A Forerunner to a Large Review of the Dispute Concerning Infant Baptism, Treatise · Section 21
SECT. XXI. Many things are cleered about my conformity, Anabaptists necessity to be baptized, the manner of dipping used by them, their standing to their confession of faith, &c.
Page 241. he saith, I begin with a complaint of my sufferings, whereas my words were a gratulation for the change of my condition, and for my sad complaints Mr B. makes them more then they were, and misrepresents me in the time and reason of them. I let passe his jerkes about my health, and my grievance of removing from Bewdley, his way to heaven and mine. Mr. B. page 242 would vindicate his passages I cite in the Epistle to the people of Bewdley: but he passeth over that which goeth before in my Epistle, and makes no answer to any of these three things, 1. That he assignes no sufficient note whereby to discerne the visible Church-membership of Infanrs of which he speaks. 2. That there is no connexion between his visible Church-membership of Infants and the initial seal, without institution of the rite to be so used. 3. that in the positive rites of the New Testament, there's no reason to be a rule to us, but the appointers will in some precept or practise. And to shew the precept to be against him his own words are alleged and that rightly, however he interpret or interlace them. His interpretation agrees not with his own passage Appendix page 56. which saith, neither are the seals usefull till the accepting and entring of the Covenant, where he placeth accepting before entering the Covenant, and in both his passages speakes of accepting and entering with consent, which Infants cannot do, page 243. he saith, I seem to speak as if I had some of my old Episcopal ceremonious spirit, though he hoped and believed verily that I did not turn meerly to the times, though with the times. To which I answer. Mr. B. was a stranger to me till a little afore these times, and therefore is not fit to charge me with an Episcopal ceremonious spirit. Were it worth while to trouble the world with it, I could shew how I examined, as well as at those years, I could the points in difference about which I was to subscribe and conforme, and however I was carried away with the stream, yet my subscription was according to Doctor Burges his explication, and my conformity upon Mr. Spruits grounds, I was no promoter of either, and in the worst time I think none can say but I stuck fast to the main, the propagating the Gospel and Conjunction with the Godly. And my opposing the Bishops began with the soonest afore this Parliament began, as soon as ever I deprehended the Bishops to be wholly for their own rule, and adversaries to the preaching of the Gospel. And for my non-conformity, reasons were given with some of the first in a Sermon at a visitation at Lemster, November 24. 1641 since printed. And what I said the ceremonies were more excusable then Paedobaptism is true, 1. They were not at first urged otherwise then as indifferent things, Paedobaptism is urged as of Divine appointment, and yet the chief principle of non-conformists doth more strongly plead against it then the ceremonies. 2. Paedobaptism not withstanding the palliating salves of Mr. M. Mr. B. I find farre more pernicious then the ceremonies; it being, 1. The great occasion of the souldestroying presumption whereby a great part of men perish, and the genuine hinderance of the reformation of the Lords Supper and Church-communion. 2. it quite perverts the end and use of baptism, which the ceremonies did onelyonly in some sort disorder. I justifie not the ceremonies, and therefore I need not answer the men he names, but their writings yield strong arguments for me against Paedobaptism, and better for me then for themselves. Mr. Bs. questions page. 243. are upon a mistake, as if I counted all Pedobaptists meer formal teachers: whereas what I speak was in tendernesse to Bewdley, lest they out of averseness to my doctrine should rest in a meer formal teacher, which I had reason to fear was the aime of some, whom perhaps Mr. B. may find (though I wish he may not) he hath mistaken for godly men. Who perhaps might tell him what was not true, that the power of godliness is much diminished since my comming to them, and their profitable converse turned into heart-burnings, jealousies and fruitlesse contendings. His argument pag. 244. is vain: for were it supposed that Infants of believers were Church-members (which his whole book proves not) and it were true that baptizers cannot otherwise have knowledge when those that are piously educated begin to be Churchmembers, yet the practise of baptizing the children of Christians ordinarily at years of discretion overturnes not the true end of Baptism. For whether the true (to which he addes principal in a parenthesis, as if true and principal were all one) end of Baptism be to be Christs sign for solemn admission of Church-members or Disciples, or to be an engaging seal as elsewhere; yet both these ends are preserved if they be baptized many years after their being Disciples. It is untrue, that it is my usual artifice to work on the affections, of people when I mistrust my strength to work on mens understandings; it may be more truly said of himself, who usually fills up the vacuity of proofs with childish exclamations, admirations, &c. What I said and preached from Acts 3. 