nulli adulto conferendus est nisi prius ediderit confessionem peocatorum i.e. We must not Baptize any person that is grown up unless he first make a Profession of his Faith c. If we would know his mind more fully we may see it in his Comment upon the 28. of Mat. 19. It was saith he the Duty of the Apostles to Preach the Gospel all abroad throughout the World to all Nations Apostolorum officium fuit Evangelium-praedicare passim in orbe terrarum c. Verō pastorum illis suceedentium est Evangelium praedicare apud certam Ecclesiam a quae peculiaritèr sunt vocati praterea Infantes qui in illa Ecclesia noscuntur per Baptismum Deo consecrare Piscat Observ in Mat. 28. p. 746. Edit 2. Herbornae Nassoviorum Porrò ad Ecclesiam pertinent non solum adulti Credentes ac fidem profitentes sed etiam ipsorum liberi ut patet ex verbis Apost 1 Cor. ◠Quare dubium videri non debet quin illi quoque liberi inquam Infantes fidelium baptizandi sint etsi fidei non sunt capaces and by Baptism to incorporate them into the Church who make Profession of their Faith c. And it is the duty of all Pastors that succeed them to preach the Gospel to that particular Church whereunto they are called and farthermore to consecrate to God by Baptism those Infants which are born in that Church And then adds Not only Adult persons that do believe and profess their Faith belong to the Church but also their Children as appears from the words of the Apostle 1 Cor. 7. else were your Children unclean but now are they holy where saith he the Apostle calls their children holy that were born though but one of the Parents were a Believer forasmuch as they belong to Gods Covenant made with his Church and by consequence they belong to the Church wherefore we need not doubt but they also I say the Children or Infants of Believers are to be Baptized although they are not capable of Faith even as the Infants of the Jews were circumcised belonging likewise to the Covenant and to the Church And as if all our eminent Divines had heedlesly spoken something in favour of their way he hath the confidence to bring in more still Mr. Perkins saith he in concurrence here with these words Teaching all Nations Baptizing them saith I explain the terms thus Mark first of all it is said Teach them 1. make them my Disciples by calling them to believe repent Here we are to consider the Order which God observes in making with men a Covenant in Baptism First of all he calls them by his word and commands them to believe and to repent Then in the second place God makes his promise of mercy and forgiveness And thirdly be seals his promise by Baptism They that know not nor consider this Order which God used in Covenanting with them in Baptism deal preposterously over-slipping the Commandment of Repenting and Believing Who would not think by this that the Renowned Perkins were of his side a down right Antipaedobaptist whereas not a word of what he saith is intended against Infant-Baptisme but only to shew in what order Baptisme is to be Administred to Aliens and Pagans as appears by what he saith upon the same Text. Mat. 28.29 Which is disingeniously conceal'd by the Author Go teach all Nations Baptizing them c. In these words saith Mr. Perkins the Baptism of Infants is prescribed and the Apostles by vertue of this Commission Baptized whole Families Act. 16.15 33. As knowing Gods former Administration to his people the Children were taken into Covenant with the Fathers as the Israelites both Old and Young were baptized into Moses in the Cloud 1 Cor. 10.4 As the Nation of the Jews were first taught and then they and their Infants being confederates were circumcised so saith our Saviour Do you go Teach and Disciple the Nations and then Baptize them The last quoted in this Chapter is the famous Paraeus and what saith he he tells us saith the Author in his Comment on Mat. 3.5 That the Order was That confession as a testimony of true repentance go first Hoc enim damus Anabaptistis in Ecclesiam fuscipiendos non esse nisi praeviâ confessione fidei paenitentiae quem morem vetus servavit ecclesia nostrae hodie observant si vel Judaeus vel Turca Adultus c. Paraeus in Mat. 3.5 and then Baptism for Remission of sins afterward Very good but is this all No certainly for he presently adds this we grant to the Anabaptists that persons are not to be taken into the Church and be Baptized speaking of Aliens or those that are without as the Apostle phraseth it unless a Profession of Faith and Repentance hath gone before which custome saith he the Antient Primitive Church kept and ours at this day still observe when a Turk or a Jew that is grown is to be initiated by Baptism Thus Reader I have given thee a taste of the ingenuity of my Antagonist and I leave thee to judge of it CHAP. II. Containing his second Argument to prove the Baptisme of Believers the only true Baptism and that is if we will believe him from the Apostles Doctrine teaching the same Reply ALthough what we have before said to invalidate his main Argument drawn from the Institution of Christ be sufficient to overthrow whatsoever is brought in the two following Chapters yet we shall further add that it is not to be denyed that the Apostles assert Believers Baptisme to be a true Baptism but that they teach us that it is the only true Baptisme is utterly false and we have only the Authors word for it The Texts cited out of Act. 2.37 Act. 8.36 37. Act. 10.42 Act. 16.29 prove that grown persons unbaptized ought to be required to believe before their Baptism which we grant but to inferr thence that the Children of Baptized Believers are not to be Baptized is more then these Texts or any else that I know can yeild We read of none de facto that the Apostles Baptized A non dicto ad non factum non valet consequentia Because it is not exprest in so many words therefore it was not done is not Logical but Believers therefore none but such de jure ought to be Baptized is a sorry way of arguing The words of Dr. Taylor in his Discourse of Baptisme part 2. pag. 34. are very weighty viz. A Negative argument for matters of fact in Scripture cannot conclude c. And therefore supposing that it be not intimated that the Apostles did Baptize Infants it follows not saith the Dr. that they did not and if they did not it does not follow that they might not or that the Church may not The Scripture speaks nothing of the Baptisme of the Virgin Mary and of many of the Apostles therefore they were not baptized is a weak arguing The
