but it was from a conspiracy of Husbandmen against the Bishops and Canons which was called the Rustick League for which he quotes Baronius how that it began in the year 1502. which was the Praeludium of that great Sedition which was in its Vigour 1525. according to Osiander's account But how doth this mend the matter they were not first in the wickedness in the sedition but seconded it A sorry evasion and besides the Author is gone off from that which he should speak to and that is of the Vproar and Confusion that was made in Swevia in the year 1525. and did not the Anabaptists begin and propagate that Spanhemius tells us in his first Chapter that Nicolas Storch Mark Stubner and Thomas Muncer three Anabaptists were the Persons that began that lamentable Sedition 2. The Author tells us Persons of all sorts concerned themselves in it Like enough for so it is usual in all popular commotinos persons of all sorts and interests joyn in No Man is so weak as to think those 40000 pesants in Swevia and Franconia were all Anabaptists but Sleiden in his Com. L. 5. and also Spanhemius informs us that the Trumpeter and Ringleader was Thomas Muncer who with other Anabaptist-Teachers stirred up the discontented people to rebel against the Magistrates and imbodied them into an Army It was that impostor who was their General that set out his Declaration that his design was to restore Liberty and to deliver Subjects from the Youke and Tyranny of Princes which was as much to be cast off as the Popes of Rome 3. He makes an odious comparison between the Protestants of Geneva in the recovery of their Civil and Spiritual Liberty and these Germans who if they had miscarried in their attempt might he conceives have fallen under as much Obloquy as the chiefest of those People did in their defeat But the actings of Geneva the Switzers and the Cantons were more justifiable than theirs and not so barabarous nor their Tenents so blasphemous as theirs Notwithstanding the reflections of the Papists and some others of late who have in print branded our first Reformations for Rebellions and they are Men too that would be thought obedient Sons of the Church of England and of great names but yet one that hath but half an Eye may easily see that these Theologasters either wanted discretion or affection to the Protestant Interest and 't is pitty the Virga Censoria is not taken from them and they turned out of their office as the Romans used to serve the Censors when they abused it But I hope no 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 can charge those of Geneva to have robb'd the Nobility plundred Towns and Castles and rifled all that is Sacred as those Germans did but that they fell off from popery and sought Reformation in a more regular way 4. The Author speaks not right concerning the Commotion at Munster in saying Spanhemius acquaints us that the first stir in the City was about the Protestant Reformation the Synod he means Senate siding with Mr. Rotman and other Reformed Ministers against the Papists and the Bishop that opposed them to Arms. For though the Senate would not obey the command of the Bishop who was then at a distance from the City in taking away some of the Churches which a little before they had granted for the use of the Reformed Divines yet this difference was soon composed and it never came to Arms or Blows Spanhemius tells us 5. That which follows is exreamly scandalous namely That there is good ground to doubt of the truth of what is reported concerning the Monstrous wickedness and villanies of John Matthias and John Becold of Leyden and what are those grounds of doubt why 1. Because saith he the things are written either by malicious Papists their mortal enemies or else by some of their most inveterate enemies the Protestants who were willing to take up and improve such reports to blast not only the whole party of the Anabaptists but their Principle also Reply I dare say that here are in the latter part of this Sentence so far forth as it relates to Protestants many untruths and may sigh over it that old saying Quot dicta tot maledicta Alas to see whither affection to a cause will carry Men 1. Then the Protestants were not inveterate Enemies to the Anabaptists but very loving Friends to some of the chiefest of them both before and after they took up the Opinion until the Rebellion of Muncer and that at Munster Witness the Friendly and Brotherly conference that was between Luther and Muncer at Wittenberg where they had often Conference and Luther intreated him to be quiet and not broach such Doctrines as were against Magistracy and Civil Government Zwinglius dealt tenderly and gently with those that fell off from his Church for they were his intimate Friends Musculus visited them in Prison relieves them and was their Advocate and perswaded the Magistrate to be kind and to use no severity for that was not the way to reduce Men from their errors 2. Bullinger of whom we have before spoken begins his Book with a Lamentation at God's Judgments on Christians for their not profiting by the Word for which God gives them up to delusions and to a reprobate Sense he professeth that before he did in silence conceal their Crimes and spoke less than they committed Luther hearing of their vile pranks at Munster was necessitated and so were divers other Ministers for the honour of the Reformed Religion which did so much suffer by those Exorbitancies to put forth a Testimony in print against them in which he saith It was plain that Munster was become the habitation of Devils for so the Justice of God had punished the Sins of Germany and especially the loose and prophane life of those that professed the Gospel but in this Tragedy of Munster the marvelous Mercy of God evidently appeared that e had not permitted that old subtil Serpent and cunning Satan to contrive and govern that business but only had