23. is right, people do indanger their being cut off from Gods people, who disobey Christ, in not being baptized when their duty is told them, as the Pharisees and Lawyers rejected or made void the Counsel of God against themselves, being not baptized of John Luke 7. 30. I preach against popish necessity of Baptism, and yet hold a necessity of precept for believers to be baptized, yea and an ordinary necessity of means according to Christs doctrine, Marke 16. 16. I threaten no man for not yielding to my opinion, but not yielding to a plain command of Christ, Mat. 28. 19. and his Apostle, Act. 2. 38. &c. acknowledged by all my Antagonists (except Socinianized) from which Mr. Bs. observations concerning the backsliding of some cannot acquit him. Were my words of any weight with him, I should advise him, more seriously to consider whether this his writing be not a perverting the right wayes of the Lord. Page 245. that Mr. B. did not at least mainly direct the passage of his Epistle against me, he will hardly believe that takes notice of the passage, the time when, the texts produced, the accusation it self, the naming me, yea or his own words so often in his book, as page 167. that he used the speeches to preserve his friends from the danger of my error, that being a dying man he might have no opportunity after to warne his people, that a fire being at Bewdley he had reason to provide for Kederminster. And what though it were intended against all that take my course, yet it might be directed mainly against me, whom he singled out for commendation, but yet in such a manner, as I may say with King James in his answer to Cardinal Perons oration, I defie the prayses that ascribe ability and moderation to me, and charge me not only with grosse absurdities, but also with little tender conscientius fear of erring, playing the Devils part, besides other imputations, which if not directed against me solely, yet he might have conceived would be taken as chargeable upon me with others. By officiating Priest I meant not any other then meer reading Ministers, by whom most were baptized, and it was not scornfully used by me, nor like the language of Martix-Marpriest (which I abhorre) but to in imate that in that respect, as well as the manner of sprinkling and defect of profession of faith, the Anabaptists so called had reason not to content themselves with Infant-baptism. It is true, our English prelatical Divines do account Baptism sufficiently administred that is so done, yea though it were by a popish Priest or a Midwife, and I think Presbyterians and Independents do agree with them: for they do not question their Baptism, nor seek any other, though it's likely many have been so baptized. Yet I find Spondanus in his Auctar. Chronol. ad annum 1604. reporting that in France, at Vapincum in the Daulphinate, a Synod wherein famous Chamier was President, determined according to a former Synod at Poictiers, that Baptism administered by expectants of ordination was of no value, and to be iterated by Ministers themselves. Whether this relation be true or not, yet my end in my expression being to give reason why Anabaptists content not themselves with their pretended Infant-baptism, Mr. B. doth ill to interpret my words as scornfull. I do now professe as I did not long since at Coventrey to Mr. William Swayn (who I perceived since upon his misconstruction hath also alleged this passage in the end of Mr. Stephens book intitled a precept for Baptism of Infants out of the New Testament,) that I do reverence many Paedobaptists as godly Ministers of the Gospel farre beyond my self. Yet still I say, that they most injuriously inveigh against Anabaptists for being baptized at years of discretion, and thereby necessitate them to associate themselves, when the Baptism of Infants is confessed by the most considerate not to have cleer proof without help of Tradition unwritten; which yet learned men contradict, the sprinkling they have received is not Baptism, nor appointed by Christ, nor the person adminstring it to many Infants a Preacher of the Gospel, and many learned men have made Baptisme of Infants imperfect without Confirmation, and Churches have thought it necessary to retain it, yea Mr. B. would have something like it (which but for the dipping in cold water is to the same purpose as rebaptizing) page 119. 