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
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
and he might have learned the contrary from the Magdeburgenses Cent. 4. cap. 10. p. 1218 1219. where they say extant inter Origenis opera Latina facta quaedam quorum interpres fuit Hieronimus Erasmi judicio Divers of Origen's Works are Translated by Jerom. This is the judgment of Erasmus as his Homilies upon Jeremy Ezechiel his Homilies upon Luke and the Romans to both which Jerom affixeth his own Preface as Erasmus observes and in both these have we the point of Infant-Baptism asserted and so we see the Author might have spared the pains of telling such a Story of Ruffinus for we give the places which are for our turn out of Origen according to Jerom's version and if Ruffinus hath no credit with him I hope he will allow a little to Jerom 3. Lastly for that other ancient Father Cyprian he cannot let him pass without some exceptions such as they are though me thinks that of Vossius should silence all Cavils viz That the Testimony of Cyprian for Infant-Baptism both in his time and before is beyond all exceptions And Grotius likewise tells us that the Epistle of Cyprian to Fidus makes the matter plain that there was then no doubt of Infant-Baptism for Fidus did not deny their Baptism but only denyed they ought to be Baptized before the eight day But let us hear what he hath to except against Cyprian which is 1. Because he doth not urge the Practice from any Apostolical Tradition or Precept but from his own and the Council of sixty six Bishops Arguments Reply But what though no mention be made here of Apostolical-Tradition Origenes Cyprianus Authores sunt Apostolorum etiam tempore Infantes Baptizatos esse Magdeburg Cent. 1. Lib. 2. c. 6. p. 496. yet it follows not that he held it not as such and the Magdeburgenses have before told us that both Origen and Cyprian that lived near the Apostles affirm that even in the Apostles time Infants were Baptized But to see how inflexible and stiff this Antagonist is if saith he he had Asserted it for an Apostolical Tradition his word would have been no sooner taken than when he tells us that Chrysm was so To which I Reply And why then shall Tertullian's supposed Word against Infant-Baptism be taken and pass for currant who was as the Magdeburgenses inform us the first inventer of Chrysm and Cyprian 't is like learned it of him who was as the Author calls him his great Master Judg Reader whether this be fair and equal dealing 2. His other Exception which he never learned from his great Master Mr. Tombes who was too wise to urge it when he opposed the Testimony of Cyprian Examen Sec. 7. pag. 10. is because there is good ground to question whether this was Cyprian's and sixty-six Bishops Conclusion And why so 1. Because we meet with no such Council and that is strange for one that hath launched as he hath done into the vast Ocean of Antiquity neither yet can it appear where it was held Something must be sayd though it be but meer wrangling Well I perceive the Ancient Fathers that lived next after Cyprian were dim-sighted and could not see what good ground there was to question whether ever Cyprian had such a Council Had they had the perspicacity of this Author they would never have retained so venerable an esteem of it as is evident they had in their frequent and respective quotations of it As Nazianzen Orat 3. in S. Lavacrum Chrysost Hom. ad Neophit Ambros in Luc. and Hieronimus Lib. 3. Dialog Contr. Pelag. and Austin in very many places and no less weakness is there in what follows viz. And if Austin's Argument before mentioned be good to prove an Apostolical Tradition because no Council had determined it it concludes against any such Council Reply A pittiful mistake or misunderstanding Austin's Words which are Quod universa tenet Ecclesia c. That which is universally received and practised in the Church and had not its first Institution from some Council The Author should have markt that but hath been ever retained may be believed to be an Apostolical Tradition which indeed is an undeniable Position and being applyed by Austin to the point in hand seems to be a Demonstration of the Apostolicalness of Infant-Baptism Austin therefore calls it an Apostolical Tradition because it was alwayes practised in the Church and had not its first Institution from Councils neither in Cyprian's Council nor any one else being of greater Antiquity than any of them Neither can any man name when it began since the Apostles and for that reason we cannot otherwise conceive rationally of it than that it had its first Original from them I shall only add those remarkable Words of Mr. Philpot the Martyr in his Letter to his fellow-sufferer that scrupled Infant-Baptism which with the Scripture-Arguments he used proved so effectual that as Mr. Fox in his Book of Martyrs tells us the dissatisfied Person came thereby to be established in the doctrine of Infant-Baptism and dyed in the Belief of its warrantableness I can declare saith Mr. Philpot out of Ancient Writers that the Baptism of Infants hath continued from the Apostles time unto ours and then cites Origen and Cyprian out of Austins 28th Epistle to Jerom where are these words viz Cyprian did not make any new Decree but firmly observing the Faith of the Church judged with his own fellow-Bishops that as soon as one was born he might be lawfully Baptized These Authorities saith that famous Martyr a little before his death I do alledg not to ty the Baptism of Children unto the Testimonies of Men but to shew how Mens Testimonies do agree with God's Word and that the verity of Antiquity is on our side and that the Anabaptists have nothing but lies for them and new-Imaginations which feign the Baptism of Children to be the Pope's Commandment And so I shall leave the Author to his Boasting in what follows and the impartial Reader to judg whether our Testimonies from Antiquity be forged and fabulous as he would render them only I must not let pass an Objection which he starts and which is usually made by us which he had better have left Dormant than to give so slight an Answer to it Objection It is sayd That by Tertullian's opposing it it may seem that there were some that practised it in the 3d Century and can it be supposed that any did so except it had been warranted by such Apostolical Tradition Observe Reader the answer which he gives Answer It is granted Tertullian did oppose it But who it was that did assert it and whether upon any such account as supposed is not mentioned it will be on their part to prove the one and the other Reply 1. We gather from this Answer that the Author cannot have the face to deny it was practised in the 3d Century for if Tertullian did Oppose it it must be supposed it was Practised else
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
Apostolical Tradition THis is a false suggestion and exceeds all modesty for although the Church of Rome ascribes too much to Tradition as in many other things yet the Ancient Fathers as Cyprian Nazianzen Chrysostom with divers others as is before shewn plead Baptism to come in the room of Circumcision and that Infants have right thereto from the Infants of the Jews having right to Circumcision whereby 't is evident that Tradition hath not been primarily asserted to be the ground of Infant-Baptism 2. He farther saith The Protestants since the Reformation have chose to fly to some consequential Arguments deducted as they suppose from the Scriptures to prove the same both which in this Chapter are brought forth and duely weighed in the Ballance of Truth We doubt not in the Process of the discourse to shew that after we have weighed what she saith we shall find it too light and to be but chaff in stead of Truth The Protestants he saith have chose to fly to consequential Arguments deduced as they suppose from Scripture But the Antipaedobaptists are of another mind and suppose themselves to be Men of deeper Reason and more piercing inspection into the sence of the Scriptures than all the Godly and Learned Protestants since the Reformation They see the mistaken conceits they have of Scripture and how ungroundedly they draw their consequences from thence An Argument indeed it is of much modesty for the Author to speak at this rate I would ask any of these Men who are so highly conceited of their Scripture-Knowledg why Paedobaptists that are humble searching praying Christians may not understand so much of God's mind in Scripture as they Doth the Word of God come out from them or doth it come to them only John 17.14 1 Cor. 14.37 or have they only the Spirit of Illumination or are they the only Masters of right Reasons Or dare they say 't is unlawful to make use of Consequences Or may not we be permitted to use them for Infant-Baptism aswel as they against it Do not they argue from Matt. 28.18 19. and Mark 16.16 None ought to be Baptized but such who are first taught and consequently that no Children ought to be Baptized because they be not capable of teaching Vide Tombes Is not this their constant way of Arguing Now how unreasonable is it for men to practise that themselves which they will not allow of in others I remember Mr. Staltmarsh in his shadows flying away doth much condemn Consequences and saith Prudence and Consequence are the two great Engins of Will-Worship good Doctrine indeed and a fine preparative to an Implicit Faith But Mr. Baxter chastiseth the folly of these men in his Plain Scripture-Proof c. Position 10. pag. 8. Evident Consequences Quae colliguntur ex Scripturiâ— sacris perinde habenda sunt ac si in illis scripta essent Gâ—eg Nazâ—anzen L. 5. Thelog or Arguments drawn by reason from Scripture are as true Proof as the very words of a Text would it not make a man pity such senseless ignorant wretches saith he that will call for express words of Scripture when they have the Evident Consequences or Sence Is Scripture-Reason no Scripture If I prove that all Church-Members must be admitted by Baptism and