that in time will produce its proper Actions It is certain that they can receive the new birth and are capable of it The effect of it is salvation if infants can receive this effect then also the new-birth without which they cannot receive the effect and he illustrates the point by a Similitude thus As the reasonable soul and all its faculties are in children Will and Vnderstanding Passions and Powers of Attraction and Propulasion yet these faculties do not operate or come abroad till time and art observation and experience have drawn them forth into action So may the spirit of grace the principle of Christian life be infused and yet lie without action till in its own day it is drawn forth and then he goes on Who is he that understands the Spirit so well as to know how or when it is infused and how it operates in all its periods and what it is in its Being and proper Nature or how or to what purpose God in all varieties does dispense it Then again if Nature saith he hath in Infants an evil principle which operates when the child can choose but is all the while within the soul Why cannot Infants have a good principle through Grace though it works not till its own season as well as an evill principle 4. Though Infants are uncapable of performing such duties as are incumbent upon professing men and women yet this hinders not but that they may be Church-Members Pray tell us what duties could those Israelitish Babes perform who notwithstanding their incapacity were asis before Members of the Church with their Parents And though they answer not all the Characters Christ gives his Adult Disciples which the Author objects against them yet they are capable of union to the Church and Fellowship in the priviledges thereof They are capable of her prayers and other pious offices and for whom the Church hath a more special care and obligation of tenderness for their souls than for others that are Without and why should this seem strange since they are Members of the Common-wealth and of the family and are capable of union with both estates and the priviledges thereof and yet cannot perform obedience to the State and Orders of either In like sort Infants are admitted Tenants but the Fealty or Homage is respited till they are of age 5. Lastly Christ himself as Mr. Baxter notes was head of the Church according to his humane nature in his infancy and this proves that the nonage of Infants makes them not uncapable of being Members And let any judge whether it be his will that no Infants should be Members For my part saith he when I consider that Infant State of Christ our head and the honour done to him therein it strongly perswades me that they know not his will who say they will not have Infants to be visible Members He farther Objects the Church of England who in their 19th Artiele do acknowledge that the visible Church is a number of Christians by profession This is down right Mr. Tombs's Examen part 3. pag. 41. only Tombes hath more charity for the Infants of Believers though not without some contradiction For he there acknowledgeth that in facie Ecclesiae visibilis Infants of believers are to be accounted Gods to belong to his Family and Church and not the Devils And what do any of us say more But mark Reader how Mr. Tombs doth esteem them such why saith he it is so as being in a near possibility of being Members of the Church of God by an act of opinion grounded on probable hopes for the future But to make them actual members of the visible Church is to overthrow the definitions of the visible Church that Protestant writers give particularly the Church of England Art 19. To which Mr. Marshall answers If overthrows it not at all for they all include the Infants of such Professors as Infants Male and Female too least you say that Circumcision made them Members I add also saith he Baptisme now as well as Circumcision of old is a real though implicite profession of the Christian Faith Next we have Dr. Owen whom he cites no less than four times in what follows in this Chapter whose judgement is sufficiently known to be against our Opposites And notwithstanding the misinterpretation the Author puts upon some passages in the Doctors Catechisme we have a particular account of his judgment in Print in a Book called A Declaration of the Faith and Order owned and practised in the Congregational Churches agreed upon and consented unto by their Elders and Messengers in their meeting at the Savoy Octob. 12. 1658. where to my knowledge he was present and the principal man of that Assembly and concerning the point before us we have it chap 29. Art 4. thus exprest viz. Not only those that do actually profess Faith in and obedience unto Christ but also the Infants of one or both believing Parents are to be Baptized and those only And in complyance herewith we have the judgment of the Synod of Elders Assembled at Boston in New-England appointed by the Court 1662. who strongly maintain by several Arguments in that printed piece That the Insant Seed of Believers are Church-Members and that being according to Scripture Members of the visible Church they are consequently the Subjects of Baptism See also the Presbyterian judgement upon the point in the larger Catechisme of the Assembly of Divines Baptisme say they is not to be administred to any that are out of the visible Church and so strangers to the Covenant of promise till they