Arise and be Baptized and wash away thy Sins hath a favorable aspect upon Gods designing and blessing that Ordinance for the sealing of pardon in reference to grown Persons 2. To work Grace and Regeneration This is Mr. Tombes his 7th Argument against Infant-Baptism Exer. pag. 30. and to effect Salvation by the work done Although the Author knows all Protestants disclaim this and condemn it for a damnable Error yet he seems indirectly at least to charge it upon the Church of England which for my part I look upon it as very unjustly done What means else those reflections of his pag. 148. upon that passage in the Service-Book in the Rubrick before the Catechism viz. That Children being Baptized have all things necessary for their Salvation and be undoubtedly saved and then after Baptism the Priest must say We yield thee hearty thanks that it hath pleased thee to Regenerate this Infant with thy Holy Spirit just comporting saith he length and breadth with Pope Innocent's first Canons Answer 'T is fit the Church of England should be believed in what sence she intends those words Baptism by the Ancients was commonly called Regeneration or a new-Birth so 't is by the Scripture Tit. 3.5 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Washing of the new-Birth or Regeneration and we may learn it in her Articles which speaks her at an infinit distance from the absurd and irrational Error of Salvation by merit or ex opere operato and 't is not for others to put what interpretation they think meet especially such as are Obnoxious to her Lash Will you hear what Mr. Cotton of New-England an Independant as they call them speaks in Vindication of the Church of England in this particular matter and at a place where he needed not her favour and as I take it at a time when she could not help him which are circumstances that will not suffer us to suspect him of flattering or fawning We have it in his grounds and ends of Children's Baptism Notwithstanding saith he those expressions in the Service Book yet the Church of England doth professedly teach the contrary Doctrine not only in their Pulpits but in Books allowed by publique Authority She doth assert that the Scraments do not beget Faith nor Regeneration ex opere operato but they are signs and seals thereof Nor do I find that the publique Prayers of the Church are contrary hereunto but as in judgment they do believe that God by Covenant promiseth to pour clean Water upon us and our Seed Ezek. 26.25 Is 48.3 and that he Sealeth the Covenant and Promise by Baptism 3. That it was an Apostolical Tradition And for that we have the Testimonies of Origen and Cyprian as before Mr. Tombes his 4th Argument against Infant-Baptism Exerc. p. 28. Chap. 3. Part 2. who lived near the Apostles days and in which Chapter we have also shewn how Tradition is both by the Fathers of old and Reformed Churches taken in a safe sence different from that corrupt one of the Papists and not derogatory to the authority of the Scripture 4. That Children have Faith and are the Disciples of Christ Answer No Paedobaptists ever held Children had personally actual Faith for their condition is insufficient for the production of Intellectual Acts but as for the habit and grace of Faith the inherent infused power of believing it is more than any Antipaedobaptist in the World can prove they have not for 1. Their condition makes them not uncapable of Sin and Corruption in the Roots and Principles of it most of them confess it Anabaptistae ut Paedobaptismum prorsus tollerent peccatum negârunt Originale ut non sub esset causa cur Infantes Baptizarentur Dr. Prideaux Lect. 22. pag. 331. though some of them deny Original Sin and therefore not of the Roots and Principles of grace of which Faith is one for the acts of both are Moral and Intellectual But whether Infants Baptized have any such thing as a distinct habit of Faith or no this question of their Baptism depends not upon it It is a hidden thing The ground on which we give them Baptism must be visible and so it is viz. their being the Seed of Believers and hereby visibly entitled to the Covenant and so to the Seal of it We look not to what they have but to whom they pertain viz. to God as being the Seed of his Servants That they are Disciples is sufficiently proved Chap. 1. Part. 1. 5. That all Children of Believers are in the Covenant and federally Holy That 's abundantly made good Chap. 3. Part 2. 6. By defiling and polluting the Church viz. 1. By bringing false matter therein who are no Saints by calling being neither capable to perform duties nor enjoy priviledges Notwithstanding their inability to perform Duty yet they are capable of enjoying Priviledges as we have abundantly made good Chap. 6. Part 1. and are as true matter for the Church now under the Gospel as formerly under the Law as is there made out 2. By laying a foundation of much Ignorance and Profaness Cujus contrarium est verissimum The contrary is most true for 1. Infant-Baptism layes a singular good foundation for knowledg for in that Children are taken into Christs School they are in a near capacity to be taught and those who recommend them to that Ordinance are obliged to promote their knowledg and to see them brought up 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Nurture and Admonition of the Lord. And we know the Liturgy of the Church of England But the neglect hereof is much to be lamented the Children are not lookt after as they should be nor do Ministers mind them of their duty gives charge You must remember that it is your part and duty to see that this Infant be taught so soon as he shall be able to learn And that he may know these things the better ye shall call upon him to hear Sermons and chiefly you shall provide that he may learn the Creed the Lords-Prayer and the ten-Commandments in the English Tongue and all other things that a Christian man ought to know and believe to his Souls health c. Secondly it laies a good foundation for Holiness They are minded by their Baptism to cast of the Devil's service as soon as they are able to reflect that they were from their very Cradles dedicated to God whose Livery they have worn And some have repelled great temptations by virtue of their engagement to God by Baptism in their Infancy hence saith Mr. Ford in his 2d Dialogue concerning the Practical use of Infant-Baptism pag. 87. There is a very Prophane Spirit fomented under the Wings of Anabaptism for how can it be otherwise than such which endeavours to extirpate so considerable a means for the advance of Conversion and Sanctification as he shews Infant-Baptism to be Hence saith he arise grievous prejudices against those Ministers Societies and Ordinances in which God hath been wont
lived in the Country and times where and when these things were acted may not be credited then we may call in question the truth of all History whatsoever Add hereunto the Testimony of those famous Men Peter Martyr Calvin Beza Bucer who can scarce speak of the German-Anabaptists with patience or give them any other title what-ever the charitable Author says than Furies Blasphemous Unclean Seditious Frantâ—ck wretches c. Two material Objections he hath a mind to clear 1. The first is concerning the Miscarriages of these Men. 2. The Second is some of the Waldensian Confessions which seem to own the Baptizing of Infants But it had been more to his honour to have let those Objections lain dormant unless he had said more to the purpose To the first he saith That take it for granted that things were so as to matter of fact that is that many Anabaptists did prove so horribly wicked as is reported yet 't is both unreasonable uncharitable to render all the people either in those times or since to be such persons also and to judg an Error in the Principle from the Error in the Conversation of some that Profess it Reply Thus far the Author speaks well for it is not fair dealing to judg at such a rate and Mr. Tombes before him argues rightly in the case in his Praecursor p. 56. I am sure saith he it is no Rule to judg a Doctrine false by this that the Professors miscarry but only to make Men wary and fearful if it be we must judg the same Doctrine false by reason of some mens miscarriages and true because of others godly living Nevertheless we may safely affirm that Doctrine is to be suspected false which is usually attended with gross miscarriages in the Professors of it for that speaks the Doctrine Ominous and looks like a Spiritual Judgment of God upon it And I heartily wish there were no ground to say that of such a nature is the Doctrine of Baptizing grown Persons in opposition to that of the Infant-Seed of Believers For not to insist upon the horrid Errors and