120. which to me discovers the imperfection and insufficiency of Infant-baptism to its end; and though Mr. B. in answer to Mr. Bedford holding baptizing but once onelyonly a tradition unwritten, undertakes to prove it fully from Scripture page 305. (whose performances I find very short of his undertakings) yet Theophilus Philokyriaces in the book forenamed page 54. sayes, sacrum baptismum non repetendum semper statuit Ecclesia: de quo tamen interdicto in sacris tabulis nihil occurrit, and therefore unless I will speak against my conscience, I must needs say that it is ignorance or wilfulness holds Ministers and people in their stiffe asserting and practise of Infant-baptism, and the violent opposition they make to their practise who are baptized or baptize believers upon so great reason. He tells me it is an untruth that he said [dipping in cold water is murther and adultery] about which I not contend, whether he used those very termes onelyonly, but so farre as my memory retaines, and the notes I could get relate, those words were used by him without addition of [the ordinary practise] or [naked.] But my meaning in my denial of his speech, was to justifie dipping as used by those termed Anabaptists, whose baptizing so farre as I have known it, hath been seemly with coverings fit to be quickly put off when they come out of the water, and with meet provision for the health of persons, not tying persons to cold water in the open aire or any other inconvenient thing to health and modesty, but onelyonly requiring the person to be under water resemhling Christs burial and resurrection according to Rom. 6. 3, 4. Col. 2. 12. as the stream of the expositors do conceive the allusion. And therefore I cannot be of opinion that the ordinary practise of baptizing by dipping the whole body in cold or warme water openly or privatly is either a breacb of the sixth or seventh Commandment, unless he condemne Christ and his Apostles as appointing and practising a rite contrary to Gods commands, and be of an opinion, which is refuted by frequent experience of aged weak persons men and women baptized in cold stormy times in the open aire in cold running water without detriment to their health to mine one knowledge. Neverthelesse were it that any person did conceive, that he ought to be baptized naked, as vossius Thes. Theol. and Hist. disp. 1. de baptismo thesi 6. 7. 8. shewes in the first ages men women and Infants were, yet he may find there how provision was made against immodesty and murder, & I wonder that either Mr. B. or any other considerate man that knows how persons go into bathes frequently, should imagine so evil of a persons going into the water but once in course habit in a penitent form not without grave company, not staying a minute in the water, that it could not be performed without such danger as Mr. B. would possesse people with, in the second part of his book chap. 12. 13. His satyrical I had almost said scurrilous quips I let passe. I did not charge Mr. B. with endeavours to drive me or others out of the land, or destroy us, but I think the instigators to the ordinance against Heresies, have had such minds. And whereas he saith page 247. I tell him of his danger and elsewhere that I threaten him, is a suggestion that I cannot yet ghesse whence it should arise. The citation out of his book sect. 3. of my Antidote was to shew M. B. paraphrased Mat. 28. 19, to like purpose as I do. That the untruths he chargeth me with page 248. 252. were not such is shewed before. The matter of the fourth, fift, sixt, and seventh sections being argumentative, is to be referred to the first part of his book. Page 257. Mr. B. applies that to one term of calling some Sects which I said of the rest of his discourse, especially the accusation of societies proving wicked, that it hath a manifest tincture of reviling. He chargeth my conscience as having a flaw for insinuating that he called all Independents a Sect, and that for denying the power of a Synod to excommunicate, whereas he plainly limited his speech to that Independency which gives the people to govern by vote, which is the same with separatism. To which I reply, I took it, and do still, that in the books of Independents it is their received tenet, that excommunicating however it be not without officers, yet is in the people, from Mat. 18. 17. but that whence they are named Independents by Mr. Her'le and others, is from denying superiority of Synods in governing, and appeales to them, and if a Sect then from thence as their distinguishing tenet. However for the tenet of the peoples governing by vote, I know no reason why they should be called a Sect rather then their opposites. The excommunication which the Scripture speaks, of so farre as I discern, is no where made a part of government, or of the Elders office any more then the Peoples. In antiquity it's apparant out of Cyprian, &c. that the people had a great hand in Elections, Excommunications, Absolutions. Nor is a person a Separatist for that tenet, but for dividing practises: other things in that section are answered before; To that page 259. of my logick, I say he is mistaken in it. I know this water to be cold because I feel its coldnesse, this person to be a false teacher because I hear from him false doctrine. The subject is not the suppositum as a substance but as a substance with its adjunct. I prove not a wall to be a wall by its whitenesse seen, but a white wall, and this is not idem per idem. The Apostle shews the evil lives of Hereticks for better prevention of their