Ephes 4. 24. The conclusion then is obvious That they who are not formed a new in Righteousness holyness and truth they who remaining in the present in incapacities cannot walk in newness of life they have not been baptized into Christ and then they have but one member of the distinction used by St. Peter they have that baptism which is a putting away the fiâ—th of the flesh if yet an human institute may be so called but they have not that baptism which is the answer of a good Conscience towards God which is the only baptism which saveth us and this is the case of Children and then the case is thus As Infants by the force of nature cannot put themselves into a supernaturall condition and therefore say the Paedo baptists they need baptism to put them into it as if the â—â—re â—eâ—eâ—ony of which only they are capaâ—'le could put them into a supernaturall conâ—ition so if they be baptized before the use of reason before the works of the Spirit before the opperations of grace before they can throw of the works of darknes and live in riâ—hteousness ond newness of life they are never the nearer from the pains of Hell they shall be saved by the mercy of God and their oâ—â— innocence though they dye in puris naturalibus and baptism will carry them no further for that baptism that saves us is not the only washing with water of which only Infant are capable but the answer of a good Conscience towards God of which they are not capable till the use oâ— reason till they know to chuse the good and refuse the evill And from thence I consider a new that all vows made by persons undeâ— others names stipulations made bâ— minors are not valid till they by â— supervening act after they are of sufficient age do ratifie the same whâ— then may not Infants as well makâ— the vow de novo as de novo ratifie thâ—â— which was made for them ab antiquâ— when they come to years of choyce If the Infant vow be invalid till thâ— manly confirmation why were it 〈◊〉 as good they staid to make it till thâ— time before which if they do maâ—â— it it is to no purpose this would 〈◊〉 considered And in conclusion our way is the surer way for not to baptise Children till they can give an account of their faith is the most proportionable to an act of reason and humanity and it can have no danger in it for to say that Infants may be damn'd for want of baptism a thing which is not in their power to acquire they being yet persons not capable of a Law is to afirm that of God which we dare not say of any wise and good man Certainly it is very much derogatory to Gods justiâ—e and a plain defiance to the infinite reputation of his goodness And therefore who ever will pertinatiously persist in this opinion of the paedo-baptists and practise it accordingly they polute the blood of the everlasting Testament They dishonor and make a pageantry of the Sacrament They Ineffectually represent a sepulture into the death of Christ and please themselves in a sign without effect making baptism like the Figtree full-of Leaves but no fruit c. Thus far the Anabaptists may argue and men have disputed against them with so much weakness and confâ—dence that they have been eucouraged in their error alias in thâ— truth more by accidentiall aliaâ— real advantages we have given them by our weak arguings then by any truth of their cause or excellency oâ— of their wit so the Dr. is pleased tâ— say but the evidences of our side spâ—ak otherwise but the use I make of it as to our ppesent question saith the Dr. is this that since there is noâ— direct impiety in the opinion noâ— any that is apparently consequent to it and they which so much pâ—obabillity do or may pretend to true perswasion they are with all means Christian fair and human to bâ— redargued or instructed but if they cannot be perswaded they must be left to God who knows every degree of every mans understanding all his weaknesses and strength's what impress each argument makes upon his spirit and how unresistable every reason is and he alone judges his inâ—oceâ—cy and sincerity And for the question I think there is so much to be petended he might say really urged against that which I believe to be truth that there is much more truth then evidence on our side a strange saying of so wiâ—e a man as if the truth in this case doth not whâ—lly depend upon evidence sith its a positive and no morall precept and therefore we may be confident as for our own particulars but not too forward premtorily to prescribe to others muchless damn or kill or to persecute them that only in this particular disagree Thus far Doctor Taylor for our appollogie To whom to add any more witnesses though more might be brought would be superfluous I therefore proceed to the next question viz. What is the due act or outward form to be used in this sollemn rite of holy baptism It may well be the admiration of every wise and good man how it should come into the mind of such as pretend to be followers of Christ that holy baptism should be performed by aspertion or casting a few drops of Water upon the subject by the fingers of the administrator The scriptures every where teaching us that the originall form was by imversion in Rivers or places of much Water Maâ—â— 1. John 3. Christ himseâ—f who surely would do nothing superfluous or in vain was baptized in the River by John the first baptist who had his direction from Heaven and his approbation from on high in that very action Mall 3. and chuss who were under the immediate direction of the holy spirit the leader into all truth found it necessary for the administrator and subject to go both into the Water for the due performance of this holy Ordinance Add thereunto that the proper signification of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when used to express the action done in this service is to dip or immâ—rge the party in the Element as is confessed by the learned Paedo-baptists themseâ—ves as we shall see in the sequel And here we will still prefer the Church of England who teacheth us that the outward Sign or Form in baptism is Water wherein the party baptized is dipped c. And though she add or sprinkled with it yet that her Conscience tells her that is not the right way appeareth in that she only assigns that by indulgence to such Infants as are in danger of death c The Church of Rome also confesseth by a learned Pen that she changed dipping the party baptized over the head and Ears to a little sprinkling upon the Face Erasmus paraphrasing on the words baptizing them Mat. 28. saith thus if they believe that which you teach them and begin to be repentant