then prove that Infants of Believers are Church-Members is not this asmuch as to prove that they must be Baptized I suppose no man of sound judgment will deny that the sence or meaning of Scripture is Scripture as well as the Letters and Syllables in the Bible For the sence and meaning of the Letter of the Word must be drawn out by rational Consequence as the conclusion from a Proposition by a fit medium and if this were not so the searching and studying of the Scriptures were a needless undertaking and so would all Preaching and Expounding be It is a good observation of Dr. Sclater in his Comment upon the 5th verse of the 4th Chapter of the Romans That God's Spirit in Scripture speaks as well what he implyeth as what he expresseth as well what by Consequence is deduced as what in summe of Words he uttereth And instanceth in that of James 4.5 saith the Scripture in vain c. It is usual for our Adversaries to cavil against this Theological Axiom Say the Papists and Anabaptists for in this like Sampson's foxes they are joyned together by the tayls whilst their heads look several ways where have we it taught that Infants should be Baptized in all the Scripture To which we answer we have it not in Express terms but by just Consequence Where find we that Christ's Righteousness is imputed to us for Justification saith Bellarmine Why in Express terms we have it not but Virtually and by just Consequence we have it 2 Cor. 5.21 In the Equivalent we have it Rom. 5.17 18 19. You are wont to boast saith Bellarmine of the Word of God and to reduce all your Opinions to this one head but in the Case of Justification by Faith only that help fails you for you were never able to shew in the Scripture that particle only To this we Reply that if we have it by Consequence from Scripture and if we have it in the Equivalency we have it in the Scripture That Tradition hath been the first and principal ground of Infant-Baptism he would prove from Austin and Chrysostom's sayings But how and in what sense do they call it a Tradition of the Church why certainly not as if the Church had been the Author but the Subject of it as before as continued therein all along down from the Apostles And if any of the Fathers speak too hyperbolically of Tradition what is that to us who plead Scripture as its primary ground for it Besides Anciently the greatest points of Faith were called by the name of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. Divine Doctrines or Ordinances for so it is rendred 1 Cor. 11.2 and the same word is rendred Traditions 2 Thes 2.15 So that Austin's Intendment by that expression of Apostolical Tradition is nothing else but Apostolical Ordinance or Doctrine as appears from his own words saying The Custom of our Mother the Church in Baptizing little Infants is not to be despised nor to be judged Superfluous nor to be Believed unless it were an Apostolical Tradition Lib. 10. de Gen. c. 23. i. e. an Apostolical Ordinance What follows from 153 p. to the 155th is mostly borrowed from Mr. Tombes his Praecursor Sec. 20. p. 86 89. As first The Assertion of the Cardinal Ragusi in his Oration in the Council of Bazil Tombes indeed hath it in Latin but the Author is at the pains to translate it And since it is so notorious and intolerable a piece of Plagianism thus to take and conceal from whence he had it contrary to the Laws of ingenuity provided in that behalf we shall make discovery thereof by a Paralel H. D i.e. The Author In the Council of Bazil in the Oration of of the
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
out the mystery of Redemption by Christs blood of all which Baptisme is as proper a sign when given to our Infants as Circumcision was to theirs 3. What though Infants are uncapable of understanding Gospel Mysteries figured in Baptism as they were heretofore of the same shadowed forth in Circumcision yet their Baptisme is a Signe of what God will do for the future to as many of them as belong to his Election if they shall arrive to years of discretion 4. Though it be no Teaching sign at the present yet if the Infant live and be instructed in the use and ends of his Baptisme it may prove as Operative and Beneficial to him as if it had been delayed till he came to full age Thus David who though Circumcised in Infancy yet strengthned his faith by it when he came to years of discretion 1 Samuel 17.26 5. Though Baptisme be not for the present a Teaching sign to Infants neverthelses it is a distinguishing fign to distinguish those that are Within from those that are Without as the Apostle phraseth it 1 Cor. 5.12 13. And it is even to Infants a sign of Gods Covenant as before is hinted as Circumcision was to Infants under the Law and for this reason it is by a Metonimy called by the name of the Covenant and did distinguish the Jewish Infants from Gentile ones that were without the Covenant or strangers to the same Gen. 17.20 Act. 7.8 5. It is also an Engaging sign as Circumcision was to the Jewish Infants though they undertood it not when they were the Subjects of that Ordinance whereby our children are obliged to the Profession of Christ into whose name they have been Baptized I shall shut up this with those weighty words which I find in Mr. Baxters Scripture proof for Infants Church-Membership and Baptism pag. 112. Tell me saith he what operation Circumcision had on all the Infants of Church-Members formerly It was a sign of the Seal of the Righteousness of Faith c. and yet they had no more Faith nor Knowledge of the Significancy than ours have now Christ himself was circumcised in Infancy when by the course of nature he was uncapable of understanding it's Ends and Uses Not saith he that I am now arguing for Baptism from Circumcision but this fully answereth their Objection that Infants should not be baptized because they are not capable of understanding its Use and so being wrought on by it They are as capable of Baptism as they were of Circumcision and its Ends They therefore that will yet say It were better let it alone till they are more capable do but exalt their own reason against Scripture and speak as men that would teach God The Second End hinted by the Author is That the party baptized might thereby witness his Repentanee Matth. 3.11 called therefore the baptism of Repentance Mark 1. Repl. 1. It cannot be proved from these places that all those whom John Baptized did manifest their Repentance and we do not find those Pharisees and Sadduces that are branded with the name of Vipers gave the least indications thereof which if they had the Baptists would not have spoken so harshly of them and yet these for ought we can learn to the contrary from the Text were baptized 2. Grotius in his Annotations upon the nineteenth of Matthew 14. Speaketh well to this whose Words are these Neither ought that to be any hinderance to the Baptism of Infants Neque obstare debet quod non omnia quae itidem per baptismum significari solent in istam aetatem propriè congruerint c. that all things which in like manner are fignified by Baptism cannot agree properly to that Age for Repentance also which we know is signified by Baptism c. had no place at all in Christ when John baptized him who as Tertullian notes was not baptized as a Debtor to Repentance because he never sinned 3. The End of Baptism nominated by the Author is to evidence present Regeneration whereof Baptism is a Sign Titus 3.4 John 3. Repl. If this Argument were good it would have overthrown the Circumcision of Infants for that also was a lively Sign or Symbole of Regeneration and it might have been objected according to our Antagonists phanfie Infants are not regenerated or shew no signs thereof and Regeneration being the end of Circumcision therefore They ought not to be circumcised 2. According to such arguing none ought to be admitted to Baptism for none know by a judgment of certainty and infallibility who are regenerated for Simon Magus made a great shew and yet was in the Gall of bitterness and no doubt many come up out of the water as rotten hypocrites as they went in Thirdly Mr. Tombes himself grants that Infants may be regenerated as John was in the Womb and faith Pet. Martyr loc commun cl 4. c. 8. pag. 821 823. Non excludimus eos Infantes ab eccle siâ Sed ut ejus partes amplectimur benè Sperantes quòd ut sunt secundùm carnem semen sanctorum ità etiam sint Electionis divinae participes spiritum sanctum habent Neque audiendi sunt qui hâc de re movent scrupulum ac dicunt quid si Minister fallatur quia idem cavillus esse poterit de adultis that if he knew such or such an Infant were regenerated he would not scruple to Baptize it according to which arguing he must also forbear Baptizing grown persons upon profession for he knows not that they are regenerated 4. If the whole Species of Infants be excluded from Regeneration then are all Infants so dying certainly damned for all Infants are born in Original sin and by nature unclean and no unclean thing shall enter into the Kingdom of Heaven But I suppose our opposites dare not exclude all Infants from Salvation Well then I conclude some Infants are elected Regenerated and in Covenant with God or else they are saved without Election Regeneration Christ or Covenant which is most absurd 5. And whereas nothing can be said against us but this de occultis non judicat Ecclesia the Church cannot judge of secret things but is to act according to appearance and it is unknown whether such particular Infants are regenerated they cannot make any profession and Baptisme is to be given upon that I answer we have as much reason if not more to look upon the Infants of Believers to be sanctified then we have to esteem grown Christians to be such because our owning of these as such depends upon their own testimony only in a visible profession which may be counterfeit But such Infants are to be accounted Saints upon a Divine Testimony for we have the word for it 1 Cor. 7.14 else were your children unclean but now 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they are Saints or holy it being the same word the Apostle useth in his Dedications and directions of his Epistles to the Churches of Rome Corinth c. where he stiles them