given way to some Silly Blockish Devil who seemed not well skill'd in Villany to be their Guide and Conducter and that though the State was disturbed by it yet he conceived the Church on that account would receive the less prejudice by it 3. Spanhemius in his History of their Actings saith That the Protestant Ministers were extreamly troubled at what happened and the Papists vilified the Gospel by reason of it for the Popish party said this was the fruits of revolting from them and they were afraid the Magistrate would have an evil eye upon them and suspect that the liberty which they granted might tend to the sowing of Sedition if they did not declare against them and preach down the Doctrine and Practices of those Anabaptists 4. Lastly What other thoughts can we have then of that uncharitable passage That the Protestants were willing to take up and improve such reports to balst not only the
and all against Infant-baptism and being shortly after upon some occasion at Oxford I took the opportunity to examine his Quotatitions in the Publick Library and upon searching found it so fallacious a Piece that I thought my self bound in Conscience for the honour of Truth and Love to my Country to make discovery thereof that the Credulity of illiterate and well-meaning Persons might not be imposed upon by such Forgery 2. I have been somewhat provoked to bear Testimomony to the Lawfulness of Baptizing the Children of Believers by the Audacity of one that sometimes preacheth amongst the Antipedobaptists who told me to my Face that I could say nothing for Infant Baptism to whom I said but little as judging him uncapable of understanding the strength of an Argument 3. After I had communicated a few Sheets to some Learned Men they did album calculum addere and incired me to proceed 4. Because no body else had published any thing to confront this daring Champion and I see no cause to repent of my Undertaking unless it be that I have not defended the Truth as it ought to be I was never before engaged in these Olympian Games nor do I delight in such Exercises and do find by experience that these Polemical Contests are but barren things and cannot but much approve of the Saying of Zuarez who though a Jesuite professed he found more benefit in that time which he did every day set apart for the examining the State of his Soul than in all the Voluminous Books of Controversies which he had written I would now advertise the Reader that my Answer refers to Mr. Danvers his First Book it being in the Press before his 2d Edition came to hand in which I find no Retracting or Rectifying Mistakes but in stead thereof a numerous Addition of more some of which I have taken notice of in the Recapitulation of the Magdeburgensian History concerning Infant Baptism affixt to my Answer There are many egregious Faults I charge Mr. Danvers with which are made good in the Answer For I quote the Chapter and Page of the Authors that he abuseth that so those who are Scholars if they please may see whether I wrong him The Books are extant and we have no Index Expurgatorius here in England to relieve him 1. He hath much injured that famous History of the Magdiburgenses in very many places by misrepresenting what they say as that they tell us that in the first Century the Apostles baptized Only the Aged which is false for he hath himself added the Word Only as is shewn Capt. 7. Part. 1. pag. 2. of our Answer Then he saith they tell us that the Custom of Dipping the whole Body into water was changed into Sprinkling in the 3. Cent. See this pag. 113. and cites the Magdeburgenses for it Cent. 3. pag. 125 126. where they say no such thing but the contrary and gives Cyprian's Testimony for it who is calculated to live in the days of those that saw the Apostles that Baptism is valid whether it be by Immersion or Sprinkling Cent. 3. c. 4. and Chap. 7. part 1. pag. 8. of the Answer Look the Examination of the Magdiburgensiam History and there you have the rest of his Misrepresentations 2. After the same manner hath he serv'd the Fathers both of the Greek and Latino Churches Quoting some Passages out of them as if they had been for Believers Baptism in opposition to that of Infants when not one of them was so no not Tertullian or Nazianzen absolutely but both for it in case of danger of death yea the latter without respect to that See Chap. 7. Part. 1. pag. 13. of the Answer and the 3. Century in the Recapitulation at the end of the Answer There be two ways he takes to blind the Reader with respect to the Fathers 1. By Traducing that which is spoken in reference to Pagans and misapplying of it against Infant Baptism thus he serves Chrysostom and Austin p. 76. of his Treatise whom he brings for his eminent Witnesses for Believers Baptism and then again the same men to be for Infant Baptism pag. 121. of his Treatise See how this Contradiction is reconciled in our Answer to his 2d Chap. part 2. About Infants Baptism 2. By curtailing and leaving out part of the Sentence as pag. 65. where he cites these words of Bazil Must the faithful be sealed with Baptism Faith must precede and go before There Mr Danvers stops whereas he should have gone on with what follows Quid de infantibus ais num illos baptizemus Maximè These are the next Lines to what we have above What say you to Infants which know nor good nor evil must we baptize them Yea c. See Chap. 7. part 1. p. 13. of the Answer 3. The Councils have no better measure from him for he quotes those 3. the Bracaren that of Constantinople he writes it Constance and that of Toletan All which he produceth for Believers Baptism in opposition to that of Infants p. 78. of his Treatise and quotes the Magdiburgenses for it Cent. 7. p. 146. Whereas they give us to understand that they were for Infant Baptism Chap. 7. part 1 pag. 29 30. of our Answer See this more fully in the Recapitulation affixt to the Answer under Century 7. 