as he saith having been formerly larger I say who knows but Mr. T. and Mr. D. formerly have so thought and so done themselves or at least have not professed against it which now they dislike in others Therefore let me offer to Mr. T. and Mr. D. and others of their judgement these three considerations First who that hath eyes as they Revel 4. as well within as without may not arreign himself guilty of this encroachment of extending his practise beyond the rule In many practises he throws open all fences and turns them into common But if he be questioned by the weakest disputant he cannot he dares not justifie himself in his sins but confesseth his way is butted there and bounded here and all the rest trespasse against the line he ought to walk by Secondly who is that professor especially a Minister living in this Summer of the Gospel at this time of the assent of Reformation to our Pole that forgets how in the dark and stormy Winter he saw lesse and stumbled more Even many of the Antipaedobaptists whom we own as brethren if they count Non-baptizing of beleevers children a peece of further Reformation a spark of clearer light must of necessitie confesse that not long since they thought not they did not so why then should we insult over our brethrens failing or taunt them for setting neerer their meridian closer to the rule that instead of baptizing all children they now state the question that onely believers children ought to be baptized unlesse in some speciall cases of which after Thirdly though meerly that second nature custome and that whirlwinde of persecution did precipitate many of later times to baptize all Protestant professors children confessing Christ to be come in the flesh and justification to be rooted in his righteousnesse alone yet all Ministers did not the same upon the same principles But 1. They knew that very anciently as appears by Tertullian living ann Dom. 195. which was not long after St. John Helvic This Tertullian being alledged in this question by H.D. the Churches did not baptize the children of unbeleevers out of the Church without Sponsores or Susceptores undertakers which we call Witnesses who engaged themselves as parents to look to the Christian education of such children called Godfathers as if fathers under God or for godlinesse to see them trained up in sound Religion Tertullians words in his Treatise de Baptismo cap. 18. are these Itaque pro cujusque personae conditione ac dispositione etiam aetate cunctatio baptismi utilior praecipue tamen circa parvulos Quid enim necesse est si non tamnecesse sponsores etiam periculo ingeri On which words Junius his note is this Tria hic distincti proponit Auctor quae si rectè intelligantur locus est sanctissimus Conditio personarum baptizandarum est quod sint in faedere sive grandiores sive parvuli Dispositio est quòd credant obsequantur Evangelio profiteanturque Aetate non qui sunt in faedere nam parvuli piorum liberi in faedere sunt sed qui profitentur fidem recognosci solent Quum itaque dicit praecipue tamen circa parvulos id de extraneorum non de faederatorum domesticorumque liberis opus est intelligi ut aetiologia sequente confirmatur Illud autem sr non tam necesse etiam sine injuriâ auctoris abesse potest Not to spend time in construing all this we now onely give you the summe of both in the point now in hand for we shall more largely speak to every particular afterwards That which they both say concerning witnesses to children that in these ancient times they were used for children whose parents were without and not of the faith not of the Church We speak not for the using of witnesses or godfathers c. in baptizing children as the wont was among us But Secondly that this ancient custome as ancient at least as Tertullian might possibly have some respect to the Scripture Gen. 17. according to Mr. Cottons observation His book of the way of the Churche in N. England pag. 115. Baptisme saith he may orderly be administred to the children of such parents as have professed their faith and repentance before the Church Or where either of the parents have made such profession Or it may be considered also whether the children may not be baptized where either the grandfather or grandmother have made such profession and are still living to undertake for the Christian education of the childe For it may be conceived where there is a stipulation of the covenant on Gods part and a restipulation on mans part So M. Grcenham also See his works where he saith the children of unbeleeving parents are within the covenant by virtue of their believing grandfathers Or else how is God the God of their seed to shew mercy to thousands of generations of them that love him there may be an obligation of the covenant on both parts Gen. 17.7 Or if these fail what hindereth but that if the parents will resigne their Infant to be educated in the house of any godly member of the Church the childe may be lawfully baptized in the right of its houshold governor according to the proportion of the Law Gen. 17 12 13. So far Mr. Cotton both his judgement and his grounds Now in imitation of this last clause in all likelihood were Witnesses used though abusively in baptizing the children of some unbelievers and strangers from the Church yet therefore we have not such cause to trample upon any of our brethren about their error in baptizing too many Infants seeing they erred with some antiquitie and some pretence of Scripture before they saw this light for which God must be glorified and not man prided The last thing Mr. T. objects in this Argument on Matth. 