profess their Faith in Christ and obdeience to him But Infants descending from Parents either both or but one of them professing Faith in Christ and obedience to him are in that respect within the Covenant and to be Baptized we see here who they take to be of the visible Church and within the Covenant and to be baptized As for the Authority of particular Authors we have them on our side in great abundance Piscator hath it thus on the 28. of Matthew Porrò ad Ecclesiam pertinent non solùm adulti fidem profitentes sed etiam ipsorum liberi Not only grown persons who profess the Faith appertain to the Church but also their Infants Theodore Beza in his Absters Cat. Heshuii pag. 333. hath this passage Meritò arbitramur Infantes fidelium in peculio domini censeri We rightly judge the Infants of the faithful to be of the Lords Flock and he speaks of them there before Baptisme And in our Margent Bible we have this Note upon the first of Corinthians 7.14 They that are born of either of the Parents faithful are also counted Members of Christs Church because of the Promise Act. 2.39 Peter Martyr loc Commun cl 4. c. 8. p. 821 823. Non excludimus eos Infantes ab Ecclesia sed ut ejus partes amplectimur c. We exclude not Infants from the Church but imbrace them as parts John Calvin to whom
I hope to make it appear to those who are not overgrown with Partiality and Prejudice that their Arguments weigh light in the Ballance of the Sanctuary For as Mr. Sydenham observes the words of Christ in both these places of Matthew and Mark Sydenhams Christian sober and plain Exercitation on Infant Baptism do not hold forth the proper Subjects of Baptism or the form or manner of baptizing being delivered in general and indefinite terms As all Nations every creature by transitive words Teach them Preach the Gospel Wherefore if these be the prime Institution of Baptising from which they exclude Infants when Christ useth such universal and comprehensive expressions we shall desire saith he but to deal with them on their ground and the same Text will serve to prove our positions more demonstratively then theirs But that we may the better understand the import of both places I shall a little explicate them by way of Paraphrase premising only this that neither of them do contain the first institution of Baptism but only an inlargement of the Commission in reference to the Gentiles upon the Resurrection of Christ First for that in Matthew Go ye therefore and teach all Nations Beza observes that in the antient Copies therefore is wanting and instead of it he finds the particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 now in one of most Antient date which Circumstance of time is of great remark For now the Commission of baptizing the Gentiles was to be broken up now Christ was risen Circumcision which was the old seal of the Covenant of grace under the former Administration was broken and abolished and the Lord ordains a new one viz. Baptisme to take place instead thereof under the Gospel-Administration go now Now I am risen before which time neither Gospel nor Baptism was to be offered them For the command was Go not into the way of the Gentiles And teach all Nations 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Discipulos facite Disciple them as Antipedobaptists will have it and we own it as the right Translation of the word for it is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which properly signifies Teach ye and so the Participle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is rightly rendred in the following words added to the charge Teaching them to observe Let us now come to see what improvement our opposits do make from hence to exclude the Infants of believers out of Christs Commission to be Baptized and that the Baptisme of Believers is the only true Baptisme Their Argument in form runs thus viz Ministers ought to follow their Commission But to make Disciples before Baptizing is the Ministers Commission Ergo. To this we answer That the Assumption is Ambiguous for making Disciples may be taken two ways First For an immediate present making only and so it is not Christs Commission If you take it exclusively as if none must be baptized but those who immediately in their own persons are made Disciples Secondly For a Mediate remote making also and thus must the Commission be understood The meaning is Baptize those whom you find to be in a State of Disciples whether presently by you or formerly by some body else whether personally by themselves or Seminally by and in their Parents Let them be in State of Disciples and then if not baptiz'd before baptize them It is the State of a Disciple not the time when nor manner how which the Baptizer is to look on Ananias finding Saul in the State of a Disciple must baptize him though neither he nor any Minister else before did make him so however he being a Disciple though not made by man must be baptized Thus then take the Assumption as it ought to be taken and we grant the Argument for it concludes not against Infant-Baptism for they are Disciples not of mans but Gods making vouchsafing gratiously in their believing Parents to accept them also into his Covenant and so into the State of Disciples and consequently by Christs own Commission they are to be baptized That infants of Believers are Disciples is evident 1. Because they were so under the old Testament-Administration