wicked Lives of those in Germany nor of the Blasphemies and Immoralities of divers Persons here in our own Nation the very principle it self of Anabaptistry is of a dangerous nature which in that rigidity as some men hold it is of such a disquieting tendency that as Mr. Bunyan speaks before it is not fit for any Age or State of the Church I cannot but sigh to consider the ways of some men whose Spirits are impregnated there-with so that their very constitution inclines them to nothing more than to rent and tear and divide the Church The Zeal for their Opinion hath and doth still prove the greatest hinderance to the conjunction of Christians here in this Nation For as soon as they become Baptists as some call them and our opposites love to appropriate the name to themselves they fall off from Godly Ministers and People differing from them though never so Holy But let Men calmly consider whether this be not an effect of ignorance and pride and more from an erring than well instructed Conscience and what a scandal and shame it is to the Christian Religion to make it thus a fomenter of faction and disturbance in the World and what an injury is hereby done to Christ by contracting and narrowing his Interest in such a manner But I see not how it can be otherwise if men adhere and strictly keep themselves to the Antipaedobaptistical Principle for if our Ministers be no true Ministers and our Baptism a Nullity and consequently our Churches no true Churches how can they hold Communion with us though some that are for the Baptism of Believers only do yet it must be imputed to their good nature and not their Principle which they cross in so doing Farther saith he if it be granted many Anabaptists did prove so horribly wicked in Germany yet others that owned that Principle were Men of another Spirit both in that as well as in former times for which we have most ample and authentick Testimonie from their greatest enemies Witness that honourable Character that Raynerius the bloody Inquisitor gives of them in those days in France Cassander Bellarmine and Baronius of those in Germany and Mr. Baxter of them in this Nation But hold Sir I doubt your ample and authentick Testimony will fail you and first I must tell you Rainerius is not for your turn for he never gave any honourable Character of Anabaptists That favourable Character which he gives relates to another sort of People called the Waldenses which you and I had some discourse of not long since and found to be none of your kindred for they were for Infant-Baptism Verily Dr. Featly's Roma Ruens Rainer contra Wal. C. 4. Inter omnes sectas quae adhuc sunt fuerunt non est periculosior Eccles Leonistarum idque tribus de causis Prima quia est diuturnior aliqui entm dicunt quod duravit a tempore Sylvestri alii a tempore Apostolorum Secunda quia est generalior fere enim nulla terra est in qua haec Secta non sit Tertia quiae cum omnes aliae Sectae immanitate blasphemiarum in Deum audientibus horrore m inducant Haec sc Leonistarum magnam habet speciem pietatis eo quod coram omnibus juste vivant bene omnia de Deo credant omnes Articulos qui in Symbolo continentur Solummodo Roman Eccles Blasphemant clerum saith Dr. Featly who wrote a Book against Anabaptists Rainerius the Inquisitor though entertained against us not against the Author's party yet speaks he so much for us that he deserveth a Fee of us The Sect saith he of the Waldenses or Lyonists is more pernicious to the Church of Rome than all other Sects 1. Becanse it hath been of longest continuance for some say it hath continued ever since the Apostles time 2. Because it is more general than any other for there is almost no Country into which it doth not creep 3. For that all other Sects do bring an horrour with the hainousness of their Blasphemies against God but this hath a great appearance of Godliness because they live justly before Men and believe all things well concerning God neither of which could be said of the German-Anabaptists and all the Articles which are contained in the Creed only they speak evil of the Roman Church and the Clergy And that Rainerius did not look upon the Waldenses as Anabaptists is demonstrated by this because he gives not the least hint of it in the Catalogue of their Errors which follows upon the former words The Waldenses saith he do not receive the Canon of the Mass they say the Church doth err in forbidding Priest's Marriages they allow not the Sacraments of Confirmation and extream Unction they condemn Latin Prayers and affirm prayers for the Dead do not profit the Souls of the departed but never a word
not depends on variable circumstances of the State of the Persons to whom Christs Ministers are sent be they such as the Apostles were then sent to they must be Discipuli facti made Disciples by Preaching and then be Baptized But be they the seed of Disciples they are Discipuli nati born Disciples by the Relation of the covenant and so may have the seal set on them without any preceding teaching 4. Lastly not to insist upon that that Infants are Christs Disciples because all Nations must be Discipled and Infants are included in those Nations we conceive we have no obscure ground for the Baptizing the Children of Believers because as Mr. Ainsworth on Gen. 17. Mr. Tombes saith in his Examen pag. 89. That it is well known Baptisme was in use among the Jews in the initiating Proselytes for many years together with Circumcision quotes Selden and Ainsworth for it and Mr. Godwyn in his Moses and Aaron lib. 1. cap. 3. pag. 10. do inform us Baptism was in use as a kind of Initiation among the Jews though it was not a Sacrament till Christ his Institution and therefore this Rite seemed no strange thing unto them as appeareth by their coming to John questioning not so much his Baptisme as his Authority by what authority he Baptized John 1. 25. For as the Learned Dr. Hammond observes the Institutions of Christ who came first Messias to that people was born of that Nation lived regularly under their law and observed their customes were by him drawn from their former practices in the old Testament and so were lightly changed and accomodated to his own purposes he instanceth in divers things and at length comes to this of Baptisme or Washing a known right for initiating the Jews and Proselytes into the Covenant of the Lord. For he doth abundantly shew out of the Talmud and Rabbies that the way of entring into the Covenant was by Circumcision and Baptism so says Mr. Godwyn also in the place before mentioned And as the Natural Jews were thus entred so were the Proselytes and as the Proselytes of age so also were their Infant-Children Baptized So the Gemara Babyl tit Chetub c. 1. They baptize the little or young stranger or Proselyte as the Hebrew hath it And Maimonides in tit Isuri bia c. 13. They Baptize the Infant or little Stranger upon the knowledge of the house of judgement i.e. on their desire in behalf of their Children From all which it appears that the Jewish Ceremony of Baptizing was accomodated by Christ to the Right of our initiation of the Profession of Christ whereof saith he we have as little reason to doubt as that a Picture was taken from that Face which it resembleth to the life And from hence we have as he conceives and that very rationally a clear foundation for our practice namely to baptize not only those who make a profession of their Faith in Christ but likewise their Children with them And though some men of late years have denyed the warrantableness thereof and darkned the truth by their arguings against it yet one may well suppose it