of their former Life c. Then dip them in Water c. Walfridus Strabo de rebus Ecclâ—sâ—â—c 26. tells us that we must know at â—hâ— fiâ—st believers were baptized simply in Floods and Fountains The learned Grotius tel's us in his judgement on Infant baptism That the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies to dip over the head and ears To whom we will joyn Tâ—lenus whose Testimony is in these words Baptism is the first Sacrament of the new Testament instituted by Christ in which with a most pat and exact analogy between the sign and the thing signified those that are in Covenant are by the Minister washed in Water The outward Rite in baptism is threefold immersion into the Water abiding under the water and resurruction out of the water the form of baptism to wit internal and essential is no other then that analogical proportion which the signs keep with the things signified thereby for as the properties of the water in washing away the defilements of the body do in a most suitable similitude set forth the efficacy of Christs blood in blotting out of sins so dipping into the Water doth in a most lively similitude set forth the mortification of the old man and rising out of the water the virification of the new That same plunging into the water holds forth to us that horrible gulf of divine Justice in which Christ for our sins sake which he took upon him was for a while in a manner swallowed up Abode under the water how little a while soever denotes his descent into Hell even the very deepest degree of livelesness while lying in the sealed and guarded sepulchre he was accounted as one truly dead rising out of the water holds out to us a lively similitude of that conquest which this dead man got â—ver death which he vanquished in his own Den as it were that is the grave In like manner therefore it is meet that we being baptized into his death and buried with him should rise also with him and so go on in a new Life Rom. 6. 3. 4. Col. â— 12. Thâ—â— far Tileâ—â—s Bishop Jewell in his defence Appol â— 5. p. 308. brings the councel of Worms determining the manner of baptism thus In aquas demersio in 〈◊〉 â—uâ—sus ab aquis â—emersio Râ—surrectio est The dipping into the water is the going down into Hell i. e. the grave The coming out from of the water is the Resurrection From all which Testimonies and many more that might be brought it is evident beyond all doubt our opposers being Judges that whether we respect the signification of the word baptizor the signification of the ordinance it self or the consent of the primitive Churches in their practice of holy baptism dipping the subject or party baptized in the Element Water is the due form of baptism and therefore sprinkling or crossing the face is an humane innovation Or Upon the whole matter these ten particulars are very apparent First That Infant baptism was innovated after the holy Scriptures were written which appeareth both from the deep silence of the Scripture in that case and the confession of learned Paedo-baptists themselves 2. That it came in stealing as it were being for a considerable time left at liberty a sign it was not from Heaven and was disliked by the Antients who therefore disswaded from it 3. That which gave it its great advantage for a more general reception was this false opinion that without baptism none could be saved This saith Mr. Perkins doth St. Augustine every where assirm 4. That the Lords Supper was as eagerly pressed to be necessâ—ry sor Infants as baptism and they continued in use together about the space of six hundred years this conceit was confirmed saith Mr. Perkins by the councel of Toledo Can. 11. And Augustine was so earnest for this also that he boldly sayes in vain do we promise Infants salvation without it Aug ep 23. ep 107. contra ep pelag l. 1. c. 22. contra 〈◊〉 l. 7. c. 2. l. 3. c. 12. 5. That divers in the Greek Church have all along to this day refused Infant baptism Groâ—ius his words are these as Mr. Tâ—mbs quotes them In every age many of the Greeks unto this day keep the custome of deferring baptism to little ones till they could themselves make a confession of their Faith And the Armenians are confessed by Heylin in his Macrocos p. 575. To defer baptism to their Children till they be grown to years of knowledge 6. Those foolish and sinful adjuncts which the Authors and promoters of Infant baptism were constrained to invent to make it look like baptism for example their device of Godfathers c. do sufficiently declare it to be of an infirm and humane Original 7. The grounds upon which Paedo-baptism was at first urged are now in a manner wholly declined and new grounds daily invented whereon to built it which are no sooner laid but raized again by some of it's own favorites 8. That the stoutest assertors of Infant baptism hath ever met with as stout opposers Thus Agustine met with the Donatists and Pelagius whose arguments he could not avoid but by running into greater absurdity and though they are blamed and perhaps justly for holding some errours so also is Augustine and that not undeservedly 9. That many of the Learneâ— have much abused this age in telling them the Anabaptists i. e. the baptized Churches are of late edition a new sect c. When from their own writings the clean contrary is so evident Tenthly and Lastly Observe how the baptism of repentance for remission of Sins which is that one and only baptism commanded in holy Scripture hath been neglected traduced and its affertors frequently abused and that chiefly by thiâ— device of Paedo-baptism which now hath so lost it 's first form that it cannot with any shew of truth oâ— good sence be called baptism and ought therefore to cease with its follow errors viz. the giving the â—ords Supper to Infants c. That God may be justified in the submissiâ—n of all sinners to the baptism of repentance for remission of sins Luke 7. 