28.19 is that if this place doth not exclude all Infants from Baptisme then nor doth 1 Cor. 11.28 Let a man examine himself and so let him eat exclude Infants from the Lords Supper saying by the like elusion that the speech of the Apostle is not exclusive Yea verily saith Mr. T. neither will the Argument be of force from the institution of the Supper Matth. 26.26 27. that believers onely are to be admitted to the Lords Supper We answer And first to that comparison of 1 Cor. 11.28 with Matth. 28.19 we reply two things First that there is expressed in 1 Cor. 11. an universall determinating terme singling out all communicants man by man that they must be able to examine themselves before they eat But there is no such determinating word about Baptisine in Matth. 28.19 For first we have already in severall places of our Animadversions shewed that there is no certaintie at all that the Greek word here must signifie to-disciple or make-disciples For first most learned men render it no more but teach And so the Syriack and Arabick Translations * In the best Translations of the French
Pet. 2.9 Examined which things are said of the Israelites Exod. 19. 〈◊〉 6. Therefore beleevers of the Nations obtain the same birth priviledges which the Israelites had and therefore the children are within the Covenant and to be baptized as the children of the Israelites were to be circumcised Mr T. his Answer is first If this Argument proceed it will follow that there is some Nationall Church among the Gentiles as of old among the Jews which is not to be granted which I would have understood in this sence There is now no such Nationall-Church as amongst the Israeliets so as that a person should be accounted a member of a Church in that he is an Englishman Sco◠Dutchman c. In this speech JOPPOSE NOT THEM WHICH AFFIRME Note THE OUTWARD GOVERNMENT OF THE CHURCH SHOULD BE SUBJECT TO NATIONALL SYNODS Secondly Exod. 19.5 6. God speakes not of a priviledge flowing from birth but Obedience Thirdly The Epistle was written to the dispersed Jews and therefore the Argument lies lyable to exception when it is drawn from that which is said of the Jewes as if it were said of the Gentiles Fourthly The sence is ye which beleeve ver 7. whom God hath called out of darknesse are a holy Nation whether Iews or Gentiles by spirituall regeneration as beleevers are called a family or kinred Ephess 3.15 The houshold of faith Gal. 6.10 The house of God 1 Tim. 3.15 A people 1 Pet. 2.10 Wherefore in this family kinred house people are onely beleevers whom not carnall birth but spirituall causeth to be reckoned in that number We Reply Animadver to Mr T. his first particular thus The Argument in my eye doth not proceed to suppose some Nationall Church among the Gentiles For it doth not say The Nations of beleevers but The Beleevers of Nations obtaine the same birth priviledges Besides it recites a text written to the Iewes who were scattered from being a formall Nation throughout Pontus Galatia Cappadocia Asia and Bithynia Chap. 1. v. 1. And when they were a formall Nation a person was not counted a member of that Church quatenus ipsum precisely as he was a Iew but as he was circumcised or the Infant of one circumcised and so to be circumcised also A Iew was cut off if not circumcised according to the institution to Abrabraham Gen. 17. And a Gentile though a Gentile was a member of that Church if circumcised Ibid. Gen. 17. Just as an Englishman as an Englishman was not reckoned a member of the Church or Churches in England if unfit to be Baptized but kept out or a damnable Heretick after Baptisme but was cast out or if one be not the Infant of one baptized Though Mr Tombes seemes to oppose Nationall Churches yet he sets them up thus far wherein those of his judgement in the Question in hand I mean the ANABAPTISTS WILL NOT APPROVE Mr TOMBES That the outward government of the Church should be SVBIECT to NATIONALL SYNODS Nor will Mr Tombes please himself with the direct inference that will follow from his expresse words which inference is this That if a Nationall Synod in England shall determine that Infants of Beleevers shall be baptized whiles Infants Mr. T. must SVBIECT to it and lay down all his Exercitat Examination and Appendix against the baptizing of beleevers Infants as labour in vaine cancelled writings an old Almanack For Mr Tombes hath not in a matter of so great consequence reserved to himself by any expresse here so