was clear and obvious enough to the Apostles from the knowledge they had of the former administration which took-in the Children with the Parents into Covenant for if it had not been Christs mind believers Children should be sealed with Baptism under the new administration he would certainly have given some intimation thereof and given his Apostles some such caution as this when he sent them to Disciple all Nations and Baptize them See that you do not baptize Children Lastly we may from hence also gain light that the Essence of Baptism doth not lye in being immerst or plunged under water for it can never be proved that this was the manner of the Jewes Baptizing persons or things I shall shut up this with a passage of the Learned and Godly Bucer upon these words Sane dum non habent locum quo praecipitur tantum doctos baptizari nihil roboris suae sententia hinc adferent etenim nos docemus antequam baptizemus Ne quid vel his vel iospiam alibi Scripturarum habetur neminem baptizari debere nisi ille Doctrinam Christi per se quoque perceperit Bucer in locum Go teach all Nations Baptizing them Since the Anabaptists saith he have no place of Scripture that commands us to Baptize none but those that are taught they cannot strengthen their opinion from this Text For we our selves do teach i.e. Adult-Aliens before we do baptize neither can we from hence or any other Scripture prove that no one ought to be Baptized unless he shall understand or learn the Doctrine or Christ The Evangelist Mark varies the words of the Commission thus Go ye into all the World and Preach the Gospel to every Creature The one hath it Nations the other World and the terms are equipollent signifying the same Rom. 11.15 But what must they do in all the World preach the Gospel i.e. publish abroad to all without exception the freeness and fulness of Gods rich Grace in the New Covenant even that same Gospel that was preached long before to Abraham Gal. 3.8 And this blessing of Abraham is come upon the Gentiles ver 14. And this is to be Preacht 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to every Creature i.e. with a distinction to every humane creature which the opposers of Infant-Baptisme may do well to consider since they stand so rigidly upon the Syllabical Letters of every word in the Commission so as they will not allow us liberty to draw out the sence of some places that relate to Infant-Baptism from the Letter by rational deduction and consequence and according to the Harmony of Scripture but we must superstitiously adhere to the very Syllables of the Text whereas whatsoever appears truth from the Analogy of Faith or by just consequence is as practicable and obliging as if it were written with a Sun-beam in so many Capital Letters It would be a senseless undertaking indeed to Preach the Gospel to every individual creature in the World and therefore it is to the understood restrictively of mankind poor lost man for whom Christ dyed Lastly the Connection too he he that believeth and is Baptized shall be saved hath some difficulty in it and the sence is not so obvious to every capacity for if it had many of those controversies between us and the Papists had never been as Whether Baptism be of absolute necessity to salvation which Protestants deny and many Papists affirm And let the Antipaedobaptists well consider that this Evangelist doth as closely conjoyn believing and being Baptized to Salvation as the other doth teaching and being baptized and if we must so exactly stand upon the Order of words to prove the Institution We may saith Sydenham argue from Mark as well as they from Matthew as none must be baptized but they who are taught so none but those who believe and are Baptized shall be
Christ in whom the Covenant was confirmed to them and their seed Cottons Dialogue of Childrens Baptism p. 130. For as Mr. Cotton observes The Axe was laid to the Root of the Tree even to the stock of Abraham and all the Branches that grew upon it and were ingrafted into it so that now if they brought not forth this good fruit to believe in Christ who was then come whom the Jews generally rejected as an Impostor they and their children were cut off from the Covenant of Abraham and must say no more We have Abraham to our Father but if they held forth Repentance and Faith in Christ then the Covenant that was made to them and to their Children before did still continue to them and to their children and that 's the ground and meaning of Peters exhortation Act. 2.38 39. Repent and be Baptized every one of you in the Name of the Lord for the promise is to you c. Now what prejudice can this be to the Baptisme of Believers Infants who are admitted in the right of their Parents laying hold on the Covenant for themselves and their seed now under the new Administration as Members of the Church of Christ and in Covenant with God 2. Neither will we take the Authors word for what follows Nothing now but fruit meet for Repentance gives right to Baptisme without some qualification For first I demand what fruit of Repentance John saw in that great multitude which he then Baptized viz. Jerusalem Judea and all the Regions round about Jordan ver 5. which could not be less then some thousands of whom he could have no cognizance as to their fruits of repentance 2. I farther demand whether he could judge this great multitude which were strangers to him to be all the Spiritual seed of Abraham And since the Author observes from Johns words they had no right to Baptism from being Abrahams natural seed neither could he look upon them all as the spiritual seed let him tell us on what account he baptized them 3. It is like he will tell us they confessed their sins ver 6. and so were Baptized But will any man think they did all do so or is it said he baptized no other but such It will be hard for any man to prove that John did impose this upon them We find as Mr. Marshal notes that he Baptized them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to Repentance not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as state in Actual Repentance and his calling upon them for Repentance and Preaching the Baptism of Repentance shews that this was the lesson which they were all to learn not that they all manifested it before he Baptized them For ought we can find from the Text the Pharisees and Sadduces were Baptized by him and had they been such Penitents it had been great uncharitableness to call them Vipers We have the Author over-lashing again in the next words for he lies open every where Nothing saith he short of the spirits birth can orderly admit to Water-birth and Spiritual ordinances But since you are not Infallible let it be supposed you have been mistaken in your judgment and have baptized a person which afterward appears to be unregenerate Did you admit him orderly or no you will say you did because he was Baptized under the apprehension of being regenerate The Church lookt upon him as such and saw nothing to the contrary Very good now you are come about to what I would have and indeed if the New Testament-Church did consist only of the spiritual seed real Godly ones how abominably is the Ordinance prophaned when it so happens as it often doth that any Hypocrites are Baptized and when it appears that the Title which they had to Baptisme was but seeming will it not follow that all that was done in reference to them was a Male-Administration and Null ab initio Mr. Blakes Covenant sealed and as God looks upon them as unbaptized though they have been dipt so ought the Church to look upon them and if these Hypocrits shall