39. The Second Part Of the Promise of the Spirit Delivered in a Sermon upon 1. Cor. 12. 1. To which is added A post-script out of the works 〈◊〉 Dr. Jer. Taylor touching the layinâ— on of Hands chiefly declaring hoâ— Religiously it was observed by thâ— Antient Christians as it is now revived by divers of the baptizeâ— Christians of this age 1 Cor. 12. 1. Now concerning spiritual gifts brethren I would not have you ignorant THere was never more need for thâ— Church of God to seek and searcâ— for all those things which God hatâ— promised for her strength and encouâ—agement then now partly for that her â—pposers are men of exquisite parts by â—eans of all Arts and Sciences which â—â—e not more profitable when used in 〈◊〉 way of subserviency to the truth â—â—en pernitious
Baptiâ—m deal preprosterously oversliping the commandment of repenting and bâ—leiving this is the cause of of so much profaneness in the world we see what is done in Baptism the Covenant of grace is solemniz'd between God and the Party baptized and in this Covenant something belongs to God some to the Party baptized the actions of the Party baptized is a certain stipulation or obligation whereby he bindeth himself to give homage to the Father Son and holy Ghost This homage standeth IN FAITH whereby all the promises of God are beleieved and in OBEDIENCE to all his commandements The sign of this obligation is that the Party baptized WILLINGLY yeilds himself to be washed with water 3. Diodate on the same Text teaches that Baptism is a Sacrament of grace in remission and expiation of sins and regeneration to a new life And likewise for a token that they are bound on there side meaning such as are baptized to consecrate themseâ—ves to God and to give themselves over to the conduct of 〈◊〉 Spirit and to CONFESSE his name PERPETUALLY Thus these three witnesses do concurre with the truth and therein do hold a concord with the baptized Churches And one would think there should now be no place for such a conceit as that Infants are fit subjects for the sacred ordinance of baptism because wholly uncapable of these qualifications Now whereas divâ—râ— things are pretended as grounds for Infant Baptism we shall briefly recount the particulars which are chiefly insisted on and then show how the same are refelled or made void by some of the most learned Asserters of Paedo-baptism The grounds pretended are these 1. The Covenant which God made with Abraham and his seed Gen. 17. who were to be circumcised to wit the makes only in their Infancy this is thought to be a Type of baptism and hence 't is conceived that Infants ought â—o be baptized 2. Christs permiâ—â—ing Infants to be brought to him as persons to whom the Kingdome belongs 3. They being tainted with original sin must be cleansed from it which is supposed to be done by baptism 4. Because it is said except a man be born of water c. he cannot enter into the kingdome of God John 3. 5. Because Infants do not ponere obicem and so are more fit for baptism then adult Persons as 't is thought 6. Because without baptism Parents can not hope the salvation of dying Infants as some think 7. The promise of the holy Ghost Acts 2. 39 is thought to belong to Infants and so they ought to be baptized because they are said to be holy 8. Unless Infants be baptized 't is thought God is worse to Infants in the Gospel then in the Law 9. Infants are a parâ— of all Nations and the command for baptizing is of extent to all Nations 10. 'T is thought the Apostles baptized Infants because they baptized whole housholds and 't is said it hath descended to this very age as a Tradition Apostolical To all which Doct. Jer. Taylor and others in behalf of the baptized Churches do give answer as followeth That this is a goodly Harangue which upon strict examination will come to nothing that it pretends fairly and signifies little that some of those allegations are false some impertinent and all the rest insufficient For the argument from circumcision is invalid or of no wright upon infinite considerations figures and types prove nothing unless a commandment go along with them or some express â—o signifie such to be their purpose for the deluge of waters and the ark of Noah were a figure of Baptism sâ—id Peâ—â—r and if therefore the Circumstances of one should be drawn to the other we should make Baptism a Prodigie rather then a rite The Pascal Lamb was a Type of the Eucharist which succeeds the other as Baptism doth Circumcision but because there was in the manducation of the Pascal Lamb no prescription of Sacramental drink shall we thence conclude that the Eucharist is to be ministred but in one kind and even in the very instance of this argument suppâ—sing a correspondence of analogie betwen Circumcision and Baptism yet there is no correspondence of Identity for although it were granted that both of them did consign the Covenant of Faith yet there is nothing in Circumstance of Childrens being Circumcised that so concerns that Mâ—stery but that it might very well be given to Children and yet Baptism to men of reason because Circumcision left a Character in the flesh whiâ—h being imprinted upon Infants did its work to them when they came to age and such a Character was necessary because there was no word added to the sign but baptism imptints nothing that remains on the body and if it leaves a Character at all it is upon the soul to which also the word is added which is as much a part of the Sacrament