much as this exception That he will not SVBMIT in case they determine contrary to the Scriptures in his judgement but that he will have his liberty to stand out against the determination If any can at the first sight of this suddenly divine and Edict by Proclamation that this exception was supposed it may be as suddenly and rationally argued back again that this would have been sooner understood of the vulgar and readier been beleeved of the wiser if it had been here expressed But if they will have it supposed then the Question will be first Whether Mr T. according to his design hath prevented all offence to any of whom he would be rightly understood touching Nationall Synods Secondly What greater thing hath he said than divers others with whom yet he doth not for ought I know close in point of Church-Government To Mr T. his second reply touching Exod. 19.6 That the place being spoken to the parents suppose upon condition of obedience doth no way infringe that the children of those obedient parents should be counted of that holy Nation that is among the reputed holy of that Nation witnesse their Circumcision and their no-capacity of disobedience To the third particular we reply That this Epistle being written to the dispersed Jews leanes pronly for application to the Gentile-beleevers that though they are as a dispersed people among the unchristian Christian called-nations yet their Infants with them are to be accounted indefinitely holy as the children of circumcised Jews were counted holy To Mr T. his fourth particular we reply That there is nothing in it that doth evince that the children of the regenerate should not be accounted federally among the beleeving Gentiles of the more more glorious New Testament as among the Jews under the shadowed Old Testament Sixthly it will be answered saith M. T. that the Church of God Exercitat failes not § 13. The Argument from the Churches sayling if Infant-baptsme be not lawfull Examined But we must say the Church of God hath failed if Baptisme of Infants be not lawfull Ergo. Mr T. Answ 1. The Church of God may consist without baptisme as in the crucified converted thief c. Secondly neither perhaps is it necessary to be said that the baptisme of Infants because not lawfull is therefore null Thirdly there was in the Church Baptisme of persons grown in all ages Ludov. Vives in his Comment upon Aug. de Civit. Dei lib. 1. cap. 27. hath these words No man of old was brought unto the place of holy baptisme unlesse he were of grown age already and when the same person knew what that mysticall water meant and desired to be washed in it and that more then once an image of which thing we see yet in our baptisme of Infants for as yet the Infant though born the same day or the day before is asked whether he would be baptized and that thries for whom the sureties answer that he would I beare in some Cities in Italy that the old custome for a great part is yet preserved We reply To the first particular First doth one converted thees continue the church Animadver 2 Or if an accident that many by divine providentiall necessity are bolted and debarred from an ordinance for a certain time doth not interrupt the Churches succession when God by his prerogative will continue it Can at another time wilfull neglect of an Ordinance in a right manner yea the applying of it grossely to the
wrong parties as the Anabaptists pretend both and proclaime thereupon a nullity of Baptisme of such persons justifie that then and there is a due succession of the Church Yet thus hath the Baptisme of beleevers infants ten thousands for one of ripe years continued in Holland Scotland England and other Churches in France and Germany and where other-wise beyond the memory of the oldest man alive Where then hath been the succession of the Church all that while according to the principles of the Anabaptists touching childrens Baptisme Sure they will not hold the preaching of the Word an infallible essentiall note of a Church so long as whiles Infants grow up to be men For true preaching of the word of God on the preachers part may be to heathens Doubtlesse as M. P. and Vossius distinguish Wide is the difference of a Church in the constitution when men of ripe yeares must receive the first Seale from a Church constituted wherein the first Seal descends from the beleever to his child for any precept that appears in the Old or New Testament to the contrary But Mr T. faith in his second particular which will nothing please the Anabaptists perhaps it is not necessary to be said that the Baptisme of Infants because not lawfull is not therefore null Note Wee reply Mr T. speakes but perhaps and it is not necessary and to say so But what perhaps will M. T. say and how necessarily say Baptisme of Infants is all null by that time he hath fully concocted this principle of the unlawfullnesse of the Baptizing of any Infants as thousands of others have done and some honest men and scholars who upon the said principle of Antipaedaptists have turned