discipled or taught and so put into a capacity and susceptibility of the Sacrament of Baptism and all in that Nation have a title unto it whereof Infants are a considerable Party whose Incapacity of teaching doth not make them uncapable of Baptism because while they remain Infants they are not included among those that are to be taught For our Saviour did not send his Disciples to teach Infants but men of years And therefore the teaching pre-required as antecedent to Baptism is necessarily required only of men of years that be docible and not of Infants that are indocible So that we acknowledge a necessity of a praevious precedaneous teaching before Baptism of docible persons but not of Infants because they are capable of Baptism though not of teaching I know that protervious and peevish Spirits are able and apt enough to cavil at any truth be it never so clear and so its probable will cavil at the interpretation of this place of Scripture But the indifferent Reader may discern it to be both can did and consonant to other Texts for no where in Scripture is there any exception against this general Command of battizing all Nations that embrace the Gospel amongst which Infants are a considerable party as was said before And therefore where the Gospel is preached and embraced there Infants of that Nation are to be baptized by vertue of that command For a general Command in Scripture to perform any duty appertaines to all persons of what condition soever unless in the same Scripture some exception be added whereas in this case there is no any A Second Argument may be thâ— testimony of the ancient Fathers oâ— the Church who affirm it to be aâ— Apostolick Tradition and so of the same authority and credibility with other Apostolick Traditions such as these The Apostles Creed Thâ— change of the Sabbath from the laâ—â— day of the week to the first anâ— what Books of Scripture are Canonâ—cal and what Apocryphal Whicâ— Assertions being received by thâ— Church as Apostolick Traditionâ— are and ever have been acknowledâ—ed and embraced as undoubtâ—â— Truths though they be not in tâ—minis word for word expressed iâ— Scripture And so in like manner hath Infant-Baptism as leaning upon the same ground with them so that the Anabaptists may as well question the truth of the Apostles Creed anâ— the sanctification of the first day of the week for the Sabbath and the Canon of Scripture as the lawfulness of Infant-Baptism in that they 〈◊〉 lean upon one and the same foundation i. e. Apostolick Tradition which was ever held by the Churches of God to be of authentical authority next unto Scripture it self For though the Reformed Churches disclaim Popish Humane Traditions as mens Inventions yet these Apostolick Traditions they receive and reverence as unquestionable Truths Now that the ancientest Fathers as Dionysius Areopagita Justin Martyr Origen St. Augustine with many others have witnessed Paedo-Baptism to have been accounted and received as a Tradition Apostolical neither can nor is denied by the Learnedest Anabaptists But yet they will not give credence to their testimony hereof which how void of Charity it is to censure such renowned Doctors as reporters of an untruth especially in matters of Religion I leave it to be considered of by all persons of understanding Arg. 3 A Third Argument may be the constant practice of Infant-Baptism by all Christian Churches from the very next age after the Apostles to this present age This was witnessed by Dionysius who lived in the Apostles time and Ignatius and Justin Martyr and Iraeneus and Origen This is proved at large by many learned men who of late have written of this Subject and therefore I will supersede the labour of rehearsing the particular proofs thereof especially considering that the most learned of the Adversaries of this truth do not deny this but yet condemn it as an errour and a very pernicious abuse needful to be taken away out of the Church of God as is to be seen in Mr. Tombes his Antipedo-Baptism in the 3d Part and Section the 98 about the middle of the Section which is a presumptuous censure unfit for any particular man to pass against the Church Now this practice of Paedo-Baptism by the Universal Church of Christ in all ages and places is an Argument irrefragable and unanswerable to prove the lawfulness of it For the Church is the ground and pillar of truth so saith the Apostle 1 Tim. 3.16 Particular Churches may erre both in judgment and practise but the Universal Church cannot erre in any important point of Faith such as this is because of Christs promise to it both of protection and direction in several Texts as Mat. 28.20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you and lo I am with you alway even to the end of the world which could not be meant only of the Apostles as who could not live to the end of the world but of necessity of the whole Catholick Church And John 14.16 I will pray the Father and he shall send you another Comforter that he may abide with you for ever even the Spirit of truth And again John 16.13 He promiseth his Disciples again to send them