as the sign it self is for both wch reasons it is very requisite that the Persons baptized should be capable of reason that they may be capable of both the word of the Sacrament and thâ— impress made upon the Spirit Since therefore the reason of this paâ—ity does wholly fail there is nothing left to infer a necessity of complying in this circumstance of age any more then in the other anexes of the Type and the case is clear in the Bishops question to Câ—pâ—iuâ— for why should not Infants be baptized just upon the eight day as well as Circumcised if the correspondence of the rites be an argument to infer one circumstance which is impertninent and accidental to the misteriousness of the rite why should it not infer all especially such a material thing as the time of baptism for if the eight day be not determined no man is able to assign the day of baptism which being delayed till the tenth or twentieth day may by the same reason be deferred till the Child have passed through its infancy and become capable of eâ—udition and then also females must not be baptized because they were not circumcized but it were more proper if we would understand it aright to prosecute the analogie of the type to the antitipe by way of letter and spirit and signification and as circumcision signifies baptism so also the adjuncts of circumcision shall signifie something spiritual in the adherences of baptism And therefore as Infants were circumcised so spirituâ—l Infants shall be baptized which according to some is spiritual circumcision which yet is better expounded by St. Paul Phil. 3. Where he makes the spiritual circumcision to be the mind and spirit renewed and the putting of the body of the sins of the flesh for therefore babes had the ministery of the type to signifie that we must when we give our names to Christ become 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Children in malice for unless you become like one of these little ones you cannot enter into the Kingdome of Heaven said our blessed Saviour and then the â—ye is made compleat and this
seems to have been the sence of the pâ—imative Church for in the ages next to the Apostles they gave to all baptized persons miâ—k and hony to represent to them their duty that though in age and understanding they were men yet they were babes in Christ and Children in malice But to infer the sence of the Paedo Baptists is so weak a manner of arguing that Augustin whose device it was and men use to be in love with their own fancies at the most pretended it but as probable Lo here the newness of the argument from Infant circumcision to Infant baptism As for the Catholicks they hold it an absurd thing to argue as the Protestants do from the Covenant made with Abraham and his seed Gen 17. 7. Thus they speak That promâ—se concerns literally pecuculiar proâ—â—ction and â—orldly felicity not the remission of sins and everlasting Life neither can we be sons of Abraham by carnal generation or by our carnal Parenâ—s we are not Jews but Gentiles but only by spiritual generation to wit Baptism by which we are born to God and made the brothers of Chrâ—â—tâ— the Sons of Abraham thâ—se saith St. Paul are the sons of Abraham not who are the Sons of the flesh but of Faith Rom. 4. 12. 13. Again they deride the Argument drawn from Infants being circumcised in order to their being baptized calling it a cunning argument by which it will follow that Females are not to be baptized c. And as ill success will they have with the other Arguments as with this for from the action of Christs blessing Infants to inser that they are to be baptize proves nothing so much as that there is a great want of better arguments The Conclusion would be with more probability derived thus Christ blessed Children and so dismissed them but baptized them not therefore Infants are not to be baptized but let this be as weak as it's enemy yet that Christ did not baptize them is an argument sufficient that Christ hath other wayes of bringing them to Heaven He passed his act of Grace upon them by benediction and imposition of hands And therefore though neither Infants nor any man in puris naturalibus can attain to a supernatural end without the addition of some instrument or means of Gods appointing ordinarily yet where God hath not appointed a rule nor an order as in the case of Infants we contend he hath not this argument is invalid And as we are sure that God hath not commanded Infants tâ— be baptised so we are suâ—e God will do them no injustice nor damn them for what they cannot help And therefore let them be pressed with all the inconveniences which aâ—e consequent to Original sin yet either it will not be laid to their charge so as to be sussicient to condemn them or if it could yet the mercy and absolute goodness of God will secure them if he take them away before they can glorifie him by a free obedience Quid ergo fostivat innoceus alis ad remissionem pâ—ccatorum Was the question of Tertullian lib. de bapt he knew no such danger from their Original guilt as to drive them to a laver of which in that age of innocence they had no need as he conceived and therefore there is no necessity of flying to the help of others for tongue and heart and faith predispositions to baptism for what need all this stir as Infants without their own consent without any act of their own And without any exteriour solemnity contracted the guilt of Adams sin and are lyable to all the punishment which can with Justice descend upon his posterity who are personally innocent so Infants shall be restored without any solemnity or act of their own or any other for them by the second Adam by the redemption of Jesus Christ by his righteousness and mercies applyed either immediately or how or when he pleases to appoint and to this agrees that saying of the Apostle as in Adam all dye so in Christ shall all be made alive and as by the disobedience of one many were made sinners so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous And so Austins argument will come to nothing without any need of God-fathers or the faith of any body else And it is too narrow a conception of God Almighty because he hath tyed us to the observation of Ceremonies of his own institution that therefoâ—e he hath tyed himself to it Many thousand ways there are by which God can bring any reasonable soul to himself but nothing is more unreasonable then because he hath tyed all men of years and discretion to this way therefore we of our own heads shall carry Infants to him that way without his direction the conceit is poor and low and the action consequent to it is too bold and ventrous mysterium meum mihi filiis domus meae Let him do what he please to Infants we must not Only this is certain that God hath as great care of Infants as of others and because they have no capacity of doing such acts as may be in order to acquiring salvation God will by his own immediate mercy bring them thither where he hath intended them but to say that therefore he will do it by an external act and ministry and that confin'd to a particular viz. This rite no other is no good argument unless God could not do it without such means or that he had said he would not and why cannot God as well do his mercies to Infants now immediately as he did before the Institution either of Circumcision or Baptism â—his query is worthy of serious consideration however there is no danger that Infants should perish for want of this external Ministry much less for prevaricating Christs precept nisi quis renatus fuerit c. For first the water and spirit in this place according to some learnéd expositers signifie the same thing and by water is ment the â—ffâ—ct of the spirit clensing and purifying the soul as appears in its parralel place of Christs baptizing with the holy Ghost and Fire but to let pass this advantage and to suppose it to be ment of external Baptism as that is the most likely sense yet this no more infers a necessity of Infants Baptism then the other words of Christ infer a necessity to give them the holy Communion nisi comediritis carnem filii hominis brberitis sanguinem non introibitis in regnum â—aelorum and yet we do not think these words sufficient Argument to communicate them if men therefore will do us justice either let them give both Sacraments to Infants as some Ages of the Church did or neither for the wit of man is not able to shew a desparity in the sanction or in the evergie of its expression and therefore they were honest that understood the obligation to be parralel and performed it accordingly and yet because we say they were deceived in one
righteousness of Faith Which wheâ—her it did any such thing to anâ— sâ—ve to â—braham only â—n mâ—ch doubten so by vertue of iâ—'s 〈…〉 and remanemâ—y in their flâ—sh it did that work when the 〈◊〉 came to age But in Christian Infants tâ—e case is otherwise for the new Covenant being estabâ—ished upon better promises is not only to beâ—ter purposes but also in a distinct manner to be understood when their spirits are as receptive of a spiriâ—ual act or impress as the bodies of jewish children were of the sign of circumcision then it is to be consign'd but the business is quickly at an end by saying that God hath done no less for ours then for their children for he will do the mercies of a Father and Creator to them and he did no more to the other but he hath done more to ours for he hath made a Covenant with them and built it upon promises of the greatest concernment And note further we have as much ground of comfort concerning our dying Infants as the faithful had for the first two thousand years during all which time the Covenant of grace reached to Infants though there was no external ceremony to consign it to Infants For the insinuation of the precept of Baptizing all Nation of which children are a part does as little advantage as any of the rest because other parallel expressions of the Scriâ—ture do determine and expound themselves to a sence that includes not all persons absolutely but of a capable condition as adoâ—ate â—um omnes gentes persallirae Deo omnes Nationes terra And Nation shall rise against Nation where Infants are excluded and divers more But Erasmus hath well expounded this text where he restrains the baptizing to such as are repentant of their former life As for the Conjecture concerning the Family of Stephanâ—s at the best it is but a conjecture and besides that it is not prov'd that there were children in the Family yet if that were granted it follows not that they were baptized because by whole Families in Scripture is ment all Persons of reason and age within the Familie for it is said of the Ruler at Capernaum that he beleived aâ—d all his house Now you may also suppose that in his house were little babes that is like enough and you may suppose that they did beleive too before they could understand but that 's not so likely and then the argument from baptizing Stephen's Family may be allowed just as probable but this is unmanlike to build upon such slight and airy conjectures But tradition by all means must supply the place of Scripture and there is pretended a Tradition apostolical that Infants were baptized but at this we are not much moved for we who rely upon the written word of God as sufficient to establish all true Religion do not value the allegations of Traditions and however the World goes none of the reformed Churches can pretend this argument against this opinion because they who reject Tâ—adition when 't is against them must not preâ—end it at alâ— for them But if we should allow the Topick to be good yet how will it be verified for so far as it can yet appear it relies wholly upon the Testimony of Origen for from him Austin had it Now a Tradition apostolical if it be not consign'd with a fuller testimony then of one person whom all after ages have condemn'd of many errours will obtain so little reputation among those that knâ—w that thing have upon