against Baptizing Infants it will be of the same force against Circumcising them since S. Paul Rom. 2.28 doth as much invalidate the external part of Circumcision as St. Peter here doth that of Baptisme 2. 'T is therefore a meer Parologisme so to argue for the Apostle Peter speaks of the Adult that could give a reason of their faith and not of Infants for the Apostle had then to deal with such who upon their being Baptized were to make profestion of a good Conscience And this as we shall hereafter shew out of the Magdeburgenses was the practice of the Primitive Church in this Case for having to deal with Infidels they first Catechised and Taught them the first Elements and Principles of the Christian Religion whereupon they were called Catechumeni i.e. persons that were to be Catechised that being done and they brought to some competency of knowledge they then openly declared and testified their Repentance and Faith before the Congregation where they were to be baptized And this they did by answering to some questions proposed by the Minister To this the Apostle seems to allude when he calls Baptism 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i.e. The answer of a good Conscience towards God so our Translation renders it though as Beza notes upon the place not so fully expressing the force of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which properly signifies an Interrogation or questioning so the vulgar Latin renders it Interrogatio bonae conscientiae The Interrogation of a good Conscience Beza translates it Stipulatio bonae conscientiae The Stipulation of a good Conscience Now Stipulation is properly an Answer to a Question when one being demanded concerning a thing he returns Answer and by his answer engageth himself to do somewhat that is required Now this practice of giving an account of ones faith by way of answering to questions as Beza notes upon this place of Peter was drawn from the Primitive use in after ages out of a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Beza Annotat. in 2. Pet. 3.21 a perverse imitation and applyed to the Baptisme of Infants not so fitly as he conceives they being not able to answer for themselves 3. Nevertheless though children cannot personally and actually answer for themselves I see no reason to the contrary why they may not be said to Stipulate passively in and by their parents who accept the Covenant not only for themselves but for their little ones The people of Israel did by Gods appointment enter their children into Covenant with God as appears from Deut. 20.10 11 12. and doubtless the interest of Believing Parents in their Children Dr. Taylorr consideration of the Church in Baptizing Infants is as great now as then and God as gracious to accept such covenanting under the Gospel as he was under the Law 4. In Civil Contracts it is usual with Parents to Covenant and engage for and in behalf of their Children and they are obliged to the performance of the Agreement when they come to years of discretion though they did not give their actual consent whilst in their Minority when the Agreement was made The very law of Nature teacheth Parents to Covenant for their Children when 't is for their good Mr. Eaxter 5. Let Dr. Taylor in his latter discourse wherein he justifies the practise of Baptizing Infants of Believing Parents confute what himself says in his Liberty of Prophecy He speaks his judgement concerning the point page 53 54. thus It were well saith he speaking of the engagement or promise made for Infants in Baptism if men would rather humbly and modestly observe that constitution of the Church then like scorners deride it in which they shew their own folly as well as immodesty for what undecency or incongruity is it that our Parents should stipulate for us when 't is agreeable to the practise of all the Laws and Transactions of the World an effect of the Communion of Saints and of Christian Oeconomy For why may not Infants Stipulate as well as we All were included in the Stipulation made with Adam he made a losing bargain for himself and we smarted for his folly And if the faults of Parents and Kings and Relatives do bring evil upon their Children and Subjects and Correlatives it is but equal that our children may have benefit also by our Charity and Piety But concerning making of an agreement for them we find that God was confident concerning Abraham that he would teach his Children Further Joshua did expresly undertake for his houshold I and my house will serve the Lord. And for children we may the better do it because till they be of perfect choice no Government in the world is so great as that of Parents over their children in that which concerns the parts of this Question And it is a rare art of the Spirit to engage Parents to bring them up in the Nurture and Admonition of the Lord They are persons obliged by a superinduced bond they are to give them instructions and holy Principles as they give them meat c. The 5 End of Baptisme is to be a Sign of the Covenant of Gods part of washing away a Believers sin by the Blood of Christ and to give spiritual Life and Salvation Act. 2.38 39. Act. 22.16 1 Pet. 3.21 This also is as true of that Baptism which belongs to the Children of Believers as that which is given to Believers themselves Repent and be Baptized every one of you for the Remission of sins for the promise is to you and to your seed c. And Baptism even to Infants is a seal of Gods pardoning grace in doing away the guilt of Original sin in regard of those that belong to Gods Election if not also actual which afterward shall be committed if they live to age The 6. End mentioned by the Author is That it might be a signal Representation of a Believers Vnion with Christ called therefore a being Baptized into Christ and a putting on of Christ for which we have Dr. Taylor quoted Which cannot be says he of those who remain in their incapacities c. Which he saith is the case of Children But we shall see by and by the said Dr. confuting himself in his latter discourse of Baptism 1. To this I reply in the words of Wendeline Wendelin Christ Theo. lib. 1. c. 12. p. 166. upon the Text viz. Apostolus loquitur tantùm de Baptizatis fidelibus tùm enim Adulti ex Judaismo Gentilismo recèns conversi baptizabantur i.e. The Apostle speaks this of Believers that were Baptized for then Adult persons newly converted from Judaism and Paganisme were Baptized 2. Though children cannot put on Christ by an external Act yet they may be an infused seed of grace and we have good ground to believe all elect Infants dying have in their infant-State done so And farther if Adams sin be imputed to them for sin why may not Christs Righteousness be also imputed to them for Righteousness
Love and saith it is no outward visible society gathered together into the consent and use of outward Forms and Worship Now although both are out yet I acknowledge the Author is more sober then Dell for he is for an External Visible Church under the New Testament-Dispensation for he tells us Believers upon the profession of faith are to be Baptized and added thereunto and yet take him in his own sence he cannot be excused from error and confusion for by Believers he means the Spiritual seed before mentioned not such as are Believers Equivocally or Analogically by profession only but in reality or truth as appears by the following words upon Profession of Faith by the Ordinance of Baptism were added to the Church As if when mention is made in the Acts of so many thousands that believed it did imply they were all of the Spiritual Seed Regenerated persons Annanias Saphira Symon magus who is said to believe whereas it denotes no more then a visible profession of faith which is all that the Apostles and Primitive Churches had cognizance of and this is seen in Hypocrits who are not the Spiritual Seed of Abraham And this H. D. might have learnt as well as other things from Mr. Tombes who in his Examen pag 159. tells us Profession of Faith and holyness is a sufficient warrant to Baptism And in good earnest one would think by observing the lives and conversations of some of their Proselytes they took them in upon easier terms 2. Sydenhams Exercitaon c. 3 p. 25. We further argue That if none but the spiritual seed of Abraham be the subjects of Baptism then visible believers or such as make a profession of Faith are not the Subjects of Baptism for they may not be more the spiritual seed i.e. Godly then infants 3. Nay according to this Reasoning none must be Baptized at all for who can tell who are the spiritual seed who belong to Christ according to Election and saving Faith Nor will that evasion serve their turn we have charitable ground to believe they are such because of their profession which is enough to satisfie the Church for if according to the Author the New Testament-Church is made up only of a spiritual seed it is necessary the Church should not only have a judgement of charity but infallibility to determine who are the spiritual seed 4. And since the Author and those of his way disclaim all pretence to Infallibility and are contented with the judgment of charity to distinguish of the spiritual seed knowing nothing to the contrary Hanc veniam petimus pray give us leave to act a like charity towards the children of Believers For first they may be capable subjects of Election Jacob was such a one in his Mothers Womb Rom. 9 11 Neither was it his singular priviledge but what is common to all that are Objects of Election which is free without respect to any thing wrought or to be wrought 2. They may be capable of sanctification Christ himself whilst in the Womb is termed The Holy thing which proves the nonage of Infants makes them not incapable of grace supposing Gods will and it shews God would have it so that some of them should be sanctified