the Spirit of truth which should guide them into all truth Seeing therefore the Universal Church for many ages and those next succeeding the Apostles have allowed and practised Infant-Baptism no intelligent godly Christian may oppose it without manifest contempt of the sentence and judgment of the Catholick Church which whose will not hear is to be accounted as a heathen man and a publican Mat. 18.17 If some particular Churches only had practised it the Legality of it might have been questioned but seeing all Churches for many ages did practile it the legality of it is thereby made unquestionable A Fourth Argument may be the Circumcision of Infants in the time of the Jewish Church Arg. 4 For if Baptism be the Sacrament now under the Gospel that succeeds the Jewish Circumcision which is abolished then by the rule of analogy and proportion and parity that is betwixt them to whom Circumcision belonged under the Law to those Baptism belongs under the Gospel But Baptism is the Sacrament now under the Gospel that succeeds and comes in place of the Jewish Circumcision Which is most apparent from Col. 2.11 12. Where the Apostle proves that the Collossians were circumcised with the circumcision made without hands in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ being buried with him in Baptism that is because they were baptized in or into his name for else the Apostles argumentation were inconsequent if Baptism did not come in place of Circumcision for in affirming they were circumcised because they were baptized he declares Baptisme to come in room of Circumcision Hence therefore it followes that as Infants were to be circumcised in the time of the Law so Infants are to be baptized under the
I once used in a dispute with one Mr. Oats a Coryplaeus and teacher of note amongst them and all the answer he returned was this that he had heard that there had been some of their profession formerly in Hungary which was both an insufficient answer and a tacite and clandestine confession that they must either prove the continuance of such profession and professors from the Apostles times which they never can nor that I ever heard attempted to do or else must yield themselves in a manifest and obstinate Errour The Anabaptists interpretation of several Texts of holy Scripture Arg. 3 as if they did impugn and disallow Infant-Baptism is dissonant and dissentaneous from the interpretation of all visible Churches both before and since their appearance and therefore is a private interpretation and so is repugnant to St. Peters Doctrine who tels us that no prophesie of Scripture is of any private Interpretation 2 Pet. 1.20 Divers of the Fathers affirm that the Primitive Church received of the Apostles not only the Scripture but the genuine and true Interpretation thereof and this indeed in all probability was so And therefore if the Primitive Church held Paedo-Baptism to be agreeable to Scripture and so accordingly practised it as before hath been declared it s out of doubt a doctrine of truth and the Anabaptists reclamation and opposition of it as if it were not warrantable by Scripture a private and novel mis-interpretation of Scripture and therefore to be disavowed detested and exploded Re-baptization of those that have been baptized before Arg. 4 is repugnant to Scripture which allowes but one Baptism Eph. 4.4 There is one Lord one Faith one Baptism But our Infants whom they re-baptize have been truly baptized before Ergo They act therein against Scripture Now that our Infants are truly baptized I thus demonstrate Those whether men women or children that are baptized in the right and true form of baptism in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy Ghost expresly set down Mat. 28.19 are truly baptized But our Infants are thus baptized and therefore are truly and rightly baptized For it s a known Canon in Logick and received of all Learned men as a truth that forma dat esse the form of a thing gives its being unto it And therefore Infants being baptized in this true and right form are truly and rightly baptized and so ought not to be baptized again That Profession of Christian Faith Arg. 5 which was never publickly and openly acknowledged and owned by any Christian Nation but ever since its first hatching hid it self in corners and private Conventicles was professed only of some private persons cannot be the truth for Veritas non quaerit angulos Truth seeks not to sculk and hide it self in corners but such is Anabaptism Ergo. The major Proposition I make good from those many Texts of Scripture where it s affirmed that Nations yea many nations should flow unto the Church of the Gospel which is the ground and Pillar of truth where truth is to be found as Esay 2.2 It shall come to pass in the last daies that the Mountain of the Lords House shall be established in the top of the Mountains and shall be exalted above the hils and all Nations shall flow unto it And the like sentence is in Micah 4.1 which was fore-spoken of the state and condition of the Church under the New Testament And for the minor Proposition let them