Anti-Paedobaptism Part 2, Section 4

Anti-Paedobaptism Part 2 · Section 4

p. 63SECT. IV.

Mr. Bs. Speeches about the little said for Antipaedobaptism is vain, and his speech about the Antiquity of Infant baptism is very inconsiderate, and his speech about the difficulty and importance of the point in question is examined.

THe rest of Mr. Bs. ten positions are granted by me, but what he saith of me, pag. 5. that he never to his remembrance did plead with an able Papist, but he could say for more for his religion then Mr. T. said for his opinion on James 1. or his Sermon since, that he might insinuate that he and others had reason to be settled in the practice of infant baptism, because I said so little then, and my Sermon presently after, is like▪ King Iames his resolution, to be more for the Bishops and Ceremonies, because Doctor Reynolds and his Collegues sayd so little against them in the Conference at Hampton Court, from whence M: B. might gather▪ that if such men as Dr: Reynolds (whose equal every way the world did then or since scarce yield) D: Spark, M: Chaderton, M: Knewstubs, did fail to speak what had been requisite, when it was expected, though they were four, which were to object, and that upon a sufficient time of premeditation, and yet this no good evidence for Bishops and Ceremonies, it is no good evidence for infant baptism, that I being single, being to answer ex tempore, hardly allowed by M: B. to repeat his Arguments, whereof some were hypothetical syllogisms, brought to prove an hypothetical proposition, and therefore such as could not be well repeated, and his arguments containing such terms, as it appears now by his Book, he p. 64used in senses different from what other Authors use them, and yet would not explain them, with sundry other captious devices, and provoking speeches, as I have in part made manifest in my writings, and through Gods assistance shall do more, sayd so little at the dispute. Who is there that hath experience of humane infirmity, who knows not that distractions, forgetfulness, in advertency, sudden weakness of body, extemporality necessitated, slowness of speech, care to restrain passion, do hinder a man from speaking that in a great meeting, which he could in his study by writing easily express? What I sayd Jan. 1. 1649. was almost wholly as a Respondent, as the Argument required. Now they that know the rule of Schools understand the Respondents business is but to repeat, deny, distinguish, apply to the arguments of the Opponent, and this was done by me then, why it was done no more fully my Antidote, Praecursor, and the Review shew. M: B. had in his Epistle Dedicatory to his Saints everlasting rest, published to the world, that I was driven to gross absurdities, being moved to name those absurdities in his answer to my Valedictory or ation, he names 27. p. 207. To all which I answer in my Praecursor Sect: 17. and clear my self from the absurdities he imagined. In his Praefestinantis morator, when he comes to answer that Section, he onelyonly replies thus, Sect: 17. I know not one word of Answer that this Section needs for him that will peruse my words. To which I conceive I may without any heat reply, that he either wrongs his Readers by not making good that I was driven to gross absurdities, after my clearing of my self from them, or me, in not acquitting me from his charge. But I must needs speak it, though with grief, that I have scarce met with less justice, or fair dealing from any man than from M: B. and both his and other Antagonists courses tend not to an impartial and equal way of examining the point in controversie, but they use artifices to prepossess men against me and my writings and speeches, and to deter them from considering them. In my Sermon January …0. 1649. was given an answer to M: Bs. arguments so far as I could retain them in memory, or finde them in some imperfect notes, when I had sought in vain to have them from M: B. himself in writing. Now they are in print, they have or shall have a large answer, if the Lord will. Papists may say much more than I sayd, yet that either for their Religion orree will so much of moment can be sayd as against infantbaptism p. 65is vainly surmised. It is well M: B. in his 7. Position confesseth some Divines have argued weakly for infant-baptism, and brought some misapplied Scriptures. If ye mean my Books by the third or fourth written against them▪ (as it is most likely) he might know my writings were in answer to M: Marshall, whose writing is conceived to contain the Assemblies grounds, he is stiled by M: Stalham the Antesignanus, and perhaps it may be judged arrogance in M: B. to imagine his own arguments better than his. For my part I think them weaker. However he had sh…wd some care of truth and love to me, if he had by communicating them to me endeavoured to stop me in my supposed error. But this I count my trouble, though I hope it will advantage the truth, that first Mr: Ms. Sermon hath been magnified, & that by examining it I hoped I had done my work, and yet after M: Blakes writing being magnified, I was put to answer that, and then Mr: Bs. preferred before them all, and yet I am referred by him to answer M: Cobbet, M: Drew, M: Church, and after all Doctor Hammonds is preferred, so that I must answer that, or else the truth be betrayed. It seems Paedobaptists know not well what to re… on, when they do shift so much from one to another. But I go on▪ M: Bs. eighth Position is, that one sound argument is enough to prove any thing true: yet more may be brought against infant-baptism. Almost all that Protestants dispute against Popish Rites, Non-conformists against Prelatical Ceremonies, may be said against Paedobaptism, M: Bs. words in answer to