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
34. 2. There needed no express Command in the New-Testament that Infants should be signed and sealed by Baptism when the Covenant is not abolished that took in the Seed with the Parent as there needs no express Command for the Lord 's Day or First-Day Sabbath in the New-Testament because the fourth Commandment for substance is still in force So there needs no new Command for Baptizing the Infant-seed of Believers because the Command for sealing such is for substance still in force It is also well noted by Mr. Gerce that there is a great difference between an Ordinance it self and some particular Circumstance or Subject to which that Ordinance is to be applied As for the Ordinance it self the setting up of Baptism as a Sacrament of the Gospel-Covenant renewed by Christ this requires express warrant in the Word of God but when we have such warrant for the Ordinance it self to whomsoever we find by grounds and principles in Scripture that it doth of right belong there we may apply it though we want express Command for it if we have none against it 3. We farther add what is well argued by some Divines That if the Children of Believers have a right to be Baptized by the word of Promise Mr. Stephens and Mr. Sydenham then they have a right to be Baptized by the word of Command but the Children of Believers have a right to be Baptized by the word of Promise therefore they have a right to be Baptized by the word of Command Now that Children have a right to be Baptized by the word of Promise appears from Act. 2.39 For the Promise is made to you and to your Children c. The exceptions which the Antipaedobaptists make against this Text shall be removed in its proper place Now for the other Branch there is no Example of Infants being baptized therefore it is no Ordinance of Christ The Consequence stands upon a lame Leg for as is before shewn a negative Argument in matters of Fact is not valid For Christ did many things that were not recorded and so did the Apostles whereof this was one for ought we know the Baptizing Infants and it is the more probable upon a twofold account First because we find such frequent mention of their Baptizing whole Families as Stephanus and his houshold Lydia and her houshold and divers others as soon as we read of the head of the Family to believe the whole houshold was baptized As when Abraham believed he and his whole Family were circumcised and so when the Head of a Family became a Proselyte ordinarily He and His were Circumcised Now in so many Families as were baptized it cannot rationally be supposed that there were no Children and if there were any they were baptized for they are a part of the Family or Houshold And secondly Because we never read in Scripture of any Children of Believing Parents who were Baptized afterwards Our Opposits will not believe the Apostles baptized Children because we can give no particular instances of it but this Negative Argument may be thus retorted against themselves The Children of Believing Parents were baptized in their Infancy for they cannot find in Scripture any of them that were baptized when they came to years of discretion and not before I urge not this as a concluding though probable Argument that in the Apostle's days Children were Baptized however I am certain that to say Infant-Baptism is no Ordinance of Christ because we have no examples in the Scripture of any that were Baptized is a pittiful Argument Next saith he That there is neither Precept nor Example for any such thing as Infant-Baptism in the Scripture we have the ingenuous Confession of the parties themselves The Magdeburgenses do say That concerning the Baptising the Adult both Jews and Gentiles we have sufficient proof but as to the Baptizing of Infants they can meet with no Example in the Scriptures Very good Sr. now you have learnt to set down things right but why did you say in the 56 page of your Treatise referring to the same place Cent. 1. L. 2. pag. 496. That the Magdeburgenses as to the Subjects of Baptism tell us that in this Age they only Baptized the Adult was that lapsus calami or mentis And do you not know that in the same place they tell us notwithstanding particular instances cannot be found as all the Paedobaptists confess yet 't is evident from the Writings of the Apostles that they did not exclude Infants from Baptism and then bring Arguments for the lawfulness of it as before For that of Luther in his Epistle of Anabaptism I have not the Book by me to Examine it yet I am sure by what the Author cites it hurts us not The Scriptures saith he do no where clearly and plainly with these or the like words say Baptize your Children for they believe and we must needs yield to those that drive us to the Letter This is still no more than what we all say we all acknowledg it is no-where written Children do believe as Lutherans hold they do and again we say as Luther did it is no-where written clearly and plainly with these words Baptize your Children for they Believe Nor have Antipaedobaptists any command in so many words Go and Baptize actual and visible Believers If they say such were Baptized we may reply with Mr. Sydenbam that is not to the purpose for it is a verbal command which they require to give warrant to an Ordinance and for ought we can learn from Christ's Commission Matt. 28.19 Whosoever are taught be the parties never so wicked they must be Baptized if they will for there is no mention made of their entertainment of the Gospel Next he Fathers that upon Erasmus which was never spoken by him in his Comment upon Rom. 6. Namely That Baptizing of infants was not in use in St. Paul's time There is no such word I assure thee Reader there Again in his 4th Book de Ratione Concionandi he saith That they are not to be condemned that doubt whether Childrens Baptism were Ordained by the Apostles But why Sir did you not speak out all You know Erasmus his words are these Probabile est tingere Infantes institutum fuisse ab Apostolis non damnaretur tamen qui de hoc dubitaret It is probable the Baptism of Infants was instituted by the Apostles nevertheless if one doubt thereof he should not be condemned In this Erasmus speaks like an honest moderat-Spirited man that would not have weak Christians Anathematized as the Papists use to do for their dissent in Circumstantial and Disputable points Calvin in his 4th Book of Institutes Chap. 16. confesseth that it is no-where expresly mentioned by the Evangelists that any one Child was by the Apostles Baptized to the same purpose are Staphilus Melancthon Zwinglius quoted to which I only say That whereas they all tell us there is no express Command or express Example an Implicite one is
not depends on variable circumstances of the State of the Persons to whom Christs Ministers are sent be they such as the Apostles were then sent to they must be Discipuli facti made Disciples by Preaching and then be Baptized But be they the seed of Disciples they are Discipuli nati born Disciples by the Relation of the covenant and so may have the seal set on them without any preceding teaching 4. Lastly not to insist upon that that Infants are Christs Disciples because all Nations must be Discipled and Infants are included in those Nations we conceive we have no obscure ground for the Baptizing the Children of Believers because as Mr. Ainsworth on Gen. 17. Mr. Tombes saith in his Examen pag. 89. That it is well known Baptisme was in use among the Jews in the initiating Proselytes for many years together with Circumcision quotes Selden and Ainsworth for it and Mr. Godwyn in his Moses and Aaron lib. 1. cap. 3. pag. 10. do inform us Baptism was in use as a kind of Initiation among the Jews though it was not a Sacrament till Christ his Institution and therefore this Rite seemed no strange thing unto them as appeareth by their coming to John questioning not so much his Baptisme as his Authority by what authority he Baptized John 1. 25. For as the Learned Dr. Hammond observes the Institutions of Christ who came first Messias to that people was born of that Nation lived regularly under their law and observed their customes were by him drawn from their former practices in the old Testament and so were lightly changed and accomodated to his own purposes he instanceth in divers things and at length comes to this of Baptisme or Washing a known right for initiating the Jews and Proselytes into the Covenant of the Lord. For he doth abundantly shew out of the Talmud and Rabbies that the way of entring into the Covenant was by Circumcision and Baptism so says Mr. Godwyn also in the place before mentioned And as the Natural Jews were thus entred so were the Proselytes and as the Proselytes of age so also were their Infant-Children Baptized So the Gemara Babyl tit Chetub c. 1. They baptize the little or young stranger or Proselyte as the Hebrew hath it And Maimonides in tit Isuri bia c. 13. They Baptize the Infant or little Stranger upon the knowledge of the house of judgement i.e. on their desire in behalf of their Children From all which it appears that the Jewish Ceremony of Baptizing was accomodated by Christ to the Right of our initiation of the Profession of Christ whereof saith he we have as little reason to doubt as that a Picture was taken from that Face which it resembleth to the life And from hence we have as he conceives and that very rationally a clear foundation for our practice namely to baptize not only those who make a profession of their Faith in Christ but likewise their Children with them And though some men of late years have denyed the warrantableness thereof and darkned the truth by their arguings against it yet one may well suppose it was clear and obvious enough to the Apostles from the knowledge they had of the former administration which took-in the Children with the Parents into Covenant for if it had not been Christs mind believers Children should be sealed with Baptism under the new administration he would certainly have given some intimation thereof and given his Apostles some such caution as this when he sent them to Disciple all Nations and Baptize them See that you do not baptize Children Lastly we may from hence also gain light that the Essence of Baptism doth not lye in being immerst or plunged under water for it can never be proved that this was the manner of the Jewes Baptizing persons or things I shall shut up this with a passage of the Learned and Godly Bucer upon these words Sane dum non habent locum quo praecipitur tantum doctos baptizari nihil roboris suae sententia hinc adferent etenim nos docemus antequam baptizemus Ne quid vel his vel iospiam alibi Scripturarum habetur neminem baptizari debere nisi ille Doctrinam Christi per se quoque perceperit Bucer in locum Go teach all Nations Baptizing them Since the Anabaptists saith he have no place of Scripture that commands us to Baptize none but those that are taught they cannot strengthen their opinion from this Text For we our selves do teach i.e. Adult-Aliens before we do baptize neither can we from hence or any other Scripture prove that no one ought to be Baptized unless he shall understand or learn the Doctrine or Christ The Evangelist Mark varies the words of the Commission thus Go ye into all the World and Preach the Gospel to every Creature The one hath it Nations the other World and the terms are equipollent signifying the same Rom. 11.15 But what must they do in all the World preach the Gospel i.e. publish abroad to all without exception the freeness and fulness of Gods rich Grace in the New Covenant even that same Gospel that was preached long before to Abraham Gal. 3.8 And this blessing of Abraham is come upon the Gentiles ver 14. And this is to be Preacht 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to every Creature i.e. with a distinction to every humane creature which the opposers of Infant-Baptisme may do well to consider since they stand so rigidly upon the Syllabical Letters of every word in the Commission so as they will not allow us liberty to draw out the sence of some places that relate to Infant-Baptism from the Letter by rational deduction and consequence and according to the Harmony of Scripture but we must superstitiously adhere to the very Syllables of the Text whereas whatsoever appears truth from the Analogy of Faith or by just consequence is as practicable and obliging as if it were written with a Sun-beam in so many Capital Letters It would be a senseless undertaking indeed to Preach the Gospel to every individual creature in the World and therefore it is to the understood restrictively of mankind poor lost man for whom Christ dyed Lastly the Connection too he he that believeth and is Baptized shall be saved hath some difficulty in it and the sence is not so obvious to every capacity for if it had many of those controversies between us and the Papists had never been as Whether Baptism be of absolute necessity to salvation which Protestants deny and many Papists affirm And let the Antipaedobaptists well consider that this Evangelist doth as closely conjoyn believing and being Baptized to Salvation as the other doth teaching and being baptized and if we must so exactly stand upon the Order of words to prove the Institution We may saith Sydenham argue from Mark as well as they from Matthew as none must be baptized but they who are taught so none but those who believe and are Baptized shall be
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
