will amount unto in this Chapter His first Testimony is from Luther de Sacrament Tom. 3. fol. 168. where he saith Luther hath these words viz. That in times past it was thus that the Sacrament of Baptism was Administred to none except it were to those that acknowledged and confessed their faith c. The which when I read I was not well assured but that my Antagonist might be guilty of Forgery knowing Luther to be a most fierce and zealous opposer of their way wherefore I did very carefully examine the third Tome of Luther concerning Sacraments I read the 168. pag. and read it again with a friend and do profess that there is not one syllable to the purpose for which the Author brings him no nor in any page thereabout The next that he Cites is Bullinger who it â—â—ns hath such words as these in his houseâ—â—k 48 Sermon Baptism hath no prescribed â—e by the Lord and therefore it is left to the â— choice of the Faithful I have not the book by me to examine the â—â—th of this but however I am certain there â—othing in that passage against Infant-Baptism â—hat this testimony can do us no hurt and we â—â—w very well how large a book Bullinger hath 〈◊〉 Contra Anabaptistas against the Anabaptists â—hat I wonder the Author should bring him 〈◊〉 The Reader may observe how zealous an â—rtor of Infant-Baptisme this Learned and â—â—ly Divine was by that one passage of his in 〈◊〉 Compendium of the Christian Religion de â—cto Baptismo ac de Infanâ—s Baptizandis lib. 8. pag. 〈◊〉 viz. Quoniam autem Christianorum liberi in faedere Dei suni Christus etiam Infantium salvator est cumque ad ipsos pertineat ut veteris ac novi Testamenti literae testentur-Baptismus Faeperis figillum iis negari non debet That because the â—dren of Believers are in â—â—nant with God and 〈◊〉 is their Saviour and â—romise also belongs to 〈◊〉 as both the Old and 〈◊〉 Testament do witâ—â—â—â— Baptisme which is the 〈◊〉 of the Covenant is not to be denyed them 〈◊〉 And after this concludes Hortor autem â—â—omnes pios ac verè Christianos ut studiose â—â—terque sibi a contentiosa venenata Anaâ—â— arum sectâ caveant quae externa specie quiâ—â— Hypocrisi splendet reverà autem paestilenâ—â— est haeresis atque plurimas baereses quibus oâ—â—te aliquot secula Ecclesia Chrsti turbata lacerata fuit in se complectitur illisque plurimos homines inficit I forbear to English it out of respect to some which I believe are Godly and yet opposite to the Baptisme of believers Children Lastly The Author quotes a great deal out of Mr. Baxters Disputations with Mr. Blake about Right to the Sacraments but we have before spoil'd his Market by giving the Reader a Key out of the same Book by which he may understand him So that all those Examples from John the Samritans the Eunuch Paul Lydia the Jaylor Crispus c. doth but mind us again of the Authors dis-ingenuity in traducing that Worthy Divine CHAP. IV. Wherein he labours to prove Believers the only Subjects of Baptisme from the Spiritual ends of the Ordinance where he gives us an Induction of the particular ends of Baptisme as follows 1. THe first end of Baptisme saith he is that the Baptized might have that represented in a Sign or Figure and Preached to his Eye in the Ordinance which had been Preacht to his Ear and Heart by the word and Spirit respecting the whole Mystery of the Gospel and his duty and obligation therein A Sign being as Paraeus observeth some outward thing appearing to the sence through which some inward thing is at the same time apprehended by the understanding Repl. I. I deny this to be the primary end of Baptism For not to insist upon that which hath given too great advantage to Antipaedobaptists That the first end of Baptisme is to give a solemn entrance or admission into the Church I conceive it to be more true to affirm That the first and chief end of Baptisme is to be the Initiatory sign or seal of Gods Covenant and favour to us in Christ For as Dr. Ames observes in his Bellarminus enervatus Tom. 2. lib. 2. unless persons are to be reputed Members of the Church Nisi habendi tales essent viz. fidelium infantes pro membris ecclesiae non deberent Baptizari Baptismus enìm suâ naturâ est sigillum insitionis jam factae in Christum atque adeò in Ecclesiam Act. 10.47 48. they ought not to be Baptized for Baptism in its own nature is the seal of our being already ingrafted into Christ and so consequently into the Church Acts 10.47 48. He speaks concerning the Baptism of the Children of Believers and affirms they ought not to be Baptized but under this consideration that they are members of the Church which we shall hereafter make good in its proper place 2. I acknowledge that to Adult persons Baptisme reprefents in a sign that to the eye which is Preacht to the eare respecting the Mysteries of the Gospel c. Although I see not how it can be so in the way of Dipping for how can persons under water see apprehend or hear any thing during that time when and whereby the Sences and Understandings of men are so confounded that they have no power to exercise their faith or reason as they should and since plunging over head and ears puts people into such an amazing condition not without frights especially in the more tender Sex some being neer throtled or drown'd it is to be susspected to be none of Christs appointments for one would think that at such a juncture of time especially when an Ordinance is celebrated representing so many Gospel Mysteries it is requisite the mind should be in a more omposed posture then theirs are like to be in whose heads are under Water We grant Baptism to be a sign of spiritual Mysteries represented to the eye of such as are grown up and rightly Baptized As Circumcision was a sign of the same import to Abraham and it is of present and immediate use to the aged Rom. 4. Abraham reeived the sign of Circumcision as the Seal of the righteousness of Faith and we acknowledge also both the Sacraments are of immediate and present use to the aged and in this sence we are to understand Paraeus speaking of Sacramental Signes but let it be considered that the children of Abraham received the sign of Circumcision as well as Abrabam and yet they were void of understanding and judgment and knew no more of the spiritual Mysteries represented therein then our Infants do in the Ordinance of Baptism Circumcision represented the same Mysteries that Baptism doth and yet those poor Israelitish Babes that were Circumcised knew not that the cutting-off the fore-skin shadowed out the corruption of nature and the nature of Mortification the blood shed in the act also held
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-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
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