because Christ passed through each age to sanctifie it to us Ideo per omnem venit aetatem infantibus infans factus sanctificans Infantes in parvulis parvulus sanctificans hanc ipsam habentes aetatem simnl exemplum illis pieatis effectus justitiae s bjectionis As Irenaeus that lives neer the Apostles speaks John was filled with the Holy Ghost and what is that but the graces of the spirit although he was no more enabled to exert or put forth any act of Grace then he was able to put forth an act of reason nevertheless his soul wanted not the faculty of reason from his Mothers Womb and what though we may not say all Infants of Believers are a like filled with the Holy Ghost as John was yet may we truly say that are all as capable thereof as John 3. They are also capable of Glory of Salvation or else it would be sad but Christ hath told us of such is the Kingdom of Heaven that is Specifically as you shall see proved hereafter 4. God calls them holy 1 Cor. 7.14 and so may we By what hath been said I suppose it is evident to the impartial Reader that the Infants of Believers are as much the spiritual seed of Abraham as visible professing believers and we have as much ground if not more to look upon them as such as we have for grown Christians untill they manifest the contrary for as for the former we own them as Godly and admit them into the Church upon their own Testimony only in a visible profession which may be deceitful but the Infants of Believers are taken into Covenant with their Parents and are visible Church-Members and hereby come to have right to Baptism For the two former we have an express Divine Testimony and that they were once accounted such and the Covenant being the same as to the essential spiritual priviledges of it none of which can be made appear to be repealed It will follow that Believers Children must not be denyed the sign and seal of the Covenant they having altogether as warrantable a Right thereunto as grown Christians or Believers This is Bucers arguing on Mat. 19.13 14. Si jam ad Ecclesiam pertinent c. Cur eis signum Baptismi quo in Ecclesiam Christi qui ad eam pertinent recipi solent negaremus Bucer an Mat. 19.13 14. Let us now hear what is said to the contrary in what follows He conceives the seed of Believers have no right to Baptism Why Because saith he Though the Jews had right to circumcision as Abrahams natural seed under the old Testament yet this would not serve the turn under the new Mat. 3.9 John Baptist dischargeth them of that priviledge of Abrahams Natural Seed that admitted into the Old Church from any such right in the new Think not to say that ye have Abraham to your Father that ye are the Children of a Godly Parent That which serv'd their turn under Moses would not avail under Christ Nothing now but the fruits of Repentance give right to the Bapisme of repentance c. And must we take all this for Gospel We shall upon examination find no weight in it and nothing prejudicial to the Baptizing the children of Believers For 1. Let it be considered that these Jews to whom John spake were to come under a New Administration of the Covenant and the first subjects of this Administration must be persons able to give an account of their faith and repentance and Christ the Messiah was now come who was the chief blessing of the Covenant yea the substance of it and therefore 't was necessary that as these Jews relyed on the Covenant of Abraham so they should hold forth their relyance on
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
their hurt Therefore he hath not at all repealed it The sufficiency of the enumeration in the major Proposition even Mr. Tombs himself could not deny in that famous dispute at Kederminster for it must needs be for the good or hurt of Infants that they are put out and so must needs be in mercy or justice for God maketh not such great alterations in his Church and Laws to no end and of no moment but in meer indifferency The minor Mr. Baxter proves in both parts 1. That God hath not repealed this to their hurt in justice for if God never revoke his Mercies nor repeal his Ordinances in justice to the parties hurt till they first break Covenant with him and so procure it by their own desert then he hath not in justice revoked his mercy to the hurt of those that never broke Covenant with him But it is certain God never revoketh a mercy in justice to the hurt of any that never broke Covenant with him Therefore to such he hath not revoked it 1. That Church-Membership is a mercy and of the Covenant is plain Deut. 29.10 11 12. 2. That God doth not in justice revoke such to any but Covenant-breakers may be proved 1. From the merciful nature and constant dealing of God who never casteth off those that cast not off him 2. From his truth and faithfulness for else we should make God the Covenant-breaker and not man which is horrid blasphemy 3. His Immutability and Constancy his gifts and calling being without repentance Now this is also certain that many Jews did believe and not forsake the Covenant of God even most of the Apostles themselves and many thousands more and how then can these or their Infants be put out of the Church in justice to their hurt who did not first break Covenant with God Mr. Tombs was hard put to it how to extricate himself from the difficulties of this Argument although a man of great Dexterity and a very Oedipus in the controversy yet it is said he was near to a nè plus ultrà but at length took Sanctuary in this Answer and mark it well Reader viz. That the Ordinance was in mercy repealed for their good To which Mr. Baxter gives a neat reply It can be no mercy to take away a mercy except it be to give a greater instead of it But here is no greater mercy given to Infants instead of Church-membership Therefore it can be no mercy to them that it is revoked Other Arguments besides this that are invincible may be drawn from that place Rom. 11.17 A Scripture which I perceive was too hot for the Authors fingers to meddle with and therefore he gives not one touch upon it throughout all this Treatise of Baptism whereas he knows very well that this is the principal Text that gives clear evidence that Children are yet Church-members with their parents and if they have a Church-relation they must not be denyed Baptism because the same thing which qualifies any persons for Church-membership qualifies them also for Baptism But to the Text before us There are three things which the words do plainly hold forth 1. That though the Collective body of the Jews or the generality of that people were broken off from the Church through unbelief yet all of them were not broken off for it is said If some of them were broken off not all of them for as was said before most of the Apostles and thousands of Jews believed 2. The Believing Gentiles are ingrafted in their place 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in amongst them so Grotius hath it positus es inter ramos illius arboris thou art set amongst the branches of the Tree referring to those words if some be broken off implying that some remained still and the believing Gentiles were inoculated amongst them or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to Beza and Piscator pro ipsis instead of them or in their place and room in ramorum defractorum locum into the place of the branches broken off 3. The Jews shall be restored again to the Church at the latter end of the world they shall be in statu quo priùs become the Church and people of God again as formerly but in a more glorious manner From all which issueth three unanswerable Arguments for the Church-membership of believers Infants still continued The first we have already insisted upon namely That the same Jewish children which were visibly of the Church immediately before their Parents became Christians at the first continued to be so after And the reason is because they were not under the dis-churching Cause of as many of the Jews as were discharged and that was unbelief of which they could not be guilty by any Act of their own More of this may be seen in a late Book called A Perswasive to Peace and Vnity among Christians Sold at the Three Pigeons in Cornhil or of their Parents as imputed to them Because of Vnbelief saith S. Paul they were broken off If it be said saith the Author of that ingenious and pious piece intituled A Perswasive to Peace and Vnity they were dis-church'd in the dissolution of the Jewish Church-State in general it is but an evasion which will not help them for the fore-cited Text is flatly against them For all that were not broken off by unbelief did continue unbroken off that is they still kept their place and standing in the Church of God And therefore to assign any other cause of dis-churching any than the Scripture hath assigned or at least any other without this here assigned and determined by the Apostle is too great presumption and such as will not satisfie an impartial mind and as Mr. Baxter enforceth the Argument very strongly They who kept their Station kept also their priviledges for themselves and their children if they were not broken off their children were not broken off for as the Infants came in with their Parents so they are not cast out whilst their Parents continue except when they are grown up they cast out themselves by their own personal unbelief It is not to be conceived that God should cast out the child that came in for his fathers sake while the Parents remain in the same Church 2. Those Jews who were broken off from the Church their children also being before Members were likewise broken off therefore it follows Believing Gentiles and their children are ingrafted in for the ingrafting must be proportionable to the breaking off they succeeding in the place of the former must enjoy the priviledge they lost 3. If after the fulness of the Gentiles be come in the Jews shall be grafted in again not with a diminution but addition to their glory and one part of their glory was that they and their seed were Gods visible Church then so shall it be with them when they are called This we have ver 26. All Israel shall be saved Which cannot be understood but from their broken off State