repent and be converted are they not bound to offer themselves a-fresh to Baptism and can the Church refuse them and thus according to the Authors principle there will be need of a Multiplication of Baptisms He concludes this Chapter with the sayings of two Doctors as wide in judgement from each other as the two Poles yet it seems he can make them meet to serve his purpose The first is Dr. Owen who is much engaged for his Elogy but nothing at all for wresting his sentences from his intention 'T is well known the learned Dr. like to the rest of his Brethren of the Congregational way is a zealous Assertor of Infant-Baptism and the import of what he says in his Catechisme is no more then what all Congregational men hold namely That the matter of the Church is a Society or Fellowship of visible Saints and this according to the singular dexterity of this Antagonist who beats us still with our own Weapons is found to be point blank against Infant-Baptism But we shall clear this point in the next Chapter under which it falls properly to be spoken of The other Gentleman is Dr. Taylor we have said enough of him before how much he was for Infant-Baptism notwithstanding he plays the Orator and tells us he will act the part of an Anabaptist and shew what may be said for them though they are in an Errour but let us hear what he says for according to the Author he doth rarely accomodate that which he thinks is truth when as it is only by bestowing a few complements upon an error we shall seldom meet with such a parcel of affected words delivered in such a strain as did notably fuit with the Genius of the times when he writ them that is before the turn of times when men were high flown and above Ordinances The Baptism of Children saith he is an outward duty a work of the Law a Carnal Ordinance it makes us adhere to the Letter without regard to the spirit to be satisfied with shadows to return to Bondage to relinquish the mysteriousness the substance the spirituality of the Gospel c. This is brave stuff indeed high towring language I never met with the like unless it were in Mr. Saltmarsh his shadows flying away and beams of Glory And is not the Baptism of Believers think you bravely accomodated with these Rhetorical Flowers Is there one grain of Logick or Reason in all he saith And then at last the Doctor doth so well accommodate that which H.D. calls the truth that he attempts to maintain it by two gross errors delivered in one breath for saith he if the Mystery goes not before the Symbol yet it always accompanies it but never follows it in order of time But first I would fain know who told the Doctor that Grace always accompanies Baptisme for that I take to be the plain English of Mystery and Symbol without the help
their hurt Therefore he hath not at all repealed it The sufficiency of the enumeration in the major Proposition even Mr. Tombs himself could not deny in that famous dispute at Kederminster for it must needs be for the good or hurt of Infants that they are put out and so must needs be in mercy or justice for God maketh not such great alterations in his Church and Laws to no end and of no moment but in meer indifferency The minor Mr. Baxter proves in both parts 1. That God hath not repealed this to their hurt in justice for if God never revoke his Mercies nor repeal his Ordinances in justice to the parties hurt till they first break Covenant with him and so procure it by their own desert then he hath not in justice revoked his mercy to the hurt of those that never broke Covenant with him But it is certain God never revoketh a mercy in justice to the hurt of any that never broke Covenant with him Therefore to such he hath not revoked it 1. That Church-Membership is a mercy and of the Covenant is plain Deut. 29.10 11 12. 2. That God doth not in justice revoke such to any but Covenant-breakers may be proved 1. From the merciful nature and constant dealing of God who never casteth off those that cast not off him 2. From his truth and faithfulness for else we should make God the Covenant-breaker and not man which is horrid blasphemy 3. His Immutability and Constancy his gifts and calling being without repentance Now this is also certain that many Jews did believe and not forsake the Covenant of God even most of the Apostles themselves and many thousands more and how then can these or their Infants be put out of the Church in justice to their hurt who did not first break Covenant with God Mr. Tombs was hard put to it how to extricate himself from the difficulties of this Argument although a man of great Dexterity and a very Oedipus in the controversy yet it is said he was near to a nè plus ultrà but at length took Sanctuary in this Answer and mark it well Reader viz. That the Ordinance was in mercy repealed for their good To which Mr. Baxter gives a neat reply It can be no mercy to take away a mercy except it be to give a greater instead of it But here is no greater mercy given to Infants instead of Church-membership Therefore it can be no mercy to them that it is revoked Other Arguments besides this that are invincible may be drawn from that place Rom. 11.17 A Scripture which I perceive was too hot for the Authors fingers to meddle with and therefore he gives not one touch upon it throughout all this Treatise of Baptism whereas he knows very well that this is the principal Text that gives clear evidence that Children are yet Church-members with their parents and if they have a Church-relation they must not be denyed Baptism because the same thing which qualifies any persons for Church-membership qualifies them also for Baptism But to the Text before us There are three things which the words do plainly hold forth 1. That though the Collective body of the Jews or the generality of that people were broken off from the Church through unbelief yet all of them were not broken off for it is said If some of them were broken off not all of them for as was said before most of the Apostles and thousands of Jews believed 2. The Believing Gentiles are ingrafted in their place 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in amongst them so Grotius hath it positus es inter ramos illius arboris thou art set amongst the branches of the Tree referring to those words if some be broken off implying that some remained still and the believing Gentiles were inoculated amongst them or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to Beza and Piscator pro ipsis instead of them or in their place and room in ramorum defractorum locum into the place of the branches broken off 3. The Jews shall be restored again to the Church at the latter end of the world they shall be in statu quo priùs become the Church and people of God again as formerly but in a more glorious manner From all which issueth three unanswerable Arguments for the Church-membership of believers Infants still continued The first we have already insisted upon namely That the same Jewish children which were visibly of the Church immediately before their Parents became Christians at the first continued to be so after And the reason is because they were not under the dis-churching Cause of as many of the Jews as were discharged and that was unbelief of which they could not be guilty by any Act of their own More of this may be seen in a late Book called A Perswasive to Peace and Vnity among Christians Sold at the Three Pigeons in Cornhil or of their Parents as imputed to them Because of Vnbelief saith S. Paul they were broken off If it be said saith the Author of that ingenious and pious piece intituled A Perswasive to Peace and