Surely it must be so or else there is no way how Infants can be saved 3. Dr. Taylor in his last discourse of Baptism gives a good Rule for the understanding Scriptures of this sort which if attended to would bring us and Antipaedobaptists a little neerer together which is this viz. That when the Scripture speaks of the effects of or dispositions to Baptisme it speaks in general expressions as being most apt to signifie a common duty or general effect or a more Universal event or the proper order of things but those general expressions do not supponere universalitèr that is they are not to be understood exclusively to all suscipients or of all the subjects of the proposition And he makes it clear by divers passages of Scripture There are many Synecdoches in the word where many only are to be understood when it speaks of all The secret effects of Election and of the spirit are in Scripture attributed to all that are of the outward Communion 1 Pet. 1.2 So Peter calls all the Christian strangers of the Eastern dispersion Elect according to the fore-knowledge of God the Father And Paul saith of all the Roman Christians and the same of the Thessalonians that their Faith was spoken of in all the world and yet among them it is not to be supposed that all the Professors had an unreproveable faith or that every one of the Church of Thessalonica was an excellent and charitable person and yet saith he 2 Thes 1.2 your faith groweth exceedingly and the charity of every one of you all towards each other aboundeth So to the question before us As many of you as are baptized into Christ have put on Christ That is so it is regularly and this is the designed event but from hence we cannot conclude of every person and in every period of time This man hath been baptized therefore now he is clothed with Christ he hath put on Christ nor thus This person cannot in a spiritual sense as yet put on Christ therefore he hath not been baptized that is he hath not put him on in a Sacramental sense To conclude We cannot understand the Apostle in those words of putting on Christ to intend a saving union to Christ or a putting on of Christ spiritually and effectually in regard of all that are Baptized for all these Galathians did not so put him on and innumerable persons that are Hypocrites when baptized at age do not so put him on Wherefore the words are to be understood Sacramentally as 1 Cor. 10.4 5. Heb. 10.29 And thus Infants put on Christ as well as grown persons 7th End of Baptism saith he is that the Baptized person may orderly thereby have an entrance into the visible Church c. For as Circumcision heretofore was the visible door of entrance into the old Testament-Church So also was Baptisme such a door and visible entrance into the New Testament-Church c. Act. 2.41 42. They who gladly received the word were baptized and the same day there was added to them about 3000. souls and they continued stedfastly in the Apostles doctrine and fellowship and in breaking of Bread and in Prayers So that after baptisme not before the believers were said to partake of all the Church-priviledges Posito uno absurdo mille sequuntur Upon this false Hypothesis do our Opposites build their dividing Practices Wherefore we deny that Baptisme doth give formality or make a man a member of a Visible-Church it is not that which gives entrance into it as the Author would have it so as if only by its Administration and in their own way too persons must be Baptized or else they are not to be reputed Church-Members or to be admitted into the participation of Church-priviledges But for this we have divers of our Divines quoted as Vrsinus The Assembly in their Catechisme And lastly Mr. Baxter with whom he is again at Hocus Pocus Mr. Baxter saith he in his plain Scripture proof pag. 24. As a Soldier before listing and a King before Corwning and taking his Oath so are we Church-Members before Baptisme But as every one that must be admitted solemnly into the Army must be admitted by listing as the solemn ingaging sign so every one that hath right to be solemnly admitted into the visible Church must ordinarily be admitted by Baptism But mark Reader the Authors ingenuity Baxters words are So are we and Infants Church-Members But being quite out of charity with those Innocent Babes this man leaves out Infants and one would think by the partial Citation that Mr. Baxter also did shut the Church-door against them It cannot be denyed that Orthodox Divines have frequently termed Baptism the Sacrament of our initiation into the Church and have ascribed our Admission or entrance into it thereunto and hereby have given the Antipaedobaptists some seeming ground for their rigidity And yet I find that they are not agreed among themselves about the point for Mr. Paul a great Zealot against Communion with any that are not Baptized in their way doth in his serious reflections disown the Position That Baptism is an initiating Ordinance and tells us in that Diminitive Volume of his p. 3. That he knows none that asserts it to be the in-let into praticular Churches though it prepares them for Reception Mr. Kiffin it seems is of the same judgement for he bestows an Epistle upon the piece Of the same judgment is John Bunyan a more moderate Antipaedobaptist that is for Vnion and Communion with Saints as Saints and condemnes the Rigidity of his Brethren and maintains in his Answer to the scurrilous not serious Reflections of Paul That differences in judgement about Water-Baptisme ought to be no Bar to Communion Printed for John Wilkins in Exchange Alley which is the Title of his Book and sees no cause to repent after severe checks from his Brethren to call them Babes and Carnal that attempt to break the peace and communion of Churches though upon better pretences than Water and declares God never made Water-Baptism a Wall of Division between us And whereas Paul denies Baptisme to be an initiating Ordinance he retorts very rationally upon him that if it be not that but another and if visible Saints may enter into Fellowship by that other and are no where forbidden so to do because they have not light into Water-Baptisme it is of weight to be considered by all unprejudiced persons Mr. Tull also a moderate and very ingenious Antipaedobaptist is of Mr. Bunyans judgment But Mr. Henry Jessey of precious Memory hath published his judgment to the same purpose grounding it upon Rom. 14. v. 1.3.7 such as are weak in the faith receive you c. From whence he argues most strongly and convincingly that it was the duty not only of the then present Church at Rome to whom the Epistle was writ as also to all beloved of God called to be Saints at that time ver 7. But also of all Churches and
Saints Beloved and called throughout the world in succeeding ages to receive into Church-communion and Fellowship such whom we have ground to believe God hath received into Communion with himself For that 's the Argument or Motive verse 3. God hath received him and saith he if it be a good Argument to receive such as are weak in any thing whom the Lord hath received Then there can be no good Argument to reject for any thing for which the Lord will not reject them The like argument we have chap. 15. ver 7. of Christs Receiving Receive you one another as Christ hath received us c. Then that holy man breaks out into pathetical strains Oh! how is the heart of God the Father and the Son set upon this to have his children in one anothers hearts as they are in his c. and 't is the work of the Devil saith he to divide them Thus much to shew how they differ amongst themselves about this Position that Baptism gives formality or makes a member of a visible Church which the moderate party amongst them utterly deny now that it gives neither essence or being either to a Church or Membership further appears by these Arguments 1. If there be a Church That dividing Principle That Baptism formes a Church or makes Church-Members refuted and so Members before Baptism then Baptism cannot give the formality or essence because forma is causal and so is in nature before formatum But the Church considered as totum essentiale is before Baptism for Ministers are before baptism And there must be a Church of Believers to chose a Minister lawfully for none but a Church can give him a call and without a call he cannot administer as Mr. Hooker argues in his survey of the sum of Church-discipline cap. 5. part 1. pag. 55. adding moreover that if Baptism cannot be without a Ministerial Church nor that before a Church Congregational which must make choice of a ministry then such a Church is much before Baptism Besides let it be supposed saith he that at the coming of some Godly Zealous Christian and Scholar into the Country and a company of Pagans many are converted to the Faith I ask whether these may not joyn in Church-Fellowship and choose that man Pastor and whether that choice was not lawful according to God Therefore here is a Church before a Minister and so before Baptism The demand which Mr. Jessey makes upon the same arugments is somewhat like this if Baptism saith he be the manner of forming Churches how would it suit a Country where many are converted and willing to be Baptized but there being no Church to be baptized into how shall such a Church-State begin The first must be baptized into no Church that is particular and the rest into him as the Church or the work stand still for want of a Church 2. A Church may be without Baptism and yet as real a Church as the Israelites were so long in the Wilderness without Circumcision which without dispute was the initiating Ordinance according to Divine Institution Gen. 17.13 3. One Argument I shall borrow more from Mr. Hooker and that is If Baptism give the form to visible-membership then while that remains valid the party is a visible Member for where the form is the formatum must needs be if the principles of reason may take place But there is true Baptism resting in the party who hath no visible Membership as in an Excommunicate in him that renounceth the fellowship of the Church or when the Church is utterly dissolved then all Church-Membership ceaseth for Relata mutuò se ponunt tellunt And yet Baptism is valid And as it is an undeniable position That that which gives the form or being to a Church must cease when the Church ceaseth or when a member ceaseth to be a member it must cease with it so it follows that that must be renewed namely Baptism as often as Membership is renewed so shall we have a multiplication of Baptisms as often as the person is cast out of the Church and taken in again upon his repentance As for those two Scriptures which the Author brings for his opinion they will hardly be found to serve his turn 1. The main place stood upon is Act. 2.41 As many as received the word gladly were baptized and there was added that day about 3000. souls Hence they conclude they were added by Baptism and that they were only added this way Sol. 1. It is more then the Text affords for to conclude that they were added by Baptism much less can it be argued from thence that they were only added this way the words say not they were added by Baptism but puts a full point or stop after that sentence As many as gladly received the word were baptized There that sentence ends as Mr. Sydenham notes upon the place And the Apostle goes on a new account and saith There were added that day 3000. souls but doth not at all shew the manner of their adding so that these words are rather a recapitulation and summing up the number of Church-Members added that day then any description of the way of their taking into the Church and the former reasons prove it cannot be interpreted as our Author would have it The other place that he urgeth for his opinion is 1 Cor. 12.13 We are all baptized into one body hence 't is concluded Baptism imbodies Members 1. In answer to this let it be considered what those of their one party say that are for Dipping The Text saith Mr. Bunyan that treateth of our being baptized into one body tells us expresly it is done by the spirit For by one Spirit we are all baptized into one body Here is the Church presented as under the â—â—tion of a Body here is Baptism mentioned by which they are brought or initiated into this body Now that this is the Baptisme of Water is utterly against the words of the Text For by one Spirit are we all Baptized into one body So Mr. Jesse The Baptism intended in the Text is the Spirits-Baptism and not Water-Baptism and the Body the Text intends is not principally the Church of Corinth but all believers both Jews and Gentiles being Baptized into one Mystical Body and the reason why it cannot be meant of Water-Baptism is because all the Body of Christ Jews and Gentiles bond and free partook not thereof Thus here we see how they clash amongst themselves as touching the sense of the place 2. We add That as we conceive the Apostle speaks there primarily of the Baptism of the Spirit not of Water so by one spirit we are baptized into one body is not so much of Baptism by Water and yet supposing it to be meant of Baptism by Water Yet as Mr. Sydenham observes it proves nothing that Baptism is the form of that body Sydenhams Christian Exercitation cap. 20. pag. 168 169. which hath its matter and form holiness and
Matth. 19. Suffer little Children to come unto me and forbid them not and they tell us of one Hincmarus a Bishop how sharply he reproved one that was against it for the Bishop said that in denying it he did that Quod nullus unquam Christianorum facere ausus est Which no Christian ever durst to do Cent. 9 cap. 4. pag. 140. CENT X. UNder this Century in their 6th Chapter Circa ritus Baptismi about the Rites of Baptism they have this passage that in this Age tam Insantes quam Adultos Baptizabant They Baptized both grown Persons and Infants â—atrini adhibiti etiam sunt Magd. Cent. 10. p. 293. Cent. 10. pag. 293. Besides they give instances of several Infants Baptized and tell us that God-fathers were in use in this Age that they strictly enjoyned that they look to it that the Children that were Baptized be instructed in the Christian Faith when they come ad sustain et atem to ripeness of years Cap. 6. Pag. 292. yet is not the Author ashamed to insinuate as if they had been against Infant-Baptism even in this Age also For first he brings in Auslbertus the Magdeburgenses call him Ausbertus and what of him Why he hath this expression which the Author quotes out of the Magdeburgenses namely That the Faithful are born not of Blood but of God viz. of the Word of God preached and of the Baptism of God duly administred by which Sacraments God's Children are begotten Cent. 10. pag. 189. Good Doctrine indeed and much to the purpose Baptism is one of the Sacraments and the Word preached another The next is Smaragdus on Mat. 28. Ordo Baptizandi in Adultis a Smaragdo traditur say the Magdeburgs What saith he why first Men are to be taught that is Heathens afterward baptized That this is his meaning take his own word for it pag. 188. where he thus expresseth himself Little Children are to be baptized because it is said Suffer little Children to come unto me c. Last of all the Author cites Theophylact from the Magdeburgenses and would fain have it also believed that he was against Infant-Baptism because of that saying of his Whosoever is truly baptized hath put on Christ pag. 189. I cannot but think the Author doth wilfully mistake and sets himself on purpose to blind the Reader for he cannot but observe the Magdeburgenses quoting that passage of his on the 15th of Luke Cent. 10. pag. 190. where Theophylact lays down this Position That an Infidel or Pagan must needs die in his sins Why because he hath not put off the old-man sacramentally that is he hath not been baptized This Ancient Doctor speaks in that place only of such and what is this to the Baptism of Believers Children CENT XI HEre Anselm is introduced by him as if he were against us because he saith Believers are baptized into the Death of Christ Cent. 10. pag. 186. I perceive the Author's pulse begins now to beat very low For the Magdeburgenses do in this Century bring in a passage most express for Infant-Baptism in the Comment on the third of Matthew Octavus dies in quo Circumciditur Infans dies est Baptismatis in quo Neophytus quisque exuitur labe pr … ae generationis The eighth day in which the Infant was circumcised is the day of Baptism Also on Rom. 6 Anselm hath this saying Profecto parvuli qui Baptizantur in Christo c. pag. 260. They