly contradicting the Wisdom Authority of Christ ridiculous man of egregious ignorance and self-condemned and at last that he is one that pleaseth not God and is contrary to all Men which last must be understood with a limitation of all Men like himself But why should Professors of Religion throw so much dirt in the Faces of their Brethren that dissent from them Tantaene animis caelestibus irae Sure such language becomes not Christians Let it be supposed that they have truth on their side this is no good way to propagate it it needs not tali auxilio nec defensoribus istis The Wisdom which is from above is first pure then peaceable The Servant of the Lord must not strive but must be gentle towards all In meekness instructing those that oppose if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledgment of the Truth 2 Tim. 2.24 25. But haughty and uncharitable Spirits follow not this Rule if they be set upon a point though controvertible they have such a fire of zeal within that it breaks out into a flame that consumes the good name and credit of any that dare oppose it Your Opinionists if they have Faith they will not follow Paul's advice and keep it to themselves but are infinitely desirous to propagate it and are the severest Censurers in the World Two other Antipaedobaptists viz. Mr. Allen and Mr. Lamb being come off from that hide-bound Spirit of having Communion with none but those of our own Judgment are also lasht in the Authors Postscript They have saith he both declined the Truth and their Books which were pen'd with great Judgment strength of Argument and Authority of Scripture in his Opinion shall rise up in Judgment against them without Repentance for declining the Truth so confident is the Author
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-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