Anabaptists though they drew their originall of Re-baptisme from most scripturelesse Se-baptisme I may well put the question For by that time M. Tombes is gone six leaves further Viz. in the 34 and last page of his Exercitation he begins to be beyond perhaps and speaks as if it were necessary to say that The assuming of Baptisme in ripe years by those who were washed in infancy is not a renouncing of Baptisme as some in their grosse ignorance conceit but indeed a firmer avouching of Baptisme according to Christs mind If the Reader will but marke these lines well and especially those words we have put in another character hee will easily be a Commentator to himselfe upon Mr Tombes his warping judgement To Mr T. his third particular wherein he aesserts That there was in the Church Baptism of persons grown in al ages and quotes LVDOVICVS VIVES to prove it We reply first to his assertion First that is very generall for an answer to an argument There were persons How many In all ages What meanes that In every hundred yeares or ordinary age of man Suppose sixty years or lesse What is all this to clear a continued succession of the Church in point of baptizing persons of ripe years Secondly let us deal plainly one with another in things of this nature Can M. T. or any else produce proof that in England Scotland Ireland c. there hath been baptized in either of these at least one of ripe yeares every year for these 80 or an 100 yeares last past If not or if so where is a sufficient number to continue the succession of Churches we talke of in point of adult-Baptisme Baptisme of persons of ripe years 2 To his quotation of LVD VIVES we say First he is but of yesterday to say without proofe what hath been in former ages For in all his Notes on August he cites not one Scripture not one Antiquity not one Author nor any thing that may go for a Reason but only tells us of a fashion of questions put to humane-devised God-fathers and God-mothers as they call them and of an hear-say out of Italy a likely place to preserve any pure truth 2. Though Lud. Vives were a good Schollar in Arts yet we must not give credit to him in divine things when his phrase departs from purity and his assertion from verity He saith Nems olins sacro admovebatur baptisterio that is No man of old was brought unto the holy Baptistery Font or Vessell to wash in He puts holinesse in or upon the Vessell in which these persons of ripe yeers were baptized for it should seem by him they were not baptized in a River which phrase of Lud. Vives Mr Tombes covers with a double garment first Translating Baptisterio by the word place that being wide enough in signification to include rivers Secondly Translating sacro Baptisterio the holy place by the place of holy Baptisme LVD VIVES goes on Nisi adulta jam aetate that is unlesse he were of ripe age already Now this is a grosse mistake and opposite to the best approved antiquity that tels us it was a known custome in the Churches to baptize infants within few years after the death of the Apostle John And therefore this custome could not totally invade the Churches on such a sudden without any mention in Antiquity but flowed doubtlesse downe from the Apostles So Justin Martyr Irenaeus Origen Cyprian Gregory Natianzen Ambrose Augustine and others For the pretences made by Mr T. against some Quotations of those fathers I doubt not but to take them off and to justifie these antiquities when we come in our XIII CHAPTER to Mr Tombes his fourth Argument against the baptizing of Beleevers Infants In his Exercitation § 17. For the present we have no more to say to VIVES or Mr TOMBES upon this argument but only to admire that Mr Tombes would translate VIVES as if he had said that the person of ripe years desired to be washed more then once in the water of Baptisme for so it lies fairer in Mr Tombes his Translation to please an Anabaptist namely The person of ripe years defired to be washed in the water of Baptisme and that more then once whereas Mr Tombes following the Latin closer which is So ablui illâ— aquâ peâ—eres nec semel peteres he might have translated clearer that he desired and desired more then once what to be washed with that water CHAP. X. SEventhly Heb. 6.2 Exercitat § 14. The Argument from Heb. 6.2 for Infant-baptisme examined The Apostle speaks of the doctrine of baptismes and laying on of hands now this is not likely to be understood of laying on of hands in healing sick persons or bestowing the Holy Ghost for these were extraordinary or miraculous and therefore not to be put in the number of the principles of the oracles of God the foundation milke for babes nor of imposition of hands for ordination to speciall function in the Church for that though ordinary yet not likely to be put among the principles the foundation milk for babes therefore it remaines that it was the laying on of hands on children formerly baptized in infancy which though corruptly made a Sacrament by Papists and superstitiously abused yet being freed from the