Mr. Bedford, Plain Scripture proof &c. pag. 302, 303. are appliable against infant-baptism. In my Praecursor I had set down M. B. words in the second Edition of the Saints everlasting rest, part. 1. chap. 8. Sect. 5. pag. 179. in the margin; in his Praefestinantis morator he sayth, To what end you recite my allegation of Justin Martyr is past my reach to imagine; unless you would insinuate that I confess this to be the course with all the baptized, which I expresly say was the way of baptizing the aged. Answ It had been easie for M. B. to conceive why I set down those words, to wit, to prove from his own confession, that to baptize upon profession of faith, and to admit none to the Lords Supper but those who are thus baptized, is no new over-strict way. And however he now endeavours to mince the matter, these words of his, [And in the primitive times none were baptized without an express covenanting, p. 66wherein they renounced the world, flesh, and devil, and engaged themselves to Christ, and promised to obey him, as you may see in Tertul: Origen, Cyprian, and others at large.] being printed with a ful point at the end, are as plain a denial that infants were baptized in the primitive times, as words usually express. As for the words following; I will cite but one for all, who was before the rest, and that is Justin Martyr; speaking of the way of baptizing the aged sayth, they are not words, if they be restrictive, that limit any ones▪ speech but Justin Martyrs, and if by them M: B. would intimate that Justin Martyr did not in that speech set down the way of baptizing all that were then baptized, the words following saying thus, how we are dedicated to God we will now open unto you, and then setting down the constant way of baptizing without any exception, M. Bs. addition will easily be perceived to be but a shift to avoid the evidence of this relation of Justin Martyr, Apol. 2. ad Antoninum, being so plain to prove infantbaptism not to have been then in use among Christians. Likewise in my Praecursor, Sect. 16. pag. 66. I bring an argument against infant-baptism from M: Bs. own words mutatis mutandis. His answer in his Praefestinantis morator is in these words. His Confidence, pag. 66. is marvellous. I doubt not but that he knows that I take the words [since the solemn institution of Baptism Matth▪ 28.] inclusively; And so I answer, that this solemn instition is our warrant, requiring us both to disciple nations, and baptize Disciples; and we have other Scriptures which plainly prove infants to be Disciples.

Answ: My confidence is upon good reason, M: Bs. marvelling is from ignorance; what he means by taking the words [since the solemn institution of Baptism, Matth. 28.] inclusively I know not▪ except he mean that time when that institution was given, as well as the time after, or that institution to be a warrant as well as after precepts or examples. Either way the medium of M. B. serves my purpose. For it plainly asserts, that what we have no warrant, in all the New Testament, for, we are not to do ordinarily▪ what we have precept and example for, we are to do. Which if he will stand to, then his warrant out of the Old Testament is not sufficient for infant-baptism, and so it is not fully determined in the Old Testament, at what age persons are to be admitted into the Church, as he p. 67sayd before, and what we do we have warrant for by his own grant, sith he cannot deny we have precept and example for baptizing professors of faith. And then his including here Matth. 28. 19. in his Texts (though not brought Plain Scripture proof, &c. pag. 342. to prove his antecedent) is an intimation that in all the rest of the Texts, John 4. 1. Acts 2. 38, 41. & 8. 12, 13, 16, 36, 38. & 9. 18. & 10. 47▪ 48. & 16. 15, 33. & 18. 8. & 19. 3▪ 4, 5. Rom. 6. 3, &c. he findes not precept or example for baptizing of infants, and so if he finde not warrant Matth. 28. 19. for baptizing infants, all his other proofs are by his own reasoning made invalid. For sure the Texts alleged do as evidently prove this antecedent [we have no warrant by word or example in all the New Testament (since the solemn institution of Baptism, Matth. 28.) to admit any member into the Church by Baptism, but believers by profession, but both precept and constant example of admitting them by it] as Mr: Bs. [we have no warrant by word or example in all the New Testament (since the solemn institution of Baptism, Matth. 28) to admit any member into the Church without Baptism, but both precept and constant example of admitting them by it] The consequent then [we must not admit ordinarily any by Baptism without profession of faith] must by the force of his own illation be undoubted to those that take the word for their rule. As for his evasion, that he hath other Scriptures which plainly prove infants to be Disciples, how miserably he fails therein will appear by that which follows in this Review. The Reader may perceive that whatsoever his talk be about a Gift and Ordinance of visible Church-membership unrepealed, and of Christs Laying of hands on little ones, and such like Arguments and Texts he brings, yet if he will stand to his own reasoning in Arg. 9. against deniers of Baptism by Water, pag. 342. of his Plain Scripture proof, &c. we have no warrant to admit ordinarily by Baptism, but according to the precept and example in the New Testament in the Text, Matth. 28. 19. and the other Texts before recited. Concerning which I have reason to be as confident as of common notions, that they include not infants, and to marvel that Mr. Bs. prejudice should so blinde him, as not to see the futility of his arguings to prove infants to be Disciples included in the institution Matth. 28. 19. But I proceed.