tell us farther that in this Age they did baptize not only Adult persons but such as were newly born pag. 260. and also give instances of divers Children baptized in this Age citing a passage out of Meginhardus de fide That in this Age Sureties were in use which answered for the Children CENT XII RVpert Lombard Aquinas and the rest of the Popish Schoolmen were zealous Asserters of Infant-Baptism and whatever they speak of Confession or Profession before it be administred is meant as before of Pagans and the Magdeburgenses cite divers passages of Lombard how that Children although they have no Faith of their own may be baptized in the right of others Faith that present them to the Ordinance Johannes Boemus the Author mistakes and calls him Bohemius is indeed of Strabo's mind and besides these two I may truly say that from the beginning of the Centuries hitherto this unfaithful man hath perverted the sayings of all the Authors which he hath quoted and upon consideration of his carriage herein I am confident of these two things First That never did any Writer more prevaricate and shew more fashood than he hath done Secondly That he would certainly have forborn it if he had thought any man would have been at the trouble to examine and search whether he spake truth or not PART II. We now come to the Second Part of his Treatise which is to disprove Infant-Baptism under this Head That the Baptizing of Infants is no Ordinance of Jesus Christ CHAP. I. Containing his first Argument against Infant-Baptism because there is no Scripture for it which is in form as followeth If saith he Infant-Baptism had been any Appointment or Ordinance of Jesus Christ there would have been some Precept Command or Example in Scripture to warrant the same but inasmuch as the Scripture is so wholly silent there being not one syllable to be found in all the New-Testament about any such Practice it may well be concluded to be no Ordinance of Jesus Christ THe Argument consisting of two Branches must accordingly be answered in Parts First then to that which hath ever been objected by them there is no Precept or Command We answer 1. A thing may be said to be commanded in Scripture two wayes First Expresly or Liter thy and Syllabically that is totidem verbis in to many plain term or words Thus we acknowledg Infant-Baptism is not commanded it is nowhere said Go baptize Infants if it had there would have been no controversie Secondly A thing may be commanded in Scripture Implicitly and by good consequence and what is thus commanded is as valid and obliging as if it were in so many letters and syllables and thus we affirm Infant-Baptism is commanded There are in Scripture clear Grounds and Principles from whence by just and warrantable Consequences it may be deducted that the Children of Believers have right to Baptism for if they belong to the Covenant and are Holy if they are Members of the visible Church c. then they ought to be baptized So then the Argument against our Practice drawn from a want of express Precept is built upon a false Hypothesis That no direct Consequences from Scripture are mandatory and obliging contrary to the Judgment of all Orthodox Divines and the Method of Christ and his Apostles in their Arguings Christ proved the Resurrection of the Body against the Sadducees not by any express Text but by Consequence Mat. 22.31 32. So Paul proved the Resurrection of Christ by Consequence Act. 13.33
sufficient so that in this long train of Authors which our Antagonist quotes he doth but magno conatu nugas agere take a great deal of pains in trifling But that which he cites from Mr. Daniel Rogers seems to have more weight who in his Treatise about Baptism Part 29. Confesseth himself to be unconvinced by demonstration of Scripture for it This is taken from Mr. Tombe's Examen Tombes Examen p. 2. pag. 2. To which I answer one man may be fully convinced by Scripture-demonstration when another is not but 't is fit the Reader should know all that Mr. Rogers saith there upon the point for it is unhandsome to bring in scraps out of Authors He tells us he no less doubts of the warrantableness of Infant-Baptism than he doth of the Creed saying that sundry learned men have undertaken to stop their Schismatical mouths that oppose it and to answer their peevish Arguments and though he saith his scope tends another way yet gives his reasons for it 1. Because Circumcision was applyed to the Infants on the 8th day in the Old-Testament 2. There is no word in the New-Testament to infringe the liberty of the Church in it nor special reason why we should bereave her of it 3. Sundry Scriptures afford friendly proofs by Consequence 4. The holiness of the Child External and Visible is from their Parents therefore the seed being holy and belonging to the Govenant the Lord graciously admits them to the Seal of it by Baptism Farther he brings a passage out of Mr. Baxters plain Scripture-proof for Infants Church-membership and Baptism Where he confesseth pag. 3. That Infant-Baptism is not plainly determined in Scripture Hear what he saith Reader and then judge what he gains from Mr. Baxter all that he saith is as follows viz. The Scripture speaks fully of those particular controversies that were on foot in those times but more sparingly of those not then questioned and then names divers questions which the Scripture fully and plainly determines But saith he many others as difficult which then were no Controversies have no such determination and yet mark it the Scripture is sufficient to direct for the determination of these too if we have wisdom to discern the Scope of the Spirit to apply general rules to particular cases Such is the Case of Infant-Baptism Afterward in the 9th page we have this The grounds saith he upon which Infants are Baptized are very easy and plain though to many it be difficult to discern how it is from those grounds inferred and therefore though some few learned and Godly and humble Men do doubt of it yet in the whole known Christian part of the World there is but few After this we have something brought out of Dr. Taylor 's Lib. of Proph p. 239. concerning Previous dispositions that are requisite to Baptism of which Infants are not capable But to prevent transcribing I refer the Reader to his latter Piece of the Consideration of the Practice of the Church in Baptizing Infants where he himself confutes what he had said in his Liberty of Proph. you have it pag. 25 26. Here also we have a parcel of Authors introduced who do all are rolundo express fully their judgments That nothing must be done in Gods Worship without Scripture-Warrant Mr. Ball is one of them whose saying our Antagonist fetcheth out of Mr. Tombes Exerc. pag. 9. M. Tombes Exercit pag. 9. so it is also in his Exam p. 2. Tombes Examen p. 2. joyned to that of Mr. Rogers before-mentioned Mr. Balls words are We must look to the Institution and neither stretch it wider nor draw it narrower than the Lord hath made it For he is the Institutor of the Sacraments according to his own good pleasure and it is our part to learn of him both to whom how and for what end the Sacraments are to be administred c. But why doth he not set down all that Mr. Ball hath in that place Circumcision and Baptism saith he are both Sacraments of Divine Institution and so they agree in the substance of the thign signified the persons to whom they are to be administred and the order of Administration if the right proportion be observed as Circumcision sealed the entrance into Covenant the Righteousness of Faith and Circumcision of the heart so doth Baptism much more clearly As Abraham and his Houshold and the Infants of Believing-Jews were to be Circumcised so the Faithful their Families and their Seed are to be Baptized At last he thinks to rout us quite with a saying of Bellarmin's whose very name gives us an Allarm and sounds Bellum Arma War Arms. The Anabaptists saith Bellarmine call for plain Scripture-proof for the Baptizing of Infants and their Argument from defect of Command or Example have great force against the Lutherans foras much as they use that Principle every where viz. That the Rite which is not in Scripture having no Command or Example there is to be rejected Yet it is of no force against Catholicks who conclude that Apostolical Tradition is of no less Authority with us than the Scripture but that this of Baptizing Infants is an Apostolical Tradition c. To which I Reply that the Author might well have omitted this of Bellarmin since it is but acunning insinuation of that Jesuitical Sophister to set Protestants at greater distances amongst themselves to advance the esteem of their adored Tradition And yet he himself speaking elsewhere of Infant-Baptism saith satis aperte ex Scripturis colligitur c. Infant-Baptism is plainly enough gathered out of Scripture CHAP. II. The Historical Account which the Author gives of Iafant-Brptism in its Rise and Establishment Examined and Condemned In this Chapter he presents us with the History of Infant-Baptism and tells strange news if you will credit him of its Original since the Apostle's days Thus he begins 1. From the learned Authorities before given we have gained thus much that as there was no Precept in Scripture for the Baptizing of Infants so neither was there the least Practice to be found thereof in the Apostles days as was so ingeniously before Confessed by the Magdeburgenses Luther Calvin Erasmus Rogers 1. BUt we have made it appear Sr. that you reckon your gains too fast and have much erred in casting up the Sum as the Reader may find in the preceding Chapter I question not if he be impartial he will conclude you have not gained a farthing but are rather a loser hitherto For among all those Learned Authorities before given there is no passage although never so much strained that saith any more than this There is no Express precept in Scripture for the Baptizing of Infants and this every Child knows but in saying there is no Express one they intimate thereby there is an Implicite one I love not to repeat the Reader may if he please reflect upon what they say And in asmuch as the point relates to matter of Fact
notwithstanding the confidence of the adverse party unless they can produce one Express place of Scripture where it is said No Infant was Baptized or some Express Command not to Baptize them their calling for an Express Command concludes nothing against our Practice 2. Moreover we affirm against their Practice that there is no Express Command in all the Book of God to plunge persons Head and Ears under water nor can they by any convincing Circumstance about the manner of Baptizing make it appear though thousands were Baptized in a day that any one was so severely dealt with in the primitive times we shall shew when we come to it that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 among Heathen and Ecclesiastical Writers doth promiscuously signify to dip into or wash with Water by pouring on of it and in the Scripture it is more frequently taken for Washing than dipping 3. They have no Express Command or Example to Baptize or plunge themselves as they do with their Cloaths on which is rather a Baptizing Garments than Bodies Since they are so much for Express Command and Example let them first justify their own Practice by it before they condemn us for want of it 2. He tells us That the approved Practice and known custom of the Primitive Church was to Baptize the Adult as all Ages acknowledg and only they at least for the first as is so fully attested by Eusobius Beatus Rhenanus Lud. Vives Bullinger Haimo the Neocaesarian Council Look back Reader to that saithful Account I have given from the Magdeburgensian Century-Writers and thou shalt be able to judg of the truth of what he speaks I am necessitated to touch upon it again what Eusebius speaks of Origens being a Teacher before Baptism refers to the Pagans what that Old Popish St. Beatus Rhenanus saith of the Ancient custom which was to Baptize those that were come to full growth with the Bath of Regeneration if it relates to Heathens it is no more to purpose than the former out of Eusebius but if we are to understand him so as if no Children were anciently admitted to Baptism no not those of Believers then we plead an older custom even as old as Origen and Tertullian that Children were Baptized in the Church and as Mr. Calvin hath it in his Instruction against the Anabaptists The Holy Ordinance of Infant Baptism hath been perpetually observed in the Christian Church for there is no ancient Writer that doth not acknowledg its Original even from the Apostles which was the Reason why Austin hath that Expression concerning it namely Nullus est Scriptor tam vetustus qui non ejus Originem ad Apostolorum saculum pro certo referat Calvini Instit cap. 17. part 8. pag. 227. Ecclesia semper habuit semper tenuit The Church always had it always held it And for Lud. Vives his saying That they Baptized the Adult in some Cities of Italy his Testimony hath been always looked upon as very incompetent because he was but of yester-day and we have nothing but his bare word for it and not to be compared with Austin's a man of great integrity and that lived above thousand years nearer the Apostles who affirms it was not only Practised in his day but before and quotes Testimonies for it Then for Haim◠all that he sais upon Matt. 28 will not prejudice us his words are Here is set down a rule how to Baptize that is that Teaching should go before Baptizing c. which we confess ought to be so when we have to deal with Pagans and he speaks of such And as none of the Popish School-men are for the Authors turn though we have many passages quoted out of them to no other end but to blind the Reader and make the Book swell so I am mistaken if that which he quotes out of Albertus Magnus the Conjurer be much for his turn you have it in the 12th Cent. p. 85. of his Treatise And lastly for the Neocaesarian Council that business is of a very ridiculous nature and impertinent to the question for the matter under debate in that Council was about a Woman that was pregnant who being an Infidel came to be Baptized and the Canon speaks of such a one and not of a Woman that was within the Church of a Child born of a believing Parent as is fully shewn before in Cent. 4. 3 Whereas he saith not only the Children of Pagans were to be Instructed and taught in the Faith in order to Baptism but the Children of Christians also as those famous instances given from the 4th Century We have shewn in our discourse upon that Century the corrupt and silly grounds upon which they deferred Baptism till they were grown up in those days and some of the instances there given had Parents that were Heathens when they were born and so continued till they were come to Maturity and that was the reason they were Baptized though 't is true their Parents were at last converted to the Christian Faith 4. He farther saith that as there was no Scripture-Authority for it so no Human Authority till above 400 years after Christ though to justify that injunction Apostolical-Tradition to supply the want of Scripture-Institution was pretended I may almost say truly of this Quot dicta tot maledicta so many words so many foul reproaches Calumniare fortiter aliquid adhaerebit said Machiavel and our Author follows the Rule exactly he thinks he can never throw dirt enough upon Infant-Baptism hoping some will at last stick I shall Reply to this First To say there is no Scripture-Authority for Infant-Baptism and that Apostolical Tradition was on purpose brought in to supply the want of it are presumptuous weak and false dictates Since the same Men viz. The Fathers that call it an Apostolical Tradition do upon the matter all of them plead for it upon Scripture-grounds as Cyprian Nazianzen Chrysostom Ambros Epiphartius who argue for Infant-Baptism because it came in the room of Circumcision and from the right the Infants of the Jews had to Circumcision and of latter days Protestants own nothing for truth that comes under the notion of Apostolical-Tradition Proinde necessario veniendum erat ad argumenta ex Scripturis quae si rem non evincant frustrà traditionem ad vocabimus Riv. Animad in annot Grotii in Cassandrum Art 9. p. 71. unless they see ground for it in Scripture they are of Rivets mind that Tradition is in most points uncertain and thereforē if we will be certain of a thing we must see the foot-steps of it in the word And Mr. Calvin speaks to the same purpose in his Instructions against the Anabaptists Caeterum minime peto ut in eo probando nos Antiquitas ullo modo juvet c. I do not in the least desire to borrow help from Antiquity for the proof of this point any whit farther than the judgment of the Ancients shall be found to be grounded on
