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
Saints Beloved and called throughout the world in succeeding ages to receive into Church-communion and Fellowship such whom we have ground to believe God hath received into Communion with himself For that 's the Argument or Motive verse 3. God hath received him and saith he if it be a good Argument to receive such as are weak in any thing whom the Lord hath received Then there can be no good Argument to reject for any thing for which the Lord will not reject them The like argument we have chap. 15. ver 7. of Christs Receiving Receive you one another as Christ hath received us c. Then that holy man breaks out into pathetical strains Oh! how is the heart of God the Father and the Son set upon this to have his children in one anothers hearts as they are in his c. and 't is the work of the Devil saith he to divide them Thus much to shew how they differ amongst themselves about this Position that Baptism gives formality or makes a member of a visible Church which the moderate party amongst them utterly deny now that it gives neither essence or being either to a Church or Membership further appears by these Arguments 1. If there be a Church That dividing Principle That Baptism formes a Church or makes Church-Members refuted and so Members before Baptism then Baptism cannot give the formality or essence because forma is causal and so is in nature before formatum But the Church considered as totum essentiale is before Baptism for Ministers are before baptism And there must be a Church of Believers to chose a Minister lawfully for none but a Church can give him a call and without a call he cannot administer as Mr. Hooker argues in his survey of the sum of Church-discipline cap. 5. part 1. pag. 55. adding moreover that if Baptism cannot be without a Ministerial Church nor that before a Church Congregational which must make choice of a ministry then such a Church is much before Baptism Besides let it be supposed saith he that at the coming of some Godly Zealous Christian and Scholar into the Country and a company of Pagans many are converted to the Faith I ask whether these may not joyn in Church-Fellowship and choose that man Pastor and whether that choice was not lawful according to God Therefore here is a Church before a Minister and so before Baptism The demand which Mr. Jessey makes upon the same arugments is somewhat like this if Baptism saith he be the manner of forming Churches how would it suit a Country where many are converted and willing to be Baptized but there being no Church to be baptized into how shall such a Church-State begin The first must be baptized into no Church that is particular and the rest into him as the Church or the work stand still for want of a Church 2. A Church may be without Baptism and yet as real a Church as the Israelites were so long in the Wilderness without Circumcision which without dispute was the initiating Ordinance according to Divine Institution Gen. 17.13 3. One Argument I shall borrow more from Mr. Hooker and that is If Baptism give the form to visible-membership then while that remains valid the party is a visible Member for where the form is the formatum must needs be if the principles of reason may take place But there is true Baptism resting in the party who hath no visible Membership as in an Excommunicate in him that renounceth the fellowship of the Church or when the Church is utterly dissolved then all Church-Membership ceaseth for Relata mutuò se ponunt tellunt And yet Baptism is valid And as it is an undeniable position That that which gives the form or being to a Church must cease when the Church ceaseth or when a member ceaseth to be a member it must cease with it so it follows that that must be renewed namely Baptism as often as Membership is renewed so shall we have a multiplication of Baptisms as often as the person is cast out of the Church and taken in again upon his repentance As for those two Scriptures which the Author brings for his opinion they will hardly be found to serve his turn 1. The main place stood upon is Act. 2.41 As many as received the word gladly were baptized and there was added that day about 3000. souls Hence they conclude they were added by Baptism and that they were only added this way Sol. 1. It is more then the Text affords for to conclude that they were added by Baptism much less can it be argued from thence that they were only added this way the words say not they were added by Baptism but puts a full point or stop after that sentence As many as gladly received the word were baptized There that sentence ends as Mr. Sydenham notes upon the place And the Apostle goes on a new account and saith There were added that day 3000. souls but doth not at all shew the manner of their adding so that these words are rather a recapitulation and summing up the number of Church-Members added that day then any description of the way of their taking into the Church and the former reasons prove it cannot be interpreted as our Author would have it The other place that he urgeth for his opinion is 1 Cor. 12.13 We are all baptized into one body hence 't is concluded Baptism imbodies Members 1. In answer to this let it be considered what those of their one party say that are for Dipping The Text saith Mr. Bunyan that treateth of our being baptized into one body tells us expresly it is done by the spirit For by one Spirit we are all baptized into one body Here is the Church presented as under the â—â—tion of a Body here is Baptism mentioned by which they are brought or initiated into this body Now that this is the Baptisme of Water is utterly against the words of the Text For by one Spirit are we all Baptized into one body So Mr. Jesse The Baptism intended in the Text is the Spirits-Baptism and not Water-Baptism and the Body the Text intends is not principally the Church of Corinth but all believers both Jews and Gentiles being Baptized into one Mystical Body and the reason why it cannot be meant of Water-Baptism is because all the Body of Christ Jews and Gentiles bond and free partook not thereof Thus here we see how they clash amongst themselves as touching the sense of the place 2. We add That as we conceive the Apostle speaks there primarily of the Baptism of the Spirit not of Water so by one spirit we are baptized into one body is not so much of Baptism by Water and yet supposing it to be meant of Baptism by Water Yet as Mr. Sydenham observes it proves nothing that Baptism is the form of that body Sydenhams Christian Exercitation cap. 20. pag. 168 169. which hath its matter and form holiness and
how could he oppose it 2. But we must give the names of those that were for it as before he must know where Cyprian's Council was held or else he could not assent to the being of it But how many names will suffice him I know not What if I say Origen was one for I hope by this time he may stand rectus in curia and not be excepted against for a Witness he speaks point blank to the Case Ecclesia ab Apostolis Traditionem accepit parvulis dare Baptismum The Church hath received a Tradition from the Apostles to give Baptism to little Children as we have it in his Comment upon the sixth Chapter of the Romans And though Ruffinus riffled his works as is said yet Jerom Translated that out of Greek and so also his other Comment upon Luke where he is express to the same purpose and this is attested by Erasmus and Jerom's Prefaces to both Books puts it beyond doubt Let me add what I find in Mr. Baxter for farther satifaction You saith he Baxter plain Scripture-proof p. 157. to Mr. Tombes think the worse of it because it is pleaded by Origen as a Tradition from the Apostles I think very much the better for it both because it the more fully resolveth the question concerning the matter of fact and Apostolical Custom and shews that it was no late invention or Innovation And the Fathers as is hinted before took not the word Tradition in the Popish Sence for that which hath been delivered in Doctrine from Age to Age above what is delivered in Scripture as to supply the supposed defect of Scripture But for the very written word it self by which the Apostles delivered the Truth and for their Examples and the report of it and of some other passages especially in matter of Fact tending only to the explication of their Doctrines and not to the adding of new-Doctrines as if the former were defective What if I name once more Irenaeus Qui proximus fuit temporibus Apostolorum S. Basil de S. Sto. Cap. 25. That was next to the Apostles who is calculated to live within some fourty-three years of St. John I find the Author hath passed him by and yet as hath been before shewn he was for Infant-Baptism otherwise what sence shall we put upon those Words of his Lib. 2. C. 39. which are before spoken to and which occasioned Dr. Taylor to say The Tradition of Infant-Baptism passed through his hands in his Consideration of the Practice of the Church in Baptizing Infants Sec. 29. pag. 55. 3. We shall by no means grant that Tertullian was against Infant-Baptism we have given some hints why already But shall reserve our discourse about that till we come to its proper place that is the Examination of the Witness produced against Paedobaptism whereof Tertullian is the first The AUTHOR's Exceptions against Scripture-grounds for Infant-Baptism Examined NExt he falls upon Scripture-grounds usually produced for Infant-Baptism which he is pleased to select for us leaving out that in Rom. 11.17 which is the most principal place of all and so to encounter them in that way and manner as he sees best And herein he hath shewed cunning not much unlike to that before in conjoyning the condemned Ecclesiastical Authorities for Infant-Baptism with those which Protestants own for Authentick Reply 1. Had I been to choose my own Weapons I would have let alone some of those the Author pitcht upon Secondly Neither would I have ordered the the Proofs from some of the Texts in so flight a manner as he doth for if a Weapon be sharp and keen yet if an Enemy have the handling of it how can we expect unless he be the more ingenious but that he will blunt the edg of it And that Adversary shews but sorry valour which knocks in the head some Arguments of straw which he hath framed to shew his skill on In my Opinion it had been more ingenuity in the Author 1 To have chosen for usonly the pertinent places that carry the clearest evidence and to have pretermitted the rest For if the chiefest places will hold good the rest which are dark and disputable whether they belong to the point may well be let alone and if the chiefest will not carry it much less will the other yet this is certain that if the strength of every one of those Texts which he produceth for us were eluded save one yet that one would carry it for though two Witnesses be needful for men yet one single one is as valid for God as if there were many thousands 2. To have pitcht only upon those Texts wherein all Protestants both Lutherans and Calvinists i.e. Paedobaptists concurr in as pertinent to the point whereas he knows it is controverted among them whether some of the Scriptures produced have any thing to do with Infant-Baptisme as both the second and third Texts instanced in Nay the third which contains Christs Commission for Baptism is that which the Author and his party judge to be the main ground for Baptizing Believers and excluding Infants And we know that this is their main Argument that Infants are not to be baptized because they cannot believe and truly we were very sparing of places to prove childrens Baptism if we should pitch upon Mark 16.16 for it And here I profess my self to be of Mr. Baxters mind Pos 7. pag 7. of his plain proof I cannot deny saith he but that some Divines have brought some mis-applyed Scriptures for Infant-Baptism Now it is easie to write against these and seem to triumph and yet the cause be no way shaken some silly people think when they hear an impertinent Text put by that all is done when it may be all the most plain Scriptures and best arguments have never been answered with sense or reason Having said thus much I come now to his exceptions 1. The first is against that place Mat. 19.15 Suffer little children to come unto me and forbid them not c. To this our Author Objects May we not say How doth Baptism come to be concerned in this Text c. To which I reply First I conceive none did ever bring this place as of it self a full and direct proof for Infants-Baptism But secondly it doth prove two points which lay a good ground work for the same First That the Kingdom of God is made up as well of Infants as of grown persons if any by Kingdom of Heaven will needs understand it of the Kingdom of Glory let him consider that none are of that Kingdom who were not first of the Church first of the Kingdom of grace here and so it comes all to one understand it of which you please The Kingdom of God is made up as well of Infants as Adult persons Quùm jubet Infantes ad se accedere nihil clariùs quà m veram Infantiam notari Instit Christ Relig. Calv. compend per Launeum cap. 17. p. 325. for Christ saith it is of
with Mr. Tombes we find this in his Exercit. pag. 7. Where he saith By like manner of Argumentation it will be lawful to bring in the whole burden of the Jewish Rites and who shall put a bound to mens wits and this manner of arguing will countenance the Arguments of the Papists for an universal Bishop because there was such an High-Priest among the Jews c. And that Tythes are due to Ministers Jure Divino form Analogy of Melchisedec and Aaron c. Exam. p. 86. Well since we have this Crambe bis cocta that is enough to turn ones stomach being tainted with long standing I think Mr. Gerees stomachical medicines may be proper We bring in M. Gere Vind. Padebaptismi saith he no new Rite by Analogy but only apply that which God hath brought unto those to whom by Analogy it doth appear to belong And again Baptism is not instituted or bronght in as a new Rite by us but being appointed of God is applied by us by proportion to Infants And for that of countenancing the Papists in their High-Priest-Hood neither doth that follow for this Argument proceeds as though we set up Circumcision it self whereas we neither set up Circumcision nor Baptism but apply Baptism instituted of God to Infants And therefore for you saith he to Tombes to infer the bringing in of things not in their kind mentioned or appointed in the New Testament is an apparent non sequitur your instances being far unparallel to ours of applying an instituted Ordinance to children by way of proportion I shall expect a good answer to this from the Author or Mr. Tombes ad Graecas Calendas He next applauds my Lord Brooks who gives not them a very good character for that saying of his viz. That the Analogy which Baptism now hath with Circumcision in the Old Law is a fine rational Argument to illustrate a point well proved before but he somewhat doubts whether it be proof enough for that which some would prove by it besides the vast difference in the Ordinance the persons to be circumcised are stated by a positive Law so express that it leaves no place for scruple but it is far otherwise in Baptism where all the designation of persons fit to be partakers for ought I know saith he is only such as believe for this is the qualification which with exactest search I find the Scripture requires in persons to be babtized and this it seems to require in all such persons now how Infants can be properly said to believe I am not yet fully resolved This is very true which he relates of my Lord Brooks who speaks not positively but modestly that he somewhat doubts and is not fully satisfied as to the way of Argumentation from Circumcision to Baptism and withal doth yet commend it for a fine rational Argument to illustrate a point well proved before that 's something and more than our Author would have had him spoke but I must acquaint the Reader with more which he speaks little to their advantage I will not I cannot saith he take upon me to defend that men usually call Anabaptism yet I conceive that Sect is twofold Some of them hold free will community of all things deny Magistracy and refuse to baptize chilren These truly are such Hereticks or Atheists that I question whether any Divine should honour them so much as to dispute with them There is another sort of them who only deny Baptism to their children till they come to years of discretion and then they baptize them but in other things they agree with the Church of England Truly these men are much to be pitied And I could heartily wish before they be stigmatized with that opprobrious brand of Schismaticks the truth might be cleared to them For I conceive to those that hold we may go no farther than Scripture that is the express word for Doctrine and Discipline it may be very easie to erre in this point in hand since the Scripture seems not to have clearly determined this particular but for his part he saith many things prevail with him in this point as First for ought he could ever learn it was the constant custom of the purest and most primitive Church to baptize Infants of believing Parents For saith he I could never find the beginning and first rise of this practise whereas t is very easie to track Heresies to their first rising up and setting foot in the Church Again I find all Churches even the most strict have generally been of this judgment and practice yea though there have been in all ages some that much affected novelty and had parts enough to discuss and clear what they thought good to preach yet was this scarce ever questioned by men of note till within these last ages and sure the constant judgment of the Churches of Christ is much to be honoured and heard in all things that contradict not Scripture Nor can I clear that of S. Paul 1 Cor. 7.14 Else were your children I know some interpret it illegitimate and holy legitimate but saith he I believe the Apostle means that Relative Church-Holiness which makes a man capable of admission to holy Ordinances and to Baptism Except Lastly the Author excepts against the Argument we usually bring for the Baptism of children Else our priviledge under the Gospel will be less than theirs under the Law for theirs were circumcised they were taken into the Covenant with the Parent and were sealed whereby they were distinguished from the world and this was a great priviledge and to deny Baptism to children which succeeds Circumcision is to restrain Gods Grace and make us loosers by Christs coming To which he answers not at all 1. Because they were not circumcised because they were children of Believers or sealed with a New Covenant Seal as being in the New Covenant thereby as before proved c. But what an absurd conceit and idle dream this is we have shewn before to which I refer the Reader 2. Because it ought to be esteemed no more loss of a priviledge than our not enjoying literally a Holy Land City Temple Succession of High-Priest c. for all those Types are spiritualiz'd to us under the Gospel and so far we are better Tombes again Eramen p. 101. and not worse Answ But take heed of disparaging the Grace of God in vouchsafing them the Seal of his Covenant now under the Gospel For as Mr. Marshal says in answer to such cavilling as this None of those City Temple Succession of High-Priest c. were of the substance of the Covenant of Grace for though Circumcision was a part of their administration yet it did belong to the fubstance it belonged to it saith he not as a part of it but as a means of applying it and though it be a priviledge to have nothing succeed Circumcision as it bound to that manner of administration yet it is a privilege to have somewhat succeed it as a Seal