and why not then under the new The Proselytes in the Jewish Church coming in brought their Infants into the same capacity or state of Proselytes therefore believers coming in to be Disciples bring in their children to the same state too or else the state of the Gospel is worse in regard of outward priviledges then the Law 2. By conferring that of Mat. 10.42 with that of Mark 9.41 it appears that to belong to Christ is in Christs dialect the same with being a Disciple but Infants of Believers do belong to Christ 3. To put all beyond doubt we have an express word for it Act. 15.10 Where the Pharisees pressing that it was needful to Circumcise the Gentiles after the manner of Moses that is to be Proselyted by Circumcision is called a putting a Yoke upon the Neck of the Disciples And since the manner of Moses was to circumcise Proselytes both Fathers and Children and the pressing the continuance thereof among all Gentiles Proselyted to Christianity is termed the putting a Yoke upon the Neck of the Disciples the children as well as the Fathers must be meant by the Disciples There is no evasion of this though I find Mr. Tombes keeps a great stir about it for as Mr. Sydenham argues if they say it was meant of the Fathers and of the Doctrine of Circumcision yet they must grant the Yoke was on their Children as to the Act and if the Doctrine was so burthensome much more the Practice which the poor Infants are under And they are called Disciples indefinitely either by themselves or with their Parents if any distinction be made it must be in the manner of laying on the Yoke viz. on the Parents Doctrinally on the Children actually but there can be no Restriction of the word Disciple from these on whom that Yoak was laid as is exprest in that Chapter But it may farther be objected The Commission it self shews what kind of Disciples Christ means in these words Teaching them to observe so as Infants are not concern'd as Disciples in it being in no capacity to be taught or to observe But let it be withall considered That Christ adds those words to his charge in regard of the condition of the persons to whom he was sending his Apostles viz. to Nations All Nations that is the Gentiles who were Aliens All Nations here being put in immediate Opposition to that one Nation of the Jews They were sent to them that were not in a State of Disciples and therefore they were to be made so by present actual teaching As the Nation of the Jews and the Proselytes that came into them were first taught and then Circumcised but their children were circumcised before they were taught So then in this commission we must distinguish the substance from variable circumstances The substance is to baptize Disciples but whether by Precedent Teaching or
union before Baptism baptized into one body doth not here shew the essential constitution of a Church but the confirmed union and the argument is inserted more to prevent Schism then to express the way of first imbodying or constitution of Churches as the whole context demonstrates CHAP. V. Containing his fifth Argument That Believers Baptism is the only Baptism from the New Testament-dispensation so differing from that of the old THe Argument is taken from the New-Testament-Dispensation so different from the Old The Old Testament-Church saith the Author was National consisting of the Natural and Fleshly seed of Abraham therefore were Infants by Circumcision added thereto but the new Testament-Church was by Christs appointment to be a separated people out of all Nations consisting only of the spiritual seed of Abraham and therefore Believers upon profession of Faith by the Ordinance of Baptism were added thereto Repl. 1. What of all this If there any ground from hence that Believers Baptism is the only true Baptism 'T is true the Church Dispensation is altered Mr. Baxters plain proof for Infants Church-Membership and Baptism but the Covenant of Grace is not altered The Dispensation differs under the new Testament only in regard of Ceremonial accidents as Temple Priesthood Sacrifice but the Essentials of the Covenant still remain viz. I will be thy God and the God of thy seed and this is the grand Charter of Church-Membership which takes in the Child with the Parent and consequently entitles it to Baptism as shall be hereafter shewn for if their Church relation can be made good their Baptism will follow upon it If therefore the Author could have proved that the covenant had been altered as to its essentials he had said something worth a hearing 2. Whereas he says the old Testament Church was National it is a Truth and yet the Nation of the Jews was not the Church of God as they descended from the Loyns of Abraham by Natural Generation according to the Flesh but only with reference to Gods gracious Covenant made with Abraham and his seed which I wish the Opposers of Infant-Baptisme would consider and as this Covenant was made with Abraham and his seed after the flesh so likewise is it still the same with Believers and their natural seed under the Gospel-Dispensation by virtue of the same gracious covenant made to them and their seed Act. 2.39 For the promise is unto you and to your children and to all that are afar off the Gentiles 3. Antipaedobaptists may do well to consider yet farther what Mr. Baxter makes good in his plain proof viz. That Infant Church-Membership did take place as