p. 68Because, as he sayth, pag. 5. An answer cannot be always presently given, which may make the case plain to some men, therefore Mr. B. should have given his arguments in writing to those that came to him, which had been an easier and fairer way than to tell them as he doth, pag. 6. If any of you have taken up the opinion of Antepaedobaptism, and have not read and studied Mr. Cobbet, M. Church, and other the chief books, and been able (at least to himself) to confute them, you have but discovered a feared conscience (a most heavy, though vain censure, shewing what rashness and distemper was in Mr. B. in this writing) which either taketh error for no sin, or else dare venture on sin without fear, and have betrayed your own souls by your laziness, as if a man might not be satisfied by reading of the Scripture, and conference with the able of the opposite party, without reading so many Books. Sure Mr. B. who had read those Books shewed little charity to those of Bewdley that came to him for arguments for infant-baptism, when he would neither set down his own arguments in writing, nor direct them in what part of those books they might have satisfaction; but fly upon them with so deep a charge, without any moderation of spirit. And when he saith, pag. 7. He dare say by my books, that it is my case not to have received the doctrine of infant-baptism on the best grounds and arguments. I reply, 1. that there are many passages which make me think he never read my books with exact diligence and heed, but (if I may use his own words) He betrays his own soul by his laziness or prejudice. 2. It shews a fond conceit in him of his own arguments, which another perhaps will think weaker than those of Calvin, Ursin, Piscator, the Assembly, Mr. M. &c. which he might perceive by my Exercit. and otherwise, that I had considered. I said in my Apology, pag. 6. that I rested wholly on 1 Cor. 7. 14. for many years, and that Text Mr. B. cals a full plain Text, and Dr. Hammond in effect builds all his proof for infant-baptism upon it, and therefore Mr. B. might have perceived his mistake concerning me, if he had heeded my books. If some Divines have argued weakly for infant-baptism, used some unfit phrases, and brought some misapplied Scriptures, as he saith, I am sure Mr. B. had reason to number himself among them, if he be not the man who hath in all these outstripped them. I wish he had held his resolution of not heaping up many arguments, it would have saved me much labor.

p. 69To his words, Whatsoever Mr. T. may pretend among the simple, I shall easily prove, that infant-baptism was used in the Church as high to the Apostles days as there is any sufficient History extant to inform us: and that the deferring of Baptism came in with the rest of Popery, upon Popish or heretical grounds.

I answer, 1. That my pretences about the innovation of infantbaptism are not among the simple, as he would insinuate, but among the most learned, for whose examination my allegations are obvious in print. 2. That his assertion concerning the antiquity of infantbaptism is most inconsiderate, there being nothing in Ignatius, Clemens Alexandrinus, Eusebius, Epiphanius, and other the most approved Histories and Authors, for his assertion. And for those be brings, the highest is Pope Hyginus, whose words he alleged out of his Decree, which I conceived had been in his Epistle decretal, judged to be counterfeit, but Mr. B. in his Praefestinant is morator lets fly at me Sect. 3. for my mistake. I confess I have not Blondellus, Surius, Nicolinus, Crab, Binius, Gratian; but Osiander Epit. Hist. Eccl. Cent. 2. l. 2. c. 5. saith, Reliqua Decreta, quae huic Episcopo tribuuntur, ex Gratiano ad verbum (quia prolixa non sunt) referemus. And then sets down five Decrees, on the second of which he notes thus, Ex hoc decreto el…et vanit as harum constitutionum; & quod falsò prioribus Episcopis Romanis tribuantur. Quis enim credat? &c. Quare manifestum est haec Decreta longo tempore post Hyginum facta, & in Ecclesiam Dei, jam superstitionibus Pontificiis contaminatam, introducta esse. Hujus farinae sunt & proximè sequentia Decreta, de rebus frivolis edita, of which the last is, In catechismo, & in baptismo, & in confirmatione unus p…trinus fieri potest, si necessit as cogat, non est tamen consuetudo Romana: sed per singulos (astus) singula suscipiunt. Whereby the Reader may perceive the Decree to be but a forgery, and that if it were true, yet it doth not mention the baptizing of infants, sith Gossips were at the Baptism of elder persons, (though Dr. Hammond say in hisMr. Fox in the second Book of the Acts & Monuments, as the years 636 664. Letter, pag. 214. Godfathers have place onelyonly in baptizing of Children) as may be made appear by instances at the baptizing of some S…xon Kings, and otherwise, and the Decree it self, putting a Gossip in Catechism before a Gossip in Baptism, p. 70makes it probable not to be meant of a Gossip to an infant baptized. And lest it be thought Osiander is alone, I will adjoyn the words of Mr. Fox, Acts and Monuments first book at the year 175. The like (that Telesphorus made them not) is to be thought also of the rest, not onelyonly his Constitutions; but also of the other ancient Biships and Martyrs, which followed after him, as of Hyginus anno 142. who succeeding him, and dying also a Martyr, as Volateranus lib. 22. declareth, is said or rather feigned to bring in the cream, one Godfather and Godmother in Baptism, to ordain the dedication of Churches: when as in his time so far it was off, that any solemn Churches were standing in Rome, that unneth the Christians could safely convent in their own houses. Likewise the distincting the orders of Metropolitans, Bishops, and other degrees, savour nothing less than of that time. Doctor Prideaux, one of Mr. Bs. own Authors for this Decree of Pope Hyginus about Gossips, though he make mention of it where he speaks of that Pope, Compend. of History, cap. 7. Sect. 3. interr. 