4. He brings in the Doctors of the Romish Church very ridiculously as eminent Witnesses for Believers baptism that is in opposition to Infant Baptism or else he says nothing As for Instance Haimo Rabanus an Abbot Remigius a Monk Smarugdus c. See how little truth there is in this Chap. 7. part 1. p. 33. of the Answer and much more fully in the Recapitulation at the end of the Answer under Century 8 9 10. Here our Author hath used his wonted subtilty in quoting some passages out of these Popish Doctors for Believers Baptism meant by them only in respect of Pagans 5. By the same Artifice are ignorant persons deluded with the sayings of the Schoolmen which were so great and stiff assertors of Infant-baptism that they ascrib'd too much to it See how we have discovered the Authors Sophistry Chap. 7. part 1. pag. 34. of our Answer But more fully this is spoken to in the Recapitulation under the 12th Cent. 6. His great Witnesses against Infant-baptism namely Waldenses Novatians and Donatists and Ancient Britains fail him 1. For the Waldenses he hath brought 4 Confessions as against it when they have not a word of that import as any ordinary Reader may perceive See pag. 282 283. of his Treatise and how fully we have made it appear by other Confessions that they were expresly for it See Chap. 7. part 2. of the Answer 2. Neither were the Novatians for it though they denyed Original Sin and were for Rebaptization of such as were baptized by Hereticks though there were few greater than themselves and therefore Novatus the Head of them was condemned by 66. wishops in the year 255. Fox Act.
and bitter to peaceable Authors that are forced to it than it is to the Readers And it 's pity that the Ministers of Christ should for 1500 years be taken up so much with a work that is so unpleasant to almost all It is unpleasant to the Adversary to have his Ignorance Errors Falshoods and Injuries to the Truth and Church made known to his disgrace and to have that proved an odious Error which he taketh to be a Beam from Heaven and of a Divine Off-spring and perhaps necessary to Salvation or at least some excellent thing which the Church cannot spare It is unpleasant to the sober pious Writer to think that he must thus displease and exasperate his Brother and all that are of the way which he oppugneth and that thereby he must provoke so many to esteem and defame him as an enemy to the Truth And it is not pleasant to think what hard study and labour it must cost us to procure this bitter fruit when by Ignorance Sloth or treacherous Silence we could have kept our peace and such mens Love And it is unpleasant to the best of Readers to find mens Minds thus manifesting their dissensions and to think of the Exasperations and wrath that will ensue and to see such Wars kept up among those who should be notified to the World by an Eminency of Love But it will be pleasant to those Hypocrites whose Religion consisteth in Opinions Parties and Disputes if they be of his mind whose Works they read and it will be bittersweet to those wise and pious men that find it Necessary For Necessary it may be and too oft is It 's hard keeping our own or the Churches Peace unless both Parties will consent As much as in us lieth and if it be possible we must live peaceably with all men But when it is not possible we must lament the want of what we are not able to obtain For all Christ's Ministers to stand by and see well-meaning ignorant people called as in God's name to sin against him and flattered or frightned from Truth Duty and Privileges and to let such work go on to the danger of Souls and distracting of Christ's Churches without contradiction will hardly consist with our Ministerial Fidelity Therefore as unnecessary Wars are the greatest complicate sins in the World and yet necessary Wars are the means of Peace so it is in these Theological Wars And as the valiant Defenders of their Country in necessary Wars have right to the praises given them by all so those that necessarily defend God's Truth and his Churches Rights deserve acceptance Among whom I judge the Reverend Author of this Treatise to be worthy of the Churches thanks on several accounts It is no contemptible Privilege which he vindicateth The Interest of all Christians Children in the World in the Covenant and Visible Church of Christ is a matter of greater moment than most that acknowledge it do duly lay to heart much more than the unthankful Rejecters of it understand The Title given to the Pelagians was Ingrati the Unthankful because they disputed against God's Grace which they themselves did need as well as others Such Cicero thought those Philosophers that disputed against the Immortality of Mans Soul And Mr. Tombes was long ago angry with me for giving that Title to them that so vehemently dispute all Infants out of the visible Church and Covenant But let the Evidence of the Cause well considered inform us and it will be too sure that Publick Repentance would far better beseem such Writers as Mr. Danvers than stiff persisting in this unthankful Error I have written somewhat my self upon Mr. Danvers vehement instigation once more on this Subject partly in answer to Mr. Tombes and partly to himself But let not the notice of that hinder you from reading this Treatise For I have dealt with Mr. Danvers only on the account of his pretended Witnesses for a thousand years after Christ and his quarrels with my self having neither leisure nor will nor patience all things considered to meddle with his Arguments or the rest of his History while I know how sufficiently they stand confuted in my own and many other mens Writings long ago But this Reverend Author hath dealt with him more particularly and answered his Arguments satisfactorily and search'd into those and all the rest of his pretended Antiquities and not only done that which I have passed by