Vnity they were dis-church'd in the dissolution of the Jewish Church-State in general it is but an evasion which will not help them for the fore-cited Text is flatly against them For all that were not broken off by unbelief did continue unbroken off that is they still kept their place and standing in the Church of God And therefore to assign any other cause of dis-churching any than the Scripture hath assigned or at least any other without this here assigned and determined by the Apostle is too great presumption and such as will not satisfie an impartial mind and as Mr. Baxter enforceth the Argument very strongly They who kept their Station kept also their priviledges for themselves and their children if they were not broken off their children were not broken off for as the Infants came in with their Parents so they are not cast out whilst their Parents continue except when they are grown up they cast out themselves by their own personal unbelief It is not to be conceived that God should cast out the child that came in for his fathers sake while the Parents remain in the same Church 2. Those Jews who were broken off from the Church their children also being before Members were likewise broken off therefore it follows Believing Gentiles and their children are ingrafted in for the ingrafting must be proportionable to the breaking off they succeeding in the place of the former must enjoy the priviledge they lost 3. If after the fulness of the Gentiles be come in the Jews shall be grafted in again not with a diminution but addition to their glory and one part of their glory was that they and their seed were Gods visible Church then so shall it be with them when they are called This we have ver 26. All Israel shall be saved Which cannot be understood but from their broken off State
34. 2. There needed no express Command in the New-Testament that Infants should be signed and sealed by Baptism when the Covenant is not abolished that took in the Seed with the Parent as there needs no express Command for the Lord 's Day or First-Day Sabbath in the New-Testament because the fourth Commandment for substance is still in force So there needs no new Command for Baptizing the Infant-seed of Believers because the Command for sealing such is for substance still in force It is also well noted by Mr. Gerce that there is a great difference between an Ordinance it self and some particular Circumstance or Subject to which that Ordinance is to be applied As for the Ordinance it self the setting up of Baptism as a Sacrament of the Gospel-Covenant renewed by Christ this requires express warrant in the Word of God but when we have such warrant for the Ordinance it self to whomsoever we find by grounds and principles in Scripture that it doth of right belong there we may apply it though we want express Command for it if we have none against it 3. We farther add what is well argued by some Divines That if the Children of Believers have a right to be Baptized by the word of Promise Mr. Stephens and Mr. Sydenham then they have a right to be Baptized by the word of Command but the Children of Believers have a right to be Baptized by the word of Promise therefore they have a right to be Baptized by the word of Command Now that Children have a right to be Baptized by the word of Promise appears from Act. 2.39 For the Promise is made to you and to your Children c. The exceptions which the Antipaedobaptists make against this Text shall be removed in its proper place Now for the other Branch there is no Example of Infants being baptized therefore it is no Ordinance of Christ The Consequence stands upon a lame Leg for as is before shewn a negative Argument in matters of Fact is not valid For Christ did many things that were not recorded and so did the Apostles whereof this was one for ought we know the Baptizing Infants and it is the more probable upon a twofold account First because we find such frequent mention of their Baptizing whole Families as Stephanus and his houshold Lydia and her houshold and divers others as soon as we read of the head of the Family to believe the whole houshold was baptized As when Abraham believed he and his whole Family were circumcised and so when the Head of a Family became a Proselyte ordinarily He and His were Circumcised Now in so many Families as were baptized it cannot rationally be supposed that there were no Children and if there were any they were baptized for they are a part of the Family or Houshold And secondly Because we never read in Scripture of any Children of Believing Parents who were Baptized afterwards Our Opposits will not believe the Apostles baptized Children because we can give no particular instances of it but this Negative Argument may be thus retorted against themselves The Children of Believing Parents were baptized in their Infancy for they cannot find in Scripture any of them that were baptized when they came to years of discretion and not before I urge not this as a concluding though probable Argument that in the Apostle's days Children were Baptized however I am certain that to say Infant-Baptism is no Ordinance of Christ because we have no examples in the Scripture of any that were Baptized is a pittiful Argument Next saith he That there is neither Precept nor Example for any such thing as Infant-Baptism in the Scripture we have the ingenuous Confession of the parties themselves The Magdeburgenses do say That concerning the Baptising the Adult both Jews and Gentiles we have sufficient proof but as to the Baptizing of Infants they can meet with no Example in the Scriptures Very good Sr. now you have learnt to set down things right but why did you say in the 56 page of your Treatise referring to the same place Cent. 1. L. 2. pag. 496. That the Magdeburgenses as to the Subjects of Baptism tell us that in this Age they only Baptized the Adult was that lapsus calami or mentis And do you not know that in the same place they tell us notwithstanding particular instances cannot be found as all the Paedobaptists confess yet 't is evident from the Writings of the Apostles that they did not exclude Infants from Baptism and then bring Arguments for the lawfulness of it as before For that of Luther in his Epistle of Anabaptism I have not the Book by me to Examine it yet I am sure by what the Author cites it hurts us not The Scriptures saith he do no where clearly and plainly with these or the like words say Baptize your Children for they believe and we must needs yield to those that drive us to the Letter This is still no more than what we all say we all acknowledg it is no-where written Children do believe as Lutherans hold they do and again we say as Luther did it is no-where written clearly and plainly with these words Baptize your Children for they Believe Nor have Antipaedobaptists any command in so many words Go and Baptize actual and visible Believers If they say such were Baptized we may reply with Mr. Sydenbam that is not to the purpose for it is a verbal command which they require to give warrant to an Ordinance and for ought we can learn from Christ's Commission Matt. 28.19 Whosoever are taught be the parties never so wicked they must be Baptized if they will for there is no mention made of their entertainment of the Gospel Next he Fathers that upon Erasmus which was never spoken by him in his Comment upon Rom. 6. Namely That Baptizing of infants was not in use in St. Paul's time There is no such word I assure thee Reader there Again in his 4th Book de Ratione Concionandi he saith That they are not to be condemned that doubt whether Childrens Baptism were Ordained by the Apostles But why Sir did you not speak out all You know Erasmus his words are these Probabile est tingere Infantes institutum fuisse ab Apostolis non damnaretur tamen qui de hoc dubitaret It is probable the Baptism of Infants was instituted by the Apostles nevertheless if one doubt thereof he should not be condemned In this Erasmus speaks like an honest moderat-Spirited man that would not have weak Christians Anathematized as the Papists use to do for their dissent in Circumstantial and Disputable points Calvin in his 4th Book of Institutes Chap. 16. confesseth that it is no-where expresly mentioned by the Evangelists that any one Child was by the Apostles Baptized to the same purpose are Staphilus Melancthon Zwinglius quoted to which I only say That whereas they all tell us there is no express Command or express Example an Implicite one is