7. yet after, among many of his inquiries, this is the third, Whether it be likely that these religious Popes in such extreme persecutions had liberty or list to think on making Cardinals or Gossips, and introduce a rabble of beggarly Ceremonies. And though I were mistaken in calling that decree of Hyginus the Decree in the Epistle, yet I think the Authors which censured the decretal Epistles did comprehend the Decrees ascribed to those first Popes among those forged Writings under that name. However, what I have produced is enough to justifie my speeches in my Praecursor, that the Decree ascribed to Pope Hyginus about Gossips, is so manifest a forgery, that I could hardly have imagined any learned Protestant would ever have alleged so notoriously forged a writing: so that I need not answer Mr. Bs. allegation of this testimony, as by currant consent of Historians assuring us that Hyginus Bishop of Rome did first ordain Godfathers and Godmothers at the baptizing of infants, and his questions thereon, but by telling him he hath reason to be ashamed of abusing men with this forgery after so much eviction of it by learned men, being more like a brazen faced allegation, than that he so censures me for without cause. The next of his allegations is Justin Martyr, from whom besides the bastard writing of Questions and Answers ad orthodoxos, all the rest alleged, pag. 156. p. 71by Mr. B. is manifestly impertinent, and his genuine writing yields a good evidence against the use of infant-baptism, as unknown to him, as may appear by what is said before. Mr. B. in his Praefestinantis morator, says Sect. 3. Seeing you deny nothing in Justin Martyrs words, you must yield that it was known to Mothers that their infants were of Gods kingdom, and then certainly they were Church-members, and known Disciples or Christians. To which I reply, that I have not Justin Martyr now by me, and do doubt whether in that passage of the Epistle ad Zenam & Serenum, he did mean infants, sith the term is [children] which may be meant of persons who are come to some age capable of understanding; and if the words be meant of infants, yet it may be very well conceived that the meaning is, that of such is the Kingdom of Heaven, that is the Kingdom of Glory, and that not in respect of their present, but future estate, as when it is said, Matth. 5. 10. Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness sake, for theirs is the Kingdom of Heaven; that is, they shall have a great reward in Heaven, vers. 12. And then it neither proves their present being of Gods visible Kingdom, nor that they were Church-members, and known Disciples or Christians, and to be baptized. This testimony for the antiquity of infant-baptism I remember not alleged by any before Mr. B. and therefore besides the impertinency of the words, as he himself allegeth them, I see no need to search any further into it. His allegation, pag. 154. out of Iraeneus is impertinent, wherein besides other frivolous inferences out of his words he tels us, that Irenaeus cannot mean by sanctifying, internal real sanctifying onelyonly, for then according to their exposition of Renascuntur, it should be but Tautology, q. d. [He sanctifieth all that are sanctified or new born] whereas had he heeded these words set down by himself, this imagined Tautology had been seen to be his meer mistake; for his words are, Omnes venit per semet ipsum salvare, He came to save men of all ages, as Dr. Hammond renders it, not as Mr. B. He sanctifieth all that are sanctified. And yet if they had been thus, he sanctifieth by himself all that are born again or sanctified by him, it had not been a Tautology, sith it is manifest that Irenaeus by [per semetipsum] meant by the patern or example of his own age, and then it is no Tautology, but hath this plain sense, that all that are sanctified by Christ, he came to sanctifie them by the patern p. 72or example of his own age, and therefore lived in every age of a man, which is the purport of Irenaeus his discourse in that place, which is by all sorts of writers censured as his mistake Having said so much of Mr. Bs. mistakes, and thereby sufficiently shewed that no writer in the two first Centuries mentions infant-baptism, and therefore Mr. Bs. speech is most false, that he shall easily prove that infant-baptism was used in the Church as high as the Apostles days, as there is any sufficient history extant to inform us, I leave the examining of the testimonies for baptizing of infants, or against them, till I have finished the review of the dispute from Scripture testimonies, and then I intend not onelyonly to examine what Mr. B. hath scribled in his Plain Scripure Proof, &c. part. 2. chap. 15. and in his Praefestinantis morator, Sect. 3. but also what Mr. Ms. friend Dr. Young (as I am informed) and what Dr. Hammond (men better acquainted with the writings of the Ancients than Mr. B. or Mr. Bl.) have said about the antiquity of infantbaptism, and do no whit doubt but that I shall with the Lords assistance make good the assertions of the first part