but the same also in a full Confutation And it is so sad a Case that after all our dreadful Warnings we should still be haunted with this unquiet Spirit which hath been exorcised or laid so oft and that under all our other Trials we should have the addition of these vexatious dividing Wranglings to turn mens hearts against each other that we owe the more thanks to such as the Author for bringing so much water to quench these flames especially in a time when so many disaffected Persons are ready to impute to Presbyterians Independents or any such other that they desire to defame the Errors of all about them whom they do not confute yea too oft also those that they do confute while some others betray the Cause by silence or silly unsatisfactory Arguings Pardon or chuse a man that offendeth all Sects by plain dealing for telling the World That if the Anabaptists had been no better confuted than the Papists and the Silencers have confuted them I verily think that so great a part of the conscientious though injudicious Vulgar would have followed them as would have made work and trouble for us all Farewell At the door of Eternity Rich. Baxter June 24. 1674. CHAP. I. The Authors first Argument That Believers Baptisme is the only true Baptism drawn from Christs positive Institution and Commission Mat. 28.18 19. Mark 16.16 Examined and Confuted THese are the prime Texts upon which Antipaedobaptists lay the greatest stress as conceiving they have sure warrant from hence for their practice and that from the same places Ours is condemnable Out of this Armory do they fetch their keenest Weapons and most triumphant Arguments And indeed all that they say besides is vox praeterea nihil a great sound of words to little purpose This is the Palmarium argumentum their victorious and unanswerable Argument as they imagine so None are to be Babtized but those who are first taught but Infants are not teachable Ergo they ought not to be baptized and again he that Believeth and is Baptized Infants cannot believe therefore must not be Baptized We say they follow the Rule of Institution you who are Paedobaptists cross it and cannot acquit our selves of Will-worship And I confess this is a plausible way of arguing and very taking with Vulgar capacities and I wonder no more of weak understanding and tender consciences are proselyted to their way They have the advantage of us to gain upon such Yet notwithstanding their great confidence that they have both Scripture and Reason on their side
words and deeds of Christ are infinite which are not recorded Joh. 20.30 and 21.25 Many things Christ did that were not written and of 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 forbideen So that it can be no good Argument to say The Apostles are not read to have Baptized Infants therefore Infants are not to be baptized but thus We do not find they are excluded from this Sacrament and Ceremony of Christian Institution therefore we may not presume to exclude them Now since all contradiction against Infant-Baptism depends wholly upon these two grounds The Negative Argument in matter of fact and the pretences that faith and repentance are required to Baptisme since the first is wholly nothing and infirm upon an infinite account and the second may conclude that Infants can no more be saved then be baptized because faith is more necessary to Salvation then to Baptisme it being said he that believeth not shall be damned and it is not said he that believeth not shall be excluded from Baptism it follows that the Doctrine of those that refuse to Baptize their Infants is upon both its legs weak and broken and insufficient Thus far the Learned Doctor To conclude this whereas the Apostles Preached up faith and Repentance before Baptism it was requisite they should do so according to their Commission having to do with Aliens grown up as not only the Gentiles but the Jews were in reference to the new Administration for these being the first subjects of Baptisme it was necessary they should make profession of their faith before they were admitted to it but not so in their Children to be Baptized no more then in Isaac and the Children of the Proselytes to be Circumcised Abraham believed first and afterward was Circumcised Gen. 17.24 And why so Because he was the first subject of that Ordinance and therefore could not be admitted to it but by his own faith But as for Isaac his Son he was Circumcised before believing and so was it with the Proselytes and their Children when any Gentile was converted to the Jewish Faith he had a personal Right to be circumcised and his Child likewise was Circumcised at eight days old as was the custome of the Jewish Church by virtue of Gods Covenant giving it a parental Right The Author is very unhappy at Citations for usually they serve not his purpose He acquaints us out of Bede that men were instructed into the knowledge of the Truth then to be Baptized as Christ hath taught because without Faith it is impossible to please God Magdeburg Cent. 8. pag. 220. But this Bede himself tells us was the method used amongst the Inhabitants of this Island when Paganish In initio nascentis Ecclesiae apud Britannos Beda lib. 2. Angl. Hist cap. 14. When a Church first of all began to be planted amongst the Britains and he tells us it was at that time when Gregory sent from Rome Austin and forty other Preachers and afterward Paulinus who converted Ethelbert the Saxon King but of this we shall speak more hereafter when we shall shew how Bede himself was for Infant-Baptisme notwithstanding the Author so perverts his words His other Citation is Erasmus who in his Paraphrase upon Mat. Observeth and t is a great Observation indeed That the Apostles were commanded first to teach and then to baptize c. Every Child that can read observes the same Probabile est tingere Infantes institutum fuisse ab Apostolis c. but if you