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
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
Lattin Fathers bring this Text to prove the Prerogative of the Infants of Believers in such a sense as they could not have done if to their understanding it had not related to the Covenant of grace But to the Argument and let us see what is excepted against it The Argument is this viz. They who are holy with a federal or Covenant holiness ought to be baptized But the Infants of Believers are holy with such a holiness Ergo This is grounded on the Text which saith else were your Children unclean but now are they holy Against which it is excepted that there are two things in the Argument asserted but not at all proved First that the holiness in the Text is a Federal or Covenant-holiness Secondly that federal holiness qualifies Infants for Baptism both which the Author positively denies upon the following grounds First because the Holiness in the Text be it what it will be whether Moral Federal or Matrimonial is neither here nor elsewhere assigned to be a ground of Baptizing Children upon it being only the ground laid down in the institution that can warrant the same To which I reply That in the first part of the Book chapter the first is shewed how the Infant Seed of Believers are included in the institution or comprehended in the Commission as baptizable and being not willing actum agere I must referr the Reader thither We have also proved that they are of the Church of Christ chap. 6. of the first part upon which account they are likewise subjects of Baptisme Farther if their holiness be a Covenant-holiness that is a holiness of special separation to God and he owneth them as his peculiar ones by virtue of his Cove nant-Relation this is virtual ly and implicitly a word of command for the Baptizing such In fants Antipaedobaptists are ever up with this note where is your command What word of Institution have you to bear you out To this we have spoken enough before in telling them we have an implicit command for what we do and farther we offer this Syllogisme They to whom God is a God in Covenant have a command to receive the seale of the Covenant Gen. 17.10 11. If then the same Covenant be given to Believers and their Seed and if Baptism be given to Christians instead of Circumcision as shall be proved in its proper place then the same command which obliged Abraham to be Circumcised and his seed doth in like manner the faithful and their seed also Secondly Because saith he if it should be granted that Faederal holiness were a ground to baptize Children upon under the Gospel as it was to Circumcise them under the law yet it will appear from substantial Arguments that no such holiness is intended here Let us hear what they are namely 1. Because there is no such Holiness in the new-Testament as Federal belonging to Children Well argued this seems to be neer of kin to idem per idem it is not because it is not So there is no such holiness intended in the Text Why Because there is no such holiness in the New Testament and the Text is in the New Testament The matter is well mended in what follows It is no where to be found This is only a Dictate for he addeth no reason It is no where to be found But you must understand he means by himself and his party that have made such inquisition and search into Scripture that they only have found what is there what they judge to be the fence of Scripture is so and we must all come and learn of them what the Scripture contains what it implyes and what may be inferred from it what not Away with this Popery But what if I say the Covenant holyness of Children may be found in this Text I see no reason but my word may be be credited as well as his Nay if we must go by an implicit faith we shall carry it for allmost all the Godly and Learned Divines in Europe have found Covenant-holiness in the New-Testament not only in the 2 Cor. 7.14 But in Rom. 11.15 16 17. where it is said if the first fruits are boly so is the lump if the root be holy so are the Branches which demonstrates the Covenant-holiness of the children of believing Gentiles now under the Gospel as much as of the Jewish children that descended naturally from Abraham under the Law but this must not be admitted and why 1. Because it contradicts the Gospel-Dispensation as before that is I suppose in the first part of his Book chap. 5. and I referr the Reader to our Answer of that Chapter to which I adde this by way of surplusage that if our Children be not federally holy how could the Apostle press the Jews to imbrace Christianity by telling them The Promise is made to you and to your seed and to all that are afar off even as many as our Lord God shall call So that to say the Doctrine of Federal holiness contradicts the Gospel-dispensation is to contradict the Gospel which expresly says the contrary Act. 2.38 39. Where mark the words are not the promise Was to you and to your Children but is intimating that the Covenant is not repealed but in force still under the Gospel-Dispensation as much as ever it was anciently to the Jews and their posterity and to them that are afar off the Gentiles and then to their Children too even their Infant Children otherwise these two absurdities would follow 1. The grace of Christ under the Gospel-dispensation would be less then what it was under the Law for then the believing Parent with his Children were federally holy and if it were not so now then should we be in a worse condition under Christ then under Moses 2. It will render the Children of the Jews also in a worse condition upon their coming in to Christ then they were in under the legal Administration contrary to that Jer 30.20 Ezek. 37.25 26. 2. His second Reason is Because such apprehensions intails Grace to Nature Regeneration to Generation contrary to John 3. That which is born of the flesh is flesh and Eph. 2. We are all the Children of wrath by Nature This hath been before answered and I shall only now say that this is a false and fraudulent insinuation to beget a prejudice in the weak against our assertion of federal holiness for he knows very well 1. That our Divines hold that gratia non transfunditur per carnem and that grace is not extraduce Grace is not hereditary that is inherent Grace We all ways affirm that all Children are alike depraved and all the posterity of Adam are alike conceiv'd in sin and brought forth in iniquity all are Carnal and unclean by nature 2. We farther affirm that though all the Children of Believers are not holy with an inherent personal holyness that accompanies Regeneration yet the Children of either believing Parent are holy with a holiness-relation put upon them and
that their Children should be unclean that is infamous and not Legitimate who so are holy that is during the Marriage are without all blot of ignominy J. T. Hierome saith because by Gods appointment Marriage is holy Exerc. p. 12. J. T. Ambrose hath it thus the Children are holy because they are born of lawful Marriage Exercit. p. 12. J. T. Melancthon in his Commentary on the place Therefore Paul answers that the Marriages are not to be pulled asunder for their unlike opinions of God if the impious person do not cast away the other and for comfort he adds as a reason The Vnbelieving Husband is Sanctified by the believing Wife And elsewhere he saith Meat is Sanctified for that which is holy in use so here he speaks the use of Marriage to be holy and to be granted of God Exer. p. 11. J. T. Musculus on the 1 Cor. 7.14 hath those words I have sometimes abused the present place against the Error of the Anabaptists Exercit. p. 1. H. D. leaves out Error because that sounds ill and an ignorant Reader upon the leaving that out may judge Musculus was Proselyted to them J. T. Joachimus Camerarius about this matter in his Coment for the Vnbelieving Husband hath been Sanctified an usual change of the Tense that is sanctified in the lawful use of Marriage for without this he saith it would be that their Children should be unclean that is infamous and not legitimat who so are holy that is during the Marriage are without all blot of ignominy Exercit. pag. 11. By this the Reader may see that our Antagonist hath little reason to keep such a vaunting with things made ready to his hand And in Answer to all the Testimony of these Commentators that it is to be understood of Legitimacy in opposition to uncleanness and Bastardy besides the aforementioned Reasons against it I am of Mr. Marshals mind as he told Mr. Tombes that though some Ancient and Modern do interpret this Text as he did yet it is easie to bring 10 for one that interpret it for federal holiness and this saith he to Mr. Tombes you will confess although I forbear to bumbast my Book with them no ways desiring that this cause should be carried by number of voices only because Camerarius is named as against us in the interpretation and he is joyned and bound up at the end of Beza I mean that which was Printed at Cambridge I shall acquaint the Reader how positive Beza is who carries the Text for federal holiness Sed quid si quis hoc negassot Imo verò nemo id potuit negare cum constaret do promissione in qua semen quoque comprehenditur No man may interpret it otherwise it being according to the Covenant which comprehends the seed Nec alia causa est cur sanctorum liberos ad Baptismum admittamas quà m quia sancti sunt id est in faedere comprehensi ab ipso utero This is the only reason why we Baptize the Children of the Godly because they are holy that is comprehended in the Covenant from their Mothers Womb. Now the Author is for answering our Objections against their interpretation of the Text. Object You give another sense of the word Holy then is to be found in Scripture for no where is holy the same with Legitimat but throughout the Bible in many hundred places Holiness is taken for a Separation to God saith Mr. Sydenham and Mr. Baxter And besides them all know holiness is taken for a special separation of things or persons to God and his use Mr. Marshall Geree Blake and all latter writers as well as former so take it in the present point and the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Text rendred holy is most used to express the Hebrew word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which ever signifies what is usui Divino accommodatum that which is appropriated to a Divine use which is the proper notion of the word in the old and new Testament as Sydenham notes and never taken otherwise and for the proof of it tells us he had compared above 300 places The Author speaks of 600 in the old Testament according to the Septuagint and all the New Testament places where the word is used Well How doth our Antagonist answer the Objection which he bring Why thus First suppose it be so He is no farther yet then a suppose that the word signifies that in all those places but this viz. 1 Cor. 7.14 But now are they holy it follows not but it may have this sense properly enough here the scope of the place leading to it as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies authority or power in all other places This is also borrow'd from Mr Tombes yet in the 1 Corin. 11 15. is rendered a Vail c. No wonder that Hereticks are so inflexible when even good men such as I hope both Mr. Tombes and this Author are will wrangle at this rate somnem movere lapidem try every way rather then be thought to erre in their conceits and where this humour is predominant men were better be silent and not dispute at all for it puts an abuse upon the Scripture and renders Religion not only ridiculous but turns it into a Fire brand of contention Thus our Author being unwilling to part with his fond notion of the word Holy in the Text doth I fear prophanely abuse the Scripture by flying to this old shift of Mr. Tombes grounded upon a mistake of the scope of the Text as is before shewn for the Corinthians doubt was whether it was sinful to cohabit with their Infidel Yoak-fellows and not whither is was fornication to live with them It will not be amiss to give you the reply that Mr. Baxter made to Tombes when he urged that though the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth in all other places signifie authority or power yet in the 1 Cor. 11.15 it is rendred a Vail To which saith Mr. Baxter if God do no where in all Scripture call the meer making a thing lawful the sanctifying it but many hundred times use the word in another sense then we must not call it nor so interpret him here but God doth no where in Scripture call the meer making a thing lawful the Sanctifying of it therefore we must not do so nor here so interpret it Mr. Tombes granted the Antecedent but denying the consequence said that though God did not so use the word yet we might and though he use it five hundred times otherwise yet we must so interpret him here To which saith Mr. Baxter I am resolv'd to learn of God how to speak rather then you and to follow Scripture phrase as near as I can c. But I must follow the Author And secondly saith he Neither are we to seek of some Parallel place where the word holy signifies this sort of Holiness Mr. Tombes Exercit. p. 13 14. viz. Matrimonial holiness Mal. 2.15 A holy seed viz.