before such as might witness that he gave him that name in his Circumcision as the Lord appointed viz. Maher-shalal-hash-baz Which whether saith he it was a thing really done or only represented to the Prophet in a vision is not material for it seemeth however it was a practice then in use in those times And from hence it is conceived that ancient custom as ancient indeed as Tertullians days of having God-fathers and God-mothers as we call them in Baptism Some persons specially appointed to witness the Baptism of such a person which use is still continued amongst us with this injunction that they mind the child of that faith into which it was baptized and that they take care that it be instructed and brought up in the knowledge of Christ yet now it is in most places become a mere formality and an occasion only of feasting But we return to the matter From those Witnesses or their Parents did the children of the Jews receive the Testimony of their Circumcision and they might give the more credit to it because they saw the same practised upon others dayly And even such a Testimony have children now from Parents or Sureties besides the Testimony of the whole congregation and the Records that are kept thereof in a Book kept for that purpose according to the custom of the Church of England CHAP. IV. Wherein the Author attempts to prove that the Ceremony of Baptism is Immersion and not Sprinkling which is an other Rite he saith introduced contrary to the signification of the Word and Nature of the Ordinance c. SInce the Author hath thought meet to appear thus as a Witness against Infant-Baptism it had been well if he had followed the good old Rule injoyned Witnesses that is to speak the Truth the whole Truth and nothing but the Truth and for want of which he hath given such a partial and lame account hitherto We are now come to a main point upon which they place very much confidence viz. the signification of the Word Baptism and the Author undertakes to prove that the Manner and Ceremony thereof ought to be by Dipping or Plunging the whole Body and not by Sprinkling or pouring Water on the Face or Head 1. From the proper and genuine signification of the Word which according to the Greek Lexicons and the most eminent Criticks he saith imports nothing less than to Dip Plung or cover all over And that Scapula and Stephens two as great Masters of the Greek tongue as we have any tell us in their Lexicons that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies mergo immergo obruo Item tingo quod fit immergendo that is to dip plunge overwhelm put-under cover-over to dye in Colour which is done by plunging Answer To this we Oppose Dr. Featly in his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 pag. 37. who saith that Hesychius and Stephanus and Scapula and Budaeus the great Masters of the Greek Tongue make good by many instances and allegations out of Classick Writers that the Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 importeth no more than Ablution or Washing which may be done without Dipping Now what a case is the illiterate Reader in who shall he believe the Author or the Learned Dr. For my part being not willing to take up the matter upon trust I was the more curious to examine the Criticks First I consulted with Stephanus and he saith the Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies not only mergo immergo to dip or plung but also abluo lavo to wet or wash and in the same place in his Lexicon he brings in Cyprian who flourished about 1500 years since translating the Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Tingentes following therein his Master Tertullian Corpus tingere sparsâ aquâ Ovid. 4. Fast p. 558. and saith Stephens Tingere apud prophanos Authores idem est quod aspergere the Word tingere among Heathen-Writers signifies Sprinkling as he shews out of Ovid and Cicero For Passor the Author tells us Nec enim Herculi nocere Deianira voluit quum ei tunicam sanguine Centauri tinctam dedit Cic. de Nat. Deor. p. 98. he Translates the Word by Immersion Dipping Submersion but he hath left out Ablution or Washing which Passor there adds 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith he is Immergo Abluo either to dip or to Wash After him comes Vossius who is most expresly against the Author's Opinion The Word saith Vossius signifies to Wash and Washing is not only by dipping as he hints but by pouring out of Water or sprinkling it on the Body and represents the washing of the Soul according to that in Ezek. 36. I will Sprinkle clean Water upon you and therefore it seems Baptism may be celebrated either way by Dipping or Sprinkling Then for our own Country-men Mr. Leigh Rogers Taylor Mede Hammond 't is tedious to examine them all We will only bring one of them to the test which is Mr. Leigh who is instar omnium for profound knowledg in the Greek and Hebrew This Man the Author glories in Mr. Leigh saith he in his Critica Sacra tells us it s proper and native signification is to Dip into Water or to plung under Water and that the proper signification was such a Dipping or Plunging as Dyers use for dying of Cloathes True Mr. Leigh says this but he saith more and 't is disingenuously done of the Author thus to pick out what serves his turn and leave the Reader in the dark as to the rest When-as Mr. Leigh saith in the very beginning as soon as he names the Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that although it be derived from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to Dip or Plung and signifies primarily such a kind of Washing as is used in Buks where linnen is Plunged and Dipt yet it is taken more largely for any kind of Washing or Cleansing even where there is no Dipping at all and he quotes these Scriptures for it Matth. 3.20 22. Mark 7.4 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They Baptized themselves it is rendred Washed themselves and so did eat So Mark 10.38 Luke 3.16 Act. 1.5 and 11.16 1 Cor. 10.2 It is put generally for Washing saith Mr. Leigh as Luke 11.38 Heb. 9.10 Christ no-where requireth Dipping but only Baptizing as he quotes out of Dr. Featly Thou seeest Reader how little he hath gotten by these Authors I shall add a few more of great renown in the Church who are opposite to the conceit of Baptizing to signify only Dipping The first is Cyprian Baptizare etiam morbis laborantes in lectis solitos Cyp. in Epist ad Magnum L. 4. Epist 7. indicat pro Baptismo probat sic Baptizatum Cornelius Novatum scribit apud Euseb L. 6. Cap. 43. qui sic autem Baptiz ablantur inquit Vossius non immergebantur nec perfundebantur sed aquâ solâ aspergebantur c. Vossius de Baptismo p. 358. who in his Epistle ad Magnum L. 4. Epist 7.