T. his allegation of the Lord Brookes and Daniel Rogers that Mr T. did not dreame We say that it is possible two more may dreame as well as Mr. T. we say two more for to his c. And others else-where we can distinctly answere nothing where nothing is alleadged But for the two particularly named giving their bookes all due respect Robert Lord Brookes of Episcopacy Sect. 2. chap. 7 p. 96. of 2. edit 1. The bare recitall of the Lord Brookes words are a full answer which are these I will not I cannot take on me to defend That men usually call Anabaptisme Yet I conceive that Sect is Twofold Some of them hold Free-will Community of all things deny Magistracy and refuse to Baptize their Children These truly are such Hereticks or Atheists that I question whether any Divine should honour them so much as to dispute with them much rather sure should Alexanders sword determine here as of olde at the Gordian knot where it acquired this Motto Qâ—ae soivere non possum dissecabo What I cannot unty I will cut asunder There is another fort of them who only deny Baptisme to their Children till they come to yeeres of discretion and then they baptize them but in other things they agree with the Church of England Truly These men are much to be pitied And I could heartily wish That before they be stigmatiz'd with that opprobrious brand of Schismatick the Truth might be cleered to them For I conceive to those that hold we may goe no farther than Scripture for Doctrine or Discipline it may be very easie to erre in this Point now in hand since the Scripture seemes not to have cleerly determined This particular The Anaglogy which Baptisme now hath with Circumcision in the old Law is a fine Rhetoricall Argument to illustrate a Point well proved before but I somewhat doubt whether it be proofe enough for that which some would prove by it since beside the vast difference in the Ordinances the persons to be Circumcised are stated by a positive Law so expresse that it leaves no place for scruple but it is farre otherwise in Baptisme Where all the designation of Persons fit to be partakers for ought I know is only Such as beleeve For this is the qualification that with exactest search I find the Scripture requires in persons to be baptized And This it seemes to require in All such persons Now how Infants can be properly said to beleeve I am not yet fully resolved Yet many things prevaile very much with me in this point First For ought I could ever learne It was the constant custome of the purest and most Primitive Church to baptize Infants of beleeving Parents For I could never find the beginning and first Rise of this practise Whereas it is very easie to tracke Heresies to their first Rising up and setting foot in the Church Againe I find all Churches even the most strict have generally beene of this judgement and practise yea though there have beene in all ages some that much affected novelty and had parts enough to discusse and cleere what they thought good to preach yet was this scarce ever questioned by men of Note till within these Last Ages And sure the constant judgement of the Churches of Christ is much to be honoured and heard in all things that contradict not Scripture Nor can I well cleere that of Saint Paul 1 Cor. 7.14 Else were your Children Vncleane but now are they Holy I know some interpret it thus If it be unlawfull for a beleever to live in wedlock with one that beleeveth not Then have many of you lived a long time in unlawfull marriage and so your very Children must be Illegitimate and These also must be cast off as Base borne But it is not so for Your Children are Holy that is Legitimate I confesse This seemes a very faire Interpretation yet I much question Whether This be all the Apostle meanes by that phrase Holy especially when I reflect on the preceding words The Vnbeleever is Sanctified by the beleever Nor yet can I beleeve any Inherent Holinesse is here meant but rather That Relative Church-Holinesse which makes a man capable of admission to Holy Ordinances and so to Baptisme Thus farre the Lord Brookes where he is against Master Tombes touching the meaning of 1 Cor. 7.14 And touching Infant Baptisme But the question is whether Master Tombes be not more then a Catapaedobaptist namely an Anabaptist for Rebaptizing who so readeth the last page of his exercitation will not thinke that I meerely dreame For there he saith Nor is the assuming of Baptisme in ripe yeeres by those who were washed in Infancy a renoucing of Baptisme as some in their grosse ignorance concâ—it 2. For Master Rogers not daring to play the Astrologer to tell what influence Episcopall wandring Starrs might have upon his Booke Printed in the yeere 1635. having beene once Printed afore but esteeming the man I dare set downe his words also as a full answer to Master Tombes his words are these The fourth and chiefe person yea equall object of Baptisme is the party baptized The fourth person the infant For not onely the Church may and doth baptize her Infants but also