Author and all the party conclude that the Seed to whom the Covenant belongs is the Spiritual and not the Carnal Not being born after the flesh but believing that makes us children of the promise To this exception of his in which their greatest confidence lies I reply Repl. 1. It is built on a most gross corrupting and abusing the Scriptures Let us then diligently consider those two places in the Galatians And afterwards that in the Romans First touching that in the former place the words are verse 16. He saith not to Seeds as of many but of one which is Christ Beza upon the Text saith obscurus locus est it is a place not easily understood a dark Scripture and indeed too dark and intricate for Antipaedobaptists so boldly to ground their opinion upon so directly contrary to the sence of many plain places The question is what doth the Apostle mean here by Christ By Christ cannot be meant Christ solely personal for then no Believer should be accounted for the Seed but only Christ who as concerning the flesh came of Abraham And he and none else should be concerned in the promises But it is to be understood of Christ mystical as Beza there notes Apostolus eo nomine non solum caput sed membra cum suo capite designans the Apostle by the word Christ denoting both Head and Members Capnt Corpus unus est Christus the Head and the Body make up one mystical Christ the word Christ being to be taken collectively in this place so we have it 1 Cor. 12.12 to which Beza refers And if this be the sence of it as what else can rationally then as Mr. Sydenbam notes this Text will make rather for us than against us for if we exclude all Infants from being of the Body of Christ we must in so doing unavoidably exclude them from Salvation for he is Saviour to no more than he is head of which is his Body As for the words in the nine and twentieth verse that will afford the Antipedobaptists little relief the words are If ye be Christs then are ye Abrahams Seed and Heirs according to promise from whence saith the aforesaid Author they argue the Apostle here describes who are the Seed so that now no children born of believing parents can be the Seed for they must be Christs according to that v. 16. We are all the children of God through Faith in Christ Jesus But let such understand what Beza saith on the place namely that the Claramontanus Bible hath the words thus and he thinks more right 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If you be one in Christ then are ye Abrahams Seed which comports well with the former verse There is neither Jew nor Greek neither bond nor free c. but ye are all one in Christ Jesus and if ye be all one then Abrahams Seed From which 1. It is clear that the Design of the Apostle is to take away all difference between Jew and Gentile and to hodl forth their unity in Christ and that this is the very scope of the place Beza shews fully in his Annotations upon it and that now there is no distinction betwivt them as formerly But the Gentiles are become Abrahams Seed as well as the natural and believing Jews Quod unius Seminis nomine collectivo significatur as before in the sixteenth verse which is pointed out to us by the collective name of one Seed 2. The Apostle here hath no intent to shew the distinction of Abrahams Seed as the Subject of the outward priviledges and administrations of Ordinances but to shew that none are spiritually and really Abrahams Seed and Heirs of promise but such as are Christs one in him with Abraham for if this should be the distinction of Seed as the subject of outward Ordinances it would be as much against professing Believers as Infants for the proposition from this Text as our Opposites draw it is thus none but those who are Christs are Abrahams Seed and none are Christs but real Believers and therefore none but they must be baptized But how weak is this 1. Because if none but such are Abrahams Seed and consequently none but such the subjects of Baptism then visible Believers are not the subjects of Baptism for they may not be Christs no more than Infants 2. None must be baptized at all upon this account for who knows who is Christs according to Election and saving Faith To say we have charitable grounds to believe visible professors are Christs till we see the contrary is not to the question as stated nor as it lies in the Text the Text saith If ye be Christs then ye are Abrahams Seed they say none are in Christ but real Believers See Chapter the fifth of the first part of the Authors Treatise and none must be baptized but the spiritual Seed and that will require not only a judgment of charity but infallibility to determine And besides the Apostle is describing here what the real and spiritual Seed are as having an inward right to Christ and not what the apparent Seed of Abraham was for he speaks to the Galathians who were visible professors and Believers then in appearance and he puts them upon a trial of themselves whether they were Christs or no. I have been the larger in quoting something from Beza but more from Mr. Sydenham who speaks abundance of reason that you may see how wretchedly this Text is abused by our Opposites And how far wide it is from the purpose for which they usually bring it Now for that other place Ram. 9.7 8. They that are the children of the flesh these are not the children of God but the children of the promise are counted for the Seed What do they gather from hence Why that Infants because children of the flesh are not under the promise this indeed is well argued for this is to make the Apostle contradict himself in the same breath for the Text saith In Isaac shall thy Seed be called Now that was a child of Abrahams flesh and yet a child of promise too And from hence issueth three undeniable Propositions as Mr. Sydenham noteth 1. That Abrahams spiritual Seed were as much his fleshly Seed also Isaac as Ishmael except Proselytes and Servants 2. The Covenant was administred to all Abrahams natural and fleshly children as if they had been his spiritual and before they knew what faith was or could actually professs Abrahams faith 3. When there is mention of Abrahams carnal Seed in opposition to his spiritual Seed it cannot be meant primarily or solely of those that descended from his flesh for then Isaac and Jacob were the carnal Seed yea Christ himself who as concerning the flesh came of Abraham It must be therefore understood 1. Of those of Abrahams Seed which degenerated and slighted the Covenant of the Gospel such as Ishmael and such of whom the Apostle speaks of Rom. 9.1.2.3 his Brethren and Kinsmen after the flesh
with Mr. Tombes we find this in his Exercit. pag. 7. Where he saith By like manner of Argumentation it will be lawful to bring in the whole burden of the Jewish Rites and who shall put a bound to mens wits and this manner of arguing will countenance the Arguments of the Papists for an universal Bishop because there was such an High-Priest among the Jews c. And that Tythes are due to Ministers Jure Divino form Analogy of Melchisedec and Aaron c. Exam. p. 86. Well since we have this Crambe bis cocta that is enough to turn ones stomach being tainted with long standing I think Mr. Gerees stomachical medicines may be proper We bring in M. Gere Vind. Padebaptismi saith he no new Rite by Analogy but only apply that which God hath brought unto those to whom by Analogy it doth appear to belong And again Baptism is not instituted or bronght in as a new Rite by us but being appointed of God is applied by us by proportion to Infants And for that of countenancing the Papists in their High-Priest-Hood neither doth that follow for this Argument proceeds as though we set up Circumcision it self whereas we neither set up Circumcision nor Baptism but apply Baptism instituted of God to Infants And therefore for you saith he to Tombes to infer the bringing in of things not in their kind mentioned or appointed in the New Testament is an apparent non sequitur your instances being far unparallel to ours of applying an instituted Ordinance to children by way of proportion I shall expect a good answer to this from the Author or Mr. Tombes ad Graecas Calendas He next applauds my Lord Brooks who gives not them a very good character for that saying of his viz. That the Analogy which Baptism now hath with Circumcision in the Old Law is a fine rational Argument to illustrate a point well proved before but he somewhat doubts whether it be proof enough for that which some would prove by it besides the vast difference in the Ordinance the persons to be circumcised are stated by a positive Law so express that it leaves no place for scruple but it is far otherwise in Baptism where all the designation of persons fit to be partakers for ought I know saith he is only such as believe for this is the qualification which with exactest search I find the Scripture requires in persons to be babtized and this it seems to require in all such persons now how Infants can be properly said to believe I am not yet fully resolved This is very true which he relates of my Lord Brooks who speaks not positively but modestly that he somewhat doubts and is not fully satisfied as to the way of Argumentation from Circumcision to Baptism and withal doth yet commend it for a fine rational Argument to illustrate a point well proved before that 's something and more than our Author would have had him spoke but I must acquaint the Reader with more which he speaks little to their advantage I will not I cannot saith he take upon me to defend that men usually call Anabaptism yet I conceive that Sect is twofold Some of them hold free will community of all things deny Magistracy and refuse to baptize chilren These truly are such Hereticks or Atheists that I question whether any Divine should honour them so much as to dispute with them There is another sort of them who only deny Baptism to their children till they come to years of discretion and then they baptize them but in other things they agree with the Church of England Truly these men are much to be pitied And I could heartily wish before they be stigmatized with that opprobrious brand of Schismaticks the truth might be cleared to them For I conceive to those that hold we may go no farther than Scripture that is the express word for Doctrine and Discipline it may be very easie to erre in this point in hand since the Scripture seems not to have clearly determined this particular but for his part he saith many things prevail with him in this point as First for ought he could ever learn it was the constant custom of the purest and most primitive Church to baptize Infants of believing Parents For saith he I could never find the beginning and first rise of this practise whereas t is very easie to track Heresies to their first rising up and setting foot in the Church Again I find all Churches even the most strict have generally been of this judgment and practice yea though there have been in all ages some that much affected novelty and had parts enough to discuss and clear what they thought good to preach yet was this scarce ever questioned by men of note till within these last ages and sure the constant judgment of the Churches of Christ is much to be honoured and heard in all things that contradict not Scripture Nor can I clear that of S. Paul 1 Cor. 7.14 Else were your children I know some interpret it illegitimate and holy legitimate but saith he I believe the Apostle means that Relative Church-Holiness which makes a man capable of admission to holy Ordinances and to Baptism Except Lastly the Author excepts against the Argument we usually bring for the Baptism of children Else our priviledge under the Gospel will be less than theirs under the Law for theirs were circumcised they were taken into the Covenant with the Parent and were sealed whereby they were distinguished from the world and this was a great priviledge and to deny Baptism to children which succeeds Circumcision is to restrain Gods Grace and make us loosers by Christs coming To which he answers not at all 1. Because they were not circumcised because they were children of Believers or sealed with a New Covenant Seal as being in the New Covenant thereby as before proved c. But what an absurd conceit and idle dream this is we have shewn before to which I refer the Reader 2. Because it ought to be esteemed no more loss of a priviledge than our not enjoying literally a Holy Land City Temple Succession of High-Priest c. for all those Types are spiritualiz'd to us under the Gospel and so far we are better Tombes again Eramen p. 101. and not worse Answ But take heed of disparaging the Grace of God in vouchsafing them the Seal of his Covenant now under the Gospel For as Mr. Marshal says in answer to such cavilling as this None of those City Temple Succession of High-Priest c. were of the substance of the Covenant of Grace for though Circumcision was a part of their administration yet it did belong to the fubstance it belonged to it saith he not as a part of it but as a means of applying it and though it be a priviledge to have nothing succeed Circumcision as it bound to that manner of administration yet it is a privilege to have somewhat succeed it as a Seal
c. A third Scripture is that Act. 8.36.38 And they went both down into the Water both Philip and the Eunuch and he Baptized him and when they came up both out of the Water c. Answer I see not how this Text can serve their turn for there is nothing in it to prove that Philip plunged him over head ears if they will prove it from any thing it must be from their going down into the Water or coming up out of it but that will not do for I may go down into the Water and come up again out of it and yet not be up to my Ankles and how can it be proved hence they went any farther or whether Philip did not flash water into his Face or cast it over his Head or whether he dipt only his Head or his whole Body under water the Scripture is silent as to this and Men may conjecture what they please but must not impose upon others The Text faith they both went down into the Water but their going down into water was no part of the Baptism for then they had both been Baptized for they went both together down into the water but it is said that Philip Baptized him after they went down into the water That the Eunuch was Baptized is clear but after what manner we are yet to seek We cannot from hence learn the management of this business whether Philip took up this great corpulent Person for such Eunuchs use to be quite out of the water by the strength of his Arms and so Dipped down again or no or whether so much of him only as was above the water was Dipt that of him under the water left alone And besides as for this Eunuch if his whole body were Dipt whether it were in puris naturalibus altogether naked or in his wearing cloaths this latter cannot be conceived for they went presently up in the Chariot nor could he have any conveniency of shift for such a purpose for their meeting was accidental as to the Eunuch's part so that we conclude nothing for plunging the whole body under water can be pretended to from this Text. The last Scripture the Author mentions is tha Rom. 6.4 Buried with him in Baptism c. This is a Metaphorical expression signifying partaking of Christ's Death by vertue of Union but Plunging the whole body doth not hold similitude neither with Christ's burial nor the manner of burials in the most part of the World for as Mr. Sydenham notes Christ's burial and the manner of it was not by throwing under the Earth for his Body was wrapt up in a linnen-cloth by Joseph and laid in a Tomb or Sepulchre hewen out of a Rock and this was the custom of the Jews Matt. 27.60 to cut out a place like a Cave out of a Rock to lay their dead Bodies in and besides Christ is said to stay three days so buried and so must they under the water if they are for an exact resemblance to his Burial but of this we may have occasion to speak more in our Answer to the 6th Chapter After this the Author brings divers Learned Authors who affirm that the ancient way of Baptizing was by Dipping as Cajetan c. And amongst the rest he hath a passage out of Mr. Fox his Acts and Monuments who takes it out of Fabian viz. That Austin and Paulinus did in the 7th Century Baptize here in England great multitudes in the River Trent and the River Swall where note by the way saith Mr. Fox it followed there was no use of Fonts To this I Answer there could not well be any use of Fonts because as Bede says it was in initio Ecclesiae ubi jam cito templa non potuerunt extrui it was before Temples were built and therefore saith he passim ad Flumina turba Baptizata est Beda Lib. 2. Angl. Hist