6.6 and alledgeth 't was God's Ordinance that the people of Israel should swear by his Name Deut. 16.53 And lastly for Infant-Baptism the matter in dispute Perin gives this account pag. 15. which I desire the Reader to observe it because we have so ancient a declaration of their faith in this particular That they being constrained for some hundred years to suffer their Children to be Baptized by the Priests of the Church of Rome they deferred the doing thereof as long as they could having in detestation those Humane inventions which were added to the Sacrament which they held to be but pollution thereof And forasmuch as their Pastors were many times abroad imployed in the service of the Churches they could not have Baptism Administred to their Infants by their own Ministers For this cause they kept them long from Baptism which the Priests perceiving charged them thereupon with this imposture viz. That they were against Infant-Baptism Which saith Perin not only their Adversaries have believed that is the Papists and from hence came all that Bedrole of Decrees Councils Decretal Epistles and Edicts against them but also others saith he who have well approved of their Life and Faith in all other points amongst the number of which we must reckon Mr. Tombes and the Author of this late Treatise of Baptism now under examination This ample account given by such an excellent impartial Historian so many years since before the World was so troubled with disputes about Baptism and from one of their own Country-men a man unconcerned as to interest or dissenting parties in this controversy and being so faithful in his relations of the Faith and sufferings of the Waldenses that he was never that I could hear of questioned or suspected will undoubtedly be credited by all ingenious Persons and is sufficient to dismount thousands of those Canons Edicts c. the Author brings Besides this that I may if possible undeceive the Antipaedobaptists who are hardly brought to believe any thing that is against them I will add two other Testimonies from whence we may conclude the Body of the Waldenses were not against Infant-Baptism one of them is Luther the other Bullinger both of which have written smartly against Anabaptists and would never have given such a large Encomium of the Waldenses had they apprehended them to be touched with the error of denying Baptism to the Children of Believers Luther professeth that he hated the Waldenses whilst a Monk as desperate men until he knew their piety and truth of their Belief by their own Confessions and Writings whereby be perceived that those good men were much wronged and that the Pope had condemned them for Hereticks being rather worthy of the praise that is due to the Martyrs And Bullinger that wrote a Book against the Anabaptists saith in his Preface to his Sermons upon the Revelations That above 400 years since the Waldenses have made Profession of the Gospel of Jesus Christ throughout France Italy Germany Poland Bohemiah and other Kingdoms 4. If this be not enough to cleer the Waldenses from what the Author would have us believe from the Testimony of their Enemies the Papists we are willing to give him full measure pressed down and running over and that is by the Testimony which they give of themselves in their Publick General Confessions of Faith We have before shewn the Author could find nothing in any of their Confessions against Infant-Baptism let us now see whether we can find any thing for it First they purge themselves from the imputation of denying Infant-Baptism Hist Wald. Lib. 1. c. 4. p. 15. So Lib. 1. c. 6. p. 43. and shew the reason why for some hundred years they forbore it as before he that writes the History professedly sets down in his 3d part of it the Doctrine of the Waldenses and Albigenses and particularly what their Faith was touching Baptism in these words of their own viz. And whereas Baptism is Administred in a full Congregation And for this cause it is that we present our Children in Baptism which they ought to do to whom the Children are nearest as Parents c. In the year of our Lord 1535 an Assembly of the Waldenses from all their Valleys met at Angrongne Perin Hist Wald. L. 2. Cap. 4. pag. 57. and there was signified what they understood of their Brethren of Provence and Daughine namely that they had sent into Germany their Pastors George Morell and Peter Mason to confer with Oecolampadius Bucer and Capito touching the belief which they had time out of mind Mark hereby the way how unworthily the Author Prevaricates and endeavours to blind the Reader pag. 329. of his Book as if all the Waldenses were declining or Apostatizing towards the Antichristian Abomination of being present at Mass if some of them of Provence were faulty yet this Assembly at Angrongne stood fast in the Truth where saith Perin when they had read certain Letters of encouragement sent from Oecolampadius both to those of Provence Dhugtony and to themselves Afterward concluded on certain Propositions and Articles of Faith which were read and approved signed and sworn to by all the Heads of the Families and their Pastors with one mind and consent to Conserve Observe Believe and retain amongst them inviolably without any contradiction as being conformable to the Doctrine which hath been taught them mark it from the Father to the Son for these many hundred years out of the Word of God If therefore among any of these Articles we can find Infant-Baptism owned what becomes then of all the Crack that the Author makes as if they had been of his judgment The Articles there agreed on were in number 17 too long to be inserted the last is about Baptism and thus it is to a Syllable Article 17. Touching the matter of the Sacrament it hath been coneluded by the H. Scriptures that we have but two Sacramental signs the which Christ Jesus hath left unto as the one is Baptism the other the Eucharist which we receive to shew what our perseverance in the faith is as we have promised when we were Baptized being little Infants This is the Confession of the Faith of the Assembly at Angrongne where a letter was read from Oecolampadius to those of Provence who it seems out of fear were sometimes present at Mass with the Papists or at least some of them who did in heart doubtless abhor it but how doth this prove they were not heartily for Infant-Baptism And because the Letter is so Excellent a Disswasive from any Complyance with Superstitious and Idolatrous Worship I shall here insert it Oecolampadius his Letter to the Waldenses of Provence 1530. WE understand that the fear of Persecution hath made you to Dissemble in your Faith and that you bide it Now we believe with the heart to Righteousness and confess with the mouth to Salvation But they that fear to Confess Christ before the World shall not be received