adultos grown ones also if any such being bred Pagans and brought within the pale of the Church shall testifie their competent understanding of the new covenant and professe their desire to be sealed with Baptisme for the strengthning of their soule in the faith thereof professe it I say not basely and slightly but with earnestnesse and entirenesse cutting off their haire and nailes and abhorring their Paganisme But the truth is the exercise of the Churches baptisme is upon infants Here the Anabaptists rise up A short touch of the baptism of infants pleading the corruption of such baptisme and urging the first baptisme of catechized ones and confessors of sinne and cravers of the seale upon the worke of the Ministry foregoing in knowledge and faith which can be incident only to adulti or grown ones They alledge that we seale to a blank to no covenant and therefore it 's a nullity Sundry learned men have undertaken to stop their schismatical mouths and to answer their peevish Arguments my scope tends another way in this Treatise so farre as my digression may be veniall I say this for the settling of such as are not wilfull that I take the baptisme of Infants to be one of the most reverend generall and uncontrouled traditions which the Church hath and which I would no lesse doubt of than the Creede to be Apostolicall And although I confesse my selfe yet unconvinced by demonstration of Scripture for it yet Reasons for it First Sithence Circumcision was applyed to the infant the eighth day in the Old Tâ—stament Secondly there is no word in the New Testament to infringe the liberty of the Church in it nor speciall reason why we should bereave her of it Thirdly sundry Scriptures
afford some friendly proofes by consequence of iâ— Fourthly the holinesse of the child externall and visible is from their parents who are or ought to be catechized conâ—â—â—tors pâ—nitenâ— and Protestants in trueth which priviledge only open revolt disables them from therefore I say The seed being holy and belonging to the Covenant the Lord graciously admits them also to the seal of it in baptisme Howbeit here a further quaerie arises And because the Sacrament of Baptisme is here handled by us Question How it is capable 1 Pet. 3.21 not a halfe a Sacrament onely including a washing of the flesh but an entire Sacrament holding out and giving an invisible grace by out-ward meanes By what authority shall wee say an Infant may be presented to that whereof it is not capable To that I answer Answer First it 's not meete that Baptisme being the Sacrament of new birth which can be but once should destroy her owne Analogy by frequent administering therefore if but once the most comprehensive way is to do it in the Infancy when the outward admission of a member is allowed to it Secondly although the child be not capable of the grace of the Sacrament by that way whereby the growne are by hearing conceiving and beleeving yet this followes not that Infants are not capable of Sacramentall grace in and by another way Pittifull are the shifts of them that have no other way to stoppe an Anabaptists mouth save by an errour that an Infant may have faith It 's easie to distinguish between the gift conveyed and the manner of conveying it For if the former be the latter in such case will prove needlesse But if the infant be truly susceptive of the substance of Christ none can deny it the Sacrament Now to understand this marke that Infants borne of beleeving parents are of the number of those that shall be saved though dying in their Infancy none of our reformed Churches will deny It is enough therefore that such before death doe partake the benefit of Election in Christ together with the benefits of Christ in regeneration adoption redemption and glory Now that the Spirit can apply these unto such Infants is not doubted of Though the manner thereof to us be as a hidden and mysticall thing yet so it is the Spirit of Christ can as really unite the soul of an Infant to God imprint upon it the true title of a sonne and daughter by adoption and the image of God by sanctification without faith as with it Now if the grace it selfe of Bapâ—â—sme be thus given it why not Baptisme Nay I add further I see no cause to deny that even in and at and by the act of Baptisme as the necessity of the weake infant may admit the Spirit may imprint these upon the soule of the Infant Thus Master Rogers Where by his quotation of Scriptures and discussâ— of arguments you may see what he meant by Apostâ—licall tradition CHAP. XV. Exercitat Argu. 6. §. 