Surely it must be so or else there is no way how Infants can be saved 3. Dr. Taylor in his last discourse of Baptism gives a good Rule for the understanding Scriptures of this sort which if attended to would bring us and Antipaedobaptists a little neerer together which is this viz. That when the Scripture speaks of the effects of or dispositions to Baptisme it speaks in general expressions as being most apt to signifie a common duty or general effect or a more Universal event or the proper order of things but those general expressions do not supponere universalitèr that is they are not to be understood exclusively to all suscipients or of all the subjects of the proposition And he makes it clear by divers passages of Scripture There are many Synecdoches in the word where many only are to be understood when it speaks of all The secret effects of Election and of the spirit are in Scripture attributed to all that are of the outward Communion 1 Pet. 1.2 So Peter calls all the Christian strangers of the Eastern dispersion Elect according to the fore-knowledge of God the Father And Paul saith of all the Roman Christians and the same of the Thessalonians that their Faith was spoken of in all the world and yet among them it is not to be supposed that all the Professors had an unreproveable faith or that every one of the Church of Thessalonica was an excellent and charitable person and yet saith he 2 Thes 1.2 your faith groweth exceedingly and the charity of every one of you all towards each other aboundeth So to the question before us As many of you as are baptized into Christ have put on Christ That is so it is regularly and this is the designed event but from hence we cannot conclude of every person and in every period of time This man hath been baptized therefore now he is clothed with Christ he hath put on Christ nor thus This person cannot in a spiritual sense as yet put on Christ therefore he hath not been baptized that is he hath not put him on in a Sacramental sense To conclude We cannot understand the Apostle in those words of putting on Christ to intend a saving union to Christ or a putting on of Christ spiritually and effectually in regard of all that are Baptized for all these Galathians did not so put him on and innumerable persons that are Hypocrites when baptized at age do not so put him on Wherefore the words are to be understood Sacramentally as 1 Cor. 10.4 5. Heb. 10.29 And thus Infants put on Christ as well as grown persons 7th End of Baptism saith he is that the Baptized person may orderly thereby have an entrance into the visible Church c. For as Circumcision heretofore was the visible door of entrance into the old testament-Testament-Church So also was Baptisme such a door and visible entrance into the New testament-Testament-Church c. Act. 2.41 42. They who gladly received the word were baptized and the same day there was added to them about 3000. souls and they continued stedfastly in the Apostles doctrine and fellowship and in breaking of Bread and in Prayers So that after baptisme not before the believers were said to partake of all the Church-priviledges Posito uno absurdo mille sequuntur Upon this false Hypothesis do our Opposites build their dividing Practices Wherefore we deny that Baptisme doth give formality or make a man a member of a Visible-Church it is not that which gives entrance into it as the Author would have it so as if only by its Administration and in their own way too persons must be Baptized or else they are not to be reputed Church-Members or to be admitted into the participation of Church-priviledges But for this we have divers of our Divines quoted as Vrsinus The Assembly in their Catechisme And lastly Mr. Baxter with whom he is again at Hocus Pocus Mr. Baxter saith he in his plain Scripture proof pag. 24. As a Soldier before listing and a King before Corwning and taking his Oath so are we Church-Members before Baptisme But as every one that must be admitted solemnly into the Army must be admitted by listing as the solemn ingaging sign so every one that hath right to be solemnly admitted into the visible Church must ordinarily be admitted by Baptism But mark Reader the Authors ingenuity Baxters words are So are we and Infants Church-Members But being quite out of charity with those Innocent Babes this man leaves out Infants and one would think by the partial Citation that Mr. Baxter also did shut the Church-door against them It cannot be denyed that Orthodox Divines have frequently termed Baptism the Sacrament of our initiation into the Church and have ascribed our Admission or entrance into it thereunto and hereby have given the Antipaedobaptists some seeming ground for their rigidity And yet I find that they are not agreed among themselves about the point for Mr. Paul a great Zealot against Communion with any that are not Baptized in their way doth in his serious reflections disown the Position That Baptism is an initiating Ordinance and tells us in that Diminitive Volume of his p. 3. That he knows none that asserts it to be the in-let into praticular Churches though it prepares them for Reception Mr. Kiffin it seems is of the same judgement for he bestows an Epistle upon the piece Of the same judgment is John Bunyan a more moderate Antipaedobaptist that is for Vnion and Communion with Saints as Saints and condemnes the Rigidity of his Brethren and maintains in his Answer to the scurrilous not serious Reflections of Paul That differences in judgement about Water-Baptisme ought to be no Bar to Communion Printed for John Wilkins in Exchange Alley which is the Title of his Book and sees no cause to repent after severe checks from his Brethren to call them Babes and Carnal that attempt to break the peace and communion of Churches though upon better pretences than Water and declares God never made Water-Baptism a Wall of Division between us And whereas Paul denies Baptisme to be an initiating Ordinance he retorts very rationally upon him that if it be not that but another and if visible Saints may enter into Fellowship by that other and are no where forbidden so to do because they have not light into Water-Baptisme it is of weight to be considered by all unprejudiced persons Mr. Tull also a moderate and very ingenious Antipaedobaptist is of Mr. Bunyans judgment But Mr. Henry Jessey of precious Memory hath published his judgment to the same purpose grounding it upon Rom. 14. v. 1.3.7 such as are weak in the faith receive you c. From whence he argues most strongly and convincingly that it was the duty not only of the then present Church at Rome to whom the Epistle was writ as also to all beloved of God called to be Saints at that time ver 7. But also of all Churches and
union before Baptism baptized into one body doth not here shew the essential constitution of a Church but the confirmed union and the argument is inserted more to prevent Schism then to express the way of first imbodying or constitution of Churches as the whole context demonstrates CHAP. V. Containing his fifth Argument That Believers Baptism is the only Baptism from the New Testament-dispensation so differing from that of the old THe Argument is taken from the New-Testament-Dispensation so different from the Old The Old Testament-Church saith the Author was National consisting of the Natural and Fleshly seed of Abraham therefore were Infants by Circumcision added thereto but the new Testament-Church was by Christs appointment to be a separated people out of all Nations consisting only of the spiritual seed of Abraham and therefore Believers upon profession of Faith by the Ordinance of Baptism were added thereto Repl. 1. What of all this If there any ground from hence that Believers Baptism is the only true Baptism 'T is true the Church Dispensation is altered Mr. Baxters plain proof for Infants Church-Membership and Baptism but the Covenant of Grace is not altered The Dispensation differs under the new Testament only in regard of Ceremonial accidents as Temple Priesthood Sacrifice but the Essentials of the Covenant still remain viz. I will be thy God and the God of thy seed and this is the grand Charter of Church-Membership which takes in the Child with the Parent and consequently entitles it to Baptism as shall be hereafter shewn for if their Church relation can be made good their Baptism will follow upon it If therefore the Author could have proved that the covenant had been altered as to its essentials he had said something worth a hearing 2. Whereas he says the old Testament Church was National it is a Truth and yet the Nation of the Jews was not the Church of God as they descended from the Loyns of Abraham by Natural Generation according to the Flesh but only with reference to Gods gracious Covenant made with Abraham and his seed which I wish the Opposers of Infant-Baptisme would consider and as this Covenant was made with Abraham and his seed after the flesh so likewise is it still the same with Believers and their natural seed under the Gospel-Dispensation by virtue of the same gracious covenant made to them and their seed Act. 2.39 For the promise is unto you and to your children and to all that are afar off the Gentiles 3. Antipaedobaptists may do well to consider yet farther what Mr. Baxter makes good in his plain proof viz. That Infant Church-Membership did take place as an Ordainance of God before Cirscumcision was enjoyned or the Ceremonial law Instituted and why then it should cease with it is more then ever yet could be shewn He makes it appear it was no part of the Typical Administration of the old Testament but a moral Institution of God even from the beginning of the World God ever made a distinction between the seed of the faithful and the seed of the wicked as visibly belonging to two several Kingdoms the Kingdom of God and the Kingdom of Sathan Mal. 2.15 therefore are they called a Holy Seed and a Holy Seed are Members of the Church and so consequently the Subjects of Baptism the Seal of Admission thereunto 4. Notwithstanding the Dictates of H. D. that the Baptism of Believers is the only true Baptism we shall retain our practice in Baptizing our children and thankfully own and acknowledge it as a Gospel-priviledge till the opposers thereof can produce some clear proof out of Scripture that the Old Ordinance of the Church-Membership of Believers is repealed We see how imperiously another sort of people do impose their conceits and how confidently they call for our subscription to their Light as they term it as if it were a duty to deliver up our Reason captive to their absurd imaginations We respect Antipaedobaptists as a more sober people yet strangely over-grown with self-conceitedness as if the word of God came out from them and it came to them only in regard of the true knowledge of the spirits mind in it Let them produce but one plain Scripture that God hath made void the Antient Charter and Grant and we will readily yield up the cause But we have Scripture and reason as well as they and are the more confirmed in what we hold by observing how weakly they dispute against it All the Reason the Author brings to make good his Assertion is Because under the New Testament dispensation Christ hath appointed the Church to be a separated people out of the Nations consisting only of the spiritual seed of Abraham and therefore believers only upon profession of faith are to be admitted to Baptism and so added to the Church To which I answer First That under the New Testament-Dispensation Christ hath appointed the Church to be a separated people out of the Nations is a certain truth but that this Church consists only of the spiritual seed of Abraham is false Qui benè distinguit benè docet He that distinguisheth well teacheth well What our Antagonist says is true in regard of the Invisible Mystical Church of Christ which is a company of real Saints that have spiritual Union and Communion with Christ and with one another but not so with respect to the outward visible Church which is the Society of those that profess true faith for the exercise of Church-union and Communion among themselves and many of these are Hypocrits and shall perish Dr. Ames an excellent person that understood what the New Testament-Church was a little better then our Author Med. lib. 1. c. 32. art 9. tells us the same And such saith he was the Church of Corinth and Ephesus wherein all held not Communion for life and of such Christ spèaks Joh. 15.2 Every branch in me that beareth not fruit And hath these words in Opposition to what Bellarmine falsely chargeth on Protestants viz. Falsum est internas virtutes recuiri a nobis ut aliquis sit in Ecclesia quoad visibilem ejus statum It is false that inward vertues Grace are required of us to put a man into the Church according to the visible state of it The Lord Dupless is in his Excellent Treatise of the Church distinguisheth aright The Invisible Church containeth none but good or in the Authors Dialect the Spiritual seed of Abraham The Visible both good and bad that only the Elect this all those indifferently that are brought into her by the Preaching of the Gospel By all which it is evident that the Author stragles out of the Road of Protestant Divines and is fallen upon the confines of Thomas Colliers General Epistles or the wild Notion of Mr. Dell who in his Book intituled The way of Peace pag. 6. gives this definition of the Church viz. The New Testament-Church is a spiritual Invisible Fellowship gathered up into the Unity of Faith Hope and
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