make it appear that ever any Nation did openly and publickly without restraint make profession of Anabaptism and they shall be quit from the Conclusion But this was never yet done nor indeed can be done Esay 49.23 It s foretold of the Church of the New Testament that Kings should be nursing Fathers and Queens should be nursing Mothers unto it That is that there should be some supream Civil Magistrates that should be propitious to it and Protectors of it But this honour was never done to Anabaptists there was never King nor Queen nor Supream Magistrate that hath protected their Profession nor the Professors thereof under that notion but have alwaies declared their dislike and distast of them which undeniably secludes them from being that true Church of Christ there spoken of which yet is their Pharisaical boast and proclaims them to be a Set and Sect of Schismaticks that have groundlesly made a scandalous and dangerous separation of themselves from that true Church of Christ whereof divers Civil Magistrates have been for many ages and still are the constant and resolute Protectors and Defenders The Third Point Swasory and Considerable reasons to bend and sway with all Anabaptists to repudiate and renounce the errour of their way THE first reason that I shall tender to their due consideration Reas 1 is this Because Persons of that Profession are generally void of Charity which Charity being the cognizance of a disciple of Christ as is taught by Christ himself John 13.35 By this shall all men know that ye are my Disciples if ye have love one to another And being also a Badge of truth as St. John affirms 1 John 3.19 Thereby saith he speaking of Love or Charity we know that we are of the truth The contrary thereto which is uncharitableness must needs be the Livery of such as are adversaries to Christ and his truth and therefore to be abhorred and abandoned Now that they are uncharitable appears these two waies 1. From their separation of themselves from all other Christian Congregations and refusing Churh-fellowship and society with them 2. From their ostentation and boasting of themselves to be the only Church and people of God upon earth and censuring all others as unregenerate Persons and so out of Gods true Church and thereupon term them the world as one that was of their Profession and Association but is now reclaimed hath certified and assured me Whereas Charity thinketh not evil but believeth all things and hopeth all things 1 Cor. 13.5 7r Now by this uncharitable censure of theirs they condemn not only all the Reformed Churches of Christendom amongst which there be Millions of Saints but all the Martyrs in Queen Maries daies here in England and all the Martyrs in the Primitive Church that never were dipt after their Infant-Baptism Baptism and yet lived godlily and suffered gloriously and died comfortably That the Martyrs in the Primitive Church lived and died with signal and apparent evidences of extraordinary divine Graces and supernatural comforts imparted and infused into them is witnessed as by other Ecclesiastical Historians so by that creditable Author Eusebius in his Ecclesiastical History Lib. 8. Cap. 12. toward the end where he testifieth of them That they so shined throughout the world in their afflictions that the beholders wondred at their patience and noble courage and that saith he there was not without cause for they expressed and shewed forth unto the world special and manifest signs of the divine and unspeakable power
doth not alwaie confer the same ex opere operato as the Papists erroneously affirm yet alwaies it doth so when God is pleased to vouchsafe the concurrence and cooperation of his holy Spirit with it which also of necessity is required to all other means of Grace to make them effectual as well as to Baptism as namely both to the Word preached and to Prayer or they avail not This then being proved that baptism is a means of Grace by Gods appointment it necessarily follows that it appertains to Infants as who are receptible of Grace as well as those that are of ripe years and therefore baptism which is a means of grace ought not to be withheld from them Al that is or can be answerd to invalidate the force of this argument is this That though Infants are in themselves capable of baptism as being a means of Grace yet the Scripture puts a bar to them because they want Faith which is required before baptism To this it is answered that the precedence of Faith is required only of such as are capable of Faith and not of Infants which are not in a capacity of it which I thus demonstrate If Faith and so consequently Remission of sin and Regeneration were alwaies and of all necessarily required before baptism then baptism could never be a means and instrumental cause to bring forth faith and regeneration For if Faith and regeneration must go before it then it cannot be the instrumental cause of Faith and regeneration for the effect cannot go before the cause But that it is somtimes and to some a means of regeneration remission of sin Faith and other Grace is sufficiently proved by the Texts