cap. 14. And I shall mind the Reader with a pretty Observation of Mr. Fuller upon this occasion we have it in his Church-History p. 66. That saith he which they bring for Dipping because they were Baptized in the River Swall makes against it For Cambden in his Preface of Britain pag. 136. cites a certain Author who reports how in the River Swall near Richmond in York-shire Austin in one day Baptized above ten-thousand Saxons Though Bede ascribes this numerous Baptizing to Paulinus Arch-Bishop of York Now faith he if so many were Baptized it may be well urged against the Anabaptists and Papists against the former that all these could not be dipt in a day and for the latter it appears that in that Age the Administration of the Sacrament was not loaded with those Superstitious Ceremonies as essential thereunto of Crossing Spittle Oyl Cream Salt c. Lastly the Author frames an Objection or two on our behalf which he undertakes to Answer thus Objection But the Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies if not to Sprinkle yet not only to Dip and overwhelm but also to Wash Mark 7.4 where there is mention of Washing of Hands Cups Pots Vessels which may be done without Dipping or Plunging under Water Answer That Baptism in a sence is Washing saith he I no ways doubt for you can not dip a thing without you wash it But may not Cups and Vessels be washed though not dipt True saith he they may though not from this Scripture the Word being 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for though all Dipping be Washing yet all Washing is not Dipping in a proper sense Well argued Sr. I perceive you are very ingenious and logical you are now at your termini convertibiles where shall we have you next No wonder that as some boast you convert many to your Judgment But by your leave I will lay a Rub in your way What think you of that place Luk. 3.16 I Baptize you with Water if by Baptism had been meant Dipping must it not have been said I Baptize you in Water Once more Act. 1.5 John Baptized with Water is not this a very improper speech if it be meant of dipping for 't is as much as to say John Dipt with Water The same may be said of Christ's coming after John whom he saith shall Baptize with the Spirit is this to be understood of Dipping or is it not rather of the pouring out of the Spirit which was promised If this will not satisfy I shall offer one Text more and that I think is beyond exception it is concerning Nebuchadnezzar Dan. 4.30 of whom it is said he did eat grass as the Oxen and his Body was wet with the dew of Heaven 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the Septuagint hath it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is here rendred Wet and that with the Dew of Heaven It is the second Aorist of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from whence comes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So now we have found that which the Author said he could never do namely that the word is simply taken for Washing by
pouring on Water or Sprinkling for if the Root signifies so then doth the Branch also And thus my Antagonist having shewn so much of his Acumen in the Greek he will also give us a tast of his skill in the Mystery of Huswifry I presume saith he you will account her but a Sâ—lut and give her no thanks for her pains that having unclean Hands Vessels or Cloaths to Wash doth only Sprinkle or pour a little Water upon them as though that would serve 'T is a commendable thing to be cleanly and let all Maids take special notice of this item and as they would not willingly incur the brand of Sluts let them be mindful of this that when ever they set about that necessary work of Washing Dishes to look well to their business and let them be sure they dip them quite under water or they will never be clean and I question whether this will do without some rinsing and rubbing for I have observed your cleanly Huswifes to fetch off the filth that way and then they will shine like Chrystal if afterward they scoure them with Sand. But we must be more ferious in a business of this nature and I hope to be excused being tempted thus 10 Answer our Author in his own kind I will leave that word of Mr. Baxter to the consideration of the Judicious viz. It would be but folly for any to think Men must needs fill themselves full of Bread and Wine because it best signifies the fulness of Christ so it is no better to say that we must needs be washed all over because it best signifies the fulness of Christ Christ told Peter that the Washing of his Feet was enough to cleanse all Eight Argument against the Administration of Baptism by Dipping 1. BEcause we are not to presume to do that which is not written that is that is not founded upon Scripture-precept either Thetice in so many express words or Dianoetice by clear consequence They will not allow us the priviledg of deducting Consequences from Scripture although never so clear yet they presume to make use of Consequences and think they can demonstrate that which is impossible to be done from Scripture There is a positive saying in Mr. Leigh's Critica Sacra upon the Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Christ nowhere requireth Dipping but only Baptizing and as for the manner and method how this should be done there is altum Silentium in the Scripture a deep silence and therefore 't is I very great boldness to say no worse for any to lay the whole essence of Baptism in Dipping 2. As there is no express Command for it so there is no President in the New-Testament they cannot instance in any one Person that ever was so severely dealt with as to be Plunged over Head and Ears Nor is there any convincing Circumstances to be collected thence that any was so served And is it not strange that upon search of all the Sacred Register from the time that John the Baptist began his Ministery to the time that John the Evangelist ended his which was above sixty years during which time thousands and ten thousands were Baptized that if Plunging over head and ears had been the way then no error ever should be committed no fainting or drowning of persons under water or some accident or another happen to demonstrate that Baptizing was after that manner Me thinks there should fall out something either of Omission or Commission that might argue the thing But we have not so much as one Circumstance of that nature 3. Because as the Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies both to Plunge and to Wash so it is mostly used in Scripture for Washing It is a good Rule to be observed that when we find a word in Scripture of a double sence and it hangs as it were in Equilibrio so that we know not which to take our safest course is then to observe which way the Scale doth most incline that is we are to imbrace that sence which is most common in Scripture But in the matter before us I think we need not be much at a loss for we shall not easily find any explicite place in all the Bible where the Word Baptize is used positively for Plunging 4. Let it be granted that in Scripture the word can be found to signify Dipping yet for asmuch as it is also in Scripture used simply for Washing we are also to observe and follow another Theological Rule that where a word is of doubtful interpretation admitting a double sense that sense is to be taken for right which agrees best with the Mind of God in other places and the general Anatogy of Faith and Evangelical Doctrine Hence then we conclude that Baptizing is not Dipping because this Practice runs directly cross to a Vital Maxime of Religion which is self-preservation required not only in the Moral-Law but Charactered in us by Nature and under the Evangelical Dispensation we find our Lord Jesus so tender of Man's health and life that rather than it should be endangered even the Sabbath it self must be dispensed with and the Reason Christ gives is because Man was not made for the Sabbath but the Sabbath for Man so may it be said Man was not made for Baptism but Baptism Instituted for Man for his good not hurt and therefore Dipping which we know hath not been only to the damage of some Mens health but the loss of some lives is to be suspected to be none of Christ's Ordinances And for this Reason Mr Cradock a great Independent as they call them in his Treatise of Gospel-Liberty saith the Practice is to be restrained by the Magistrate for the preservation of the lives of his Subjects Let us a little dive into this Dipping-Principle and we shall see how inconsistent it may in some cases be to the Life of Man 1. We know the Command of Baptizing takes place immediatly upon Believing for this is certain every one that Believeth ought presently to be Baptized if he can have it for so it was without delay as appears by several Instances in the Acts of the Apostles If then only Dipping be Baptizing what shall become of them that are weak and sickly that have Catarrhs Consumptions Palsies These if they Believe although it be in Winter in frost and snow must to the work without any delay they must I say be covered all over with water and if so may not this hasten their end which may endanger the lives of the soundest Bodies Is this think you suitable to the mercy tender Bowels of Christ whose Yoke is easy and Burden light Certainly such a penance as this to some Persons and to those that live in extream cold Countries is more unsupportable than the burthen of the Ceremonial-Law and more dangerous than what ever the Ceremonial Law requited And what though our bodies may endure it better than theirs who live under a more severe Climat yet we must know Christ's
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
Take notice Reader what a pittiful mistake it is in the Author to call Dipping the Form of Baptism for if that were it then any man may Baptize himself and every Boy that baths and dives under Water may be said to be Baptized But one would think he were conscious to himself of a wilful mistake by the Objection he frames for us Object But 't is said there was the right words of Baptism it was done in the Name of the Father the Son and the Holy-Spirit Answer So there was saith he in Baptizing Bells Churches But doth he take this for a sufficient Answer Are Bells Subjectum capax a Subject capable of a Sacrament Quia in ipso initio Regenerationis cujus sigilium est Baptismus homo se habet merè passive undè etiam homines vel Circumcindendi vel Baptizandi nulla actio Externa requiritur sed tantum receptio passâ—â—aâ— Infantes igitur sunt capaces hujus Sacramenti respectu praecipui ejus usus atque Adulti Children were heretofore and so they are still as Dr. Ames in his Medulla Theologiae Lib. 1. c. 11. p. 186. Baptism saith he comes in the room of Circumcision Col. 2.11 12. and belongs as much to Children of Believers as Circumcision did formerly for at our first Regeneration saith he of which Baptism is a Seal Man is meerly passive As it was in Circumcision so is it in Baptism he is not Active but Passive and therefore Infants in respect of its chief use of being a Seal are as capable of the Sacrament of Baptism as the Adult Now though this may suffice yet having promised to be liberal We will suppose Dipping to be of use in the Apostles days yet it will not follow that it is essential to the Sacrament of Baptism so that in the want of it Baptism is a Nullity For the clearing of which we must know 1. That in every Ordinance there are some things essential which failing the very being of the Ordinance is destroyed 2. Some things requisite because enjoyned but yet not essential but only needful to the compleat and well-being of an Ordinance 3. Some things meerly indifferent as being the determination of some Circumstances left undetermined in the Institution of it As in the Lords Supper the hour when the kinds of Bread and Wine the posture and number of the Partakers either sitting or standing or the like So in Baptism whether the Person be Baptized by day or by night in Rivers or Pools or Vessels so he be able to bear it whether the Water pass on all his Body or some parts the rest unwashed And so for this of Dipping it comes under the nature of an indifferent Circumstance although some place Superstitiously such necessity in it I say it may be accounted an indifferent Circumstance so that Baptism in other things right is true Sacramental Baptism whether done by way of Sprinkling or Dipping which is thus proved 1. That which equally represents the grace signified is of indifferent use but the Baptism either by Dipping or Sprinkling doth equally represent the grace signified The first Proposition is clear for in a Sacrament are but two things necessary viz. 1 The matter or Element 2 The use for representation of the Grace The Minor or Assumption is evident by considering the Grace of Baptism which is principally two-fold viz. First our putting on of Christ our Vnion to and Communion with him in which respect we are said to put him on therein and to be Baptized into him Gal. 3.27 into his death Rom. 6.3 that is by Baptism we are Sacramentally enrighted into him and his death and the fruits of it in which respects we are in the same place v. 4. said to be buried with him by Baptism into death Now this putting on of Christ is as fully signified by putting on of water on us as by putting us into water Application of Water to the Person either in one way or other is a Sign of our Union to him and so of our putting him on our burying and rising with him and Communion with him in all the effects of his death which flow from the Union But it is Objected that Sprinkling doth not represent our burying with him as Dipping doth Ans It is a fancy to imagine that every Metaphorical ☞ expression used in Scripture signifying our Communion with Christ should be punctually expressed in the Sacrament for the expressions are various putting him on burying with him Sprinkling with his Blood one sign cannot represent our Communion with him in all these Metaphors A partaking a Communion with Christ and his death is the Sacramental Grace intended by those various expressions that being represented as well by Sprinkling as Dipping it follows that water in either way of application is Sacramental 2dly Our washing or cleansing from Sin by the Blood of Christ this is the principal effect of Christ's death represented and Sealed in the Sacrament which is equally set out by Sprinkling as by dipping First in asmuch as washing may be done by both and indeed it is the application of Water under the formality of Washing not either of Dipping or Sprinkling which is the ☜ Sacramental use of it so that were Washing with Water though neither by Dipping nor Sprinkling yet it were a Sacrament as well as either for the Sacramental consideration in the use is the Washing 2. Numb 19.18 Heb. 9.13 Under the Law the Sacramental cleansing was done by Sprinkling in some cases and by Dipping in other and the purifying by Christ's Blood equally represented by both 3. The Blood of Christ in respect of this purifying and washing virtue and use of it is called the Blood of Sprinkling Heb. 12.24 and the Sprinkling of his Blood 1. Pet. 1.2 All which are abundant proof that the Grace of the Sacrament is as well and as fully represented in the use of Water by Sprinkling as by Dipping 2dly Those Vses of Water which are equally included in the Scripture-acceptation of the Word under the word Baptizing are of equal and indifferent use but both these Dipping and Sprinkling are so ergo The Major proposition is undoubted the Assumption is confirmed from Texts of Scripture where the Word is used to signify Washing by Sprinking as Mar. 10.38 where is a washing by Blood which could not be by Dipping but by Aspersion 1 Cor. 10.2 Is a Baptism by Sprinkling but not by dipping So Mark 7.48 Heb. 9.10 where all the Ceremonial Washings under the Law are called Baptisms now we know some of them were done by Sprinkling and some by Dipping 3. That which in all the examples and instances of Baptism we find not restrained or defined that is in this Sacrament of indifferent and arbitrary Vse But this manner of Baptizing in Scripture-examples and practice we do not find restrained or defined either to Dipping or Sprinkling We read of many Baptized but no-where specified by which of these ways whereby we may gather that