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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
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
whose condition he bewails which was the generality of the body of the Jews or 2. Some conceive by children of the flesh he meaneth not in this place children by natural generation but such as trusted in outward fleshly priviledges and by children of the promise put in opposition to them is meant true Believers which are indeed the true Seed in whom the word takes effect and who were figured forth by Isaac Si sensum mysticum spectes non ii qni ex lege justitiam quaerunt sed fideles sed quod promissionis filius intelligantur is quos diximus secundum literam ingelligi apparet ex vers 9. This is a truth saith Beza but not apposite to this place for Paul doth not here distinguish Ahrahams children from others by their Faith as in the fourth of Romans Quia vero promissionis filios interpretantur eos qui fidei amplectuntur promissionem dicunt quidem quod res est sed non satis appositè loquuntur Neque enim Paulus boc loco filios Abrahami a caeteris distinguit ex fidei nota ut supsa c. 4. sed de primariâ cansa◠id est de ipsius fidei fonte gratuitae videlicet electionis aeterno proposito disserit Beza in Locum but disputes of the primary cause even of Faith it self which is the eternal purpose of God according to his Election of Grace verse 11. So that the Apostles express Doctrine is that Election and Salvation is not from works but free Grace But the Opposerss of Infant Baptism have always perverted the scope of Paul in this place as if he intended it of outward Church priviledges not to be had by being born of believing Parents which the Text has nothing to do with as every unpartial and judicious Reader will apprehend Nay this very place proves the quite contrary for the Apostle makes two sorts to be within the visible Church viz. Some are of Israel that is in mans cyc these partake of the outward priviledges v. 4.5 Others are Israel that is the true spiritual Seed that belongs to Gods Election and obtain the saving Promise So Gal. 3.8 The Gospel was preached to Abraham and the Covenant made with him is the same for substance with that we live under and as persons were under it then so is it now it is not streighter now and larger then but the same And the like appears verse 14. and 17. the Identity of the Covenant is there manifest which is a truth destructive to the Opinion of Antipaedobaptists and therefore they so strike at it Having thus examined the Expositions which according to his Imagination the Scripture it self puts upon the Seed spoken of Gen. 17.7 and discovered his great mistake I could do it too very fully as to most of the Authors following which he saith do give in their concurrent sence with his upon the Text. The first named is Calvin upon Gen. 17.7 who saith that it is manifest that the promise understood of spiritual Blessing pertaineth not to the Carnal Seed of Abraham but to the Spiritual as the Apostle himself saith Rom. 4.9 c. In this I find the Author guilty of shameful Oscitancie and it is intollerable for any man thus to impose his mistakes upon the Reader The words are not Calvins but Estius his Answer to Calvin who again and again in his Comment upon Gen. 17.7 asserts the promise to be made to Abrahams natural and fleshly Seed and to all of them for thus he saith Nunc videndum est quem populum designet Falluntur autem qui putant solos hic electos notari They are deceived who think it to be meant only of the Elect Again clara est Pauli Doctrina de naturalibus Abrahoe filiis quod sint Sancti rami quia ex sancta radice prodierint Rom. 11.16 the Doctrine of Paul shews clearly 't is understood of the natural children of Abraham for if the root be holy so are the branches Then afterward Quare nihil certius est quà m Deum foedus suum pacisci cum filiis Abrahae qui naturaliter ex eo gignendi erant Wherefore nothing is more certain than that God made his Covenant with the children which were naturally to be begotten of him And then answers the Objections that may be made against it from Rom. 9.8 Neque repugnat quod dicit Paulus The cause of this mistake in our Author is meer carelesness for he never examined Calvin but finds in Mr. Tombes his Examen pag. 50. This passage quoted by him viz. Estius annot ad Gen. 17.7 Colligit hìnc Calvinus eo ipso quo quis est semen Abrahae ad eum pertinere promisstonem Abrahae factam that is hence Calvin gathers that the promise belonged to the children of Abraham as they were his natural or carnal Seed To which Estius replies thus Responsio manifesta promissionem illam de benedictione spirituali intellectam non ad carnale semen Abrahami pertinere sed ad spirituale quemadmodum eam ipse Apostolus interpretatus est Rom. 4.9 Which is according to the Authors Translation It is manifest that the promise underdood of spiritual blessings pertaineth not to the carnal Seed c. here I might pass some observations upon this mistake of the Author 1. That he is very careless in quoting Authors and taking one for another and that the testimony he cites for himself is against him 2. That he and his party and the Jesuites and Papists agree very well in the interpretation of those Scriptures that relate to the Covenant The Author lies open to the lash also in what he quotes out of Amesius de praedest For Amesius speaks but just half of what he sets down in one and the same character and the promise that he disputes of there against the Remonstrants is that in the ninth of Romans 8. So that it is not ad idem for we are speaking of that Gen. 17.7 God said indeed he would not establish his Covenant with Ishmael but with Isaac Gen. 17.27 but by Covenant there is not meant the Covenant we stand in to God in regard of our persons for our own personal benefit but the Covenant of special Prerogative to Isaac that Christ should come of and the Church remain in his posterity Next folows the dismal Consequences which as he saith the Doctrine of Infant-Baptism is attended with But they are only imaginary not real ones Quicquid recipitur recipitur ad modum recipientis as the man thinketh so the Bell c. But let us hear what they are 1. If God made his Covenant with the Posterity of Believers as this Doctrine asserts then saith he all the Posterity of Believers should certainly have grace bestowed upon them Reply No such matter for we have proved they may be said to be in Covenant in regard of external prividledges only and not partake of the spiritual grace or saving benefits of the Covenant Which saith he Mr. Blake doth confidently
Believers and their Seed But what is this to the children of Believers what benefit redounds to them that do not actually believe nor profess the Faith of Abraham having not the use of reason the same Learned Doctor gives this answer although Infants have not actually the use of reason nor can actually believe yet to that end as Circumcision heretofore Baptism is ministred to Infants that when in time to cime they shall believe to righteousness their Faith may receive confirmation by Baptism in infancy received as Davids Faith did against Goliah he reflecting upon his Circumcision the sign and Seal of Gods Covenant with him when he went out against Goliah that uncircumcised Philistine To this purpose saith Augustin In Abraham praecessit fidei justitia accessit Circumcisio signaculum justitiae fidei c. In some justification goes before the Seal as in Abraham and Cornelius in others the Seal is before righteousness Sicut in Isaac qui octavo suoe nativitatis die circumcisus est praecessit Signaculum justitiae fidei c. As in Isaac who was circumcised the eighth day the Seal preceded Faith Ita in Baptizatis infantibus c. So in infants that are baptized August de Bapt. contra Donat. l. 4. c. 24. Excep 6. Because Baptism came not in the room place and use of Circumcision and the reasons he brings to prove it are diverse we shall now examine them First he saith It must not be look'd upon to come in the room and stead of it by any means and why 1. Because then Males Mr. Tombes Examen p. 4. not Females would be baptized Reader we must now give thee notice that we are to renew our combat with Mr. Tombes for this first reason is his Examen pag. 4. And the old Answers will do well euough 1. The reason why Females were excluded from an actual participation of Circumcision was their incapacity 2. They were virtually circumcised Mr. Marshal Defence of Infant Baptism and reputed among the circumcised ones in that they were admitted to the Passeover when the express command of the Law was that no uncircumcised parson must eat of it Exod. 12.48 And farther it appears they were reputatively circumcised by that passage where 't is said the whole house of Israel was circumcised and by that of Sampsons Parents who were displeased that he took a wife of the uncircumcised Philistins Judg. 14.3 for if the Israelitish women had not been accounted circumcised in the Males Circumcision could have made no difference between Wife and Wife 2. His next reason is Because all Believers out of Abrahams Family were not circumcised Mr. Tombes Exer p. 4 Mr Tombes Exercit. p. 4. He gives instances of those out of Abrahams Family that were not circumcised Repl. I have answered this before that some of them lived before the ordinance of Circumcision was instituted and others for other reasons were not circumcised as I have shewn but I love not to repeat 3. His third reason is because then the circumcised needed not to have been baptized if they had beem already sealed with the new Covenant Seal but Christ himself and all his Apostles c. were circumcised yet nevertheless were baptized Repl. If this deserves an Answer take this The Covenant of Grace both under the Law and Gospel is one and the same for substance though