of my Examen, that First, infant-baptism is not so ancient as is pre ended; Secondly, that as it is now taught it is a late innovation, meaning as it is taught by the Assembly, Mr. M. and the reformed Churches called Calvinists. As for Mr. Bs. assertion, that he should easily prove that the deferring of Baptism came in with the rest of Popery upon popish or heretical grounds, if he mean the deferring it till a person were catechized and of years sufficient to answer by himself to the three questions, about Repentance, Faith, and Obedience, which were still put to the baptized, it is not onelyonly vain and inconsiderate, but notoriously false, it being the constant order of the Church to baptize after catechising, and the baptizing of infants onelyonly an exception from the common rule and order, in case of danger of death, till after Angustines days, who flourished in the fifth Century. The grounds on which Tertullian and Gregory Nazianzen did perswade the delaying of Baptism, were neither popish nor heretical, as their words alleged in my Exercit. Sect. 22. shew. But on the contrary, the hastening of infant-baptism manifestly appears by the words of Tertullian, and Gregory Nazianzen, alleged there, and of …yrian, and Augustine, together with the relations of Gregory Nazianzens and Austins Baptism alleged in p. 73my Examen, Part. 1. Sect. 7, 8. to have come from the popish conceit, that without Baptism infants could not come to Gods Kingdom, or were damned. I deny not, deferring of Baptism to have been an abuse upon sundry misconceits set down in Mr. Ms. Defence, pag. 22, 23, 24, 25. but not one of them popish, except that of washing away sins by it, which was the very ground of hastening infant-baptism, as appears from the passages forenamed by me. That which made persons of years defer their own Baptism, made them hasten the Baptism of their infants.

Whereas Mr. B. would have Mr. Cradocks Gospel Liberty read, I have read it, and do finde that neither in his second part, chap. 12. nor here, Mr. Cradock is well used by Mr. B. Mr. Cradock pag. 114. counts the custome of the Church the weakest rule to discern by, and then onelyonly he leaves Christians to it, when there is no other light to go forward. Mr. B. himself pag. 302. concludes against Mr. Bedford, that in so material a thing as infant-baptism, to hold Traditions Apostolical, not contrary to Scripture-custome, or which may not be confirmed from Scripture, as our rule, is prejudicial to Scripture, and a complying with Papists. Besides, I need not say anymore than Mr. B. there saith about the uncertainty of Traditions unwritten, and customes of the Ancients, which may serve for the present till a fuller answer be made to that calumniating question in his Praefestinantis morator, Sect. 3. Do not you care to smite through Christianity, so you may bring down infantbaptism? which he hath as much need to answer as my self; for he shews pag. 303. by the uncertainty about Easter, the mistake of Irenaeus about Christs age, how uncertain the relations of the Ancients are about things not set down in Scripture. And for the customes of Christians anSee Sprint of Conformity. Age or two after the Apostles, Writers do shew many corrupt customes came in about Easter, Lent, Infant-communion, sending the Communion to the absent, mingling Water with Wine, Monastick profession, honoring of Martyrs; about Baptism, giving Milk and Honey to the baptized, anointing them, the use of the sign of the Cross, which grew to a very great number in Augustines time so as that in his 119. Epistle to Januarius, he complained, as is before mentioned, and yet they increased after in the heighth of Popery, by reason of the p. 74innumerable company of humane Ceremonies, insomuch as that the pure worship and truth of the Gospel was shadowed so much, as that for the abundance of such leavs, the fruit of the Gospel-worship and doctrine was very little or scarce discernible, and Christian Religion was almost wholly placed in those Ceremonies. And therefore however there were weight in that argument of the Apostle, we have no such custome, nor the Churches of God of those times, yet especially in matters of Ceremonies and positive worship the former after the Apostles days, much less the present customes of the holiest Saints and Churches should not be of any great weight in cases controverted, except when they serve to expound some passages of the Scripture that are cleared by them. Yet this will no whit infringe the validity of the testimony of the Ancients about the canonical books, or right readings of the Scripture, no more than the discrediting of the Jewish Rabbins relations about their Traditions doth infringe their testimony about the books of the Old Testament, though Mr. B. in his Praefestinantis morator, Sect. 3. would insinuate, as if denying the certainty of Austins rule about Apostolical Traditions must infer an uncertainty about the canonical Scripture, which shews his proness to calnmniate me, and his inconsiderateness in not observing how this may be objected against his own speeches, pag. 303, as well as mine. As for Mr▪ Bs. tenth Position, though I grant it as it is set down, yet in his amplyfying of it there are sundry things that need animadversions. 