of a Dictionary No doubt he learnt this good Doctrine from the Schoolmen who maintain that Baptism conferrs grace We may know the mind of them all by that passage of Suarez Suarez in tertiam partem Thom Tom. 3. quest 68. Disp 24. Art 4. sect 2. pag. 250. Per Baptismum datur gratia si aliquis est rectè dispositus ad effectum Baptismi consequendum in instanti quo receperit Baptismum recipiet gratiam By Baptisme grace is given if any man be rightly disposed to receive the effect of Baptisme in the instant that he receives Baptism he shall receive grace These men speak as if they were acquainted with the Cabinet Councel of Heaven They can tell if you will believe them the Punctum temporis the very moment when the spirit will breathe and quicken a soul And then again the Doctor is as peremptory in that which follows Grace saith he never follows Baptism which at first found is enough to scare tender souls from medling with it for if the Doctor says true you that are for Dipping upon the profession of Faith look well to your selves for if you have not grace when you are baptized you are never like to have it afterward grace saith he never follows it you are like to live and die graceless This we deny not but God may if he please make use of Baptism to confer grace but look upon it as a Popish errour that grace is in separably annext to it and a grosser one that Baptisme confers grace ex opere operato The Ancients themselves as highly as they speak of it did not hold that grace was an inseperable companion of it Austin lib. 4. contra Donatistas hath this saying Quid prodest Baptismum c. What profits Baptism to them that receive it unless they be inwardly changed And yet though it may not profit at the present yet it may for the future and not only the Adult but Infants too may receive good by it To conclude this I shall oppose to what the Doctor speaks in derogation of Infant-Baptism the judgement of a more Orthodox Divine viz. Mr. Daniel Rogers who speaks more warily thus I see no cause to deny that even in and at and by the Act of Baptisme the Spirit may imprint grace on the soul of an Infant CHAP. VI. Containing his sixth Argument That Believers Baptism is the only true Baptism from the constitution of the Primitive Churches which were not saith he formed of ignorant Babes but professing men and women with an answer thereunto LEst we should contend in the dark it is necessary we agree upon the terms By Constitution must be meant the essential nature of the primitive Church and in this I suppose we are one and whereas he saith these Churches were not formed of ignorant Babes that is of those alone for so we must understand him in regard of the Antithesis which follows viz. but of Men and Women it is very true the primitive Churches were not of this make that is formed only of ignorant Babes for if they had they would have been but sorry Churches But whatever sence his words may bear we know his meaning is that Children are not included as Church-Members in the Constitution of the New Testament-Churches these being formed as he imagines altogether of professing men and women which he attempts to prove by Christs Commission where Teaching goes before Baptizing By the practice of the Apostles in planting Churches and by the Dedications and Contents of the Epistles c. To which I reply 1. That we must mind the Author with what is before said in the first chapter namely That the import of Christs Commission to his Apostles was de Ecclesia colligendâ to direct them how and in what manner they should gather Churches they being at first sent out to preach only to such as were Aliens in respect of the New Administration And we acknowledge all persons under such a Circumstance are to be Taught before they are to be Baptized or admitted into the Church But in Ecclesia collectâ a Church actually gathered wherein there are Infants the Case alters for such are to be esteemed as Portions of their Parents as being one with them in a moral account and belonging to the Church of which their Parents are Members And to avoid repetition the same answer may serve for what is urged from the example and practice of the Apostles in planting the New Testament-Churches at Jerusalem Acts 2.41 Samaria Act. 8.12 Caesarea Act. 10.47 48. Philippi Acts. 16.14 and elsewhere But I must follow him having to deal with a sort of people who take all of theirs which is not particularly answered for unanswerable By which Scriptures saith he it manifestly appears that the New Testament-Churches were formed only of Baptized Believers wherein we neither find one ignorant Babe c. But what demonstration doth he bring to make this good The Argument if he had us'd any must have run in form thus viz. If we have no examples of any other that were Members of Churches under the New Testament-Dispensation but professing believers then no others are to be accounted Church-Members but such But we have no examples of any other c. Ergo. The consequence of the Major proposition is unsound and the Minor proposition is false 1. The consequence is not sound for suppose it be granted under the Gospel the Scripture makes no mention of any childrens being Church-Members Yet to conclude from thence there were none is no good argumentation Because mention is made of the Apostles taking in professing men and women into the Church Act. 8.12 to argue thence that therefore the children of such belonged not to the Church is childish arguing But this is a more Masculine or Logical way of argumentation namely The children of the faithful were Members of the Church before Moses time before the law and why not after Moses now under the Gospel God took them into his Covenant with their Parents and for the space of 2000 years from Abraham to Christ they were Church-Members and since Christ is come in the flesh we find not this gracious Ordinance repealed There is not the least hint of any such thing in the New Testament therefore it is not repealed and the children of Believers continue Members still 2. The Minor also is false for we have intimation given us that the children of Believers are Church-Members and the Apostle writes to them as such as appears Eph. 6.1 2 3. Col. 3.20 And to make this yet more evident I shall produce an Argument or two The first shall be that of Mr. Baxter in his plain Scripture-proof of Infant Church-Membership and Baptism viz. If God have repealed the ordinance and revoked this merciful gift of Infants Church-Membership then it is either in mercy or in justice either for their good or for their hurt But he hath neither repealed it in mercy for their good nor in justice for
they shall be grafted into the Church again as before for as Mr. Marshall notes in his Defence of Infant Baptism pag. 134. At their first grafting in they and their children were grafted in at their casting out they and their children were broken off and when they shall be taken in again they and their children shall be taken in This Mr. Tombs himself grants that the Jews and their seed were rejected together yea and that they shall be taken in together pag. 66. of his answer Thus then we argue if it must be so with them it must be so with believing Gentiles now or else there will be a Schisme between Jew and Gentile in point of priviledges else there will be too distinct estates in the Christian Churches one of the Jews holy Fathers and children another of the Gentiles who have only personal priviledges none for their seed which is an absurd conceit as Mr. Geree speaks and would set up or keep up a partition-wall still contrary to that Eph. 2. I shall say nothing of other absurdities which are very numerous which come from the denying the Church-Membership of the Infant seed of believers The Author adds It is incongruous to reason and sense to imagine that little Children are any way concerned as Church Members either in the Dedications of the Epistles sent to the Churches or the Epistles themselves for they were dedicated to those who were called to be Saints c. I answer First that this is a meer Paralogism for what if we confess the Apostle directed his Epistles to such as were profest Believers and Saints by calling were none other but those or such like them concern'd in the Epistles What shall we think of carnal persons and unbelievers are they unconcerned in them This minds me with a passage in Mr. Paul's serious Reflections such another rigid Antipaedobaptist as our Antagonist He tells us pag. 9. That the Epistles were writ to particular Churches and that it will be difficult to prove they were also directed to particular Saints but saith Bunian a more moderate man although an Antipaedobaptist If this be true there is vertue indeed and more then ever I dreamed of in partaking of Water-Baptisme For if that shall take away the Epistles and consequently the whole Bible from all that are not Baptized he means after their mode of dipping being grown Christians then are the other Churches and also particular Saints in a very deplorable condition Would to God saith he of his Brethren they had learnt more modesty then thus to take from all others Nè autem existiment Corinthii hanc Epistolam ita ipsis propriam esse ut ad alios non pertineat addit Cumomnibus qui invocant nomen Domini nostri Jesus Christi in quovis loco tum ipsorum tum nostri Piscator in locum and appropriate to themselves and that for observing a circumstance c. But he better instructs Mr. Paul and turns him to St. Paul Rom. 16.5 and to the first Epistle written to Corinth and shews that the first Epistle of John was wrote to some who at that time were out of Fellowship that they might have fellowship with the Church Joh. 1.1 2 3 4. Secondly we grant the Epistles were directed some of them to professing Believers joyn'd in Fellowship directly and immediately and to their children if they had any and the children of all Believers in succeeding ages remotely and the contents of the Epistles concern both the Parents at present and the children when come to years of discretion A Father that hath several children some grown up to understanding others Minors or Babes may direct a Book or Epistle to them all Whatsoever was writ was written as much for our instruction as the Primitive Christians We know Moses and the Prophets directed what they writ to the Church under that Administration whereof their Children were a part and yet they were ignorant Babes and could not understand any thing or perform any duties But let it be considered that though they understood nothing of those divine Exhortations yet being within Gods Nursery and School they were in a nearer capacity to be taught their duty than Aliens and their Parents were injoyned to teach them the Ordinances of God and God gave this Testimony concerning Abraham that he knew he would teach his children and in the New Testament it was the commendation of Lois that she had instructed Timothy 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ab Infantia when he was an Infant or little Child 3. Whereas the Epistles are inscribed with those Titles To the Saints Saints by calling sanctified in Christ Jesus chosen adopted which cannot saith our Author be spoken of Infants To this it may be thus replyed 1. Some of those titles may be predicated of children some not 2. The Apostle calls the Churches Saints either as looking upon them all as such i.e. truely regenerate for this is the famosius significatum of the word Saint but this could not be for he pointed at some that were sad Saints in the Church of Corinth and Galatia or else he calls them Saints Synechdochically because he judged the most of them to be such and so the whole Communion were judged Saints à Potiori from the better part 3. He calls them Saints by calling i.e. by the preaching of the word and so we acknowledge Infants are not and yet the same Apostle calls the Infants of Believers Saints 1. Cor. 7.14 Else were your Children unclean but now 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they are Saints or holy and 't is the same word the Apostle useth in his inscriptions of the Epistles to the Churches 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the Saints and being he maketh use of the same word applying it to the children of believers it hints thus much to us that in Saint Pauls account who was guided by the Spirit of God in what he speaks the Infant seed of Believers are as much Saints as any who are such by calling Nor are they only foederally holy but they may be also inherently sanctified saith Mr. Tombs in his Examen They may receive the new birth and we say more they must receive it if saved Job 3.5 It is much controverted concerning the Text whether it intends grown persons or any persons of whatsoever age or sex but the Original if heeded would put an end to it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Except one be born including all ages all sexes Children are so polluted in their first birth that they can never get to Heaven by that and therefore what the first birth cannot a second must saith Dr. Taylor And if it be objected that to the new birth is required dispositions of our own which are to be wrought by and in them that have the use of Reason besides that this as the Learned Doctor speaks is wholly against the Analogy of à New-birth in which the person to be born is wholly passive and hath put into him the Principle
we should have given precedency upon Acts 22.16 Eos qui fide in Ecclesiam Dei ingressi sunt videmus cum sua sobole in Christi Membris c. The Episcopal Divines fall in with the rest I will name but one instà r omnium and that is the famous Doctor Vsher in his Body of Divinity pag. 415. The outward Elements saith he are dispensed to all who make an outward profession of the Gospel for Infants their being born in the Church is instead of an outward profession c. Lastly the Author is at Mr. Baxter again quoting something out of his tenth Argument to Mr. Blake as if he had intended those words against Infants Church-Membership when he clears himself so fully in the point as when he stated the Thesis in the said Book of Disputations and hath written particularly a large piece whose Title is Plain Scripture-proof of Infants Church-Membership and Baptism To conclude this I cannot but pitty the Author because of that self-conceited scornful Genius that appears in what follows altogether unbecoming a Christian and I think all modest and sober spirits cannot but be extreamly scandalized to see a man pretending to be for the truth of Christ so proudly to trample upon all that differ from him Surely he must needs be furnisht with more than an ordinary measure of self-conceit that doth so Magisterially condemn not only the Ancients but those of the Protestant Reformation of latter days sparing none neither Prelate Presbyter nor Independent Have patience Reader and thou shalt hear a little of it How childishly ridiculous it was in those first Inventors of Baptism for six hundred years c. Have a care Sir since you swell at this rate least you burst Austin tells you Ecclesia semper habuit semper tenuit The Church always had it always held Infant Baptisme And Doctor Taylor a person whom you seem to honour much says there is no Record extant of any Church in the World that from the Apostles days inclusively to this very day ever refused to baptize children excepting of late amongst your selves So well to observe the Order viz. first to Baptize and then to Communicate and yet so miserably to miss it in the Subjects applying the Spiritual Ordinances to ignorant Babes This of the six hundred years giving the Communion to Infants he hath taken from Master Tombes his sixth Argument against Infant-Baptisme Exercitation pag. 29. for there it is and Tombes as is conceived took it up from Maldonate the Jesuite who reports that the giving of the Communion to Infants continued six hundred years in the Church But Master Geree well òbserves that is not nor ought to be taken of the first six hundred years for it appears by Maldonate's expression calling it Sententiam the opinion of Augustin and Pope Innocent that it had if not its rise yet its force to become common from them Not only Protestants but Papists themselves condemn that of communicating Infants as an errour yea as I remember the Councel of Trent it self And yet Doctor Taylor doth profess in his discourse of Baptizing the Infants of Believers that page 59. certainly there is infinitely more reason why Infants may be communicated then why they may not be Baptized The Protestant Reformers are more blind and do worse in his opinion then those who gave Infants the Lords Supper And how much worse saith he in the Protestant Reformers that so lamentalby miss it both in the due Order and right Subjects also which the Prelate and Presbyter doe in admitting children to Baptism and Membership but not to the Supper A little more modestly would do the Author no hurt and let him know that neither their Baptism or Church-Membership are inconsistent with the Word but so is Infant-Communion not only because God requires a particular qualification to the Ordinance which Infants are not capable of namely the exercise of actual grace in examination discerning the Lords Body and remembring the death of Christ but because they are not capable in any certain way of the Elements used in that Sacrament as to take and eat the Bread and drink Wine Lastly this Hagio-Mastix lasheth the Independents which do worse than all the rest and doth more grosly erre in point of Order in admitting them to Baptism but neither to Membership nor the Supper But I find the Proverb is true Bernardus non videt omnia even that great Doctor called Saint Bernard is ignorant of some things Wherefore I crave leave of the Author tó tell him he is ignorant of the grounds or principles by which the Independents walk And for his better information I refer him to Doctor Nathaniel Holmes his Answer to Mr. Tombes his Exercitation and Examen where he shall find the Independents Judgment jump with Master Jesseys in his discourse upon Romans 14.1 you have it reprinted at the end of Master Bunians last piece in answer to a Book entituled Some serious Reflections on that part of Master Bunyans Confession of Faith touching Church-Communion with unbaptized Believers Consider saith Master Jessey whether such a practice hath a command or example that persons must be joyned into Church-Fellowship by Water-Baptism For John Baptized many yet he did not Baptize some into one Church and some into another nor all into one particular Church And then afterward into what Church did Philip Baptize the Eunuch or the Apostle the Jaylor and his house This he speaks in opposition to those who hold that a particular Church is constituted by Baptism and formally united as Master K. did many years since in his answer to Doctor B. and is no changeling as appears by his Epistle to Master Pauls sorry Reflections lately Printed So Master Tombes of old in his sixth Argument Exercitat where he inveighs against the Independents as the Author doth here and saith That by Baptism a person is exhibited a Member of Christ and that Church To which Doctor Holmes an Independent Pastor makes this reply viz. But what Church doth Master Tombes mean If he means of the Universal Church I yield that he is exhibited a visible Christian But if he means a Member of any particular rightly constituted Church according to the platform of those in the New Testament and ancient antiquity I altogether deny it for these reasons 1. Those Baptized Matthew 3. were in no particular Christian Church there being none gathered till a good while after that Christ had given the Holy Spirit to the Disciples 2. Cornelius his and the Jaylors Families after the gathering of Churches were not by that numbred to any particular Churches or thereby made particular Churches that we read Now that which exists afore or after a thing without that thing cannot be the form of that thing 3. That which is common cannot be proper and peculiar But Baptism is common to make men only visible Christians in General Therefore it is not proper and peculiar to make them of this or that particular Church And then