as to the external administration thereof there is a difference and accordingly the Seals are different The Landlord if he please may break the old Seal and set on a new one to the grant he makes to his Tenant 2. He saith it comes not in its room and stead as to the ends and uses Repl. Though as to some circumstances there be a difference between Circumcision and Baptism in regard of their ends and uses yet there is no material difference as to substance But let us see his reasons why Baptism succeeds not Circumcision as to the ends and uses which are these 1. Because Circumcision was a sign of Christ to come in the flesh but Baptism that he was already come Tombes exerc pag. 4. Answ There is a very good harmony notwithstanding that quoad substantiam as to the substance they both look at Christ and agree in the main The one signifies and seals the remission of sins by and through the blood of Christ to be shed the other through that blood already shed There is an agreement in the signification though not in the manner of signification 2. He saith Circumcision was to be a partition-wall between Jew and Gentile but Baptism testifyed the contrary Mr. Tombes again quoting Cameron for it Exerc. pag. 4. and then p 6 Circumcision separated the Israelited from all nations but Baptism signifieth that all are one in Christ Repl. Though Baptism be no partition-wall between nation and nation yet the end and use of Baptism is to distinguish Christians from Pagans Turks and Infidels One of the ends of Baptism is to be a badge of distinction betwixt those who are within and those who are without as the Apostle speaks 1 Cor. 5.12.13 3. The Author farther tells us Circumcision initiated the carnal Seed into the carnal Church and gave them right to carnal Ordinances but Baptism was to give the spiritual Seed an orderly entrance into the spiritual Church and a right to partake of the spiritual Ordinances Repl. Although I have ground to hope my Antagonist is a spiritual or godly man yet he talks here at a carnal rate for what thinks he of Isaac and Jacob and Christ himself they were the spiritual Seed as well as the carnal or fleshly Seed of Abraham for as concerning the flesh Christ came of him As for his expression of carnal Ordinances it is Scripture language Heb. 9 10. And the Apostle means those Levitical outward Ceremonies which were placed in terrene and earthly matters that reached only the flesh or did sanctify only to the purifying of the flesh But sure the circumcised had right to all the other Ordinances of a spiritual nature as well as those and the Author is to rash in calling the Church of God under the Old Testament a carnal Church I scruple not to say it is a carnal speech of him But 't is observable all is carnal with some men that doth not suit with their Genius when in the mean time the carnality lieth unseen by them in their own proud censorious self-conceited contentious spirits And did indeed Circumcision initiate into the carnal Church that is the Church of God under the old Testament was Jesus Christ the head of a carnal Church he was the head of the Church under the Law as much as of the Church now in the days of the Gospel and will any sober man say he was the head of a carnal Church This were heterogenous indeed that a spiritual head should be joined to a carnal Church But I pray what singular virtue do these men see and find in Baptism that they so
are given not for Conversion but Confirmation of Grace are meer Nullities or that the Baptism Administred by them is to be reiterated Take an instance in the Circumcision of the 10 Tribes after Jeroboam's Apostacy and the casting out of the Priests and Levites 2 Chron. 11.14 15. It was generally Administred by wicked Priests and Men that had no regular call thereunto when the Priests and Levites were cast out of Office in the 10 Tribes Jeroboams Priests came in their room which were as ignorant and unskilful to expound the Law as those ye call Dumb-Dogs 1 Kings 13.33 2 Cor. 15.3 2. We must put a difference betwixt the Essentials of an Ordinance and some Circumstantial Additions and Corruptions if there be a Corruption in the Essenee or substance of the Ordinance as for Instance if Persons be not Baptized in the Name of God the Father Son and Holy-Ghost but into the Name of a Creature then such Baptism is void and null and the party ought to be Baptized again But if there be a Corruption only in the External Administration of the Ordinance though every Christian should labour to avoid such Corruption and if he hath been intangled therewith humble himself deeply before God for it yet such Baptism is valid for the substance of it and should not be reiterated At this day the Protestant Reformed Churches do hold it unwarrantable to Rebaptize those Persons who were Baptized in the Church of Rome which being administred in the Name of the Father Son and Holy-Ghost is held for true Baptism for the substance of it The other is Mr. Bartlet in his Model of the Congregational way pag. 70. Those Christians saith he which of late days calling into question the Truth and Lawfulness of their Baptism have fallen upon the Practice of Rebaptizing and taking up the Ordinance of Baptism de novo are utterly void and altogether to seek of a true and just ground from the Scripture for their Practice herein and so this latter Baptism of theirs will be found as unlawful because unlawfully Administred For if the Administration of the Seals be now tyed to ordinary Officers and those to a particular Church since the Apostles times that give them their lawful and right Call to Administer the Ordinances then it will follow that there is no Lawful Baptism but by him that is an Officer of some particular Church and he that is an Officer of some particular Church must have a Lawful Calling from the Church to which he is an Officer for all extraordinary Officers that had their Call and Commission immediately from Heaven are ceased Now those that Rebaptize cannot prove the taking up of that Ordinance again after this manner but are enforced to hold that a Disciple in Common that by the exercise of his gifts doth convert a Sinner from the evil of his ways may also Baptize him which Doctrine Mr. Hooker calls a Frenzy of the Anabaptists Mr. Hooker of new-England in his Survey of Church-Discipline C. 2. part 3. p. 9. which begins to labour with the loathsomness of itself For if that were true what need of Christ's Ordaining Officers in his Church for these purposes or why may not a Godly Woman by her good exhortations and chast conversation Converting her Husband Baptize him CHAP. VI. Wherein the Author endeavours to shew the Nullity and utter insignificancy of Infant-Baptism THus he proceeds That it is no-way safe for any to rest contented with that Baptism which they received in their Infancy may appear because such their Baptism is a meer Nullity How doth he make this out Why thus Because saith he as the right matter so the true Form is wanting for the External Form as before is shewed is not Sprinkling or pouring a little Water upon the Head or Face but a Dipping the whole Person under Water and raising him up again to figure out Death Burial and Resurrection as before if then Matter and Form be wanting which is so essential to its Being it must needs be a Nullity Although enough hath been said already to confute this in the 6th Chap. of the first Part of our Book to prove Infants of Believers fit Matter for the Church and consequently Subjects of Baptism besides what hath been said in the 4th Chap. Part 2. concerning the Ceremony of Baptism yet being willing to give the Author full measure pressed down and running over We shall say something more to evince the weakness of his Assertion in this Chapter First 't is observable that he who hath undertaken to write a Treatise of Baptism mark well should mistake both the Matter and Form of it for certainly he is out in both 1. First for the Matter of Baptism all Divines hold it is Water meer pure Water without mixture Take the Judgment of two very eminent Divines The first is the Learned Zanchy Tom. 1. Lib. 1. pag. 404. Materia Externa Baptismi est Aqua Interna Sanguis Spiritus Christi The External Matter of Baptism is Water the Internal the Blood and Spirit of Christ The other is Bucan Professor of Divinity in Academia Lausanensi He in his Theological Institutions or Common places answereth several Questions concerning Baptism this is the 18th Quae est Materia Baptismi What is the Matter of Baptism To which he gives this answer it is two-fold Externa Interna External and Internal the External is Aqua pura munda naturalis sine discrimine simplex vulgaris non prius peculiaribus Consecrata non mixta non Oleum c. That is it is pure clean simple common Water without mixture of Oyl Spittle and such kind of things as the Papists add to it de Baptismo locus 47. p. 616. The Materia Interna the Internal Matter of Baptism is Sanguis Spiritus Jesu Christi the Blood Spirit of Jesus Christ de Bapt. loc 47. Quest 22. 2. For the Form of Baptism they agree in this that it is those Words of Institution I Baptize thee in the Name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost So saith Zanchy in the aforementioned place and he brings the Words of the Apostle for both Matter and Form Ephes 5.26 That he might Sanctify and cleanse it by the Washing of Water through the Word citing that famous speech of Austin Accedit verbum ad Elementum fit Sacramentum The word joyned to the Element i.e. the Word of Institution makes the Sacrament So Bucan Quest 22. Quae est igitur forma Baptismi scil Externa what is therefore the External Form of Baptism Ans The rehearsing the words of Institution by a Minister of the Word of God viz. I Baptize thee in the Name of the Father c. which he cals aspersio aquae and then Internâ— Baptismi Forma est Interna illa actio quae Jesu Christi ipsius per Spiritum Sanctum agentis propria est The Internal Form is that Internal action of Christ working by his Spirit c.