greater authority pretended to derive from the Apostles and yet fâ—sly that it will be a great argument that he is credulous and weak that shall be deâ—ermined by so weak probation in matters of so great concernment And the truth of the business is as there was no command of Scripture to obliedge children to the susception of it so necessity of â—aeâ—o-baptism was not determined in the Church till the eight age after Christ but in the year 418. in the Mileritan couâ—cel a principal of Aâ—râ—ca there was a Cannon made for Paedo Bapt never till then I grant it was practised in Africa before that time and they or some of them thought well of it and though that be no Argument for us to think so yet none of them did ever before pretend it to be necessary none to have been a precept of the Gospel St. Austin was the first that ever preach'd it to be absoâ—utely necessary and it was in his heat and anger against Pelagâ—us who had warm'd and chafed him so in that question that it made him innovate in other doctrines possibly of greater concernment then thâ—s And that although this was practic'd antiently in Africa yet that it was without an opinion of necessity and not often there nor at all in other places we have the testimony of a learned Paedo Baptist Ludovicus Vives who in his annotations upon Augustin De Civit. Dei l. 1. c. 27. afirms Neminem nisi adultum antiquitus solâ—re baptizari And because thâ—s Testimony is of great import I will set down the very words of Augustine and Ludovicus Vives as I find them in the English Edition of the said book of the City of God cap. 26. Where Augustine puts forth this question What is the reason then that we do spend so much time in our exhortations endeavouring to annimate thâ—se whom we have baptâ—zed eiâ—her unto Virginity or câ—â—st widdow-â—ood or honest and honourable marriage Now upon these words â—hose whom we have baptizâ—d Vives comments tâ—us Least any man should mistake this place understand thaâ— in times of old no man was brought unto baptism but he was of sâ—fficient years to know what that mistical water meant and to require his baptism and that sundry times I hear that in some Cityes of Italy they do for the most part observe the antient Custome as yet And it is to be observed that in the Margent are two Notes the 1. is that this is the old manner of baptizing The 2 That all this is left out in the Paris Edition whence we may note how the writings of the Antients are abused and how ingeniously it is confessed Paedo-Baptism is not the old manner of baptizing And here we will insert some other testimonies from the learned Paedo-Baptists touching the Novelty of Infant baptism The first is out of Robertus Fabianus his Chron. 4. part in fol. 107. where he brings in Augustine the Monk speaking thus to the Brittain Bishops Since ye will not assent to my Hâ—sts generally assent ye to me specially in three things the first is that ye keep Easter-day in due form and time as it is ordained The second THAT YE GIVE CHRISâ—ENDOM TO CHILDREN c. But THEY WOULD NOT THEREOF This was about the fifth Age after Christ whence its remarkable that Infant bapâ—ism was then opposed by â—he joynt consent of the Britaâ—n Bishâ—ps which were sent to the Assembly to consulâ— the affairs of Religion at
divine institution is from Heaven the promise which it leads to â—s perpetual and Universal it belong to the whole body There is one body and one Spirit even as ye are called i◠〈◊〉 hope of your calling A POST-SCRIPT Taken out of the Works of Dr. Jer. Taylor in defence of laying on of Hands as a never-failing Ministery WE have seen the Original of laying on of hands from Christ the practice and exercise of it in the Apostles and the first converts in Christianity that which I shall now remark is that this is established and passed into a Christian Doctrine The Waranty for what I say is the words of St. Paul where the holy Rite of confirmation so called from the effect of this Ministration and expressed by the Ritual part of it imposition of hands is reckoned a Foundamental point 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not laying again the foundation of Repentance from Deas works and of faith towards God of the Doctrine of baptism and of laying on of hands of Resurrection from the dead and of Eternal Judgement Here are six foundamental points of St. Pauls Catechism which he said as tâ—e foundation or beginning of the institution of the Christian Church and amongst these imposition of hands is reckoned as a pâ—rt of the foundation and therefore they who deny it dig up foundations Now that this imposition of hands is that which the Apostles used in confirming the baptized and invocating the Holy Gâ—ost upon them remâ—ins to be proâ—â—â— Absolution of penitents cannot be meant here not only bâ—cause we never read that the Apostles did use that Ceremony in their absolutions but because the Apostâ—e speaking of the foundation in which baptism is There needâ—d no absolution but bapâ—ismal for they and we believiâ—g gone baptism for the remâ—ssion of sins this is al the absolution that can be at the first and in the foundation The other was secunda post 〈◊〉 fragâ—â—m tabula 〈◊〉 me in after when men had mâ—de Shipwrack of their good Conscienscience and were as St. Peter saith unmindful of the former cleansing 2. It cannot be meant of Ordination and this is also evident 1. Because the Apostle saves he would thence forth leave to speak of the foundation and go on to perfection that is to higher misteries Now in Riâ—uals of which he speaks there is none higher then Ordination 2. The Apostle saying he would speak no more of laying on of hands goes presentlâ— to discourse of the misteriousness of the Evangelical Priest-hood and the honor of that vocation by which it is evident he spake nothing of Ordination in the Catechism or Narrative of Foundamentals 3. This also appears from tâ—e context not only because laying on of hands is Immediately set after