but saith Tertullian let them come when they grow elder when they learn when they are taught why they come c. What pittiful stuff is this what ingenious person would not be ashamed to introduce such a witness that paraphraseth at such a rate upon this Scripture Christ had a mind they should come presently as the words plainly shew but Tertullian would have them stay longer till they were elder It seems by the Argument that this Father and the Disciples were much of a mind and it must arise from some such mistake as this which is still retained by the Antipaedobaptists that Children are not capable of any good by the Ordinance and must first be taught and that only grown Christians and Professors of Faith are fit and capable subjects of Christ's Kingdom But what resentment had Christ of the morose carriage of his Disciples the Evangelist tells us 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he was much displeased the word signifies to have the Spirit moved with indignation against a base unworthy action and Christ would have them know how meanly soever they might think of them yet they had a right to the Kingdom of Heaven aswell as grown persons who can profess their Faith For let us take the Kingdom of Heaven either for that of Glory or for the visible Church it amounts to the same thing for if they have a right to the former much more to the latter for what is it to be a member of the visible Church but to be one that in appearance belongs to the invisible Church Mr. Baxter of Infant-Baptism or the Kingdom of Glory for the Church is but one and the difference only Respective As for the Cavils that are made against our improving this Text for Infant-Baptism we have before refuted them 2. A second Argument which the Author cites out of Tertullian is because they that understand the weight of Baptism will rather fear the attaining of it than the deferring it Reply 1. If this were a good reason against infant-Baptism it lyes as full against infant-Circumcision as a sign of God's covenant which they did not understand and it may be never would 2. Nor do I see how this can have any reference at all to Infants who are void of understanding and the Argument is asmuch levied against the Baptizing grown persons who upon consideration of the weight of the Ordinance may rather fear to attain it than defer it for it is well known that ancient Father was so shy of Baptism as I said in C. 7. that he disswaded young-men as were innupti unmarried those that were newly married young-widows from being Baptized until the lust of concupiscence was quite extinct and then to take up the Ordinance Risum teneatis amici For verily if persons in this capacity must forbear Baptism till then for ought that I know it will be long enough before they will meddle with it and one would think they should have less need of it when freed from lustful appetite than before 3. A third Reason brought out of Tertullian is because we must not give Holy things to Dogs and Pearls to Swine which sure must be understood of grown Persons that were Pagans or their Children for this is too gross to be spoken of the Children of believers and Tertullian himself speaks more charitably in his Book de Anima Cap. 39 40. upon those words else were your Children unclean but now are they Holy 2. Cor 14. from whence he thus infers hinc enim Apostolus ex sanctificato alterutro sexum sanctum procreari ait tum ex seminis praerogativa Vossius in his Thes 11. de Pâ—dobaptismo Pars 2. quam ex Institutionis disciplinâ c. i.e. from hence also the Apostle affirms that of either sex sanctified are procreated those that are holy aâ— by the prerogative of the Seed so by the Discipline or Rule of institution so that Tertullian could not without self-contradiction call Believers Children Dogs 4. A fourth Reason which is a sorry one too is Because we commit not earthly or secular things to Children by reason of their incapacity and therefore should not commit Heavenly things Which is also as strong an Argument against Gods Ordinance to Circumcise Children as to Baptize them And we need not look farther than the Text before us to confute this Argument for 't is said notwithstanding their incapacity Christ laid his hands upon them and blessed them to denote unto us that though Children are uncapable of laying hold on Christ yet they are capable of being laid hold on by Christ and of participating Spiritual blessings whereof as imposition of the hands so Baptism is a sign 5. A fifth Reason hath respect to the promises which the Sureties made in Baptism in the behalf of the Infants that were Baptized for if it should so happen that they should dye before the Infant was grown up they should then frustrate their promises Now this speaks nothing against Infant-Baptism but only of the inconveniency of making such promises 6. Lastly the Author would have us take it for granted that the Adult were the only proper Subjects of Baptism because Tertullian saith Fasting Confession Prayer Profession c. is called for from them Reply We have shewn before out of the Magdeburgenses That though the Infants of Believers were Baptized of which we have instances given by them in several Centuries yet they required Fasting Cent. 4. c. 6. p. 417. Confession of Aliens c. before they were admitted to Baptism therefore having spoken so much to this before I shall only add one passage out of Athanasius in Lib. de passione Imaginis Domini where he speaks concerning-some Jews who prostrated themselves at the feet of the Bishop and desired Baptism so after they had been instructed several days in the Doctrine of Christianity and had Fasted three days they were Baptized I shall add one Reason more of Tertullian's against the Baptism of Infants and it is inserted between his fourth and fifth and therefore the Author could not be ignorant of it but hath purposely omitted it and it is this Quid festinat innocens aetas ad remissionem peccatorum c. Why should innocent Children hasten to be Baptized for the remission of sins 'T was his error as of other of the Fathers that Baptism did away the guilt of sin and either he owned not Original Sin as his words seem to imply or else he thought it more prudential to defer Baptism till the Child had contracted or heaped up more that so it might be washed away altogether This the Author took notice of but was so subtle as not to give the least hint of it for that would have quite spoiled his excellent Testimony And besides what we have said to invalidate what is brought from Tertullian let the Reader know that though he would have Infant-Baptism delayed yet it was not because he judged it unlawful but inexpedient as
last being joyned together in History as the two first great Preachers of the Albigenses and Waldenses the first was a Priest the last a Monk hated and persecuted very much by the Romish-Church These being driven out of several places where they stoutly opposed the Popish errors were at last received at Tholouse in Provence and they that followed their Doctrine were called Petro-Brusians and Henricians Now to prove these to be against Infant-Baptism the Author in conformity to his old friend Mr. Tombes betakes himself to the Ecclesiastical Historians that have written of the State of the Church in the several Centuries since Christ for from them must we fetch our light touching matters of Fact in the Countries where they lived or from such who have made it their peculiar work to write the History of the Waldenses as Perin c. The Protestant Century-writers are either the Magdeburgensian Divines or Lucas Osiander I shall give a brief account of what they say of the Waldenses concerning the point under debate and so leave the Reader to judge on which side the truth lyeth whether on ours or our Opposites and shall premise this caution that the Reader do not mistake and take that to be the judgment of those Writers concerning Peter Bruis and Henricus which they transcribe out of the Popish Records Councils Edicts c. And what they relate of them they have it from two Popish Abbots viz. Bernard and Cluniacensis 1. Concerning Bernard the Magdeburgenses tell us Cent. 12. c. 5. that he in his 66th Sermon in Cantica flyes out against these men accusing them to be Hereticks he chargeth them 1. To be Manicheans 2. To deny the Lawfulness of Oaths 3. That 't is unlawful to Baptize Children 4. That it is unlawful to eat any thing quod ex coitu generatur and accordingly saith Bernard they denyed the lawfulness of eating Flesh and Milk These were then a terrible sort of Fellows if we may believe that old Superstitious though otherwise devout and some think Pious Abbot who is commonly known by the name of St. Bernard And certainly if these Petro-brusians were guilty in these things they were even Monsters in nature What to deny our little ones both Milk and Water too O Cruelty But as these good men cleared themselves from these false imputations and calumnies so also do the Magdeburgenses in their History speak highly of them and that which is sufficient for their Vindication The other cited by the Author is Lucas Osiander Cent. 12 262. And I doubt some prejudice to his cause Osiander may arise from citing him Whatsoever Osiander saith concerning Peter Bruis and Henricus of their being against Infant-Baptism he taketh it out of the Works of Peter Cluniacensis another Popish Abbot and he doth Calumniari fortiter lay very many abominable errors to their charge and among others he accuseth them of this Venial one of denying Infant-Baptism Now if any credit may be given to this Abbot it must be per totum throughout in all or else in nothing And verily if his Testimony be valid as Mr. Tombes would have it accounted and the Author from him our opposites need not glory in such Waldenses that they comported with their opinion nor we be troubled at their dissenting from us Let us now look into the wicked and false Testimony or Account this lying Abbot gives of those two precious Ministers Peter Bruis and Henricus as Osiander takes it out of his own Writings Exorta est progressu temporis vires acquisivit haeresis Albigensium Ea Romae primo caepisse putant postea verò in comitatu Tolosato etiam intra viros Illustres longe lateque sparsa dicitur quin etiam in Angliam penetrasse scribitur Dogmata haec illis attribuuntur inquit Osiander 1. Baptismum abjiciunt 2. Corporum resurrectionem negant 3. Carnem comedi prohibent 4. Christum non esse Deum nec assumpsisse de Virgine sed de Caelo carnem duxisse 5. Ecclesiam non posse aliquid possidere nisi in communi c. There arose and in progress of time gathered strength the heresy of the Albigenses that is said to take its rise at Rome then dispersed far and wide over the Country of Tholouse that amongst men of quality moreover they say that it got into England They are charged to hold these Opinions saith Osiander They cast of Baptism meaning that of Infants They deny the resurrection They forbid eating Flesh as Bernard before They say Christ is not God neither took he flesh of the Virgin but brought it down from Heaven That the Church should possess all things in common By this time I suppose we may conclude that these Waldenses were vile persons or Cluniacensis a lying Abbot and this latter we do not in the least question Furthermore as if the Author had never enough of him he tells us that the Magdeburgenses set down the Assertions of Peter Bruis against Infant-Baptism Transubstantiation Tombe's Examen pag. 25. Worshipping of Images Purgatory which are distinctly and at large answered by Peter Cluniacensis But you must know he had never any personal conference or dispute with him But that I may not remain in the Author's debt for what he quotes out of the Magdeburgenses I shall requite him with what I find in Osiander who tells us that the said Cluniacensis doth profess twice in his Writings that he would not accuse the Waldenses upon uncertain report but from their own Writings nay farther he chargeth them that they denied the Divine Authority of the Old-Testament and all the New except the Gospels Evangelium creditis Epistolas Fauli cur non Suscipitis Respondetis quia non adeo certa nobis autoritas est earum i. e. You believe the Gospel why not also the Epistles of Paul your answer is because the Divine Authority of them doth not so certainly appear to us And upon that account saith Osiander Cluniacensis spends two whole Chapters to prove the Divine Authority of the Scriptures against them I shall conclude this with Mr. Marshal's words to Mr. Tombes upon his quoting Cluniacensis to the same end as my Antagonist doth He saith that Reverend Minister that reads that railing Book of Petrus Cluniacensis will find that he acknowledgeth most of what he layes to their charge to be upon the report of others Now me thinks the Author should blush at his indiscretion for introducing such a Popish Calumniator for an evidence in this matter and if he believe this Abbot slandred Peter Bruis and his followers in these things I hope he will excuse the Reader if he believe he did noless when he chargeth them to be against Infant-Baptism that Children who dyed before they could actually believe were damned which is another Article Cluniacensis brings in against them one as true as the other I see by this that when men are engaged in a cause and wedded to an opinion they will not
and bitter to peaceable Authors that are forced to it than it is to the Readers And it 's pity that the Ministers of Christ should for 1500 years be taken up so much with a work that is so unpleasant to almost all It is unpleasant to the Adversary to have his Ignorance Errors Falshoods and Injuries to the Truth and Church made known to his disgrace and to have that proved an odious Error which he taketh to be a Beam from Heaven and of a Divine Off-spring and perhaps necessary to Salvation or at least some excellent thing which the Church cannot spare It is unpleasant to the sober pious Writer to think that he must thus displease and exasperate his Brother and all that are of the way which he oppugneth and that thereby he must provoke so many to esteem and defame him as an enemy to the Truth And it is not pleasant to think what hard study and labour it must cost us to procure this bitter fruit when by Ignorance Sloth or treacherous Silence we could have kept our peace and such mens Love And it is unpleasant to the best of Readers to find mens Minds thus manifesting their dissensions and to think of the Exasperations and wrath that will ensue and to see such Wars kept up among those who should be notified to the World by an Eminency of Love But it will be pleasant to those Hypocrites whose Religion consisteth in Opinions Parties and Disputes if they be of his mind whose Works they read and it will be bittersweet to those wise and pious men that find it Necessary For Necessary it may be and too oft is It 's hard keeping our own or the Churches Peace unless both Parties will consent As much as in us lieth and if it be possible we must live peaceably with all men But when it is not possible we must lament the want of what we are not able to obtain For all Christ's Ministers to stand by and see well-meaning ignorant people called as in God's name to sin against him and flattered or frightned from Truth Duty and Privileges and to let such work go on to the danger of Souls and distracting of Christ's Churches without contradiction will hardly consist with our Ministerial Fidelity Therefore as unnecessary Wars are the greatest complicate sins in the World and yet necessary Wars are the means of Peace so it is in these Theological Wars And as the valiant Defenders of their Country in necessary Wars have right to the praises given them by all so those that necessarily defend God's Truth and his Churches Rights deserve acceptance Among whom I judge the Reverend Author of this Treatise to be worthy of the Churches thanks on several accounts It is no contemptible Privilege which he vindicateth The Interest of all Christians Children in the World in the Covenant and Visible Church of Christ is a matter of greater moment than most that acknowledge it do duly lay to heart much more than the unthankful Rejecters of it understand The Title given to the Pelagians was Ingrati the Unthankful because they disputed against God's Grace which they themselves did need as well as others Such Cicero thought those Philosophers that disputed against the Immortality of Mans Soul And Mr. Tombes was long ago angry with me for giving that Title to them that so vehemently dispute all Infants out of the visible Church and Covenant But let the Evidence of the Cause well considered inform us and it will be too sure that Publick Repentance would far better beseem such Writers as Mr. Danvers than stiff persisting in this unthankful Error I have written somewhat my self upon Mr. Danvers vehement instigation once more on this Subject partly in answer to Mr. Tombes and partly to himself But let not the notice of that hinder you from reading this Treatise For I have dealt with Mr. Danvers only on the account of his pretended Witnesses for a thousand years after Christ and his quarrels with my self having neither leisure nor will nor patience all things considered to meddle with his Arguments or the rest of his History while I know how sufficiently they stand confuted in my own and many other mens Writings long ago But this Reverend Author hath dealt with him more particularly and answered his Arguments satisfactorily and search'd into those and all the rest of his pretended Antiquities and not only done that which I have passed by but the same also in a full Confutation And it is so sad a Case that after all our dreadful Warnings we should still be haunted with this unquiet Spirit which hath been exorcised or laid so oft and that under all our other Trials we should have the addition of these vexatious dividing Wranglings to turn mens hearts against each other that we owe the more thanks to such as the Author for bringing so much water to quench these flames especially in a time when so many disaffected Persons are ready to impute to Presbyterians Independents or any such other that they desire to defame the Errors of all about them whom they do not confute yea too oft also those that they do confute while some others betray the Cause by silence or silly unsatisfactory Arguings Pardon or chuse a man that offendeth all Sects by plain dealing for telling the World That if the Anabaptists had been no better confuted than the Papists and the Silencers have confuted them I verily think that so great a part of the conscientious though injudicious Vulgar would have followed them as would have made work and trouble for us all Farewell At the door of Eternity Rich. Baxter June 24. 