1. That whereas he speaks of some, that disclaim Reason because they require express words of Scripture, and content not themselves with his supposed evident consequences; he may know that I have often acknowledged consequences good proof from Scripture, and if others do deny consequences, I do imagine that if they were rightly understood, it would appear that they deny onelyonly such far-fetcht consequences as are used about infant-baptism, resting upon such hypotheses as are taken for granted, when they have need of proof, or such consequences as are drawn from the rites of the Jews to the Sacraments of the New Testament, which if it be their meaning, Mr. Bs. censure of them as sensless ignorant wretches is too harsh and magisterial. 2. To what he saith, Will you allow of such an argument for infantbaptism as Christ brings for the Resurrection? I answer for my p. 75self and the people of Bewdley, to whom that speech was intended, we will: but withall I say, that in viewing of his book I discern nothing but Mr. Bs. vanity, in imagining his arguments to be like Christs, when upon trial they have little in them but superficial reasonings urged with much confidence and importunity upon mistakes, and stuffed with impertinent Texts, frivolous questions, and childish wonderings, fitted like things set in fields and gardens to fright birds, to deter the shallow heads of this age from the truth, who either have no minde, or no ability to examine it scholastically. This is my judgment of it. Chap. 2. After all his ten Positions, Mr. B. hath three more Propositions, the first about the difficulty of it, in amplifying of which he confesseth the point of infantbaptism to be such, as the most godly learned impartial Divines cannot agree in, after all their writings, disputing, studying, and praying; which being true, it is most unjust in Maresius that in his sixth question he makes the error of Anabaptists intolerable, in Ministers, that they will not permit such as deny infant-baptism to preach, nor will either themselves hear them, or pray with them, or suffer their hearers, but renounce communion with them, and make separations from them, and so shew themselves Schismaticks, yea, and in their Pulpits and Writings endeavour to make them odious, exciting Magistrates to imprison, expell, and destroy them; on the otherside the Parlament is justified in that speech of theirs in the Declaration Ordered March 4. 1647. to be published in answer to the Scots Commissioners Paper, that the opinion against the baptism of Infants is such, as wherein in former ages as well as this, learned men have differed both in opinion and practice, and that therein they held it fit that men should be convinced by the Word of God, with gentleness and reason, and not beaten out of it by force and violence. But Mr. B. hath another fling at my speech, that it is an easie point, and that the reason why so many Divines did not discern it, was their wilfulness or negligence, and this he imputes to want of humility, modesty, conscientiousness, and that he should tremble to pass so high a censure, forgetting what a heavy censure he had past before on others of discovering a seared conscience▪ either taking error for no sin, or else daring to venture on sin without fear, and betraying their own souls by their laziness, p. 6. Who should be Antipaedobaptists without reading, and studying first p. 76some books there named, calling others ignorant sensless wretches, with much more of this kinde over all his book, in which it is frequent with him to censure me, my answers and speeches, as if they shewed some fearfull spiritual judgment fallen on me, when his own mistakes through heedlesness, or uncharitableness, are all the occasion of such a censure. But for my speech here, I say still, that I know not how to say otherwise, and yet deprehend not any such pride▪ immodesty, or want of conscientiousness in my speech, nor any such high censure as he should tremble to pass, but as humble and fair an answer as is to be given to the question. Godly, learned, and humble men have differed in the points of Prelacy, Ceremonies, Ordinances, even in things that in themselves were easie to be discerned. What censure is easier than this, when some of them have continued in an error easily discernible, to say it hath been through wilfulness or negligence? which things are incident to the best and ablest, when they have a conceit of the point as of small moment, specially in comparison of peace and unity, when prejudice by education, determinations of Councils, Schools, leading Writers, Magistrates censures, &c. prepossessing them, draw them from examining it, or if they do examine it, makes them willing to satisfie themselves with imperfect and raw answers to their scruples, and most of all, when the loss of Preferment, Friends, Estate, Liberty comes to be in question, and pre-engagements make it grievous to retract. What I said of this is manifest by the instance I gave about Lutheran Consubstantiation, which M. B. should have shewed not to be appositely brought, and not carp and cavil at my words so often as he doth (though they were but in a speech in private conference) that he may paint me out in as ugly shape as he can, specicially to those of Bewdley, my dear Auditors heretofore, but now causlesly by his affrightments estranged from me; which if it be not a fruit of malevolence in him I know not what to call it. As for his talk of his own doubts and pains to resolve himself, and the easiness and plainness of the grounds of it, it satisfies not me, but still I am suspitious of his negligence in not considering better many of those things he hath taken up. In which I am confirmed from his own confessions of prejudice, unwillingness to be put on this