19. The argument against Infant-baptisme from humane inventions occasioned by it confirmed THe sixth Argument followes That which hath occasioned many humane inventions partly by which Infant-baptisme it selfe may be under-propped partly the defect in the policy of the Church which in very deed is to be supplied by the lawfull use of Baptisme Of that it is deservedly doubtfull whether it be not in it selfe weake and insufficient for its proper work But the matter is so in the businesse of Infant-baptisme Ergo. The Minor is proved by instances they are 1. The use of suerties in Baptisme which is an humane invention for a shadowy supplement and I had almost said sporting of that profâ—ssion of faith which at first was made by the baptized in his owne person 2. Episcopall confirmation in which the Bishop layes hands or anoints the Catechized that Baptisme or the Baptized may be confirmed and they made capable of the Lords Supper 3. The reformed union by exâ—mination confession subscriptition of the received doctrine in the Church before the communion of the Eucharist of which Parker of Eccles policie l. 3. c. 16. 4. The Church-covenant as they call it afore the admission of members into Church-fellowship of which the new-New-England Elders in the little booke in English called Church-Covenant which in very deede are devised to supply the place of Baptisme for by Baptisme according to Christs institution a person is exhibited a member of Christ and the Church 1 Cor. 12.13 Gal. 3.27 Ephes 4.5 THe seventh Argument Arg. 7 § 20. The argument against Infant-baptisme from the Errors occasioned by it confirmed That which hath occasioned many errors that is deservedly doubtfull whether it be right But the practise of Infant-baptisme hath occasioned either the birth or fostering of many errors Ergo. It is proved by instances 1. That Baptisme conferres grace by the worke done 2. That Baptisme is Regeneration 3. That Infants dying are saved by the faith of their Parents faith of Sureties of the Church receiving into her lap which is to be ascribed alone to the grace of God by Christ 4. That some regenerate persons may utterly fall from grace THe eight Argument That which hath caused many abuses and faults in Discipline Arg. 8 §. 22. The argument against Infant-baptisme from many abuses caused by it confirmed and Divine worship and Conversation of men that is deservedly doubtfull But Infant-Baptisme is such Ergo. It is proved by enumeration 1. Private baptisme 2. Baptisme by women 3. Baptisme of Infants not yet brought into light 4. Baptisme of Infants of uncertaine progeny whom we call children of the earth and world 5. They are baptized in the name of the Lord who know not the Lord nor have ever consented or perhaps will consent to the confession of the name of our Lord. 6. It hath brought in the admission of ignorance and profane men into the communion of the Church and to the Lords Supper for who can deny rightly the right of the Church to the baptized 7 It perverts the order of discipline that first a man be baptized and after among the catechized 8 The Sacrament of baptisme is turned into a meer Ceremony yea into a profane meeting to feast together 9 Men forget Baptisme as if they were never baptized so that it hath the force of a carnall rite not of a spirituall Institution 10 It takes away or at least diminisheth zeale and industry in knowing the Gospel THe ninth Argument That is deservedly doubtfull Argum 9 § 22. The argument from unnecessary disputes caused by it against Infant-baptisme confirmed that yeeldeth occasion to many unnecessary disputes fostering only contention and which cannot be determined by any certain rule But the tenet or rite of Infant-baptisme is such Ergo. It is proved by instances 1 Of baptizing the Infants of Excommunicated persons 2 Of baptizing the Infants of Apostates 3 Of baptizing the Infants of such Parents as are not members in a gathered Church 4 Of
in the Church before the communion of the Eucharist is an human-invention following upon Infant baptisme We answer Animad 1 That M. T. all this while hath contended that Examination and confession before Baptism and consequently afore the Communion is an ordinance of Christ How then says M. T. now that they are human-inventions 2 If subscription be added It is but a visible or legible profession and not so dangerous as Ministers subscriptions have been in the Prelats time though some have had the mercy out of the University to subscribe with their own conditions 3 That there is mention in Isay 44.5 That one shall call himself by the name of Jacob and another shall subscribe with his hand unto the Lord and sirname himself by the name of Israel So that to subscribe to the truth of God professed in a Church to be called a member of the same is no such Scripture-lesse human invention as M. T. would make of it To M. T. his fourth-particular That the Church Covenant Exercitat yea as set forth in the book of the Churches of New England called CHURCH COVENANT is an human-invention devised to supply the place of baptisme We answer We will not say that this is Cynically but wee will say it is boldly spoken by one man Animad so to censure so many brave men for Learning Godlinesse Conscience and Sufferings For 1 we quaere whether M. T. doth thinke the late Nationall Covenant to be a meer human-invention If not let him be moderate in his opinion of Church Covenant 2 Wee assert that whatsoever ingenuous and understanding Reader shall