were of the Stock that had been instructed by the Waldenses of old because of their living together in Houses or Colledges which was the custom of the Waldenses But forasmuch as we have heard before that it was their custom to baptize their Children we have better reason to conclude they were none of their Stock And if that be true which the Scholar saith who came from those parts about 5 or 6 years since that they live together after that manner in Hungaria Transilvania I wish them good fellowship and safety We have two or three impertinent Stories more viz. 1. Some of the Waldensian Sect were punished at Oxford in Henry the 2d's time and doth he think this was for denying Infant-Baptism Nay rather it appears they were no Anabaptists for if they had no doubt Holinshhead in his Cron. or Bishop Vsher in his History of the state of the Church would have told us so And 't is strange the Author should thus impose his groundless Conjecture upon the Reader Take the Story as it is in Holinshhead and then judg About the same time came certain Dutch-Men of the sort called Valdoies over into this Realm to the number of thirty or more who held Opinions in Religion contrary to the Faith of the Roman-Church Those which at that time came were indifferently well learned and their principal or Ring-leader was named Gerard. Now also was a Council assembled at Oxford whereat the Dogmatists were examined upon certain points of their Profession The aforesaid Gerard undertaking to answer for them all protested that they were good Christians and had the Doctrine of the Apostles in all reverence Moreover being examined what they thought of the Substance of the Godhead and the merits of Christ they answered rightly and to the point But being farther examined upon other Articles of Religion then received they swerved from the Church and namely in the use of the Divine Sacraments derogating such grace from the same as the Church by her Authority had then ascribed to them and what was that think you but this that they did not confer grace ex opere operato from the work done for this Romish Tenent the Waldenses ever opposed as before in their Confessions and can any Man rationally pick any thing out of this Story against Infant-Baptism Next we have a Relation of seven Dutch Anabaptists indeed that came over with Anne a Cleve in Henry the 8th's time 1528. near about two years after John of Leyden sent out his 12 Apostles to propagate their Opinions over all the World and the King might well judg these to be some such that might occasion disturbance in this Nation likewise so that this instance will appear to signify nothing for Henry the 8th burnt more Paedobaptists than Anabaptists And that these were not put to death purely on the account of Anabaptistry is beyond all doubt but as Hereticks for disowning the Popes Supremacy Transubstantiation c. or why might it not be possibly on the same score for which those suffered in Queen Elizabeth's time For in her time also saith he in the year 1575. a Congregation of Anabaptists were taken at the Meeting within Ald-gate 27 of whom were imprisoned and of them four recanted two were burned and the rest banished and he quotes Stow's Cron. for it but very darkly and partially for he neither tells us out of him as he ought to have done what Anabaptists they were nor what they held nor for what they were burnt as Stow and also Holingshead doth in their Cronicles viz. 1. That they were Dutch Anabaptists coming hither not long after the German Commotions 2. That they held Vile Blasphemous and dangerous Opinions against Christ and the peace and welfare of the State for which they were thought worthy of Death I shall give it to you in the Words of Stow and Holing shead which is thus in both verbatim In Queen Elizabeth's time Anno Domini 1574 on Easter day which was the third of April about nine of the Clock in the fore-noon was discovered a Congregation of Anabaptists Dutch-Men in a house without the Bar of Aldgate Prison and four of them bearing faggots recanted as follows Whereas I. I. T. R. H. being seduced by the Devil the spirit of Error and false Teachers his Ministers have fallen into certain most detestable and dangerous Errors namely 1. That Christ took not Flesh of the Substance of the Blessed Virgin Mary 2. That Infants of the Faithful ought not to be Baptized 3. That a Christian may not be a Magistrate or bear the Sword or Office of Authority 4. That it is not lawful for a Christian to take an Oath Now by the Grace of God and through conference with good and learned Ministers of Christ his Church I understand and acknowledg the same to be most damnable and detestable Heresies and do ask God and his Church Mercy for my said former Errors and do forsake and renounce them Now let any man judg whether these be not fine fellows to be brought in for a Testimony against Infant-Baptism whether the Author hath done well in endeavouring to reflect dishonour upon the Reign of that Famous Queen as if they had been burnt meerly for not owning Infant-Baptism To tell such blind Stories is not for the honour of his cause but 't is his humour and he cannot leave it And now at length we are come to the dregs of his Treatise and there indeed he seems very culpable in his Essay to Palliate those foul and enormous Crimes which were perpetrated by the Anabaptists of Germany which is such a piece of weakness as will expose him to the just Censure not only of all judicious Persons besides but even of his own party Even Mr. Tombes himself acknowled geth the actions of Muncer and what was done at the City of Munster and when Mr. Marshal had spoken of the World of mischief that people did and what dangerous Heresies Blasphemies they held Mr. Tombes ingenuously confesseth That much of this is true I make no question Examen p. 24. Then again in his Praecursor p. 29. he complains and that upon good ground of the abuse of charging those Tenents and practices upon all of the same Profession which is true of some as that all Anabaptists are wicked because those of Munster were so Mr. Tombes is so knowing a Man and so wise that he durst not question the verity of those things and that because as Mr. Marshal says the things have been done so lately and so many agreeing Stories are written of them and by Men of such undoubted faith and honesty that it leaves no place for doubting And as Mr. Baxter saith on the same occasion if the Testimony of these holy and precious Men whose service the Lord so graciously made use of in the Reformation of those Countries from Popish darkness as Luther Melanchton Zwinglius Bullinger and others that did and suffered so much to accomplish it and
which you do although contrary to our customs But they answered they would do none of these or own him for Arch-Bishop What now is become of Fabian that sandy Foundation upon which the Author builds his belief and assertion that the Ancient Britains were against Infant-Baptism When therefore Austin perceived that they were so refractory he told them if they would not take Peace with their Brethren they should receive War with their Enemies And if they disdained to preach the way of life to the English Nation they should suffer by their hands the revenge of Death And which Austin accomplished faith Fabian accordingly by bringing the Saxons upon them to their utter ruine This also is supposed to be another Paraphase of Fabian's upon Austin's Words which according to * Sicque completum est praesagium isti pontifici Augustini Hist Bed L. 2. c. 2. Editione whelochianâ Bede were delivered by way of Prophesie and not that he had an intention to revenge himself by bringing in Enemies upon them for their destruction And we find Mr. Fox in his Act. and Mon. put a favourable construction upon the Words of Austin and layes most of the blame upon the British Bishops whose Words are Of both these parties the Reader may judg what he pleaseth I cannot see but both together were to be blamed and as I cannot but accuse the one so I cannot defend the other First Austin in this matter can in no wise be excused who shewed no more humility in this Assembly to seven Bishop's coming at his commandment to the Council Again the Britains were asmuch or more to blame who so much neglected their Spiritual duty in revenging their Temporal injury that they denyed to join their helping labour to turn the Idolatrous Saxons to the way of Life and Salvation in which respect all private cases ought to give place and be forgotten For which cause it is no great marvel that thestroak of God's punishment light upon them according to Austin's saying that if they would not take Peace c. We shall now leave all to the Reader and let him consider if it be worth his while and weigh the Story with all circumstances and believe as he please I shall add one thing more and that is Let it be taken for granted that these Britains were against Infant-Baptism Nevertheless about 200 years before Infant-Baptism was owned by Pelagius himself although he denyed Original Sin which was a Britain and a member of the Monastery of Bangor as the Author himself quotes in his History of Christianity pag. 11. And Mr. Tombes himself in pag 20. of his Answer says the Pelagians did grant the Baptizing of Infants c. And I have better Authority than he even Austin himself that had so much to do with Pelagius in his Book de peccato Originali Cap. 32. hath this saying Pelagius etsi Baptisma Infantium verbo concedit re tamen ipsa tollit negat Though Pelagius grants Infant-Baptism in word yet he takes it away and denyes it in deed And again Cap. 18. upon the same point of Original Sin Austin hath this passage Baptizari parvulos ut in regnum Dei ingrediantur ex Pelagii Sententia Danaei Opus omnia Genevae ex Lib. Aug. de peocato Orinali p. 692. 