business, in that it diverted him from other enjoyments and studies, and from his hasty printing, his indistinct handling specially of p. 77his second argument, never clearly opening his terms, nor shewing the hypotheses on which he builds his second main argument, his disorderly placing his proofs, his heaping up impertinent Texts, his mistakes of my answers, his overly reading my writings out of contempt of them, his frivolous questions, and expostulations, &c. And for his inference about my wilfulness or negligence, it is but a further piece of petulancy to insinuate that of me, in which my Apology, Sect. 4. might have undeceived him, though it were not then so easie to discern that error as now, after so much debating of it, did not pride, prejudice, fear, or some other partial affection hinder. And for Mr. Bs. conceit of his grounds, though I neither finde them easie nor plain, yet it is no marvel others discern not how infant-baptism can be inferred from them, which can at most prove a reasonableness of the thing, as Mr. Bedford▪ Dr. Field, Dr. Hammond, and others speak, but not an institution of God, which must be gathered from precept or example in the N. T. and can onelyonly warrant our practice as the minde of God in meer positives about worship in the New Testament. In the explication of his second Proposition, pag. 10. he again objects my speech, that Mr. Ms. Principle on which he establisheth his Proof from Circumcision for infant-baptism is one of the first condemned Heresies, by which I meant that Proposition which he hath in his Sermon, pag. 35. that all Gods commands and institutions about the Sacraments of the Jews binde us as much as they did them, in all things which belong to the substance of the Covenant, and were not accidental to them, in which thus much is maintained, that some part of the command of Circumcision, and the other Sacraments of the Jews, binde us as much as they did the Jews, which is expresly condemned, Acts 15. 24. as subverting the souls of the Gentiles, and is called, the heresie of the false Apostles, by the Century-writers, Cent. 1. lib. 2. cap. 5. and others condemn it under the title of Judaism. But then saith Mr. B. Mr. M. is an Heretick with me, and all the Divines in the world that go his way. To which I answer, This inference hath too much shew of Sycophancy, being urged so often, and to the People of Bewdly, my quondam Auditors. For, 1. though I say that Doctrine is such an Heresie, yet I do not say Mr. M. still holds it as his words did import; yea, I did acknowledg in my Apology, pag. 99. and in p. 78this writing Sect. 2. that Mr. M. doth deny that we are tied to any practise of the ritual part, which is indeed to retract his former speech in his Sermon. 2. But were it tru that he did still hold it, yet it would not follow, that he were an Heretick with me. For, 1. I should not take him to be an Heretick that holds that Doctrine which is Heresie, if it were not so directly, but onelyonly by consequence not heeded, as this of his is. 2. Nor do I take him to be an Heretick that doth hold that which is Heresie directly, except he hold it in or with a party made to maintain it. And therefore I do once more protest against Mr. Bs. calumniatory inference, and deny that I account Mr. M. an Heretick, and yet I account still his Principle mentioned, if it were held as the words in the Sermon did import, to contain one of the first condemned Heresies, to wit, Judaism. To this calumny Mr. B. adds another. Because I used the words of the Apostle, Acts 20. 26, 27. in a Sermon, he from the report of his Notary, and a multitude of my Auditors, likely his tale tellers, without sending to me about the truth of it, prints what he received from them, and thence infers, that the baptizing of persons of years, notwithstanding their infant-baptism, is taken by me for a fundamental point, which the salvation or damnation of men doth necessarily depend on. Or what I meant to say [their bloud be on their own heads] he knows not. And yet he conceives me to contradict my self when I blame the Papists for making baptism of necessity to salvation.

To which I reply, that herein Mr. B. shews his inconsiderateness, or his minde to calumniate, or both. For, 1. he might have interpreted my words, as I think when I spake them they were meant, in reference to other duties which I had taught them, with that of Baptism. 2. If it were meant particularly of Baptism, yet the threatning I conceive was not to the bare omission, but to the omission joyned with opposition. 3. I am sure, if I did threaten, their bloud should be on their head for omission of Baptism, it was not simply or barely for the omission, but for the omission after teaching, and upon supposition of conviction, by it of their duty▪ And this I think Mr. B. doth not stick to do to his hearers, in case after teaching and supposed conviction by it, they practise not a duty, though non-fundamental, as suppose reproving of their neighbours. For then they live presumptuously in sin, and such sinning consists not p. 79with sincerity and truth of Regeneration. And yet this doth not suppose the point in it self fundamental, that is, such as the meer ignorance of it, or the bare omission of it doth damn a person, or exclude out of the kingdom of God: in which sense I blame the Papists for maintaining a necessity of an infants being baptized to its entering into the kingdom of Heaven.

But Mr. B. doth not think God lays so great a stress on this point, as I and others do.