would know his judgment about Infant-Baptism you may read it in his Ratio concionandi lib. 4. where he conceives it probable that the Apostles ordain'd and practised it And truly amongst other probable reasons this seems to be one if it be not a Demonstration namely because we do not read of any children of believing Parents who were Baptized when they came to years of discretion That they were Baptized I presume saith Brinsley our Adversaries will not deny and if so Note No Children of Believing Parents Baptized afterwards to be found from John the Baptist to John the Evangelist ending his Ministry which was about 60. years An Argument sufficient if not to convince the Adversary that they were Baptized in Infancy yet to stop their mouths Brinsley Doctrine and Practice of Paedobaptisme pag. 75. let them shew where and when For this let all the Sacred Register be searched from the time that John the Baptist began his Ministry to the time that John the Evangelist ended his which was about 60 years during which time thousands of Children of Believing Parents were grown up to maturity and if in all that time they can but shew any one instance of any child born of a believing Parent whose Baptism was deferred till he came to years of discretion and that then he was Baptized we will then acknowledge there is some strength in their Negative Allegation viz. We read of no children Baptized therefore There were none CHAP. III. Containing his Argument that Believers Baptisme is the only true Baptisme from the example of Primitive Saints Reply TO this there needs no more then what we have before said Sydenhams Christian Exercitation pag. 7. For as Mr. Sydenham says all that they urge as to Examples of actual Believers being baptized all along the new Testament especially the Acts and that if thou believest thou mayst We can freely grant without any damage to Infant-Baptism For 1. We say as they Professing Believers grown men were first Baptized and so they ought to be who are to be the first subjects of the Administration of an Ordinance instancing as before in Abraham c. he was 99. years old when circumcised and he must be first Circumcised before he could convey a right to his seed now you may as well argue Abraham was first circumcised when so old therefore old persons are to be Circumcised and none else as because grown persons were Baptized therefore not Infants when they must be first Baptized themselves for children are Baptized by the promise first to them and in them to their seed Now for as much as all the Examples brought by the Author out of Act. 8.12 18.8 22.14 Speak of grown persons that were the first subjects of Baptism and Jews that were Aliens too as well as the Gentiles in regard of the new Administration it makes nothing against Infant-Baptism that being of another circumstance and the disagreeing of it from them argues not the unlawfulness of it and as the same Author farther argues 2. An Affirmative Position is not exclusive of subordinates because Believers were said to be Baptized Ergo not their Seed is not true reasoning for their seed were comprehended with them in the same promise as before and as we shall more fully shew hereafter Let us now see what his Quotations of Authors or Testimonies
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
with Mr. Tombes we find this in his Exercit. pag. 7. Where he saith By like manner of Argumentation it will be lawful to bring in the whole burden of the Jewish Rites and who shall put a bound to mens wits and this manner of arguing will countenance the Arguments of the Papists for an universal Bishop because there was such an High-Priest among the Jews c. And that Tythes are due to Ministers Jure Divino form Analogy of Melchisedec and Aaron c. Exam. p. 86. Well since we have this Crambe bis cocta that is enough to turn ones stomach being tainted with long standing I think Mr. Gerees stomachical medicines may be proper We bring in M. Gere Vind. Padebaptismi saith he no new Rite by Analogy but only apply that which God hath brought unto those to whom by Analogy it doth appear to belong And again Baptism is not instituted or bronght in as a new Rite by us but being appointed of God is applied by us by proportion to Infants And for that of countenancing the Papists in their High-Priest-Hood neither doth that follow for this Argument proceeds as though we set up Circumcision it self whereas we neither set up Circumcision nor Baptism but apply Baptism instituted of God to Infants And therefore for you saith he to Tombes to infer the bringing in of things not in their kind mentioned or appointed in the New Testament is an apparent non sequitur your instances being far unparallel to ours of applying an instituted Ordinance to children by way of proportion I shall expect a good answer to this from the Author or Mr. Tombes ad Graecas Calendas He next applauds my Lord Brooks who gives not them a very good character for that saying of his viz. That the Analogy which Baptism now hath with Circumcision in the Old Law is a fine rational Argument to illustrate a point well proved before but he somewhat doubts whether it be proof enough for that which some would prove by it besides the vast difference in the Ordinance the persons to be circumcised are stated by a positive Law so express that it leaves no place for scruple but it is far otherwise in Baptism where all the designation of persons fit to be partakers for ought I know saith he is only such as believe for this is the qualification which with exactest search I find the Scripture requires in persons to be babtized and this it seems to require in all such persons now how Infants can be properly said to believe I am not yet fully resolved This is very true which he relates of my Lord Brooks who speaks not positively but modestly that he somewhat doubts and is not fully satisfied as to