peruse the Book called the Church Covenant will finde it stronger for a Church Covenant then M. T. his Treatise for the Anabaptists way of baptizing 3 We put M. T. in mind that all relations except naturall are founded upon mutuall covenant and agreement as between husband and wife Master and servant amp c. Therefore that between Pastor and flock 4 That Baptisme exhibiting one to be a member of the universall visible Church now on earth doth not make him to belong peculiarly to my flock a See before in the former Chapter touching faults in Discipline that are bound in Scripture duties to mee or mee to be a Pastour and bound in conscience of Pastorall duty to him 5 In that seeing some particular expresse intimation there must be seeing we have not the intellectuall communication of Angels that he or she is of my flock and I their Pastor What can M. T. find out to effect this if he lay aside all Covenantall expressions 6 If the Church Covenant were composed by men as those of mariage servantship c. are yet all divine duties may follow upon this as upon them by divine imposition CHAP. XVII TO the 1 and 2 particulars in the minor of M. T. his seventh Argument of Errours occasioned by Infant Baptisme Exercit. § 20. as that Baptisme confers grace by the work done that Baptisme is regeneration We answer Animad 1 M.T. in all his allegations of Antiquities or others that are orthodox in the mayne hath not to our knowledge produced any such expression as that Popish one that Baptism confers grace by the work done 2 That wee have produced places of best antiquity that expresly tell us that their meaning was that we should not in denying Baptisme to Infants as much as in us lyes hinder their salvation a See before out of Cyprian Thirdly that ancients do call Baptism regeneration is no more than to speak Scripture phrase b Which place the Ancients oft quote in that point John 3.5 Titus 3.5 Fourthly that the ancients did not think Baptism did profit all baptized persons c Lib. 4. contra Donatistas Augustine sayth What profits the Sacrament to them that receive it unlesse they be inwardly changed And blaming some in his time sayth What profits the Sacrament to them that receive it unlesse they be inwardly changed And blaming some in his time sayth Spem baptiz andorum auferunt à Domino Deo in homine ponendam esse persuadent That is They take off the baptized from their hope in God and perswade them to place it in men To M.T. his third particular thence Exercit. that Infants dying are saved by the faith of their parents We reply Animad 1 How doth this agree with the former assertion that we hold baptisme confers grace exâ—pere â—perato by the work done 2 Where in approved antiquity or late Protestant Writers is any such expression Wee say upon very good Scriptures urged afore that a child of a believing parent is to be reckoned within the Covenant by vertue of that parents faith but to pronounce him to be saved thereby is a doctrine unknown to us For those expressions of M.T. annexed to his third particular put upon us as that Infants are saved by the faith of sureties of the Church receiving into her lap wee desire they may be carried back to Rome whence they were brought the dispute now is not between Papists and Protestants To M T. his fourth particular in that argument Exercitat that some regenerate persons may fall from grace We answer Animad That neyther is the dispute betweene Prelaticall-erring-time-serving-vassals and us Have therefore these things away to the Prelaticall Arminians and their State-serving-Complyants CHAP. XVIII TO M.T. his first particular of his minor in his eighth argument Exercitat that Infant-baptisme hath occasioned private Baptisme We answer Animad If M.T. means private in regard of place for wee never knew of difference of forms as that which is done in a dwelling house we demand what danger or derogation is there in that more then in that which is commonly called a Church Or 2 that Baptisme which is not done in a River wee demand whether Baptisme in a dwelling house or in a meeting place in the company of 40 or 50 be not as publike as when two or three steal to a Rivers side in some uncouth and unfrequented place yea and as well done in the sayd houses as there as to the question now in hand of private or not private To M.T. his second particular of Baptisme by women Exercitat occasioned by Infant Baptisme We answer Animad 1 we know no such thing to haue been allowed in the Protestant Churches since Luthers time 2 For ancienter time before the invasion of grosse Popery into the World Bin. The fourth Council of Carthage Ca. 10. commands Mulier baptizare non prâ—sumat that is Let not woman presume to baptize So that if an over-forward Midwife or Matron presumed to baptize upon the example of that bold woman Zippora circumcising her sonne shee had by Moses yet this was not allowed by the orthodox Churches To the third particular Exercitat of baptizing children before they are brought into light We answer Animad wee