'T was Pelagius his opinion that Children were to be Baptized that they may have entrance into the Kingdom of God So ex Lib. Aug. Cap. 19. de peccato Originali there is more Thus then you see we have a more ancient Testimony for Infant-Baptism by this Britain than those whom the Author fancies strongly to be against it who lived 200 years nearer the Apostles times than they I will conclude it in the Words of Mr. Fuller in his Church-History Pelagius saith he was bred in the Monastery of Bangor where he lived with 2000 Monks whose hands were the only Benefactors for their Bellies Abby-labourers not Abby-lubbers like their Successors in after Ages Infinit are the deductions and derived consequences of Pelagius his Errors amongst which Mr. Fuller says there are these two in reference to Infants 1. That Infants were born without Original sin 2. That they were Baptized not to be freed from Original sin but thereby to be Adopted into the Kingdom of God as was before noted out of Aust There are yet remaining 4 or 5 trifling Arguments to prove the Ancient Britains did oppose the Baptizing Infants 1. Because they received the Christian Faith Doctrine and Discipline from the Apostles and Asiatick-Churches who hath no such thing as Baptizing Infants amongst them as you have largely heard When the Magdeburgenses tell us expresly that it was in use in the Asiatick Churches Cent. 3. C. 6. p. 124. In this Age they say Baptismus Infantibus datur Children were Baptized and this we have abundantly shewn before from the Testimony of Cyprian 2. Because it appears they so fully prised and faithfully adhered to the Scriptures c. And no such thing is to be found there This is the old Objection which we have often answered See Chap. 1. Part 1 of our Answer So Chap 5. Part 2. 3. Because they did so vehemently reject Human Traditions in the Worship of God especially all Romish Innovations Rites and Ceremoneis We find no such vehemency of spirit in the Story as the Author speaks of unless it was against Austin's pride or beacuse Austin shewed them not that honour which their own proud hearts expected And whereas he saith they so rejected Romish Rites but Infant-Baptism came from Romes Ordination and Imposition This is pittifully poor for it was practised as we have shewn in Africa and Asia hundreds of years before this time e're any Popes as Universal Bishops were in being It was practised in Tertullian's and Cyprian's days this none denyes 5. Because Constantine the Great the Son of Constance and Helena both Christians born in Britain in the year 305. was not Baptized till Aged as before And we have before given you the reason why his Baptism was put off I refer the Reader to Chap. 7. Part 1. of my Answer you have it in Cent. 4. p. 18. 5. Because of the Correspondency and Unity that was betwixt the French Christians afterward called Waldenses and them And for this very reason if we had none else we conclude the Britains were for Infant-Baptism because the Waldenses were as we have sufficiently made appear There is one Reason more so weak that I think not meet to say thing to it and in reference to the confidence of my Antagonist that the Waldenses Donatists Britains were all against Infant-Baptism when neither of them were I shall conclude with a Distich which I think may not improperly be applyed to his whole Discourse Ridiculus tandem ecce cavis mus prodit ab antris Quem gravidi Montes parturiere diu ANACEPHALAEOSIS Or a Recapitulation of the History of the Magdeburgenses concerning Infant-Baptism from the first to the thirteenth
Century CENT I. 1. THey tell us Cent. 1. L. 1. C. 4. p. 152. That Baptism was taken from the Jewish custom of Washing and forasmuch as Infant-Baptism was in use among the Jews together with Circumcision as a Rite of Initiation for both the natural Jews and Proselites of Age who were with their Infants Circumcifed and Baptized as Ainsworth shews upon Gen. 17. out of the Rabbies Also Goodwin in his Moses and Aaron and Mr. Selden the great Antiquarie and Dr. Hammond in his Resolution about Infant-Baptism proves that Christ took up the usage of Baptizing from the Jews and made it a Sacrament and accommodated it as a Rite of Initiation into the Profession of Christianity it follows by proportion that the Children of them that profess the Christian Faith are to be Baptized with their Parents as was the custom of the Jews 2. There is nothing in Christ's Commission Mat. 28. that is against it for the Teaching there that is required excludes not the Children of Believers from Baptism as appears by the consideration of the Condition of the Persons to whom Christ sent his Apostles to Baptize who were Aliens and the whole World in regard of the new-Administration were such Nor is that in Mark 16. exclusive of Infants though it requires believing to go before baptizing And the reason is because the same condition that is required there to precede Baptism is required to precede Salvation So that if the sence of the place be that Infants must not be Baptized because they cannot Believe it will as directly follow they must not be saved because they cannot Believe The way of answering one answers both and by the same distinction the Salvation of Infants may be maintained their Baptism may 3. If the Import of the Commission had not been to take in the Children with the Parents in Baptism it had been needful for Christ to have given them a Caveat when be sent them forth to disciple the Nations to this effect See that ye forbear to Baptize the Children of the Nations and that because the Apostles knew that Children under the former Administration were reputed disciples belonged to the Covenant and had Crcumcision the Seal thereof applyed to them and that Baptism succeeded in the place thereof Col. 2.11 12. 4. The Magdeburgenses say though we have no particular example of any Infants Baptized in this Century yet Origen and Cyprian that lived in the time of those that saw the Apostles affirm that Infants were Baptized in the Apostles days Cent. 1. L. 2. C. 6. p. 496. and that the custom of Baptizing them was transmitted from them to Posterity Cent. 1. L. 1. C. 4. p. 151. 5. Though we have no express example yet we have something Equivalent thereto As 1. The Baptizing whole Housholds or Families of which we have such frequent mention in the Acts. As Lydia's Family Act. 16.15 though there be no hint of any one that Believed but herself So Stephana's Houshold 1 Cor. 1.16 and divers others When once the Head of the Family Professed his Faith all the Family were by and by Baptized As under the Law when the Master of a Family was Proselyted he and his were forthwith Circumcised And 't is altogether improbable that in so many housholds that are said to be Baptized there should be no Infants when we can scarce find one Family without them 2. No Children of Believing Parents are mentioned to have been Baptized afterwards during the space of 60 years for so long it was from the time that John the Baptist began his Ministery to the time that John the Evangelist ended his in which time there could be no less than thousands and ten thousands of Children born of Christian Parents and grown up to Maturity and yet we find not one of all these Baptized at years of discretion and therefore may well conclude they were Baptized in Infancy CENT I. Nothing in Christ's Commission against it nor in the Apostles Writings CENT II. The Ancient Fathers of the greek-Greek-Church for Infant-Baptism Justin Martyr who lived by calculation in St. John's days must needs know what was done amongst the Apostles gives several hints for Infant-Baptism in is unquestionable Works as in his Dialogue with Triphon Part 2. Prop. 3. wrote 150 years after Christ Irenaeus that lived in the same Age within a hundred years after the Apostles and was a Bishop in France according to Helvicus in the year 170 of our Lord within 73 years of St. John and as noted by Mr. Baxter must live consequently within 43. years of St. John for he would not be Bishop till about 30 years old and we have his Testimony for it very plainly Lib. 2. Advers Haeres C. 39. speaking of Infants being born again that is by the Laver of Regeneration viz Baptism Dr. Hammond Resolution Sec. 4. p. 212. CENT II. Infant-Baptism opposed by none Magdeb. Cent 2. Cap. 4. p. 48. de Baptismo Nec usquam legitur Infantes hoc seculo a Baptismo remotos esse Infants were not excluded Baptism in this Age. CENT III. Infant-Baptism was in use in this Age as appears from Tertullian who lived in the first hundred years after the Apostles and expresseth himself thus in his Book de Anima viz. That the Children of the Faithful are holy by birth which is Paralel to that of the Apostle 1 Cor. 7.13 And whereas 't is said he was for the delay of it the Magdeburgenses tell us so he was also in respect of the Aged he had such a superstitious conceit of Baptism that he thought it best for all people to delay it of all conditions and Ages Cent. 3. C. 6. p. 124. and they say that he held a strange Opinion indeed that it was not fit for young-men unmarried nor young Widows to be Baptized why because in these the lust of Concupiscence was not extinguished Cent. 3. More Greek Fathers for Infant-Baptism 1. Origen who lived Anno 226. is most express for it affirming that it was transmitted to the Church from the Apostles as in his Comment upon Levit. C. 12.13 Hom. 8. and in Hom. 14. on Luke and upon the 6th Rom. And though we have them not extant in Greek yet being translated by Jerom as the Magdeburgs and Dr. Hammond observe from his Epistle to Heraclius prefixt to the Comment we have his Authority to secure us that they are his own 2. Cyprian Bishop of Carthage who besides his own Testimony who flourished about 248. and according to Bucol nearer Christ in 222 gives us in his Epistle to Fidus the Testimony of an African Council of 66 Bishops Magd. Cent. 3 C. 9. p. 205. Synod Afric de Infant Baptizandis Opposed by none CENT IV. We have in this Age the Testimony of divers other Greek-Fathers for it as Nazianzen who lived in the year of Christ 375. and shews it was in use in his time in his Orat. 3. in S. Lavacrum Magdeb. Cent. 4. C. 6. p. 417. where he is