Answ. That which I hold is this, 1. that Baptism with Water is an Ordinance of Christ that bindes Christians now as well as in the Apostles days, Mat. 28. 19. Mark 16. 15, 16. Act. 2. 38. & 10. 47, 48. Ephes. 4. 5. And I detest the audacious impiety of Socinians, and those in our days, who count themselves above Ordinances, that is as Mr. B. well interprets it, Plain Scripture Proof, &c. pag. 24. above obedience to God, and so Gods, as being one of the most palpable delusions of unsound men in our days, who place their perfection in a manifest disobedience to Christs appointment, and some of them in an Antichristian presumption, as if they sate in the Temple of God, and shewed themselves as God, do most arrogantly of their own heads, without any allowance of God, make void the express prime Ordinance of the Lord Jesus Christ, calling it a low dispensation, &c. I hope I shall have liberty hereafter to shew the frivolous allegations and pretences of these men. In the mean time they may see what Mr. Laurence, Mr. Bartlet, M. B. pag. 341. of this his Book, have written for these Ordinances. 2. I hold that every Minister of the Gospel is bound, as to preach the Gospel, so to baptize those that are made Disciples, Matth. 28. 19. 3. That every believing Christian is by necessity of precept tied to be baptized, that is, dipped in water, in testimony of his profession of Christ his Lord,Mr. Blake, Vind. foed. cap. 6. That is the Covenant draught, terms of the Covenant we finde, He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, and he that believeth not shall be damned, Mark 16. 16Mark 16:16 upon his being made a Disciple of Christ, Mat. 28. 19. Mark 16. 15, 16. Acts 2. 38. & 22. 16. 4. That this is ordinarily where and when it may be had without unmercifulness, defect of water, or some other like reason, a necessary means of salvation, Mark 16. 16. 1 Pet. 3. 21. Tit. 3. 4, 5. Eph. 4. 4, 5. 5. That infant-baptism is not the performance of the duty of being p. 80baptized according to Christs appointment. 6. That in a regular and orderly way, persons, notwithstanding their pretended infantbaptism, are not to be admitted to the Lords Supper till they be baptized upon profession of their faith in Christ, Acts 2. 41, 42 1 Cor. 10. 2, 3, 4. & 12. 13. These things I may hereafter have opportunity to debate more fully. As for that which Mr. B. saith, pag. 10, 11. It doth no whit overthrow this necessity which I assert, but rather confirm it: For Gods freeing us from the great burden of Jewishrites makes it the rather necessary for us to obey Christs appointment in those few Sacraments he hath ordained, which Mr. B. truly saith, As they are duties they are great, and so in themselves considered, and not onelyonly in respect of the consequences of them. And he saith truly, pag. 11. All Christs commands must be obeyed, both great and small, so far as we know them. Yea, Mr. B. Scripture proof, pag. 342. saith, Baptism with Water is Heb. 6. 2. reckoned among the foundations or principles which are of standing use, and therefore it is so it self. Nor is his interpretation right, that the things ascribed to Baptism are ascribed to it without the external washing. In all these places, Rom. 6. 3, 4. 1 Cor. 12. 13. Gal. 3. 27. Ephes. 5. 26, 27. 1 Peter 3. 21. the outward use of Water is expressed, though the things ascribed to it do presuppose something more, as he himself allegeth them, pag. 342. which is the meaning of that speech, 1 Pet, 3. 21. Not the putting away of the filthiness of the flesh, that is, not it onelyonly, but the answer of a good conscience towards God joyned with it. And whereas Mr. B. tell us, that we shall never be able to justifie it, if we lay out the hundredth part, or perhaps the thousand part of our time, study, talk or zeal upon this question, I confess this may be true at some times, in some persons: but if other tenets be clear, and other duties not neglected, and this becomes a doubt of conscience, and fals into frequent practice, so as that it concerns them much for themselves, people, and little ones to be resolved in it, else they shall sin either by omitting a duty, or by doing a thing with gain-saying or doubting conscience, it is justifiable, though they bestow more than a hundredth part of their time and study upon it. And especially if the person be a Minister called to be a Guide to the People, and by special providence and solemn covenant led forth to vindicate the truth in such a time, when otherwise it is likely to be suppressed, and p. 81the Assertors of it oppressed. In these and such like cases it may be unjustifiable, if a person do not spend more than the hundredth part of his time about this question; else neither the Hussites will be justified in spending so much time in opposing the half-Communion, nor the Protestants in opposing Transubstantiation, nor the Non-Conformists in opposing the Ceremonies of Bishops. Mr. Tho. Goodwin preface to Mr. Cottons Dialogue for infant baptism, saith truly, The due application of baptism to all those persons Christ would have it administred unto, cannot but be apprehended by all that have any insight into the Controversies of these times, to be of very high importance. Not that I like their Carriage that neglect other necessary things, and spend all their time, study, talk, and zeal about this, such hypocrisy I should declaim against with him, remembring what our Saviour said in a like case, Matth. 23. 23. These things ought ye to have done, and not to have left the other undone.

As for M. Bs. third Proposition concerning the grounds on which the point of infant baptism stands, that they are of great moment, because what he saith, rests on the heap of consequences he infers from the denial of infant baptism (of which there is scarse any one true) and the shewing them to be but vain surmises, depends on the dispute it self, I shall therefore respite the vindicating the truth, from them, till I come to examine in this Review the arguments from Scripture urged on both sides, after which shall come in those from humane testimony and reason, unto which I now apply my self.