baptism but also because in the very next words of this discourse he does enumerate and apportion to baptism and impâ—sition of hands their proper and proportioned effects To bâ—ptism ilâ—umiraâ—ion And to Confirmaâ—ion he reckons tasting the Heavenly gift and being made parâ—akers of the Holy Ghost By the thing sigâ—ified declaring the sign and by â—he misteâ—y the 〈◊〉 Upon these words â—t Chrisostomâ— discoursing sayes That all these are foundamental Articles that it that â—e ought to repent from dead works to be baptized â—â—to the Faith of Christ and be made worthy of the gift of the spirit who is given by imposition of hands and we are to be taught the misteries of the Resurrection and Eternal Judgement This Catechism sayes he is perfect so that if any Man have Faith in God and being baptized is also confirmed and so tasts the Heavenly gift and partakes of the Holy Ghost by hope of the resurrection tasts of the good things of the World to come if he falls away from this state digging down and turning up these foundations he shall never be built again he can never be baptized again Confirmed again God will not begin again c. He cannot be made a Christian twice This is the full explication of this excellent place and any other ways it cannot be reasonably expâ—icated I shall observe one thing more out of this Testimony of St. Paul He calâ—s it the Doctrine of baptism and laying on of hands by which it does not only appear to be a lasting Ministry because no part of the Christian Doctrine could change or be abolished but hence also it appears to be divine Institution For it were not St. Paul had been guilty of that which our blessed Savior reproves in the Scribes and Pharises and should have taught for doctrines the Commandements of Men. Which because it cannot be supposed it must follow that this doctrine of confirmation or imposition of hands is Apostolicall and divine The argument is clear and not easily to be reproved Yea but what is this to us it belong'd to the days of wonder and extraordinary The Holy Ghost breathed upon the Apostleâ— and Apostolicall men but then he breath'd his last vecendente gratiae recessit disiplina when the grace departed we had no further need of the cerimony In Answer to this I shall 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by divers particulars evince plainly that this Ministry was not temporary and relative only to the Acts of the Apostles but was to descend to the Church for ever This indeed is done already in the proceeding Sect in which it is clearly manifested that Christ himself made the baptism of the spirit necessary to the Church He declar'd the fruits of this baptism and did particularly relate it to the descent of the holy spirit upon the Church at and after that glorious Peâ—tieâ—st He saâ—ctified it and commended it bâ— hiâ— example just as he sanctified the flood Jordan and all other waters to the misticall washing away of sin viz. by his great example and fulfiâ—ling this righteousness also This doctrine the Apostles first found in their own persons and experience and practised to all their Converts by a solemn and externall rite And all this pâ—ssed into an Evangelicall doctâ—ine the whole mistery being signified by the externall rite in the words of the Apostle as before it was by Christ expressing only the internall So that there needs nâ— more strength to this argument But that there may be wanting no moments to this tâ—uth which the holy scripture affords I shall add more weight to it And 1. The perpetuity of this rite appears because this great gift of the Holy Ghost was promised to abide with the Chuâ—ches for ever And when the Jeâ—s heaâ—d the Apostles speak with tongues at the first and miraculous dâ—sâ—ent of the spirit in Penâ—â—câ—st to take of the straâ—geâ—ess of the wondâ—r and the envy of the power St. Peâ—er at that very time tells them plainly Reâ—â—nt and be baptizâ—d eveâ—y one of you and 〈◊〉 shall receâ—â—e the gift of the Holy Ghost 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not the meanest person among you all but shall receive this great thing which ye observe us to have received and not
only you but your Children too not of this â—eneration only sed nati natorum et qâ—i nâ—centur ab illis but your Children for ever For the promise is to you and to your Children and to all that are affar off even to as many as the Lord your God shall call now then let it be considered 1. This gift is by promise by a promise not made to the Apostles alone but to all to all for ever 2. Consider here at the very first as there is a verbum a word of promise so there is a sacramentum too I use the word in a large sence only and according to the stile of the primitive Church It is a rite partly morall and partly cerimoniall the first is prayer the other is laying on of the hands and to an effect that is but transient and extraordinary and of a little abode it is not easily to be supposed that such a solemnity should be appointed I say such a solemnity that is it not imaginable that a solemn rite annexed to a perpetuall promise should be transient and temporary for by the nature of relatives they may be of equall abode the cerimony or rite was anexed to the promise and therefore also must be for ever 3 This is attested by St. Paul who reduces this argument to this mistery saying In home after that you believed ye were sealed with the holy spirit of promise He spake it to the Ephesians who well understood his meaning by remembring what was done to themselves by the Apostle Act. 19. 