he farther adds therefore though Godly men or Infants have been Baptized yet the Churches think according to Scripture there must be somewhat more expressed to make such to own this or that Preaching Officer to be their Pastor or Teacher Whom they must obey in the Lord and have in singular respect for the works sake Heb. 13. And to cause the Minister to own them as his Flock Acts 20. if he mean not to take upon him a power Apostolical for Latitude to extend to all Baptized one Doctor Homes's answer to Master Tombes So page 193. The same Author saith several Churches of us do hold that we may Baptize them the Infants of the Godly though neither of their Parents be of our particular Churches Baptism being but as we conceive an Admission into the Universal visible Church We shall add for a conclusion That as Baptism is no actual admission into the Communion of a particular Church as before appears in the examples of the Eunuch Cornelius c. who were Baptized without any relation to a particular Church 2. It is into Christ and so into the priviledges of the Body of Christ in general No mention being made in Baptism of any restraint to this or that particular Church 3. One act of Communion in the Lords Supper doth not state a person admitted as a Member of that particular Church no more doth Baptism which is but one act of Communion 4. By Baptism a person being exhibited a Member of Christ and of the Church in general and so consequently to all the priviledges of Christ whereof Church-Communion is one it follows that when a Child is Baptized he is thereby acknowledged or declared to have a right to Church Communion in particular that is in breaking bread with a particular Church when he becomes capable thereof For Omne Vniversale continet particulare Every general includes all the particulars Nor can any particular Church deny it when such a one actually desires admittance into her and undertakes to walk in it in performance of all duties as a Member thereof provided he be free from scandal and visible crimes committed since his Baptism to the time of his desired admittance for whatsoever may be just ground to cast out of Church-Fellowship and Communion is also sufficient to keep him out that was never in CHAP. VII The Authors Quotations out of the Magdeburgensian History corrected and rectified wherein is farther shewn his Praevarication in relating some things partially others falsly and for the most part contrary to the intention of the Writers HE begins thus The Magdeburgenses in their Excellent History do tell us that as to the Business of Baptism in the first Century they find only the Adult or Aged whether Jews or Gentiles that were Baptized and give instances in the 2d 8th 10th 16th 19th Chapters of the Acts and have no Examples of Infants being Baptized Cent. 1 Lib. 2. Pag. 496. 1 first In examining this Century Vt Christus Infantes ad se venâ—re jussit ita nec Apostoli eos excluserunt a Baptismo quidem dum Baptismus circumcisioni aequiparat Paulus Colos 2. aperte indicat etiam Infantes per Baptismum Ecclesiae Dei esse inserendos sicut in veteri Testamento Infantes circumcidi oportebat ut in Dei faedere essent Cent. 1 L. 2. C. 4. P. 354. Baptizatos esse aedultos tum Judaeos tum Gentes Exemplae probant Infantibus Baptizatis Exempla quidem annotata non leguntur sed Origenes Cyprianus alii Patres autores sunt Apostolorum etiam tempore Infantes Baptizatos esse Cen. 1. L. 2. C. 9. P. 496. I find Lib. 2. Chap. 4. Pag. 354. that touching Baptism they say that as Christ commanded Infants to come unto him so the Apostles afterward did not exclude them from Baptism and truly since Baptism is compared by Paul to Circumcision Col. 2. it plainly shews that Infants are to be admitted to the Church by Baptism as in the Old Testament they were by Circumcision 2 In Century the first Lib. 2. Cap. 6. Pag. 496. which is the place the Author refers unto they do not say that the Apostles Baptized only the Adult or Aged but only this We have Examples of Adult persons both Jews and Gentiles that were Baptized-Farther they say concerning Infants we have no particular notice given us or Examples that they were Baptized yet presently add that Origen and Cyprian and others of the Fathers that lived near the Apostles do affirm that even in the Apostles times Infants were Baptized But let it be supposed that they did not Baptize any Infant yet it follows not that it is unlawful for us to Baptize them because they did not for as Dr. Taylor says whom the Author so much admires a Negative Argument as to matter of fact cannot conclude and therefore supposing that it be not intimated that the Apostles did Baptize Infants it follows not that they might not or that the Church may not The words and deeds of Christ are infinite and the Acts of the Apostles we may suppose the same in their proportion And therefore what they did not is no rule to us unless they did it not because they were forbidden 3. Moreover the Magdeburgenses speaking of the subject of Baptism answer an Objection which might be made against Infant-Baptism Cent. 1. Lib. 1. Cap. 4. Pag. 154. Whereas it is said they were Baptized in Jordan confessing their Sins Mat. 3. and Iohn Preached the Baptism of Repentance Mark 1. and Luk. 3. therefore only they that repent are to be Baptized which is the sum of all our adversaries can say To this Objection they thus reply such Confession was necessary from those Adult Persons being as before the first Subjects of the Ordinances And then they come to state the Question An sint Infantes quoque Baptizandi are Infants also to be Baptized Which they hold affirmatively giving several Arguments for it one of which is grounded upon Matt. 19 viz. They to whom the Promise of the Kingdom of Heaven doth belong to them belongs the Ceremony or Seal of the Promise And then they roundly tell us that although the Apostles before they were rectius edocti better learned would have kept Infants from Christs Benediction yet being so severely rebuked by Christ and guided or directed by his Spirit they did say they sine dubio without all doubt Baptize them informing us again that the Fathers who lived near to the Apostles do witness that the Practice of Infant-Baptism was derived from the Apostles and transmitted to Posterity Cent 1. Lib. 1. Cap. 4. Pag. 153. 4. The Author fathers that upon the Century-Writers which they speak not They saith he tell us that the Custom of Dipping the whole Body in Water was changed into Sprinkling a little Water in the face whereas there is not the least hint of this matter in this Century nor the following but they tell us that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
signifies abluo luo i.e. to Wash and that the Christian Baptism was taken a judaica lotione from the Jewish Baptism of which the Apostle speaks Heb. 9 10. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i.e. Divers Baptisms it is rendred Washings and these Baptisms we know were not Dippings Moses in the Ceremonial Law did not prescribe different kind of Dippings though he did several kind of Washings or Baptisms as it is in the Original CENT II. HE saith the Magdeburgenses tell us that they find nothing in this Century different from the former that is in reference to Baptism And that they make mention of Justin Martyr's words in his Apology to Antoninus Pius the Emperour which are repeated as we have it translated by Mr. Baxter in his Saints Rest The import of which is only to shew what order they took with Pagans upon their conversion to the Christian Faith before they were admitted to the Sacraments And although this be wide of the matter and insignificant to the Question under debate which is about Baptizing the Infants of Believers yet this will serve well enough to blind an ignorant Reader And as it this were some great matter he glories in it and concludes with a jeer They saith he that shall consider the manner that Christians he should have said Heathens were admitted into the Churches in those dayes can hardly I presume pick out any good warranties for Infant Church-Membership or Baptism out of the same to which there needs no more to say than this even just as much as he can pick out from thence against it Nor do I see any reason he hath to pick a quarrel with our Practice from any thing in that Fathers Apologie who as Mr. Baxter notes giveth such hints by which his Judgment and the Practice of the Church in those days may be discerned to be for it though we cannot expect that he should speak expresly to the point both because he is brief and treateth on other Theams to which this did not belong and because the Church then living among Heathens had so much to do in converting and Baptizing the Aged that they had little occasion to treat about Children especially it being a point not controverted but taken for granted by the Christians who knew God's dealing with the Jewish Church that Children were Members with the Converted Parents especially when the very Gentiles Children were members before Christ With more to this purpose Plain Scripture-proof Pag. 155. CENT III. IN this Century saith the Author they tell us the Rites of Baptism in the Asiatick Churches continue the same as before but concerning the African Churches they give some account of great Corruption creeping into the Church as to Subject Time Manner and Ceremonies Cent. 3. Cap. 6. Pag. 123 124 125. They do indeed charge this Age with corruption as to the Time and Manner of administring Baptism but not a word in derogation of Infants being the Subject of it and 't is strange they should have reckoned that a corrupt innovation which they had a little before so well maintained for a Truth They tell us indeed that Tertullian in this Age opposed himself to some that Asserted Infant-Baptism affirming that the Adult were the only proper Subjects But how weakly he doth it may be seen afterward when we come to examine the witnesses of which Tertullian is the Van and as Estius and Junius conceive with others the said Father intends only those Infants quorum Parentes whose Parents were Infidels or if he meant the Children of Christians he speaks nothing absolutely against their Baptizing For his Words are Cunctatio utilior it is more profitable to defer their Baptism as it was also best in his opinion for young men that were Innupti unmarried Quin innuptie Baptismum procrastinandum art esse quia eis praeparata est tentatio Magde burg Cent. 3. so to do and it was his advice to young Widows to forbear Baptism until the lust of concupiscence was quite extinguished Is not this good Doctrine think you yet this is the man as the Author saith who opposed Infant-Baptism affirming that the Adult were the only proper Subjects yet it seems not all they neither for he advised all unmarried persons to delay Baptism not sparing young-Maids and that upon a very corrupt ground What sport would my Antagonist have made with this man and how much would he have disparaged him had we brought him in for a witness on our side One would think the more temptation any state is Subject to the more doth it stand in need of helps especially such as lay engagements on us to holiness and may be a means to convey it But Tertullian was very corrupt and superstitious and turned Montanist when he wrote his Book of Baptism and shews himself to be somewhat neer the judgment of the Clinici who as Dr. Hammond notes would not be Baptized till their Death-Beds and the reason was because being to be Baptized but once and attributing so extreamly much to that Ceremony and hoping so little for pardon of sin from any other instrument they durst not be Baptized too early lest they should sin again and have no remedy And the deferring Baptism till thirty or fourty years old was a spice of this fancy but then they that did so were the most impatient of any to miss Baptism when they thought they were near their last and would let no Christian Infant die without that Viand and so doing what they did upon a score so contrary to the Anabaptists it is strange 〈◊〉 should be producible in favour of them as he tells Dr. Taylor But to return to the Magdeburgenses who do indeed inform us that in this Age the Doctrine of Baptism began to be defiled with Ceremonies without any reflection upon Infant-Baptism and 't is very well known that Tertullian himself was the man that introduced that filthy greasy one of anointing the Baptized which he borrowed from the Montanists They also tell us that in this Age Baptismus Infantibus datur Infants were Baptized and cite Origen in his 8th Homily upon Leviticus affirming that Baptism is to be given to Infants secundum Ecclesiae Observantiam according to the custom of the Church adding also another passage of his upon the 14th of Luke to the same purpose Cent. 3. Cap. 4. Pag. 57. Moreover they give us the Testimony of Cyprian in his 4th Book Cyprianus L. 4. Epist 7. Recte disputat Baptismum valere sive aqua perfundantur sive toti immergantur qui Baptizantur and 7th Epistle and approve his arguing that Baptism is valid whether it be by Immersion or Sprinkling for these two Reasons First Because they signify one and the same thing idem sit aspersio quod Lavacrum Sprinkling holding forth the Mystery as well as Dipping according to that in Ezek. 36. I will Sprinkle you with Water Secondly Because they that were sprinkled in their Beds as sick Persons were in those
of Infants be deferred quoting it out of Dr. Taylors Liberty of Prophesy Besides what we have said of Nazianzens judgment that he disswaded not Infant Baptism as unlawful but as conceiving delay for three or four Years more expedient but if there were Aliquid periouli any fear of death then he allowed of it I shall mind the Reader that when the Learned Dr. Taylor brought in Nazianzen against Infant-Baptism he personated an Anabaptist but in his latter discourse you have his Judgment very fully for Infant-Baptism confuting his former piece particularly he quotes the following passage out of Nazianzen for Infant-Baptism viz. What wilt thou say of Children which neither are sensible of the loss nor the grace shall we Baptize them yes by all means in case of urgent danger for it is better to be Sanctified i e Baptized without their knowledg than to dye without it for so it happened to the Circumcised Babes of Israel c. I conclude this with what Vossius saith of him in his Thesis de Baptismo non igitur Nazianzenus c. Nazianzen was not against Infant-Baptism After him comes Ambrose who in his 3d Book de Sacramentis Cap. 2. hath this saying That the Baptized did not only make confession of his Faith but was to desire the same I perceive he is still sick of the old disease for that this Father speaks of the Pagans in what order they were taken into the Church and not in Opposition to the Baptizing Infants needs no other proof than that he himself was for it Quia omnis aetas peccato obnoxia ideo omnis aetas Sacramento idonea i. e Because every Age is Obnoxious to sin therefore every Age is fit for the Sacrament There is one or two more but I will leave them for we have enough of it After this small Shot the Author le ts fly Canons and Decrees of Councils for Baptizing such as were of years of discretion and were able to rehearse the Articles of the Creed as also we have an Enumeration of several persons born of Christian Parents that were not Baptized till they were of Age and able to give account of their Faith To which I Reply first Grant that some Councils were against Infant-Baptism which we shall not yeild yet if we must go by number of Councils we shall carry it He names three which he would have thought to be against Infant-Baptism and I think I shall not exceed in saying we may name ten times three for it and mark Reader he takes the priviledge of citing Councils but if we do it they are slighted and condemned for Popish and Superstitious 2. We conceive those Councils he names had also respect to Pagans in their Decrees and we have good reason for it because the Canon of Neocaesaria speaks plainly of the Children of such Women as come out from amongst Infidels being proselyted to the Christian Religion in their Pregnancy as Mr. Marshal tells Mr. Tombes This is taken out of Mr. Tombes Exercitation and Examen when he Objected the same thing The Author hath taken the whole Story out of him and all the rest upon the matter which follows in this Century is fetcht from his Exercitation and Examen printed 27. years since and Answered by that Reverend Divine Mr. Steven Marshal in his Defence of Infant-Baptism I would make a parallel betwixt the Author I have to deal with and Tombes but that it would be tedious wherefore instead of that I will transcribe the same things out of Tombes which the Author hath brought again upon the Stage If the Reader compare them he will find never two Eggs more alike Mr. Tombes in his Examen Pag. 10. hath it thus Grotius saith he in his Annotation on Matt. 19.14 adds That the Canon of the Synod of Neocaesaria held in the year 315. determins that a Woman with Child might be Baptized because the Baptism reached not the fruit of her womb because in the Confession made in Baptism each ones free choyce is shewed From which Canon Balsomon and Zonaras do infer that an Infant cannot be Baptized because it hath no power to chase the Confession of Divine Baptism This is according to what we have in H. D. to a tittle what impudence then is it to trouble us with this filly and ridiculous Story when Mr. Marshal proved to Tombes that the inference brought from hence against the Baptism of Believers Children was altogether invalid For the Canon there speaks of the Children of Women come out from among Infidels and come over to the Christian Faith during the time they were with Child For Balsomon saith such Women as were with Child and come from the Infidels and what is this to our Question saith Mr. Marshal which is about Children born in the Church of believing Parents and Balsomon the Glossator distinguisheth of Children some in the womb and some born for the first faith he no man can undertake he means in Baptism and for the other they answer by such as undertake for them which words as Mr. Marshal observes are not mentioned by Mr Tombes for he says no more than what he found in Grotius and for the partial relation he is sharply rebuked for wronging the Truth and labouring to deceive people and yet the Author I conflict with persists in the same course Next the Author speaks big words telling us That in farther Assurance and Confirmation of this great Truth we have most remarkable Instances of several of the most Eminent persons of this Century that were not Baptized till Aged though the Ofspring of Believing Parents viz. Bazil Gregory Nazianzen Ambrose Chrysostom Austin Constantine This also is Mr. Tombes again Examen p. 9. And that People may not be startled with these great names Reply Tombes his Examen P. 9. and be made to think that Childrens Baptism was not practised in the Church in those days wherein they lived I shall acquaint the Reader out of Mr. Marshal upon what grounds Christians heretofore deferred their Baptism namely sometimes they would do it in imitation of Christ who was not Baptized till about thirty years of Age. Constantine the Great put off his Baptism till he came to the River Jordan in which Christ was Baptized some deferred it till they had contracted a great deal of sin out of an erroneous conceit that by Baptism it would be all washed away Much more we have of this in Marshal's Defence of Infant-Baptism Pag. 27. Now for the Instances I find Tombes begins with Constantine and then comes on Nazianzen but the Author here ends with Constantine This argues nevertheless it was taken thence I shall trouble my self no further to seek after any other reason why the Baptism of these men was delayed than what Mr. Marshal gives Tombes For Constantine the Great though the Son of Helena who is reported to have been a zealous Christian not Baptized till he was Aged it doth not appear that his Mother was