the way of Argumentation from Circumcision to Baptism and withal doth yet commend it for a fine rational Argument to illustrate a point well proved before that 's something and more than our Author would have had him spoke but I must acquaint the Reader with more which he speaks little to their advantage I will not I cannot saith he take upon me to defend that men usually call Anabaptism yet I conceive that Sect is twofold Some of them hold free will community of all things deny Magistracy and refuse to baptize chilren These truly are such Hereticks or Atheists that I question whether any Divine should honour them so much as to dispute with them There is another sort of them who only deny Baptism to their children till they come to years of discretion and then they baptize them but in other things they agree with the Church of England Truly these men are much to be pitied And I could heartily wish before they be stigmatized with that opprobrious brand of Schismaticks the truth might be cleared to them For I conceive to those that hold we may go no farther than Scripture that is the express word for Doctrine and Discipline it may be very easie to erre in this point in hand since the Scripture seems not to have clearly determined this particular but for his part he saith many things prevail with him in this point as First for ought he could ever learn it was the constant custom of the purest and most primitive Church to baptize Infants of believing Parents For saith he I could never find the beginning and first rise of this practise whereas t is very easie to track Heresies to their first rising up and setting foot in the Church Again I find all Churches even the most strict have generally been of this judgment and practice yea though there have been in all ages some that much affected novelty and had parts enough to discuss and clear what they thought good to preach yet was this scarce ever questioned by men of note till within these last ages and sure the constant judgment of the Churches of Christ is much to be honoured and heard in all things that contradict not Scripture Nor can I clear that of S. Paul 1 Cor. 7.14 Else were your children I know some interpret it illegitimate and holy legitimate but saith he I believe the Apostle means that Relative Church-Holiness which makes a man capable of admission to holy Ordinances and to Baptism Except Lastly the Author excepts against the Argument we usually bring for the Baptism of children Else our priviledge under the Gospel will be less than theirs under the Law for theirs were circumcised they were taken into the Covenant with the Parent and were sealed whereby they were distinguished from the world and this was a great priviledge and to deny Baptism to children which succeeds Circumcision is to restrain Gods Grace and make us loosers by Christs coming To which he answers not at all 1. Because they were not circumcised because they were children of Believers or sealed with a New Covenant Seal as being in the New Covenant thereby as before proved c. But what an absurd conceit and idle dream this is we have shewn before to which I refer the Reader 2. Because it ought to be esteemed no more loss of a priviledge than our not enjoying literally a Holy Land City Temple Succession of High-Priest c. for all those Types are spiritualiz'd to us under the Gospel and so far we are better Tombes again Eramen p. 101. and not worse Answ But take heed of disparaging the Grace of God in vouchsafing them the Seal of his Covenant now under the Gospel For as Mr. Marshal says in answer to such cavilling as this None of those City Temple Succession of High-Priest c. were of the substance of the Covenant of Grace for though Circumcision was a part of their administration yet it did belong to the fubstance it belonged to it saith he not as a part of it but as a means of applying it and though it be a priviledge to have nothing succeed Circumcision as it bound to that manner of administration yet it is a privilege to have somewhat succeed it as a Seal
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
that he speaks by way of Prophesy that what they have writ shall not only live as a Witness for God and his reproached Truths but as a living Testimony against themselves in their unreasonable and unrighteous departure from the same except they repent to all generations if these Man cannot appeal to Heaven touching their own integrity so thundring a Sentence must needs trouble their Consciences Moreover if I mistake not they are divided amongst themselves about the Administrator of Baptism as unwholsome word because unscriptural Pastors Teachers Ministers we read of but no Administrators some holding none but men in Office may give Baptism others that a private Man may do it especially in case of necessity and Mr. Tombes favours this Opinion Praecursor pag. 72. and he gives his reason for it viz. because all or most of the Ministers ordained in England are against Baptizing of Persons of years Sprinkled in Infancy and there lying upon them that see Infant-Baptism a corruption a necessity to be Baptized upon Profession of Faith there is a necessity that they be Baptized by Persons not Ordained I like a man that will speak plainly his mind I will be as plain in opening mine and I think I have hit upon the truth namely that the Opposers of Infant-Baptism must hold that unbaptized Persons ☞ may Baptize and a Church with true Ordinances may be of unbaptized persons or else they must disown their new Baptism and all their Ordinances and turn Seekers For the first of their Administrators must either Baptize himself or else was Baptized by some Person Baptized in Infancy that is with them by an unhaptized Person Lastly I want not Instances to shew how impatient they are of having their adored Opinion contradicted and must prepare my self for the hard Censures of