an Ordainance of God before Cirscumcision was enjoyned or the Ceremonial law Instituted and why then it should cease with it is more then ever yet could be shewn He makes it appear it was no part of the Typical Administration of the old Testament but a moral Institution of God even from the beginning of the World God ever made a distinction between the seed of the faithful and the seed of the wicked as visibly belonging to two several Kingdoms the Kingdom of God and the Kingdom of Sathan Mal. 2.15 therefore are they called a Holy Seed and a Holy Seed are Members of the Church and so consequently the Subjects of Baptism the Seal of Admission thereunto 4. Notwithstanding the Dictates of H. D. that the Baptism of Believers is the only true Baptism we shall retain our practice in Baptizing our children and thankfully own and acknowledge it as a Gospel-priviledge till the opposers thereof can produce some clear proof out of Scripture that the Old Ordinance of the Church-Membership of Believers is repealed We see how imperiously another sort of people do impose their conceits and how confidently they call for our subscription to their Light as they term it as if it were a duty to deliver up our Reason captive to their absurd imaginations We respect Antipaedobaptists as a more sober people yet strangely over-grown with self-conceitedness as if the word of God came out from them and it came to them only in regard of the true knowledge of the spirits mind in it Let them produce but one plain Scripture that God hath made void the Antient Charter and Grant and we will readily yield up the cause But we have Scripture and reason as well as they and are the more confirmed in what we hold by observing how weakly they dispute against it All the Reason the Author brings to make good his Assertion is Because under the New Testament dispensation Christ hath appointed the Church to be a separated people out of the Nations consisting only of the spiritual seed of Abraham and therefore believers only upon profession of faith are to be admitted to Baptism and so added to the Church To which I answer First That under the New Testament-Dispensation Christ hath appointed the Church to be a separated people out of the Nations is a certain truth but that this Church consists only of the spiritual seed of Abraham is false Qui benè distinguit benè docet He that distinguisheth well teacheth well What our Antagonist says is true in regard of the Invisible Mystical Church of Christ which is a company of real Saints that have spiritual Union and Communion with Christ and with one another but not so with respect to the outward visible Church which is the Society of those that profess true faith for the exercise of Church-union and Communion among themselves and many of these are Hypocrits and shall perish Dr. Ames an excellent person that understood what the New Testament-Church was a little better then our Author Med. lib. 1. c. 32. art 9. tells us the same And such saith he was the Church of Corinth and Ephesus wherein all held not Communion for life and of such Christ spèaks Joh. 15.2 Every branch in me that beareth not fruit And hath these words in Opposition to what Bellarmine falsely chargeth on Protestants viz. Falsum est internas virtutes recuiri a nobis ut aliquis sit in Ecclesia quoad visibilem ejus statum It is false that inward vertues Grace are required of us to put a man into the Church according to the visible state of it The Lord Dupless is in his Excellent Treatise of the Church distinguisheth aright The Invisible Church containeth none but good or in the Authors Dialect the Spiritual seed of Abraham The Visible both good and bad that only the Elect this all those indifferently that are brought into her by the Preaching of the Gospel By all which it is evident that the Author stragles out of the Road of Protestant Divines and is fallen upon the confines of Thomas Colliers General Epistles or the wild Notion of Mr. Dell who in his Book intituled The way of Peace pag. 6. gives this definition of the Church viz. The New Testament-Church is a spiritual Invisible Fellowship gathered up into the Unity of Faith Hope and
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-Church-State begin The first must be baptized into no Church that is particular and the rest into him as the Church or the work stand still for want of a Church 2. A Church may be without Baptism and yet as real a Church as the Israelites were so long in the Wilderness without Circumcision which without dispute was the initiating Ordinance according to Divine Institution Gen. 17.13 3. One Argument I shall borrow more from Mr. Hooker and that is If Baptism give the form to visible-membership then while that remains valid the party is a visible Member for where the form is the formatum must needs be if the principles of reason may take place But there is true Baptism resting in the party who hath no visible Membership as in an Excommunicate in him that renounceth the fellowship of the Church or when the Church is utterly dissolved then all Church-Membership ceaseth for Relata mutuò se ponunt tellunt And yet Baptism is valid And as it is an undeniable position That that which gives the form or being to a Church must cease when the Church ceaseth or when a member ceaseth to be a member it must cease with it so it follows that that must be renewed namely Baptism