notwithstanding the confidence of the adverse party unless they can produce one Express place of Scripture where it is said No Infant was Baptized or some Express Command not to Baptize them their calling for an Express Command concludes nothing against our Practice 2. Moreover we affirm against their Practice that there is no Express Command in all the Book of God to plunge persons Head and Ears under water nor can they by any convincing Circumstance about the manner of Baptizing make it appear though thousands were Baptized in a day that any one was so severely dealt with in the primitive times we shall shew when we come to it that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 among Heathen and Ecclesiastical Writers doth promiscuously signify to dip into or wash with Water by pouring on of it and in the Scripture it is more frequently taken for Washing than dipping 3. They have no Express Command or Example to Baptize or plunge themselves as they do with their Cloaths on which is rather a Baptizing Garments than Bodies Since they are so much for Express Command and Example let them first justify their own Practice by it before they condemn us for want of it 2. He tells us That the approved Practice and known custom of the Primitive Church was to Baptize the Adult as all Ages acknowledg and only they at least for the first as is so fully attested by Eusobius Beatus Rhenanus Lud. Vives Bullinger Haimo the Neocaesarian Council Look back Reader to that saithful Account I have given from the Magdeburgensian Century-Writers and thou shalt be able to judg of the truth of what he speaks I am necessitated to touch upon it again what Eusebius speaks of Origens being a Teacher before Baptism refers to the Pagans what that Old Popish St. Beatus Rhenanus saith of the Ancient custom which was to Baptize those that were come to full growth with the Bath of Regeneration if it relates to Heathens it is no more to purpose than the former out of Eusebius but if we are to understand him so as if no Children were anciently admitted to Baptism no not those of Believers then we plead an older custom even as old as Origen and Tertullian that Children were Baptized in the Church and as Mr. Calvin hath it in his Instruction against the Anabaptists The Holy Ordinance of Infant Baptism hath been perpetually observed in the Christian Church for there is no ancient Writer that doth not acknowledg its Original even from the Apostles which was the Reason why Austin hath that Expression concerning it namely Nullus est Scriptor tam vetustus qui non ejus Originem ad Apostolorum saculum pro certo referat Calvini Instit cap. 17. part 8. pag. 227. Ecclesia semper habuit semper tenuit The Church always had it always held it And for Lud. Vives his saying That they Baptized the Adult in some Cities of Italy his Testimony hath been always looked upon as very incompetent because he was but of yester-day and we have nothing but his bare word for it and not to be compared with Austin's a man of great integrity and that lived above thousand years nearer the Apostles who affirms it was not only Practised in his day but before and quotes Testimonies for it Then for Haim◠all that he sais upon Matt. 28 will not prejudice us his words are Here is set down a rule how to Baptize that is that Teaching should go before Baptizing c. which we confess ought to be so when we have to deal with Pagans and he speaks of such And as none of the Popish School-men are for the Authors turn though we have many passages quoted out of them to no other end but to blind the Reader and make the Book swell so I am mistaken if that which he quotes out of Albertus Magnus the Conjurer be much for his turn you have it in the 12th Cent. p. 85. of his Treatise And lastly for the Neocaesarian Council that business is of a very ridiculous nature and impertinent to the question for the matter under debate in that Council was about a Woman that was pregnant who being an Infidel came to be Baptized and the Canon speaks of such a one and not of a Woman that was within the Church of a Child born of a believing Parent as is fully shewn before in Cent. 4. 3 Whereas he saith not only the Children of Pagans were to be Instructed and taught in the Faith in order to Baptism but the Children of Christians also as those famous instances given from the 4th Century We have shewn in our discourse upon that Century the corrupt and silly grounds upon which they deferred Baptism till they were grown up in those days and some of the instances there given had Parents that were Heathens when they were born and so continued till they were come to Maturity and that was the reason they were Baptized though 't is true their Parents were at last converted to the Christian Faith 4. He farther saith that as there was no Scripture-Authority for it so no Human Authority till above 400 years after Christ though to justify that injunction Apostolical-Tradition to supply the want of Scripture-Institution was pretended I may almost say truly of this Quot dicta tot maledicta so many words so many foul reproaches Calumniare fortiter aliquid adhaerebit said Machiavel and our Author follows the Rule exactly he thinks he can never throw dirt enough upon Infant-Baptism hoping some will at last stick I shall Reply to this First To say there is no Scripture-Authority for Infant-Baptism and that Apostolical Tradition was on purpose brought in to supply the want of it are presumptuous weak and false dictates Since the same Men viz. The Fathers that call it an Apostolical Tradition do upon the matter all of them plead for it upon Scripture-grounds as Cyprian Nazianzen Chrysostom Ambros Epiphartius who argue for Infant-Baptism because it came in the room of Circumcision and from the right the Infants of the Jews had to Circumcision and of latter days Protestants own nothing for truth that comes under the notion of Apostolical-Tradition Proinde necessario veniendum erat ad argumenta ex Scripturis quae si rem non evincant frustrà traditionem ad vocabimus Riv. Animad in annot Grotii in Cassandrum Art 9. p. 71. unless they see ground for it in Scripture they are of Rivets mind that Tradition is in most points uncertain and thereforē if we will be certain of a thing we must see the foot-steps of it in the word And Mr. Calvin speaks to the same purpose in his Instructions against the Anabaptists Caeterum minime peto ut in eo probando nos Antiquitas ullo modo juvet c. I do not in the least desire to borrow help from Antiquity for the proof of this point any whit farther than the judgment of the Ancients shall be found to be grounded on
the Word of God For I well know that as the custom of men doth not give Authority to the Sacrament so the use of the Sacrament cannot be said to be right because regulated by Custom 2. What though there was no Human-Authority for it till above 400 years after Christ is this any Argument against it The Author borrows this from Dr. Taylors Lib. of Proph. p. 237. for he learns how to speak from him the Drs. Words are as there was no Command in Scripture to oblige Children to the susception of it so the necessity of Paedobaptism was not determined in the Church till the Canon that was made in the Milevitan Council This Milevitan African Council was Ann. Ch. 418. and belike the reason why it was not established sooner by Councils under an Anathema was because it was rarely if at all questioned or opposed till then by any person of note as to its lawfulness Hear what Dr. Hammond says in answer to Dr Taylor about this matter It being granted by the Objecter saith he that Paedobaptism was by Canon Established in the Milevitan African Council Ann. Ch. 418. yet as long as it is also confessed that it was practised in Africa before there will be little concluded against us For what stood by Apostolical Practice and known Custom needed not to be prescribed by Canon as that which prevails by force of a greater need not be assisted by a weaker Authority And indeed while the foot-steps of so Authentique a Tradition were so lively and no Adversary or Disputer started upno question or opposition yet made against a Common usage 't were ridiculous for Councils to convene and fortify it by Canons and so the only thing reasonably deducible from the lateness of those Canons is that all that while it was universally received without Opposition I mean not saith the Dr that no Infant or any Christian was unbaptized through the space of those first 4 Centuries but that the extending of the Institution to Infants was not Opposed in the Church till about Pelagius's days whose opinion of Original Sin utterly denying the guilt of it on Adam's posterity was such as might consequentily produce some change in his opinion of Paedobaptism for in the 219 page he quotes out of the 5th Hom. of Eusebius Emissenus de Pasch a passage intimating that Pelagius himself asserted the Baptizing of Infants though not propter vitam for life yet propter regnum coelorum for the Kingdom of God i. e. entrance into the Church as is conceived 3. Whereas he saith Apostolical Tradition was pretended Let not the Reader be afrighted with this word Tradition or because Origen and Austin calls it a Tradition of the Church for when the Fathers so call it they do not intend it in such a sence as if the Church were the Author but the Subject of it Magdeburg Cent. 1. L. 2. Cap. 6. p. 496. Origines Cyprianus alia Patres Authores sunt Apostolorum etiam tempore Infantes Baptizatos esse both Origen and Cyprian and other Fathers hold that Infants were Baptized in the Apostles days and Austin's Rule is a reason for it little less than a demonstration quod universa tenet Ecclesia c. that which is universally received and practised by the Church and had not its first Institution from some Council but hath been ever retained may well be believed to be an Apostolical Tradition August contrae Donat. L. 4. C. 24. Moreover when the Fathers call thi◠… n Apostolical Tradition 〈◊〉 do other Opinions it is as our Divines usually answer the Papists in regard points of this nature are not expresly in terminis in the word but may be fairly gathered thence by consequence Chemnit Exam. Concil Triden par 1. p. 68 69. To the same purpose we have Dr. Field of the Church Lib. 4. Cap. 20. The 4th head of Tradition is the continued Practice of such things as are neither contained in Scripture Expresly nor the Examples of such Practice Expresly there delivered Though the grounds reasons and causes of the necessity of such practice be there contained of this sort is the Baptism of Infants which is therefore called a Tradition because it is not expresly delivered in Scripture that the Aposties did Baptize Infants c. nor any Express Precept there found they should do so yet is not this so received by bare naked Tradition but that we find the Scripture to deliver unto us the grounds of it Thus we see both the Fathers and Protestant-Writers take Tradition in a quite different sence from that the Romanists usually take it in who equalize the Authority of Tradition with the Scripture yea indeed give it the preheminence above it And now judg Reader what the confident assertions of our Antagonist do amount to whether dignum tanto tulit hic promissor hiatu whether the proverb be not verified in him viz. a great cry and a little Wooll Now follows the Historical Account he gives us of the Apostolical Tradition pretended to as he speaks it for Infant Baptism IT is not worth while to search into so many musty Authors as are quoted by him and indeed I thought to have taken my leave of him and to have met him again in the 3d Chapter because there we shall encounter the exceptions he brings against those Authentick Testimonies we alledg from Antiquity for our Practice nevertheless having run over his History usque ad nauseam I shall pass a few Remarks thereupon 1. The multitude of Authors quoted argues great ostentation of much Reading though much of it is prepared to his hand and for certain the most is rather ad Pompam than ad Pugnum rather for shew than service 2. Yet hath he manifested some Artifice and cunning 1. In raking out of the Dung-hil all the filthy Rites used by the Romish Church in the Administration of Baptism as Exorcism Chrism Salt Albes or White-Garments Milk Honey c. And his design herein is to dazle the eyes of the weaker sort and to make them believe even Infant-Baptism it self is also a corrupt Innovation But this will not take with the judicious who are able to distinguish between the accidental Corruptions of an Ordinance and the Ordinance it self We know Antichrist hath defiled most of the Ordinances of Christ and annexed thereto many Superstitious Ceremonies as in the other Sacrament of the Communion Adoration of the Elements is enjoyned and yet these do not disparage the Ordinance it self in the Institution and Substance of it but only defile the Communicants that so superstitiously use that Sacred Appointment Besides the Papists have affixt these corrupt Rites not only to the Baptism of Infants but of those also who are grown up and so the force of arguing from them if Infant-Baptism were removed wil ly against Baptism it self We ought not therefore to impute these corruptions to God's Ordinance of Baptizing Infants and on that account deride and cashier it