6. But a while before who after he had baptised them did lay his hands upon them and so they received the holy spirit of promise for here the very matter of fact is the clearest comentary on St. Pauls words But fourthly What hinders any man from a quick consent at the first representation of these plain reasonings and authorityes is it because there were extraordinary effects accompanying this ministration and because now there are not that we will suppose the whole oeconomy must cease if this be it and indeed this is all that can be pretended in opposition to it it is infinitely vain 1. Because these exâ—raordinary effect did continue even after the death of all the Apostles St. Frenoeus saies they did continue even to his time even the greatest instance of miraculous power et infraternitate sapâ—ssimc propter aliquid necessarium c. When God saw it necessary and the Church prayed and fasted much they did miraculous things even of reducing the Spirit to a dead Man 2. In the days of the Apâ—stles the spirit did produce miraculous effects but neither always nor at all in all men are all workers of miracles c. No the spirit bloweth where it listeth and as he listeth he gives gifts to all but to some after this manner and some after that 3. These gifts were not necessary at all times any more then to all persons but the promise did belong to all and was made to all and was performed to all And therefore if the grace be given to all there is no reason that the ritual ministration of that grace should cease upon pretence that the spirit is not given extraordinarily Other arguments he hath many to the same purpose and aâ— I conceive well worthy the consideration of all Christians specially those that are doubtfull in this principle of religion but I shall shâ—t up all with a few of his citations out of the works of antient writers in behalf of this point of faith And first noteing How that originally it came from the Apostles In the second Century he brings Thophilus Antiochenus and â—ertullian the latter saith thus Dâ— hinc manus imponitur c. After baptism the hand is imposed by blessing calling and inviting the holy spirit Being cleansed by baptismal water we are dispos'd for the holy spirit under the hand of the Angel of the Church and to this effect the rest c. For the third Century he brings Origen Cyprian Dionis and Eusebius The first Testimony set down is out of Cyprian who Writing upon the passage in Acts 8. 14. saith which custome is also descended to us that they who are baptized might be brought by the rulers of the Church and by prayer and imposition of hands receive the Lords signature c. For the Fourth hundred he brings Melchiades Optatus Civil and others speaking very highly of the use of this ministration and then brings Urbaâ— the first as more plainly setting down what the rest delivered more siguratively in these words Omnes Fideles c. All faithful people ought to receive the holy spirit by imposition of the Bishops hands after baptism And having added yet more witnesses of this kind he alleadges six Counsells to evince the same thing viz. That this Ordinance of prayer laying on of hands were received together with the other principles by Christians generally The decree of one of these Counsels concerning such as had received baptism in a regular form is in these words manus â—antum eiis imponatur ut accipiant spiritum sanctum Let there be imposition of hands that they may receive the Holy Ghost Afterwards the Dr. concludes thus So many Fathers testifying the practice of the Church and teaching this Doctrine and so many more Fathers as it were assembled in six Councells all giving witness to this holy Rite AND THAT IN PURSUANCE OF SCRIPTURE are too great a blood of witnesses to be despised by any man that calls himself a Christian FINIS Gal. 3. 27. Heb. 6. 2. Act. 2. 38. Mark 1. 5. Acts 8. 12 Acts 18 8. Libert prophâ— p 228. to pag. 246. * Which yet the Baptists do not grant * It is a saying of Augustin De trahe verbum quid est aqua c. Take away the word and what is water nothing but water joyn the word to the Element and it is made a Sacrament This consideration is very concluding against Paedo Baptism for to the Infant the word is as it were taken away from the Element aâ—d consâ—quent y accordirg to Aug. it can be no Sacrament to them at all Ex manu controvâ— under the probation of divers of their Doctors Professors and Students in Theology p. 372. to 377. S. N. Antid Se Diod te in act 2. * a thing wholy unknown that they have any such receit of the Spirit Eras. parrap â—n 1 Cor. 7. Eraz. par on Math. 28. Ludovicus Vives Fabian Hugo Grotius Anno 315. Con Neâ—caes * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Tertul. lib. de Bap. cap. 18. Tertull. lib. de baptis cap. 18. * 〈◊〉 to quest in â— Baptisma Mark 6. Perseverence in Faith must here be understood with the Fruits of Faith aâ—so * For they do â—â—t only deny such Infants the Act but the â—ight to baptism because the children of â—nbelievers Verse 4. Litturgy Marq. of Worcest Certam Relig. * Secundum Fisher * for Gods ways are not to be left to mans will be commands and t is mans duty to obey Ex opp Perk. Sâ—e the Scholast discourse against Symbol with Antichrist The poynt to be proved 1 From the Apostles scope * 1 Cor. 3. 16. 2 Cor. 6. 16. 2. From the extent of the promise 3. From the Nature of the duties of the Church 4. From the nature and perpetuity of the exhortations to seek for the spirit 5. From the continuation of spiritual gifts in the Church to this day It is probable that Paul made use of his education in speaking divers Languages as may be perceived by his discouâ—ses in the acts of the Apostles and by the Epistles which he wrote to severall Churches useing therein as 't is confessed frequently the Greek Tongue 6. From the silence of the Scriptures as to the privation of the gifts of the Spirit c 1. Cor. 2. 4. * Which yet shall avail them nothing because they wanted truth with their gifts * Meâ—ning that laying on of hands used by some at the absolving penetents * I think this wiâ—l abide tryall sith we may not expect a change of the dispensation we are under otherwise the promise might continue under some other rite or elce without it * Who know how to read men without being scandi ized if they meet with phraises and some nothing which are doubtful as its the case of most that write â— Con. Arles c. 8.