as often as Membership is renewed so shall we have a multiplication of Baptisms as often as the person is cast out of the Church and taken in again upon his repentance As for those two Scriptures which the Author brings for his opinion they will hardly be found to serve his turn 1. The main place stood upon is Act. 2.41 As many as received the word gladly were baptized and there was added that day about 3000. souls Hence they conclude they were added by Baptism and that they were only added this way Sol. 1. It is more then the Text affords for to conclude that they were added by Baptism much less can it be argued from thence that they were only added this way the words say not they were added by Baptism but puts a full point or stop after that sentence As many as gladly received the word were baptized There that sentence ends as Mr. Sydenham notes upon the place And the Apostle goes on a new account and saith There were added that day 3000. souls but doth not at all shew the manner of their adding so that these words are rather a recapitulation and summing up the number of Church-Members added that day then any description of the way of their taking into the Church and the former reasons prove it cannot be interpreted as our Author would have it The other place that he urgeth for his opinion is 1 Cor. 12.13 We are all baptized into one body hence 't is concluded Baptism imbodies Members 1. In answer to this let it be considered what those of their one party say that are for Dipping The Text saith Mr. Bunyan that treateth of our being baptized into one body tells us expresly it is done by the spirit For by one Spirit we are all baptized into one body Here is the Church presented as under the â—â—tion of a Body here is Baptism mentioned by which they are brought or initiated into this body Now that this is the Baptisme of Water is utterly against the words of the Text For by one Spirit are we all Baptized into one body So Mr. Jesse The Baptism intended in the Text is the Spirits-Baptism and not Water-Baptism and the Body the Text intends is not principally the Church of Corinth but all believers both Jews and Gentiles being Baptized into one Mystical Body and the reason why it cannot be meant of Water-Baptism is because all the Body of Christ Jews and Gentiles bond and free partook not thereof Thus here we see how they clash amongst themselves as touching the sense of the place 2. We add That as we conceive the Apostle speaks there primarily of the Baptism of the Spirit not of Water so by one spirit we are baptized into one body is not so much of Baptism by Water and yet supposing it to be meant of Baptism by Water Yet as Mr. Sydenham observes it proves nothing that Baptism is the form of that body Sydenhams Christian Exercitation cap. 20. pag. 168 169. which hath its matter and form holiness and
their hurt Therefore he hath not at all repealed it The sufficiency of the enumeration in the major Proposition even Mr. Tombs himself could not deny in that famous dispute at Kederminster for it must needs be for the good or hurt of Infants that they are put out and so must needs be in mercy or justice for God maketh not such great alterations in his Church and Laws to no end and of no moment but in meer indifferency The minor Mr. Baxter proves in both parts 1. That God hath not repealed this to their hurt in justice for if God never revoke his Mercies nor repeal his Ordinances in justice to the parties hurt till they first break Covenant with him and so procure it by their own desert then he hath not in justice revoked his mercy to the hurt of those that never broke Covenant with him But it is certain God never revoketh a mercy in justice to the hurt of any that never broke Covenant with him Therefore to such he hath not revoked it 1. That Church-Membership is a mercy and of the Covenant is plain Deut. 29.10 11 12. 2. That God doth not in justice revoke such to any but Covenant-breakers may be proved 1. From the merciful nature and constant dealing of God who never casteth off those that cast not off him 2. From his truth and faithfulness for else we should make God the Covenant-breaker and not man which is horrid blasphemy 3. His Immutability and Constancy his gifts and calling being without repentance Now this is also certain that many Jews did believe and not forsake the Covenant of God even most of the Apostles themselves and many thousands more and how then can these or their Infants be put out of the Church in justice to their hurt who did not first break Covenant with God Mr. Tombs was hard put to it how to extricate himself from the difficulties of this Argument although a man of great Dexterity and a very Oedipus in the controversy yet it is said he was near to a nè plus ultrà but at length took Sanctuary in this Answer and mark it well Reader viz. That the Ordinance was in mercy repealed for their good To which Mr. Baxter gives a neat reply It can be no mercy to take away a mercy except it be to give a greater instead of it But here is no greater mercy given to Infants instead of Church-membership Therefore it can be no mercy to them that it is revoked Other Arguments besides this that are invincible may be drawn from that place Rom. 11.17 A Scripture which I perceive was too hot for the Authors fingers to meddle with and therefore he gives not one touch upon it throughout all this Treatise of