but rather as the Magdeburgenses do Cent. 2. p. 111. to the Mystery of Iniquity Mr. Geree of vind Paedobapt which so works in the Church of Rome in their corrupting and contaminating the simple forme of Baptism Indeed saith Mr. Philpot the Martyr to his fellow-sufferer that scrupled Infant-Baptism and afterward was satisfied by the strength of his Arguments if you look upon the Papistical Synagogue only which have corrupted God's Word by false interpretation and hath perverted the true use of Christs Sacraments you may seem to have good handfast of your opinion against the Baptism of Infants but for as much as it is of more Antiquity and hath its begining from God's Word and from the use of the Primitive Church it must not in respect of the abuse in the Popish Church be neglected or thought inexpedient Nor hath the Baptism of Adult Persons in former times been free from many corrupt and ridiculous Human inventions as Dr. Homes out of Binius and Epiphanius shews at large The Council of Carthage tells us Bin. Ca. 34 de rebus Eccles Cap. 26. that sick men lying speechless might be Baptized upon the witness of men touching their former condition The 4th Council of Carthage orders That those of ripe years to be Baptized must be dyered Bin. Cap. 85. and kept from Fesh and Wine a long time and after that having been examined several times must be Baptized Epiphanius declares that the Eunomians called Anabaptists do Rebaptize all that come to them Epiphan Anacephal pag. 108. Edit lat Bazil turning their Heads downward and their Heels upward Some of the Anabaptists called Hemerabaptists thought that none could be saved unless they were daily-Baptized whence they were called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Gerard. Joh. Voffus de Anaebaptismo Thes 17. Gastius de Anaebap Exod. p. 50. daily Baptists and so were cleansed from their Sins Singulis diebus mergerentur ita ut Abluantur Sanctificentur ab omni culpa Secondly Another small plot or piece of tunning lyes in linking some spurious Authors with those which are Authentick to render also their Authority Suspicious There are some Ancient Writers which are very express for Infant-Baptism of great Authority in the Church of Rome which are rejected as spurious or interpolate by the Protestants such is that of Dimysius the Areopagite and the Decretal Epistles who notwithstanding have in high account the Testimonies of those Ancients viz. Justin Martyr Irenaus Origen Cyprian c. which are reputed as Authentick and of undoubted truth 3. There is much Impertinency in his Historical Account that is not concerned in the Question As the Story of Constantine Dedication Consecration or Baptizing of Churches and Bells Exposure of the Reliques of Saints for adoration Prohibiting Priests Marriages with much more ejusdem farinae But what is all this to Infant-Baptism 4. There are some errors or falsities in it As Tertullian's standing up against Infant-Baptism in the 3d Century when he stood up no more against it than he did against the Baptizing of Young-men that were unmarried and Young-Widows also whose Baptism he would have delayed 'T is certain he argues for the delay of Baptism in some cases praecipue circa paroulos Tertul. de Bapt. C. 8. especially that of little ones meaning the Children of unbelievers as is conceived by Estius Pamelins and divers others A Second Error respecting this Century is That the Magdeburgenses tell us they altered the form of Baptism from dipping to sprinkling referring us to Cent. 3. pag. 129. where they speak no such thing nor any-where else in the whole History of Baptism A Third Escape is That Infant-Baptism was not in use in the greatest part of the 4th Century either in the Latin or Greek Church Now this is very false nor will that help him which he adds afterward Scil. It is true saith he towards the latter end of this Century it is said that in some parts of Africa they did Baptize Children as Magdeburg Cent. 4. p. 415. but they say no such thing it is only the Authors own saying and really it troubles me to see so much prevarication every-where Take Reader the true account of what the Magdeburgenses say de Ritibus circa Baptismum about Baptismal Rites They are large in this Chapter and begin it thus That the power of Baptizing was in this Age in the Priests and principally in the Bishops and then in Presbyters and Deacons and then a few lines after they tell us Baptizabantur autem publice in templis cujuscunque sexus aetatis conditionis homines Persons of each Sex and of all Ages and Conditions were publickly Baptized in the Temples Nor hath this Chapter any such passage at the beginning middle or latter end that in some parts of Africa they did Baptize Children 5. I will not say there is a Tincture of prophaneness but am sure of something like it in that saying of the Authors pag. 128. of his Treatise viz. In this 6th Century saith he we meet with a dreadful piece of Infant-Baptism viz. The Heads of 6000 Infants that had been murdered buried in a Warren near a Monastery as testified by Vldricus to P. Nicolas Cent. 6. p. 338. But the Magdeburgenses are not so bold as the Author to call such horrid murder Infant-Baptism A tender conscience me thinks should be afraid thus to play with Holy things 6. This History of his affords some contradiction to himself I mean to what he hath before written for in the first part of his Book Cap 2. pag. 7. he quotes Bede for a Testimony that the Baptizing of Believers is the only true Baptism Bede saith That Men were first to be instructed unto the Knowledg of the Truth then to be Baptized as Christ hath taught c. Cent. 8. p. 220. Whereas in this his Second part of the Treatise which is for disproving Infant-Baptism pag. 130. Bede also concludes for the Baptizing of Infants Cent. 8. p. 218. 7. We observe too great a boldness in those scandalous Reflections which he casts upon the Churches of the Reformed Religion sparing none neither Lutherans nor Calvinists nor Episcoparians nor Presbyterians But me thinks 't is a piece of great indiscretion to fly out so much against the Church of England for if she be contented to give the Antipaedobaptists indifferent good quarter although they do not conform to her why should any of them vilify her in this manner As for the Kirk of Scotland the Author may more securely mock at it and there is no danger in having a fling at the Directory or at the old Parliament's Ordinance of May 2d 1648. which made it imprisonment to affirm Infant-Baptism is unlawful CHAP. III. Containing his Exceptions against Infant-Baptism because built as he says upon 1. Fabulous Traditions 2. Mistaken Scriptures with an Answer thereto 1. The first and Principal ground saith he that hath been asserted for this Practice is Ecclesiastical and
Cardinal of Ragusi It is asserted that in the beginning of this Sacrament of Baptism they only were to be Baptized who could by themselves answer Interrogatories concerning their Faith and that it was no-where read in the Canon of Scripture that a new-born Infant was Baptized who could neither believe with the heart to Justification nor confess with the mouth to Salvation yet nevertheless saith he the Church hath appointed it H. D. Whereas some Object that Bellarmine and others do also bring Scripture for it Becan Lib. 1. c. 2. Sec. 24. answers that some things may be proved out of Scripture when the Church's sence is first heard about the Interpretation thereof for so he saith it is concerning Infants-Baptism which is proved from John 3.5 But the sense whereby to prove it is only manifest by Tradition H. D. and it is confirmed in the Canon-Law and School-Men that Infant-Baptism was not reckoned perfect till the Bishop laid on hands which was called Confirmation viz. of the imperfect Baptism in Infancy and therefore saith Caistans secundum Jewel that an Infant wanting instruction in the Faith hath not perfect Baptism H. D. Dr. Field Lib. 4. p. 375. saith That Infant-Baptism is therefore called a Tradition because it is not expresly delivered in the Scriptures that the Apostles did Baptize Infants or that they should do so Here the Author stops and goes no farther being afraid of the next lines H. D. Prideaux controv Theol. Sec. 392. Infant-Baptism saith he rests upon no other Divine right than Episcopacy viz Diocesan Episcopacy in use in these Nations Here he adds as before he substracted from what Mr. Tombes said out of Field I. T. i.e. John Tombes In the Council of Bazil in the Oration of the Cardinal of Ragusi it is asserted Item nusquam legitur in Canone Scripturae S. quod parvulus recenter Baptizatus qui nec corde credit ad justitiam nec ore confitetur adsalutem inter fideles credentes computetur nibilominus Ecclesia ita determinavit statuit c. And in principio hujus Sacramenti Baptizabantur solum illi qui per se sciebant fidem interroganti respondere I. T. And whereas it is Objected that Bellarmine and others do bring Scripture for it Becan Manual Lib. 1. C. 3. Sec. 24. answers aliqua possunt probari ex Scriptura quando constat de vero legitimo Scripturae sensu So he saith it is concerning Infant-Baptism which is proved from John 3.5 but that the sense whereby to prove it is only manifest by Tradition I. T. Which is confirmed in the Canon-Law and School-Men an Infants-Baptism was not reckoned perfect till the Bishop layd on hands which act was called Confirmation viz. of the imperfect Baptism in Infancy Jewel alledgeth it as Caistans Tenent that an Infant for that he wanteth instruction in Faith therefore hath not perfect Baptism I. T. Dr. Field of the Church 4th Book Chap. 20. of this sort is Infant-Baptism which is therefore called a Tradition because it is not expresly delivered in Scripture that the Apostles did Baptize Infants nor any express Precept that they should do so Tombes is so ingenious as to set down the rest yet is not this so received by bare and naked Tradition but that we find the Scripture to deliver unto us the grounds of it I. T. Dr ' Prideaux Fasci Controv. Theol. Loc. 4. Sec. 3. q. 2. Paedobaptism rests on no other Divine right than Episcopaey Now to all this we have said enough before as to the Substance of it and I love not needless repetitions only let me mind you with this That though Papists and others attribute too much to the custom of the Church or Tradition yet all sound Protestants when they use that word they do it in Sensu sano quite different from the corrupt sense of the Romish Church And because the Author saith Dr. Taylor doth so fully and strenuously argue against us in his Lib. Proph. p. 237 viz. Tradition saith he must by all means supply the place of Scripture and there is pretended a Tradition Apostolical That Infants were Baptized I think it not amiss to bring in Dr. Hammond to cope with him in his Letter of Resolution Quaere 4th of the Baptizing of Infants Sec. 104. pag. 277. where having before spoken of what sort of Traditions have been rejected by the Reformed Churches he then adds Having no necessity to descend to any more minute Considerations the whole matter will be resolved into this one Enquiry whether the Baptizing of Infants doth sufficiently appear to be of the Institution of Christ or Practice Apostolical And if it do we have all that we pretend to upon the score of Tradition and if it do not we are obliged to disclaim that means of maintaining our plea or inferring our conclusion And because the way of satisfying this enquiry is but the saying over again all that hath been formerly said on this subject this whole Discourse having laid the weight of all upon this one Basis the Institution of Christ and Practice of the Apostles it will be unreasonable to do this any farther save only upon a brief Recapitulation to refer it to the judgment of any sober Christian Whether first by Christs founding of the Institution of this Sacrament in the Jewish Custom of Baptizing of Proselytes Baptism in use in the Jewish Church and applyed to Infants aswel as grown men The Learned Mr. Selden Light-foot speak the same which appears to have belonged to the Infant Children of the Proselytes as is before shewn out of Goodwin Ainsworth others Chap. 1. and Secondly by his being so far from excepting against the Age of Children as a Prejudice or hinderance to their coming to him that is to their Proselytism that he affirms them to be the pattern of those Though Children are brought to him by others yet they are sayd to come unto him in Mark 10.14 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the very words of which Proselyte is made of whom his Kingdom is to be made up and though he be not affirmed in the Gospel to Baptize such for he Baptized not at all Mark 10.16 Which being the Ceremony usual in the Church for those that were fitted for Baptism and distinctly Preparative to it they that were by Christ afforded that cannot be thought by him less capable of Baptism than of that And Thirdly by the express Words of the Apostle that their Children are Holy interpreted by the Context so as to infer from the Apostles way of Arguing that it was the Custom of those Apostolick times to Baptize the Children of the Christian Parents and so interpreted by the Christian Writers of the First and Purest Ages And Fourthly by the Testimonies of all the Ancients that are found to speak of this matter without any one pretended to dissent that this was the Practice of the Apostles Whether I say these four things being put together the truth of each of
train after it The Holiness is not one and the same as before and therefore cannot entitle to the same privileges And besides I add the Covenant was not made with the Believer and his Yoak-fellow but with him and his Seed and therefore the one hath a right to the Ordinance of Baptism the other not The third Argument such as it is is from the consideration that children in the Text is not to be limited to Infants Mr. Tombes again Examen p. 73. or such children that they might have since the Religious difference happened but of grown children for a mans Child is his Child though thirty forty or fifty years old c. 'T is wonderful to behold the shifts of errour This is old Tombes again Exam. pag. 73. He saith Your children indiscriminatim without difference as well those you had before one when of you was a Believer But this Muse is soon stopped by these considerations Quòd enim nonnulli ad liheros ex utroque infideli susceptos extendunt qui non sint spurii sed legitimi falso dici apparet ex hypothesi pauli Quor sum enim vel de spuriis vel dc infidelis utriusque naptiis dissereret Bezae Annot. in locum First That the Corinthians could not possibly be so filly as to doubt whether those children which were begotten in their Infidel state were Bastards before this Religious difference happened nor can we conceive the Apostle would have suggested such a false thing unto them as if those Children had been to be so reputed had not one of them turned Believer Secondly The Children then born after one of them was turned Christian is unquestionably that which the Apostle intends and if so then Children is most rationally to be limited to Infant Children such as should be or had been newly born upon their Parents Believing for we may well suppose the scruple arose presently after conversion about cohabitation and converse with their Infidel-Yoak-fellows and whether it were not irreligious not Fornication as Antipaedobaptists very weakly suppose for the Believer to procreate with the Infidel His fourth Argument why it cannot be a new Covenant-Holiness that qualifies and intitles to Baptism is First because that cannot be known The fourth Argnment taken from Mr. Tombes vide Mr. Baxters plain proof for Infants Church-Membership and Baptism p. 92. for if the Parent professing faith be a Hypocrite and not in Covenant themselves then may you Baptize a wrong subject as well as a right I perceive the Authors strength is almost spent His reason runs low and is near come to the dreggs for what doth this his arguing amount to shall we not find those who are for Baptizing grown persons upon the profession of Faith in the same praedicament may not these be Hypocrits also and not in Covenant and if so do they not Baptize a wrong subject When therefore they have cleared this difficulty for themselves they have done it for us Farther if it be the reality of Faith and Holiness in grown persons that qualifies for Baptism then none must be Baptized because this cannot be known but if it be said a serious profession is sufficient for De occultis non judicat Ecclesia The Church judgeth not of secret or hidden things Then the same also is sufficient for the Infants of such so professing The distinction which is used by Divines may give light in this point namely there is an external being in Covenant in facie visibilis Ecclesiae in the esteem and judgement of the Church and that is visible Profession or Holyness and this gives right to visible priviledges 2. There is an internal being in Covenant in regard of the spiritual faving benefits of it and it is out of the reach of the Church to judge of this latter I shall shut up this with the words of Mr. Marshal in his Defence of Infant-Baptism pag. 108. viz. When therefore I say they Infants are visibly to be reckoned to belong to the Covenant with their Parents I mean look what right a visible Professor hath to be received and reputed to belong to the Visible Church Quà visibilis Professor as a visible Professor that right his child hath so to be esteemed Now I conceive the Author himself will confess that the spiritual part and privileges of the Covenant of Grace belongs not to visible Professors as visible but only to such among them who are inwardly such as their external profession holds out but yet there are outward Church privileges Mr. Blakes Covenant Sealed which belong to them as they are visible Professors As to to be reputed the Children of the Kingdom Mat. 8.42 Act. 3.25 And in this sense St. Paul speaking of the Body of the Jewish people saith Rom. 9.4 To them pertaineth the Adoption Not the spiritual adoption but the honour of being separated and reputed Gods Children Deut. 14 and the Glory and the Covenants c. Secondly he saith such an absurdity would follow that no Vnbelievers Child is in Covenant or Elect c. To this I answer that no Unbelievers child is in Covenant in the sence before mentioned that is in facie Ecclesiae in the face of the Church until he make a Profession of his Faith Nevertheless he may belong to the Election of Gods Grace but that 's not to the point in hand for Election is not a Covenant nor any in Covenant because elected Thirdly he adds the concurrent Testimony and Confession of many Learned Commentators and parties themselves upon the place that the Text is to be understood of matrimonial and not federal holiness As Austin Jerom Ambrose Melancton Musculus Camerarius Erasmus to which saith he we may adde many more as if these were collected by his own pains Whereas he hath only added the last the rest were all gathered and published by Mr. Tombs neer thirty years since And that the Reader may not think I injure him I shall parallel them once more H. D. Jerom saith because of Gods appointment Marriage is holy H. D. Ambrose thus The Children are Holy because they are born of Lawful Marriage H. D. Melancthon in his Commentary on the place thus Therefore Paul answers that the Marriages are not to be pulled asunder for their unlike opinions of God if the impious person do not cast away the other and for comfort he adds as a reason The unbelieving Husband is Sanctified by the believing Wife Meat is sanctified for that which is holy in use that is granted to Believers from God so here he speaks the use of Marriage to be holy and to be granted of God H. D. Musculus in his Comment upon the place confesseth That he had abused formerly that place against the Anabaptists H. D. Camerarius in his Commentary upon the place saith for the unbelieving Husband hath been sanctified an usual change of the Tense that is Sanctified in the lawful use of Marriage for without this he saith it would be
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.