my Antagonist and his Party and had it not been for the honour of truth and love that I bear unto it they should have gone on till Dooms-day though I believe God will shortly break the neck of their ridged Principle before I would have disturb'd their quiet and exposed my self to their ill-will It is sufficiently observed and deplored by sober Christians that are unaddicted to faction how turbulent this fort of men have alwayes been as in forreign parts so in our own Country in the propagation of their Opinion and how distastful it is to them to have any thing said against their way There is a sad passage quoted by the Author himself pag. 308. of his Treatise out of Cloppenburg's Gangrene viz. The Troops of Anabaptists that dwell in Friestand although they trouble not the Commonwealth they suffer not the pure Reformed Churches to be edified without daily conflicts and what a stir they kept in Gemany with those Godly Ministers Luther Zwinglius Musculus contesting with them disturbing their Churches you shall hear shortly in our Animadversions upon the Authors historical part at the latter end of this discourse 9. By being an occasion saith he to stir up much bitter hatred wrath strife emnity persecution against those that oppose it How have they been followed with Stripes Imprisonments Confiscation yea Death it self Something of this may be layd at their own door as before hath been manifested in the persecution of the Tongue to which they are so much addicted but as for those Martyrs he speaks of that have suffered stripes imprisonment death we find very few of them in Fox his Martyrologie and none of them punished purely for opposing Infant-Baptism but the Antichristian Tenets of Rome Transubstantiation the Mass c. for which other Protestants suffered and some of them were put to death for asserting dangerous errors and for sedition here in England and multitudes for horrid acts beyond the Seas as shall appear in the Historical Narrative 10. By confirming hereby the whole Antichristian Interest as made good by the Preface An unworthy calumny and spoken without the least ground of reason only because Mr. Baxter hath declared his single Judgment in some things in reference to Baptism in some of which he speaks not positively and dogmatically but as I remember he qualifies it with such expressions as I think so or suppose so and how doth the delivery of his private Opinion about it render Infant-Baptism it self a point that confirms the whole Antichristian Interest that is not derived thence and hath no reference to or favour for it and when many Paedobaptists differ from Mr. Baxter and are unsatisfied at those passages in his Christian Directory Absurdities 11. By ushering in great Absurdities viz. 1. That Persons may have Regeneration and Grace before calling This is no Paradox to those who have heard of John Baptists being Sanctified in the Womb. I could here turn the Author to several places in Mr. Tombes his Works where he dares not deny but Infan̄ts may have the seed of Grace but I have spoken to this before only take notice of that is his Praecursor pag. 13. It is not doubted but Infants belong to the invisible Kingdom of the Elect but how they attain Salvation is not so certain if by a Seed of Faith and Holiness without actual exercise the thing is more easie to conceive c. And again he saith There are Believers of two sorts either in the Seed or Fruit either by Ordinary or Extraordinary Operation in one of which wayes Infants are or may be Believers 2. That Persons may be visible Church-members before Conversion And is that such a wonder We have proved that Chapter 6. Part 1. They were Church-members under the Law why not under the Gospel when were they excluded 3. That Persons may Repent Believe and be Saved by the Faith of another We own no such thing 4. That Types and Shadows profit after the Antitype and substance is come introducing thereby the Birth-priviledge The weakness of this is discovered before proving the Covenant made with Abraham still to continue to Believers and their natural Seed as you may see towards the end of the 3d Chapter Part. 2. 5. That the better to exclude Believers-Baptism new Church-Covenants are invented c. This is directed only against one sort of Paedobaptists called Independents whom he saith in point of order do err more than Prelate or Presbyter owning Infant-Baptism and yet denying them the right of Church-membership this is answered Chap. 6. Part 1. by shewing that they own the Infant Seed of Believers to be Church-members that is of the Universal Visible Church before Baptism and the reasons for it as also why they admit them not into their particular Churches when grown up till they make a serious Profession of that Faith into which they were Baptized and claim the priviledg of Communion Contradictions 12. By the manifold Contradictions that attend the Practice 1. By asserting that Baptism is a Symbol of present Regeneration wrought and yet apply it to ignorant unconverted Babes so uncapable of Regeneration This is a crambe bis cocta answered again and again