Baptism whereas he knows very well that this is the principal Text that gives clear evidence that Children are yet Church-members with their parents and if they have a Church-relation they must not be denyed Baptism because the same thing which qualifies any persons for Church-membership qualifies them also for Baptism But to the Text before us There are three things which the words do plainly hold forth 1. That though the Collective body of the Jews or the generality of that people were broken off from the Church through unbelief yet all of them were not broken off for it is said If some of them were broken off not all of them for as was said before most of the Apostles and thousands of Jews believed 2. The Believing Gentiles are ingrafted in their place 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in amongst them so Grotius hath it positus es inter ramos illius arboris thou art set amongst the branches of the Tree referring to those words if some be broken off implying that some remained still and the believing Gentiles were inoculated amongst them or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to Beza and Piscator pro ipsis instead of them or in their place and room in ramorum defractorum locum into the place of the branches broken off 3. The Jews shall be restored again to the Church at the latter end of the world they shall be in statu quo priùs become the Church and people of God again as formerly but in a more glorious manner From all which issueth three unanswerable Arguments for the Church-membership of believers Infants still continued The first we have already insisted upon namely That the same Jewish children which were visibly of the Church immediately before their Parents became Christians at the first continued to be so after And the reason is because they were not under the dis-churching Cause of as many of the Jews as were discharged and that was unbelief of which they could not be guilty by any Act of their own More of this may be seen in a late Book called A Perswasive to Peace and Vnity among Christians Sold at the Three Pigeons in Cornhil or of their Parents as imputed to them Because of Vnbelief saith S. Paul they were broken off If it be said saith the Author of that ingenious and pious piece intituled A Perswasive to Peace and Vnity they were dis-church'd in the dissolution of the Jewish Church-State in general it is but an evasion which will not help them for the fore-cited Text is flatly against them For all that were not broken off by unbelief did continue unbroken off that is they still kept their place and standing in the Church of God And therefore to assign any other cause of dis-churching any than the Scripture hath assigned or at least any other without this here assigned and determined by the Apostle is too great presumption and such as will not satisfie an impartial mind and as Mr. Baxter enforceth the Argument very strongly They who kept their Station kept also their priviledges for themselves and their children if they were not broken off their children were not broken off for as the Infants came in with their Parents so they are not cast out whilst their Parents continue except when they are grown up they cast out themselves by their own personal unbelief It is not to be conceived that God should cast out the child that came in for his fathers sake while the Parents remain in the same Church 2. Those Jews who were broken off from the Church their children also being before Members were likewise broken off therefore it follows Believing Gentiles and their children are ingrafted in for the ingrafting must be proportionable to the breaking off they succeeding in the place of the former must enjoy the priviledge they lost 3. If after the fulness of the Gentiles be come in the Jews shall be grafted in again not with a diminution but addition to their glory and one part of their glory was that they and their seed were Gods visible Church then so shall it be with them when they are called This we have ver 26. All Israel shall be saved Which cannot be understood but from their broken off State
he farther adds therefore though Godly men or Infants have been Baptized yet the Churches think according to Scripture there must be somewhat more expressed to make such to own this or that Preaching Officer to be their Pastor or Teacher Whom they must obey in the Lord and have in singular respect for the works sake Heb. 13. And to cause the Minister to own them as his Flock Acts 20. if he mean not to take upon him a power Apostolical for Latitude to extend to all Baptized one Doctor Homes's answer to Master Tombes So page 193. The same Author saith several Churches of us do hold that we may Baptize them the Infants of the Godly though neither of their Parents be of our particular Churches Baptism being but as we conceive an Admission into the Universal visible Church We shall add for a conclusion That as Baptism is no actual admission into the Communion of a particular Church as before appears in the examples of the Eunuch Cornelius c. who were Baptized without any relation to a particular Church 2. It is into Christ and so into the priviledges of the Body of Christ in general No mention being made in Baptism of any restraint to this or that particular Church 3. One act of Communion in the Lords Supper doth not state a person admitted as a Member of that particular