acquaints us that it was usual in those dayes to Baptize sick Persons in their Beds and the said Father proves by divers reasons the warrantableness of such Baptism and that persons are rightly Baptized although only Sprinkled and he grounds it upon Ezek. 36. I will Sprinkle clean Water upon you c. In like manner Vossius cites out of Eusebius L. 6. C. 43. That it was the Custom of those times to Baptize sick Persons in their Beds Cornelius writes that Novatus was so Baptized upon which the Learned Vossius makes this Observation That those who were thus Baptized were not doused or dipt under Water but only Sprinkled This is Vossius whom the Author brings to be for Dipping according to the signification of the Word as if that were the only way of Baptizing but you see what a false Suggestion it is Estius another very Learned Man and great Critick declares his Judgment Probat Estius modum ablutionis scilicet aspersionis exemplo Apostolorum Act. 2. Sane interalios Thomae Aquinati veristmile est aquâ persudisse ob Baptizandorum multitudinem Vossius de Bap. p. 359. grounding it on Act. 2.4 which is this That the Apostles did Baptize by Washing or Sprinkling for saith he it is altogether improbable that the Apostles Dipt 3000 Persons in one day and 5000 at another time Non est verisimile propter Multitudinem immergi omnes potuisse sed vel perfusos vel aspersos fuisse aquâ He conceived that they were rather washed or had Water Sprinkled on them Walfridus Strabo an Ancient Ecclesiastical Writer though since Austin many hundred years saith in his 26th Chapter It is to be noted that many heretofore were Baptized not only by Dipping but also by pouring Water on them and that the same way of Baptizing may be still retained This is he whom the Author quotes to be for the Baptizing of grown Persons only Lastly the Magdeburgenses whose History of the Church the Author much applauds and that justly being a rare work indeed tell us that Baptism signifies Tinging or Washing and for this they bring Mark 7. when the Pharisees come to the Market except they Wash the Word is Baptize they eat not and yet it was but a part their hands only and not the whole Body that was so Baptized or Washed They also quote that place Luke 11.38 That Baptizing is meerly Washing and not only Dipping The Pharisees wondered at Jesus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that he was not Baptized before Dinner that is that he did not Wash Now this must be by all means according to some men's fancy by Dipping and not pouring Water upon the hands yet what more common than to Wash ones hands this way or by holding them under a Cock or Spout or Youre 2 Kings 3.11 Here is Elisha the Son of Saphat which poured Water on the hands of Elijah that is who was his Servant as 't is noted in the Margent It is a very poor Supposition that Washing of hands must only be by Dipping what if the Pharisees had had a mind to have Washed their Faces when they did their Hands as is common must that have been by Dipping But the aforesaid Text in the Kings puts the matter beyond exception where by good hap we have found a place to prove that a Man may Wash his Hands without Dipping In a Metaphorical sense the Word Baptize is used for Pouring out the Spirit But to go on with the Magdeburgenses they tell us that the Baptism of Christians was taken a judaica lotione from the Jewish Custom of Washings which the Apostle speaks of Heb. 9.10 Their service stood in divers Washings The Greek is Baptisms Now those Baptisms or Washings were not all of them Dippings although some 'tis confest were Mr. Goodwin in his Jewish Antiquities shews that the Jews had amongst other Baptisms or Washings a three-fold Baptization for the Dead one of which was named 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is Baptization or Washing the Dead Corps 't is like this was done with some Odoriserous Water to keep off ill scents Thus likewise the Graecians had their Ablutio mortuorum Homer saith Jupiter bid them do so to Sarpedon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Il. 11. they Washed the Corps with Oyntment and poured Ambrosia upon the Head and Face 'T is said of Tabitha that she dyed and when they had Washed her they laid her up in an upper Chamber Act. 9.37 I hope when they washed her they did not Dip her under water 2. It appears to be so saith he from the Practice and usage we find thereof in Scripture 1. In the Story of Christ's Baptism Mat. 3.5 Jesus came from Galilee to Jordan unto John to be Baptized of him and verse 16. when he was Baptized he went up straight way out of the Water Answer We may be said to come up out of the water when we have not been under it Men usually go down into the water to bath themselves and and yet keep their Heads above water but the Words in the Text which are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Mr. Sydenham notes may be better translated went up from the water 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies more properly ab from than ex out because Rivers for the most part lye low and in Vallies in coming to which usually there is a descent and coming from them some ascent 2. A Second Scripture which he urgeth for his Opinion is that of John 3. verse 23. And John was Baptizing in Aenon near Salem and the reason why he pitcheth on this place is given to be is this because there was much Water Reply The aforesaid Author gives a sufficient Answer to this viz. John's Baptizing at Aenon namely because there was much water is a good reason why he chose that place for the Country to come in and be Baptized because they might go many Miles in those hot Countries and not meet with a drop of water and it was a great priviledg to those places that banked on Jordan that they had much water but this is no Argument to prove that John plunged all he Baptized The Argument saith Mr. Sydenham must be this John Baptized in Aenon because there was much water ergo Baptizing is by Dipping all the whole Body This is a dangerous and ominous way of arguing to those who deny Consequences and Deductions for to warrant duties without express syllabical Precept None of our Consequences for Infant-Baptism are so strained and far-fetcht It was necessary for them that had so many of several parts to Baptize to go where there may be much water when they could get hardly a drop many miles You may in England go twenty miles in some Countries and not find a River to plunge a man's whole body under water what would it be in Spain and other hot Countries where Water is sold as Wine and beere with us how far might they go ere they could get a River to plunge themselves in
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
to scatter saving Grace in this Nation which are if not raised yet fomented by Anabaptism And their Principle he conceives hath been very prejudicial to the Conversion of young-ones amongst whom usually the stream of converting Grace runs because it speaks an actual disingagement from all relation to God his Covenant Church and Ordinances till of their own choice they take them up at years of discretion Now whilst persons live loose from such engagements as in their proper nature and tendency further Conversion no wonder if the work goes slowly on among them 3. By confounding the World and the Church together which Christ hath separated Not so For Baptism is God's Sheep-mark as Mr. Ford calls it to distinguish those that are of his Fold from such as graze in the wild Common of the World what confounding is there in this Principle That not only they who do actually profess Faith in and Obedience to Christ but also the Infants of one or both Believing Parents are to be Baptized and they only 7. By introducing and establishing many Humane Traditions and Inventions of Antichrist This is Mr. Tombe's his 6th Arg. Exercit. p. 1. Many of which and some of the worst attend the Baptism of grown Persons in the Church of Rome as Chrism Exorcism c. And when Mr. Tombes urged this very Argument against Infant-Baptism Mr. Geree tells him it was rather a Motive than a Reason against it to move peoples affections against the inconveniences following it rather than to convince the unlawfulness of it But that which is lawful in it self cannot reflect any scrûple of unlawfulness upon that which occasions it And if any corruption occasioned accidentally and separable from an act of Worship could cashier it then farewel Baptism it self Prayer Lords Supper and all that is Sacred for what a world of superstitious devices have the wanton and superstitious Heads and Hearts of Men taken occasion from them all to devise and practise it is so clear there needs no instances to be given 8. By being saith he such a Make-mate such a Bone of Contention and that among themselves too that own it as well as with those that oppose it The Lord open the eyes of those who are so zealous against Infant-Baptism that they may see their own nakedness consider the beam that is in their own eyes certainly whilst they judg our principle condemnation is written in their own foreheads First how furiously do they contend among themselves What a heat is there between Mr. Bunyan and Mr. Paul both of them for Baptizing Believers the former having published a little Book whose Title is Differences in Judgment about Water-Baptism no Bar to Communion or to Communicate with Saints as Saints proved Lawful of which I have before hinted complains in the Epistle to the Reader That the Brethren of the Baptized way would not suffer them to be quiet in their Christian Communion but did assault them for more than 16 years and as they had opportunity sought to break them in pieces meerly because they were not in their way all Baptized First He professeth that he denyed not the Ordinance of Baptism though they feigned it but all that he asserted was That the Church of Christ hath no warrant to keep out of their Communion the Christian that is discovered to be a visible Saint and walketh according to his light with God And for this Orthodox position they charge him to be a Machivelian a Man Devilish Proud Insolent Presumptuous words saith the poor Man fitter to be spoken to the Devil than a Brother He puts out his Confession of Faith upon which Mr. Paul makes reflections and tells him he defies all the Brethren of the Baptized way and Blasphemes them that dwell in heaven p. 3. That he belyes all Expositors p. 13. and calls upon the Heavens to blush at his insolency p. 35. that his Inferences are ridiculous top-ful of ignorance or prejudice and deserve no other answer than contempt p. 43. and then falls to prayer the Lord judg between us and this accuser to whom we shall say no more but the Lord rebuke thee And what sayes Bunyan to this in his Book of Differences in Judgment about Water-Baptism First that in his simple Opinion their rigid and Church-dividing disquieting Principles are not fit for any Age and State of the Church pag. 1. and I wish there were not too much truth in what he saith he accuseth them for endeavouring and perswading him to break Communion with his Brethren tampering with others that their Seeds of division might take and prevailed so far as to rent and dismember some from them and that the judgment of God so followed their design that the presons which then they prevail'd upon became afterward a stink and reproach to Religion I find our Author falling upon this good Man two to one is odds and lashing him to the purpose for his last Book you have it at the end of his Treatise of Baptism He chargeth Mr. Bunyan with absurdities contradictions traducing the Wisdom of Christ hainous Errors and fundamental mistakes whose Principles saith he are presumptuous savouring of ignorance and folly contradicting the Wisdom Authority of Christ ridiculous man of egregious ignorance and self-condemned and at last that he is one that pleaseth not God and is contrary to all Men which last must be understood with a limitation of all Men like himself But why should Professors of Religion throw so much dirt in the Faces of their Brethren that dissent from them Tantaene animis caelestibus irae Sure such language becomes not Christians Let it be supposed that they have truth on their side this is no good way to propagate it it needs not tali auxilio nec defensoribus istis The Wisdom which is from above is first pure then peaceable The Servant of the Lord must not strive but must be gentle towards all In meekness instructing those that oppose if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledgment of the Truth 2 Tim. 2.24 25. But haughty and uncharitable Spirits follow not this Rule if they be set upon a point though controvertible they have such a fire of zeal within that it breaks out into a flame that consumes the good name and credit of any that dare oppose it Your Opinionists if they have Faith they will not follow Paul's advice and keep it to themselves but are infinitely desirous to propagate it and are the severest Censurers in the World Two other Antipaedobaptists viz. Mr. Allen and Mr. Lamb being come off from that hide-bound Spirit of having Communion with none but those of our own Judgment are also lasht in the Authors Postscript They have saith he both declined the Truth and their Books which were pen'd with great Judgment strength of Argument and Authority of Scripture in his Opinion shall rise up in Judgment against them without Repentance for declining the Truth so confident is the Author
before for even this Father himself allowed of their Baptism rather than they should dye unbaptized And thus we see the Author hath made a great cry of a little Wooll Concerning the Witness pretended to be born by the Waldenses against Infant Baptism 4 Waldenses IT is a miserable cause indeed whose Advocates must still have recourse to lies for its defence and an Argument of the want of honesty and conscience for men to persist in this course when more than enough hath been said to convince them of the evil thereof It was a solemn rebuke which Job gave to his mistaken friends when they put such false interpretations upon God's dealings with him Will ye lie said he for God surely he hath no need of nor doth he require us by any sinister and sinful way to justify him in his Attributes providences cause or truth As touching the matter in hand before us if the Antipaedobaptists have the truth on their side yet certainly it is little beholding to some of them who have attempted to defend it by so many unwarrantable ways In particular I shall make it appear that the present Author with whom I have to deal is foully criminal in laying out the utmost of his skill in traducing those famous ancient Christians the Waldenses as if in their several generations they had witnessed against Infant-Baptism when he cannot but know being so well read in the Histories of that people written by Perin and Dr. Vsher that they were falsly and malitiously charged here with by their cruel Antichristian enemies Besides the Author whose Treatise about Baptism is a Compendium of what Mr. Tombes hath long since written upon that subject knows well enough and is therefore the more inexcusable how much Mr. Tombes was rebuked by two Reverend Divines Mr. Marshal Mr. Baxter for endeavouring to defend his opinion by popish Frgeries and Slanders I find by the Authors discourse that he is well read in Mr. Baxter's Plain-Proof for Infant-Baptism who in his Apologetical Preface Pag. the 10th tells us That the lying Papists do accuse the Albigenses and Waldenses our first Reformers to be Witcher Buggerers Sorcerers and to deny the Baptism of Infants Hereupon they raise war against them put them to the Sword and burn their Citys to ashes These Godly men deny their Accusations and shew that their Ministers being much abroad to spread the Gospel they kept their Children unbaptized till they came home because they would not have them Baptized by the Priests in the Popish fashion Upon this mark it the Slander was raised that they would not have Infants Baptized which they purge themselves of and profess their judgment for Infant-Baptism all which being so well known to the Author as appears by his often quoting of Perin who treats of these things it is a strange boldness to say no worse that he should dare affirm that the Waldenses amongst other Ordinances of Christ that they defended and witnessed to to death banishment and bonds that of Baptizing Believers in opposition to that of Infants was not the least Which he attempts to prove 1. By their publick Confessions of Faith 2. By some particular Witness that some of their principal Men bare thereto 3. In the more general Witness born by the body of the people as appears by the decrees of Councils decretal Epistles and general Edicts given forth against the whole party for the same 4. In the foot-steps that we find thereof in the several Countries whre they have heretofore imprinted the same Reply There are two sorts of People that 't is like will be imposed upon by the flourishes which this Champion makes those who are Ignorant and those who are prejudiced against Infant-Baptism no doubt but all this will pass for Gospel amongst such But I may say of the Author multa loquitur sed nihil dicit or rather probat and that what he says is but Vox praeterea nihil a great sound of words but no proof And this I shall make appear in order First for the Witness born in their Publick Confessions he cites Perin and if he can find any thing in that Author to serve his purpose I am much mistaken I shall shortly produce the same Author verbis rotundis most expresly against him But my Adversary hath a notable dexterity to prove quidlibet ex quolibet let us now hear what he quotes out of Perin and then judge Reader whether it be answerable to what he affirms under this first Head First of all the Author tells us out of Perin That in their ancient Confession of Faith bearing date 1120 Article 13. they say We acknowledg no other Sacraments but Baptism and the Supper of the Lord. P. Perin 87. Reader thou hast here every Syllable of the Article and is not this a knocking Argument against Infant-Baptism that they acknowledged two Sacraments Baptism and the Supper of the Lord This is a Witness indeed but 't is of the Authors weakness to produce it The next is Article the 28. of an other Confession viz. God hath Ordained certain Sacraments to be joyned with the Word as a means to unite us unto and to make us partakers of his Benefits and that there be only Two of them this is a Witness with a witness here is alsO altum Silentium a deep Silence as to Infant-Baptism not a word pro or con and he that sees any thing against it in this Article wears Antipaedobaptistical Spectacles And in another Ancient Confession of Faith Article 7. saith the Author we have this viz. We do believe that in the Sacrament of Baptism water is the visible and external sign which represents to us that which is within viz. Renovation of the Spirit and mortification of our Members in Jesus Christ Perin 89. There is a Harmony between all the Protestant Churches in the World and the Waldenses in this Article we all who are for Infant-Baptism believe the same After this we have a passage out of Vigniers Ecclesiastical History namely That they do expresly-declare to receive the Canon of the Old and New-Testament to reject all Doctrines which have not their foundation in it therefore all the Traditions and Ceremonies of the Church of Rome the condemn and abominate saying she is a Den of Thieves and the Apocalyptical Harlot This is all very good but what have we in all this against Infant-Baptism but the Author would put their words upon the Tenter-hooks it may be and strain them farther than their intention and would have us think doubtless that they judged infant-Baptism to be a Romish Tradition and to have no foundation in the Word of God and is it not strang that it should be a Romish Tradition when it was in use in Tertullian's days as the Author himself intimates a little before But the Waldenses themselves have declared their judgment otherwise and seconded it with their Practice as shall be shewn by and by They were indeed against the