before quoâ—ed Therefore the precedence of faith is not necessarily required of all to be baptized I apprehend the force of this Argument and the last before this to be such as will stall any Anabaptist whatsoever to enevate or invalidate To these Arg. 7 I might add a Seventh Argument very valid and convincing which is the Title and Interest which the Infants of Christians have to the Covenant of Grace For if the Covenant of Grace it self belong to Infants which hath been formerly proved from Mat. 18.3 Mark 10.14 and is justifiable by many other Texts of Scripture then the seal thereof also belongs to them But because this Argument is so largely and fully pressed already by divers learned men I will omit all further prosecution of it and conclude this first point thus It s an old adage and a consessed truth that force united becomes more forcible Lay now all these Arguments and considerations together the least whereof will sway with any but such as are forestalled with prejudice and paedobaptism will stand as a truth infringible and a Fort impregnable and insuperable The Second Point Having now sufficiently proved the lawfulness and necessary use of Paedo-baptism I come in the next place to confute what is repugnant to it which is Anabaptism or dipping such as have been baptized in their Infancy And my first Argument I frame thus THat opinion or Doctrine in Religion which is new Arg. 1 is not true this is denyed of none But such is Anabaptism or the rebaptization of such as have been baptized in their infancy Therefore it 's not true I prove the Assumption thus because it s not to be found in Scripture neither by precept not example nor by good consequence to be deducted from it but was broached about 300 or 400 years after the Aostles by one Donatus a Presbyter about Carthage in Affrica as is testified by several Authors amongst whom St. Augustine is a principal who writ a Book in confutation of him I have heard that some Anabaptists in answer hereunto have alledged Acts 19.2 3 4 5 verses as a president and example for re-baptization But I shall clear that Text from warranting it which I do demonstrate these two waies 1. Because the Evangelist doth not say of those there mentioned that they were rebaptized but baptized he saith not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he saith not which when they heard they were rebaptized which had been the more proper speech if they had been truly baptized before but he saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. which when they heard they were baptized which intimates they were not rightly baptized till then and therefore that was no reiteration of their baptism but their first baptism 2. It s apparent from the Context that they were not rightly baptized before that is baptized in a right form and therefore this was no rebaptization but a first baptism For the right form is to be baptized in the name or into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost or in the name of the Lord Jesus which is the same in substance with the former though in fewer words Now that they were not baptized in the Name of the Father and of the Sonne and of the holy Ghost is most apparent in that they said in the second verse that they had not so much as heard whether there were a Holy Ghost which they must needs have heard if they had been baptized in his name Neither were they baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus before for in that it s said they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus then it undeniably implies that they were not baptized in his name till then and so consequently not truly and rightly baptized till then And so I hope I have cleared this Text from warranting the Anabaptists rebaptization or dipping those that have been formerly baptized in their Infancy The Professors of Anabaptism at their first appearing in the Christian Church Arg. 2 and boasting themselves to be the only true Church which was done by Donatus and his Disciples as was declared in the former argument were condemned by the Church then as Hereticks and cut off as unsound members and were so suppressed by it that for the space of 1000 years or thereabouts there never appeared any face of them again in any Christian Nation This is a truth so clear out of all Histories that make mention of them that I presume there is none of them that have the face to go about to outface it But this namely a cessation to be can never befal the true Church of Christ witness many Texts of Scripture as Psal 125.1 They that trust in the Lord shall be as Mount Sion that cannot be removed but remaineth for ever Mat. 16.18 Upon this Rock will I build my Church and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it And Esay 27.3 Lest any assail it I keep it saith the Lord. with many such like which justifie that the true Church of God cannot fail and cease to be Whereas therefore there appeared no face of Anabaptistical Professors for so long a time it proclaims them to be no true Church of Christ and so their anabaptistical Profession not to be truth This argument