Church no more doth Baptism which is but one act of Communion 4. By Baptism a person being exhibited a Member of Christ and of the Church in general and so consequently to all the priviledges of Christ whereof Church-Communion is one it follows that when a Child is Baptized he is thereby acknowledged or declared to have a right to Church Communion in particular that is in breaking bread with a particular Church when he becomes capable thereof For Omne Vniversale continet particulare Every general includes all the particulars Nor can any particular Church deny it when such a one actually desires admittance into her and undertakes to walk in it in performance of all duties as a Member thereof provided he be free from scandal and visible crimes committed since his Baptism to the time of his desired admittance for whatsoever may be just ground to cast out of Church-Fellowship and Communion is also sufficient to keep him out that was never in CHAP. VII The Authors Quotations out of the Magdeburgensian History corrected and rectified wherein is farther shewn his Praevarication in relating some things partially others falsly and for the most part contrary to the intention of the Writers HE begins thus The Magdeburgenses in their Excellent History do tell us that as to the Business of Baptism in the first Century they find only the Adult or Aged whether Jews or Gentiles that were Baptized and give instances in the 2d 8th 10th 16th 19th Chapters of the Acts and have no Examples of Infants being Baptized Cent. 1 Lib. 2. Pag. 496. 1 first In examining this Century Vt Christus Infantes ad se venâ—re jussit ita nec Apostoli eos excluserunt a Baptismo quidem dum Baptismus circumcisioni aequiparat Paulus Colos 2. aperte indicat etiam Infantes per Baptismum Ecclesiae Dei esse inserendos sicut in veteri Testamento Infantes circumcidi oportebat ut in Dei faedere essent Cent. 1 L. 2. C. 4. P. 354. Baptizatos esse aedultos tum Judaeos tum Gentes Exemplae probant Infantibus Baptizatis Exempla quidem annotata non leguntur sed Origenes Cyprianus alii Patres autores sunt Apostolorum etiam tempore Infantes Baptizatos esse Cen. 1. L. 2. C. 9. P. 496. I find Lib. 2. Chap. 4. Pag. 354. that touching Baptism they say that as Christ commanded Infants to come unto him so the Apostles afterward did not exclude them from Baptism and truly since Baptism is compared by Paul to Circumcision Col. 2. it plainly shews that Infants are to be admitted to the Church by Baptism as in the Old Testament they were by Circumcision 2 In Century the first Lib. 2. Cap. 6. Pag. 496. which is the place the Author refers unto they do not say that the Apostles Baptized only the Adult or Aged but only this We have Examples of Adult persons both Jews and Gentiles that were Baptized-Farther they say concerning Infants we have no particular notice given us or Examples that they were Baptized yet presently add that Origen and Cyprian and others of the Fathers that lived near the Apostles do affirm that even in the Apostles times Infants were Baptized But let it be supposed that they did not Baptize any Infant yet it follows not that it is unlawful for us to Baptize them because they did not for as Dr. Taylor says whom the Author so much admires a Negative Argument as to matter of fact cannot conclude and therefore supposing that it be not intimated that the Apostles did Baptize Infants it follows not that they might not or that the Church may not The words and deeds of Christ are infinite and the Acts of the Apostles we may suppose the same in their proportion And therefore what they did not is no rule to us unless they did it not because they were forbidden 3. Moreover the Magdeburgenses speaking of the subject of Baptism answer an Objection which might be made against Infant-Baptism Cent. 1. Lib. 1. Cap. 4. Pag. 154. Whereas it is said they were Baptized in Jordan confessing their Sins Mat. 3. and Iohn Preached the Baptism of Repentance Mark 1. and Luk. 3. therefore only they that repent are to be Baptized which is the sum of all our adversaries can say To this Objection they thus reply such Confession was necessary from those Adult Persons being as before the first Subjects of the Ordinances And then they come to state the Question An sint Infantes quoque Baptizandi are Infants also to be Baptized Which they hold affirmatively giving several Arguments for it one of which is grounded upon Matt. 19 viz. They to whom the Promise of the Kingdom of Heaven doth belong to them belongs the Ceremony or Seal of the Promise And then they roundly tell us that although the Apostles before they were rectius edocti better learned would have kept Infants from Christs Benediction yet being so severely rebuked by Christ and guided or directed by his Spirit they did say they sine dubio without all doubt Baptize them informing us again that the Fathers who lived near to the Apostles do witness that the Practice of Infant-Baptism was derived from the Apostles and transmitted to Posterity Cent 1. Lib. 1. Cap. 4. Pag. 153. 4. The Author fathers that upon the Century-Writers which they speak not They saith he tell us that the Custom of Dipping the whole Body in Water was changed into Sprinkling a little Water in the face whereas there is not the least hint of this matter in this Century nor the following but they tell us that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