1674. CHAP. I. The Authors first Argument That Believers Baptisme is the only true Baptism drawn from Christs positive Institution and Commission Mat. 28.18 19. Mark 16.16 Examined and Confuted THese are the prime Texts upon which Antipaedobaptists lay the greatest stress as conceiving they have sure warrant from hence for their practice and that from the same places Ours is condemnable Out of this Armory do they fetch their keenest Weapons and most triumphant Arguments And indeed all that they say besides is vox praeterea nihil a great sound of words to little purpose This is the Palmarium argumentum their victorious and unanswerable Argument as they imagine so None are to be Babtized but those who are first taught but Infants are not teachable Ergo they ought not to be baptized and again he that Believeth and is Baptized Infants cannot believe therefore must not be Baptized We say they follow the Rule of Institution you who are Paedobaptists cross it and cannot acquit our selves of Will-worship And I confess this is a plausible way of arguing and very taking with Vulgar capacities and I wonder no more of weak understanding and tender consciences are proselyted to their way They have the advantage of us to gain upon such Yet notwithstanding their great confidence that they have both Scripture and Reason on their side
I hope to make it appear to those who are not overgrown with Partiality and Prejudice that their Arguments weigh light in the Ballance of the Sanctuary For as Mr. Sydenham observes the words of Christ in both these places of Matthew and Mark Sydenhams Christian sober and plain Exercitation on Infant Baptism do not hold forth the proper Subjects of Baptism or the form or manner of baptizing being delivered in general and indefinite terms As all Nations every creature by transitive words Teach them Preach the Gospel Wherefore if these be the prime Institution of Baptising from which they exclude Infants when Christ useth such universal and comprehensive expressions we shall desire saith he but to deal with them on their ground and the same Text will serve to prove our positions more demonstratively then theirs But that we may the better understand the import of both places I shall a little explicate them by way of Paraphrase premising only this that neither of them do contain the first institution of Baptism but only an inlargement of the Commission in reference to the Gentiles upon the Resurrection of Christ First for that in Matthew Go ye therefore and teach all Nations Beza observes that in the antient Copies therefore is wanting and instead of it he finds the particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 now in one of most Antient date which Circumstance of time is of great remark For now the Commission of baptizing the Gentiles was to be broken up now Christ was risen Circumcision which was the old seal of the Covenant of grace under the former Administration was broken and abolished and the Lord ordains a new one viz. Baptisme to take place instead thereof under the Gospel-Administration go now Now I am risen before which time neither Gospel nor Baptism was to be offered them For the command was Go not into the way of the Gentiles And teach all Nations 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Discipulos facite Disciple them as Antipedobaptists will have it and we own it as the right Translation of the word for it is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which properly signifies Teach ye and so the Participle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is rightly rendred in the following words added to the charge Teaching them to observe Let us now come to see what improvement our opposits do make from hence to exclude the Infants of believers out of Christs Commission to be Baptized and that the Baptisme of Believers is the only true Baptisme Their Argument in form runs thus viz Ministers ought to follow their Commission But to make Disciples before Baptizing is the Ministers Commission Ergo. To this we answer That the Assumption is Ambiguous for making Disciples may be taken two ways First For an immediate present making only and so it is not Christs Commission If you take it exclusively as if none must be baptized but those who immediately in their own persons are made Disciples Secondly For a Mediate remote making also and thus must the Commission be understood The meaning is Baptize those whom you find to be in a State of Disciples whether presently by you or formerly by some body else whether personally by themselves or Seminally by and in their Parents Let them be in State of Disciples and then if not baptiz'd before baptize them It is the State of a Disciple not the time when nor manner how which the Baptizer is to look on Ananias finding Saul in the State of a Disciple must baptize him though neither he nor any Minister else before did make him so however he being a Disciple though not made by man must be baptized Thus then take the Assumption as it ought to be taken and we grant the Argument for it concludes not against Infant-Baptism for they are Disciples not of mans but Gods making vouchsafing gratiously in their believing Parents to accept them also into his Covenant and so into the State of Disciples and consequently by Christs own Commission they are to be baptized That infants of Believers are Disciples is evident 1. Because they were so under the old Testament-Administration and why not then under the new The Proselytes in the Jewish Church coming in brought their Infants into the same capacity or state of Proselytes therefore believers coming in to be Disciples bring in their children to the same state too or else the state of the Gospel is worse in regard of outward priviledges then the Law 2. By conferring that of Mat. 10.42 with that of Mark 9.41 it appears that to belong to Christ is in Christs dialect the same with being a Disciple but Infants of Believers do belong to Christ 3. To put all beyond doubt we have an express word for it Act. 15.10 Where the Pharisees pressing that it was needful to Circumcise the Gentiles after the manner of Moses that is to be Proselyted by Circumcision is called a putting a Yoke upon the Neck of the Disciples And since the manner of Moses was to circumcise Proselytes both Fathers and Children and the pressing the continuance thereof among all Gentiles Proselyted to Christianity is termed the putting a Yoke upon the Neck of the Disciples the children as well as the Fathers must be meant by the Disciples There is no evasion of this though I find Mr. Tombes keeps a great stir about it for as Mr. Sydenham argues if they say it was meant of the Fathers and of the Doctrine of Circumcision yet they must grant the Yoke was on their Children as to the Act and if the Doctrine was so burthensome much more the Practice which the poor Infants are under And they are called Disciples indefinitely either by themselves or with their Parents if any distinction be made it must be in the manner of laying on the Yoke viz. on the Parents Doctrinally on the Children actually but there can be no Restriction of the word Disciple from these on whom that Yoak was laid as is exprest in that Chapter But it may farther be objected The Commission it self shews what kind of Disciples Christ means in these words Teaching them to observe so as Infants are not concern'd as Disciples in it being in no capacity to be taught or to observe But let it be withall considered That Christ adds those words to his charge in regard of the condition of the persons to whom he was sending his Apostles viz. to Nations All Nations that is the Gentiles who were Aliens All Nations here being put in immediate Opposition to that one Nation of the Jews They were sent to them that were not in a State of Disciples and therefore they were to be made so by present actual teaching As the Nation of the Jews and the Proselytes that came into them were first taught and then Circumcised but their children were circumcised before they were taught So then in this commission we must distinguish the substance from variable circumstances The substance is to baptize Disciples but whether by Precedent Teaching or
words and deeds of Christ are infinite which are not recorded Joh. 20.30 and 21.25 Many things Christ did that were not written and of the Acts of the Apostles we may suppose the same in their proportion and therefore what they did not is no rule to us unless they did it not because they were forbideen So that it can be no good Argument to say The Apostles are not read to have Baptized Infants therefore Infants are not to be baptized but thus We do not find they are excluded from this Sacrament and Ceremony of Christian Institution therefore we may not presume to exclude them Now since all contradiction against Infant-Baptism depends wholly upon these two grounds The Negative Argument in matter of fact and the pretences that faith and repentance are required to Baptisme since the first is wholly nothing and infirm upon an infinite account and the second may conclude that Infants can no more be saved then be baptized because faith is more necessary to Salvation then to Baptisme it being said he that believeth not shall be damned and it is not said he that believeth not shall be excluded from Baptism it follows that the Doctrine of those that refuse to Baptize their Infants is upon both its legs weak and broken and insufficient Thus far the Learned Doctor To conclude this whereas the Apostles Preached up faith and Repentance before Baptism it was requisite they should do so according to their Commission having to do with Aliens grown up as not only the Gentiles but the Jews were in reference to the new Administration for these being the first subjects of Baptisme it was necessary they should make profession of their faith before they were admitted to it but not so in their Children to be Baptized no more then in Isaac and the Children of the Proselytes to be Circumcised Abraham believed first and afterward was Circumcised Gen. 17.24 And why so Because he was the first subject of that Ordinance and therefore could not be admitted to it but by his own faith But as for Isaac his Son he was Circumcised before believing and so was it with the Proselytes and their Children when any Gentile was converted to the Jewish Faith he had a personal Right to be circumcised and his Child likewise was Circumcised at eight days old as was the custome of the Jewish Church by virtue of Gods Covenant giving it a parental Right The Author is very unhappy at Citations for usually they serve not his purpose He acquaints us out of Bede that men were instructed into the knowledge of the Truth then to be Baptized as Christ hath taught because without Faith it is impossible to please God Magdeburg Cent. 8. pag. 220. But this Bede himself tells us was the method used amongst the Inhabitants of this Island when Paganish In initio nascentis Ecclesiae apud Britannos Beda lib. 2. Angl. Hist cap. 14. When a Church first of all began to be planted amongst the Britains and he tells us it was at that time when Gregory sent from Rome Austin and forty other Preachers and afterward Paulinus who converted Ethelbert the Saxon King but of this we shall speak more hereafter when we shall shew how Bede himself was for Infant-Baptisme notwithstanding the Author so perverts his words His other Citation is Erasmus who in his Paraphrase upon Mat. Observeth and t is a great Observation indeed That the Apostles were commanded first to teach and then to baptize c. Every Child that can read observes the same Probabile est tingere Infantes institutum fuisse ab Apostolis c. but if you would know his judgment about Infant-Baptism you may read it in his Ratio concionandi lib. 4. where he conceives it probable that the Apostles ordain'd and practised it And truly amongst other probable reasons this seems to be one if it be not a Demonstration namely because we do not read of any children of believing Parents who were Baptized when they came to years of discretion That they were Baptized I presume saith Brinsley our Adversaries will not deny and if so Note No Children of Believing Parents Baptized afterwards to be found from John the Baptist to John the Evangelist ending his Ministry which was about 60. years An Argument sufficient if not to convince the Adversary that they were Baptized in Infancy yet to stop their mouths Brinsley Doctrine and Practice of Paedobaptisme pag. 75. let them shew where and when For this let all the Sacred Register be searched from the time that John the Baptist began his Ministry to the time that John the Evangelist ended his which was about 60 years during which time thousands of Children of Believing Parents were grown up to maturity and if in all that time they can but shew any one instance of any child born of a believing Parent whose Baptism was deferred till he came to years of discretion and that then he was Baptized we will then acknowledge there is some strength in their Negative Allegation viz. We read of no children Baptized therefore There were none CHAP. III. Containing his Argument that Believers Baptisme is the only true Baptisme from the example of Primitive Saints Reply TO this there needs no more then what we have before said Sydenhams Christian Exercitation pag. 7. For as Mr. Sydenham says all that they urge as to Examples of actual Believers being baptized all along the new Testament especially the Acts and that if thou believest thou mayst We can freely grant without any damage to Infant-Baptism For 1. We say as they Professing Believers grown men were first Baptized and so they ought to be who are to be the first subjects of the Administration of an Ordinance instancing as before in Abraham c. he was 99. years old when circumcised and he must be first Circumcised before he could convey a right to his seed now you may as well argue Abraham was first circumcised when so old therefore old persons are to be Circumcised and none else as because grown persons were Baptized therefore not Infants when they must be first Baptized themselves for children are Baptized by the promise first to them and in them to their seed Now for as much as all the Examples brought by the Author out of Act. 8.12 18.8 22.14 Speak of grown persons that were the first subjects of Baptism and Jews that were Aliens too as well as the Gentiles in regard of the new Administration it makes nothing against Infant-Baptism that being of another circumstance and the disagreeing of it from them argues not the unlawfulness of it and as the same Author farther argues 2. An Affirmative Position is not exclusive of subordinates because Believers were said to be Baptized Ergo not their Seed is not true reasoning for their seed were comprehended with them in the same promise as before and as we shall more fully shew hereafter Let us now see what his Quotations of Authors or Testimonies