applanded by the Author who was Contemporary with Munzer is one Balthazar Huebmer a Dr. in Waldshnot a great Preacher of this way in Bohemia and Moravia who was taken Prisoner with his Wife by the Emperour's command who was himself burned at Vienna and his Wife drowned for Hereticks in the year 1528. This is Mr. Tombes again Mr. Tombes Examen pag. 23. But because we have such an ample Character of this man I have been the more curious in enquiring what account we or him in History and before I shall enter upon that I shall tell thee Reader that the Author minds me with what I lately met with in a Book intituled plus ultra being an Examination of Dr. Heylins Discourse of the Reformation of the Church of England the Examiner observes that when the said Dr. speaks of Harding the Jesuit a base Apostate and grand enemy of the Gospel it is with terms of honour and reverence as Dr. Iohn Harding one of the Divines of Lovain and the most learned of the Colledge pag. 128. but when he speaks of those Glorious Lights of the Reformation 't is barely Luther Zwinglius Calvin in like manner we have here one Balthazar Huebmer a Dr. in Waldshnot a great Preacher of this way in Bohemia c. when in a leaf or two before we have no venerable Title given to those famous Divines of the Reformation but 't is plain Luther Zwinglius Calvin I have met with this Huebmer in several Authors without the Title of Dr. which made me think he was a Dr. of H. D. his Creation until I found it in Mr. Tombes to be otherwise in his Examen pag. 23. who sayes that Zwinglius gives him that stile in his Epistle before his answer to his Book about Baptism be it so and if he were regularly admitted to that degree I think he was the first and last Dr. that ever was of the Anabaptist judgment Concerning this man Mr. Tombes relates out of one of Zwinglius his Epistles that Huebmer came to Zurich and there made a Recantation but it appears he was afterwards taken by the Emperour and burnt at Vienna for what cause I know not saith Mr. Tombes Then farther he relates more of what he finds in Zwinglius his Epistle to Gynoraeus viz. We approve dexterity and moderation in a man but in that man I wish I were deceived saith Zwinglius I never perceived any thing in him but an immoderate thirst after profit and glory Mr. Tombes concludes modestly and sayes only this I leave him to his judge to whom he stands or falls This Huebmer is called by Melchior Adam Princeps Catabaptistarum the chiefest of the Anabaptists and the head of them that disputed with Zwinglius at Zurich Alpha eorum fuit Balthazar Hubmerus Apostatà iterum iterumque factus qui Zwinglii beneficio liberatus tantis convictis vtrum bene de se meritum onerare nebulo non dubitavit ut apologiâ satisfacere fratribus habuerit necesse Melch. Adam pag. 30. and he tells us he was an Apostate several times who being freed out of Prison by Zwinglius his endeavours was so ungrateful as to load him afterward with such reproaches that Zwinglius was fain to write an Apology for himself to satisty the Brethren That Learned and Godly man Bullinger says of him that whilst he was pastor at Waldshnot the whole Cit became proselytes to his opinion and that they banished out the Citizens that were men of good conscience and sincere and drove them from their possessions by which means the Gospel which did there excellently flourish was utterly rooted out Spanhemius hath this of him That Bul-Diol Huldricus Zwinglius that valiant Champion of the Truth confuted that Turbulent fellow who by his words and writings had troubled the consciences of many and yet at Zurich recanted his Error and did forswear the Tennents of the Ambaptists Spanhem c. â—â— But he was burnt at Vienna for an Heretick saith the Author whereas his Tutor Mr. Tombes saith be knows not what he was burnt for and this might have been his lot if he had been for Infant-Baptism they do not use to distinguish of men that go under the notion of Protestants all are in their account Hereticks and deserve burning that are not of the Church of Rome Sad instances you shall have by and by and unless I mistake we do not find in our Martyrologies very many of the Author's judgment to have suffered death purely for their opinion of Antipaedobaptism and in truth I have not faith to believe ever any one did as for those which suffered in Henry the 8th his time we shall find it was for some other causes and usually as the rest of Protestants for denying the Real presence in the Eucharist and the Popes headship After this he tells us out of Comenius the distresses that befel the Anabaptists upon the defeat of Frederick by the Emperour's forces at Prague how that the Enemy began the year after the victory with the Anabaptists in Moravia and banished a great company of them c. To which I have this to say that they dealt kindly with them in comparison of their dealings with the Godly Ministers that were for Infant-Baptism for as soon as ever Fredrick Elector Palatine the Defender of their Faith and Persons was defeated the faithful Ministers of Christ as in the Marian dayes were the proto-Martyrs It was the precious blood of those men that was first spilt and the Antichristian cruelty shewed it self most barbarously against them Divers of them were shot to death excruciated and tortured with new-invented Torments covering some with hot burning coals twisting about the fore-head of others knotty Cords and with a stick straining their heads till their eyes were ready to start out cruelly burning one with his Wife broiling another to death with a fire made under him cutting another in small pieces hanging another by the privy members being 70 years old with his Books fired under him and at last shot through the body and slain another being above 70 years old was brought into the market place laid upon the fire and burnt to death Thus the poor Ministers in every place suffered all banished out of Prague twenty one out of Cuttenburgh many Citizen's accompanying them one of which preached on that Text They shall cast you out of the Synagogue all the multitude present bewailing their loss with great lamentations Thus did they deal with them at Boslavia Radecium Zaticum and in other places and some were stifled and poysoned with the stink of Prisons Comenius Clarks Martyrology pag. 183 184. see all this in Comenius his History of those persecutions which is Translated and in Clark's Martyrology taken thence As for that which follows That the Anabaptists which were banished out of Moravia into the neigbouring Countries of Hungaria and Transilvania were of the Waldensian stock he hath nothing for it but a Conjecture And whereas he adds that these