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
Antichristian Encroachments of Presbyters Bishops Synods When Novatus from an ordinary Priest was so ambitious to be made a Bishop opposed Cornelius the lawful Bishop of Rome and by ungodly means set up himself Bishop after he had also disturb'd the Bishoprick of Cyprian and for his wickedness was at last condemned by a Synod And for the other Donatus he set himself against the lawful Bishop of Carthage and he and his adherents were found lyars and afterward turned cruel Persecutors destroying all Churches that were not of their mind 4. That they Baptized again those whose first Baptism they had ground to doubt but not because they were against Infant-Baptism but for other reasons Of the Witness pretended to be born by the Ancient Britains COnfidence is a great matter but when the groundlesness of it is discovered it doth not in the least advantage a cause but reflect shame upon the owners thereof and truly our Antagonist hath not wanted it thoroughout all his Discourse And there remains yet a high degree of it in this pretence of his that the Ancient Britains were also against Infant-Baptism for in all the Volumes of History relating to this Island he can find but one slender hint to fasten a Conjecture for it is no more that the Ancient Britains were of his side and that is from a passage which he finds in Fabian's Cronicle which you shall hear by and by Know therefore that in the year Anno 596 Austin was sent from Gregory Bishop of Rome with near fourty more to preach the Gospel to the Inhabitants of this Island who were then Pagans and as Vestegan saith without the knowledg of God serving and Sacrificing unto their Idols of Thor Woden Friga It pleased God to make them in a short time instrumental to convert Ethelbert then King of Kent Now after he was Baptized into the Faith of Christ with an innumerable company more Regis ad exemplum The foresaid Austin with the concurrence of some others as Mellitus and Justus two sent as Coadjutors from Gregory assembled and gathered together some of the British Bishops and Doctors who were then dwelling in Wales to which place the Britains had long before been driven and there Professed the Christian Faith and worshipped God in purity In this Assembly Austin charged them that they should preach with him the Word of God to the English-men and also that they should reform certain Rites and usages in their Church specially for that of keeping Easter-Day Baptizing after the manner of Rome and such other like To this the Britains would not agree refusing to leave the custom which they so long had continued without the assent of them all which used the same After that Austin gathered another Synod to the which came seven Bishops of Britain with the wisest Men of that famous Abbie of Bangor who took offence at Austin's Lordly carriage never rising up out of his Seat nor giving them that respect they looked for Fox Acts and Monuments 1. Book p. 154. But Fabian expresseth himself otherwise as the Author notes thus viz. Then he said to them since you will not assent to my Hosts generally assent you to me especially in three things The first is that you keep Easter in due form and time as is ordained The second that you give Christendom to Children And the third that you preach to the Saxons as I have exhorted you and all the other debate I shall suffer you to amend amongst your selves but saith Fabian they would not To whom then Austin said that if they would not take peace with their Brethren they should receive War with their Enemies c. From their denyal to comply with Austin's Propositions whereof that was one the giving Christendom to Children the Author doth confidently conclude they were against Infant Baptism But that there is no sufficient ground hence for such a Conclusion will appear 1. First Because no such thing is mentioned by other Historians as Beda Cretensis in Polychron Huntingtonensis which write of this matter they speak only in general Mr. Fox relates it viz. of Baptizing after the manner of Rome without mentioning Children Secondly Because Fabian is nigro carbone notatus lookt upon as no faithful Historian and I find Mr. Fox in his Martyrology refuse to give credit to his Relation in other things as he doth not observe his words of giving Christendom to Children in the Story which he gives us Thirdly Neither do Fabian's Words import that they were any more against Baptizing Children than Preaching of the Gospel for they refused to do both to the Saxons and that possibly because they would confine their labours to their own Diocess and attend their own Flocks or rather because they would not Subject themselves to the Bishop of Rome for they told Austin to his Face they owed him no Subjection and to the imperious command of such an upstart proud Prelat as Austin was between whom and them there had passed some heat of words which made them rise in disdain and departed thence in great displeasure Fourthly Or they might refuse to give Christendom to Children after Austin's mode with the corrupt Rites and Ceremonies in use by him For other Historians express the Injunction given that it should be after the Roman Manner Fiftly But to put it out of all doubt that the Words of Fabian was not Austin's but rather Fabian's own Paraphrase upon them appears by what we find in the Preface to Fabian that what he relates of this matter he hath it from Beda if therefore no such passage can be found there then we are sure the Author is mistaken in his Conjecture and it is a great presumption to lay such stress upon a doubtful passage that may admit of several interpretations We shall now give the Reader an account what Beda saith to the thing viz. Dicebat autem eis quod in multis quidem nostrae consuetndini immô universalis ecclesiae contraria geritis tamen si in tribus his mihi obtemperare vultis ut Pascha suo tempore celebretis ut Ministerium Baptizandi quo Deo renascimur juxta morem sanctae Romanae Ecclesiae Apostolicae Ecclesiae compleatis ut genti Anglorum una nobiscum praedicetis Verbum Domini caeteraque agitis quamvis moribus nostris contraria aequanimiter cuncta tolerabimus At illi nihil horum se facturos neq Bed Hist Ecclesiast Lib. 2. c. 2. illum pro Archiepiscopo habituros esse respondebant In English thus But he said unto them in asmuch as you do contrary to our custom yea to the custom of the Universal Church nevertheless if yee will obey me only in these three things sc That you keep Easter in its proper time Administer Baptism whereby we are born again to God after the manner of the Holy Church of Rome and the apostolical-Apostolical-Church and preach the Word of God together with us unto the English Nation we will patiently bear all other things
Interest Honour Party c. Were we better United in our ends and aims and did jointly level at God's Glory and Christ's Interest in the advancement of piety we should quickly agree in the use of means 3. Because we are Commanded not to refuse Christian Communion though the difference be in far greater matters than this of Baptism Rom. 14.1 Him that is weak in the Faith receive you c. By Faith is meant the Doctrine of Faith as Beza notes on the place Him that is weak and so weak Fides hoc in loco declarat Christianam ipsam Doctrinam in qua sit aliquis rudis ac proinde discrimen Ciborum Dierum nondum intelligat Christi beneficio fuisse sublatum as not to discern that by Christ's coming the difference of days and meats was taken away There was it seems a great difference amongst them and some were more thorowly instructed in the doctrine of Christian Liberty as touching the cessation of legal Ceremonies who held all days alike and all meats in themselves indifferent whereas others being not well informed observed still a difference both of meats accounting them clean or unclean and of days accounting them holy or servile according as they stood in under the Levitical-Law This caused no little stir and trouble amongst them Now the course the Apostle takes to heal these breaches is worth observing He doth not cast the Ballance to one side requiring the other to come up to their Practice but exhorts them to allow a Latitude and not only for Opinions but Practices and to forbear one another in love and not to censure and condemn those that differ from them Seeing the Men of contrary Perswasions in lesser matters may yet agree in the main fundamentals and the reason why the stronger should receive the weaker is because God had received him that is into Communion with himself We have the same urged again Chap. 15.6 Wherefore receive ye one another as Christ also hath received us by all which it appears that no supposed or real error can be a reason why others should not be received to Communion farther than it is a reason to prove that the Lord hath not received them the conclusion is that let the Error be where 't will either on the Paedobaptist's or Antipaedobaptist's side it is all one if God and Christ have received these of both Perswasions into Communion with himself they break the Command if they refuse to receive one another into mutual Communion 4. Is that Command of the Apostle to follow after such things as make for Peace and mutual Edification Rom. 14.19 The Word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is let us eagerly pursue after it as the Hunter doth his Prey and it denotes 1. That we are not barely to desire it or accept of any reasonable terms that are proposed for accommodation and agreement but we are to pursue and go after it if by any means we may overtake it or apprehend it The same duty is prest Eph. 4.3 where the Exhortation is to keep the Vnity of the Spirit in the bound of Peace the Word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifies a most earnest studying which way it may be effected Ita alicui rei studere ut ad eam omni impetu feraris approperes to be so intent upon a thing as to further it with might and main as we use to say The Gramarians oppose this Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifies Inconsiderate Perfunctorie extempore aliquid agere to do a thing carelesly but this in the Text signifies Diligenter intent â cogitatione efficere to be diligent and very thoughtful how to accomplish a thing and it points out this that we ought on all hands to use a sedulous endeavour to preserve the Unity of the Spirit 2. It denotes unwearied patience in the pursuit after it notwithstanding all disappointments and discouragements met with in our attempts after it We ought not to give over but persevere in so good a Work I like not that speech of Hornbeck Summa Controv. L. 9. de Luther who saith The Calvinists had done too much in overtures for a Reconciliation with the Lutherans much less can I approve of such who by word and writing endeavour to widen breaches and set Christians at farther distances Certainly the Pride Conceit and Discontent of some spirits have done much mischief this way and to speak plainly the inconsiderableness of our differences and inconsiderateness wherewith it is pursued argues that much of the Zeal of the Dissenters is not as one says that holy fire which is kindled by a Coal from the Altar but rather an Ignis fatuus that leads men quite out of God's Way or a Wild Fire that rends and tears where it goes Now in asmuch as nothing hinders endeavours like to despair and all Essays for Union hitherto have proved succesless and there are few to be found of healing and peaceable Spirits but much of Pride humor and self-conceitedness appears every-where even in those that we cannot but think are good Men in them main we may conclude if we look no farther than our selves that the differences amongst us will never be composed But we are to look higher than our selves and for the erecting of our hopes and quickning our endeavours after it we should consider 1. Christ hath prayed that all Believers may be one John 17.21 and he was heard in all that he prayed for That they All may be one All of them there is the Universal Extent of it One in Affection and not only so but also One in Worship and Communion and Ordinances although there may be variety of Opinions amongst them 2. God hath promised to bring this about Jer. 32.39 I will give them one heart and one way And in Zeph. 3.9 They shall call upon the name of the Lord and serve him with one consent the Word in the Original is one Shoulder They shall all of them have as it were but one Shoulder that they shall set to the service of God And Hosea 1.11 Then shall the Children of Judah and the Children of Israel be gathered together Here saith Mr. Burroughs we have a Promise both to Israel and Judah together great was their Enmity heretofore they Worshipped the same God though in a diverse manner Judah keeping close to God's Institutions but Israel not There was a great deal of bitterness between them though Worshipping the same God But God hath promised they shall be gathered together upon which he raiseth two Observations 1. That there shall be Union between Judah and Israel Here 's a mercy saith he a wonderful work of God! Many times between such as profess the same Religion and seem not to differ much and yet to differ their Oppositions are most bitter and irreconcilable and requires a mighty Work of God to bring them in and Reconcile them 2. God hath a time there
words and deeds of Christ are infinite which are not recorded Joh. 20.30 and 21.25 Many things Christ did that were not written and of the Acts of the Apostles we may suppose the same in their proportion and therefore what they did not is no rule to us unless they did it not because they were forbideen So that it can be no good Argument to say The Apostles are not read to have Baptized Infants therefore Infants are not to be baptized but thus We do not find they are excluded from this Sacrament and Ceremony of Christian Institution therefore we may not presume to exclude them Now since all contradiction against Infant-Baptism depends wholly upon these two grounds The Negative Argument in matter of fact and the pretences that faith and repentance are required to Baptisme since the first is wholly nothing and infirm upon an infinite account and the second may conclude that Infants can no more be saved then be baptized because faith is more necessary to Salvation then to Baptisme it being said he that believeth not shall be damned and it is not said he that believeth not shall be excluded from Baptism it follows that the Doctrine of those that refuse to Baptize their Infants is upon both its legs weak and broken and insufficient Thus far the Learned Doctor To conclude this whereas the Apostles Preached up faith and Repentance before Baptism it was requisite they should do so according to their Commission having to do with Aliens grown up as not only the Gentiles but the Jews were in reference to the new Administration for these being the first subjects of Baptisme it was necessary they should make profession of their faith before they were admitted to it but not so in their Children to be Baptized no more then in Isaac and the Children of the Proselytes to be Circumcised Abraham believed first and afterward was Circumcised Gen. 17.24 And why so Because he was the first subject of that Ordinance and therefore could not be admitted to it but by his own faith But as for Isaac his Son he was Circumcised before believing and so was it with the Proselytes and their Children when any Gentile was converted to the Jewish Faith he had a personal Right to be circumcised and his Child likewise was Circumcised at eight days old as was the custome of the Jewish Church by virtue of Gods Covenant giving it a parental Right The Author is very unhappy at Citations for usually they serve not his purpose He acquaints us out of Bede that men were instructed into the knowledge of the Truth then to be Baptized as Christ hath taught because without Faith it is impossible to please God Magdeburg Cent. 8. pag. 220. But this Bede himself tells us was the method used amongst the Inhabitants of this Island when Paganish In initio nascentis Ecclesiae apud Britannos Beda lib. 2. Angl. Hist cap. 14. When a Church first of all began to be planted amongst the Britains and he tells us it was at that time when Gregory sent from Rome Austin and forty other Preachers and afterward Paulinus who converted Ethelbert the Saxon King but of this we shall speak more hereafter when we shall shew how Bede himself was for Infant-Baptisme notwithstanding the Author so perverts his words His other Citation is Erasmus who in his Paraphrase upon Mat. Observeth and t is a great Observation indeed That the Apostles were commanded first to teach and then to baptize c. Every Child that can read observes the same Probabile est tingere Infantes institutum fuisse ab Apostolis c. but if you would know his judgment about Infant-Baptism you may read it in his Ratio concionandi lib. 4. where he conceives it probable that the Apostles ordain'd and practised it And truly amongst other probable reasons this seems to be one if it be not a Demonstration namely because we do not read of any children of believing Parents who were Baptized when they came to years of discretion That they were Baptized I presume saith Brinsley our Adversaries will not deny and if so Note No Children of Believing Parents Baptized afterwards to be found from John the Baptist to John the Evangelist ending his Ministry which was about 60. years An Argument sufficient if not to convince the Adversary that they were Baptized in Infancy yet to stop their mouths Brinsley Doctrine and Practice of Paedobaptisme pag. 75. let them shew where and when For this let all the Sacred Register be searched from the time that John the Baptist began his Ministry to the time that John the Evangelist ended his which was about 60 years during which time thousands of Children of Believing Parents were grown up to maturity and if in all that time they can but shew any one instance of any child born of a believing Parent whose Baptism was deferred till he came to years of discretion and that then he was Baptized we will then acknowledge there is some strength in their Negative Allegation viz. We read of no children Baptized therefore There were none CHAP. III. Containing his Argument that Believers Baptisme is the only true Baptisme from the example of Primitive Saints Reply TO this there needs no more then what we have before said Sydenhams Christian Exercitation pag. 7. For as Mr. Sydenham says all that they urge as to Examples of actual Believers being baptized all along the new Testament especially the Acts and that if thou believest thou mayst We can freely grant without any damage to Infant-Baptism For 1. We say as they Professing Believers grown men were first Baptized and so they ought to be who are to be the first subjects of the Administration of an Ordinance instancing as before in Abraham c. he was 99. years old when circumcised and he must be first Circumcised before he could convey a right to his seed now you may as well argue Abraham was first circumcised when so old therefore old persons are to be Circumcised and none else as because grown persons were Baptized therefore not Infants when they must be first Baptized themselves for children are Baptized by the promise first to them and in them to their seed Now for as much as all the Examples brought by the Author out of Act. 8.12 18.8 22.14 Speak of grown persons that were the first subjects of Baptism and Jews that were Aliens too as well as the Gentiles in regard of the new Administration it makes nothing against Infant-Baptism that being of another circumstance and the disagreeing of it from them argues not the unlawfulness of it and as the same Author farther argues 2. An Affirmative Position is not exclusive of subordinates because Believers were said to be Baptized Ergo not their Seed is not true reasoning for their seed were comprehended with them in the same promise as before and as we shall more fully shew hereafter Let us now see what his Quotations of Authors or Testimonies