practises, not to prove them Hereticks [A ravening wolfe] signifies neither error of doctrine, nor visiousnesse of life, but the effect or end of the persons described, to wit, destroying souls, often also lives and estates. That the false Prophets have sheepes clothing, that is, fair shews, though inwardly are ravening wolves, overthrows Mr. Bs. interpretation he pleades so much for, except he think they can have sheeps clothing, that is fair shewes of a good life, who are openly wicked, so as by the fruits of their wickedness they may be known, which me thinks comes near a contradiction. Mr. B. often sayes, he takes me not to be an Heretick nor a meer Anabaptist except they divide the Church. But he taking me for a divider of the Church, for my error must of necessity take me for an Heretick if he stand to the descriptions he there saith he likes, so that I cannot nor any Anabaptist or Independent long look to be out of his black roll of Hereticks. Page 260. Mr. B. saith, I make his question an affirmation, and so doth he himself that tells us it speaks what a rarity it is according to his reading that any society of Anabaptists hath not proved wicked. But I make it a peremptory determination, where as it is neither omnino dubitantis, nor yet determinantis, but provo cantis. Nor did I say it was a most peremptory determination, but, no man will I think take his interrogation for any other then a most peremptory determination, which I think is true, the words carrying a plain shew of a peremptory determination, and being written to the people of Kederminster were not likely to be a provocation of Anabaptists to look over their own intelligence, but a resolute assurance, that there hath not been known a society of Anabaptists since the world first knew them, that proved not wicked. And therefore I put no false sense on his words, as he falsely chargeth me, nor do I as he saith, call him dog, I onelyonly say, like a right-English mastive he flies in the face, &c. not comparing him to a dog, but his bold act to the manner of English mastives boldness, whereby he is no more called dog, then Christ is thief, when he saies, I come as a thief, Revel. 3. 3. To that which he saith page 261. of my cheat, I have answered. To his question, Did no body contradict Infant-baptism for so many hundred years? and yet is it an innovation. I answer yes: and I think Mr. B. will say of keeping an Easter, Lent-fast, Infant-communion, Monkish profession, Episcopacy, at least some of these are innovations not contradicted for so many hundred years. For his testimonies page 262, 263, 264. for the antiquity of Infant-baptism, to the chiefest of them answer hath been made, that the eldest of them is not till the third age, that they onelyonly urge it and practise it in case of evident danger of present death to save from perishing; that the conceit of peculiar privilege to Infants of believers is a late innovation: some of them are meerly impertinent without Mr. Bs. vain infernece, some Heathenish rites of expiating Infants are unseeming Mr. B. to allege, they being from Satan. My testimonies page 264. of Bernard, Petrus Cluniacensis, Eckbertus, are vindicated before, Strabo doth not say that afore Austins time, Infant-baptism was not, but onelyonly, in the first times, nor is it likely that he did mistake Austins age 10 years. That the Copies put 25. for 35. Nor do I think he was mistaken in the reason of Austins deferring his Baptism, but that the reason he gives was one though not the sole reason of it, and the testimony of Walafridus Strabo though later then Augustine, yet he giving himself to search out and to write of antient rites, is of more credit concerning the Antiquity of Infant-baptism then Augustines, who as I shew Apology. sect. 6. and elsewhere, did often inconsiderately call that an Apostolical tradition, which was commonly observed in his dayes within the compass of his acquaintance. Cyprians speech if it be rightly brought by Mr. B. will prove all still-born Infants to be lost, being not of the visible Church Catholick. That which Mr. B. page 266. saith, fully satisfies him, part of it is false, the rest so frivolous, that I can impute his satisfaction to no other cause then his inconsiderateness. The very same or like plea will serve for communion of young children in which yet Mr. B. is not satisfied. But to me it is very good satisfaction that baptizing of Infants is but an innovation, neither agreeing with the institution of Christ, nor the Apostles practise, nor known till it began to be conceived necessary to give grace and to save from perishing, yet then disswaded and not practised but in case of iminent danger of death, nor maintained on any other ground till Zuinglius his dayes. What the Churches of Anabaptists so called have done in London that Mr. B. should so much lament, till I know what it is I take to be a Calumny. That Anabaptists have been in danger by the instigations of Preachers and writers it is a marvel to me, that Mr. B. should not understand, who can hardly be ignorant whence the ordinance against blasphemies and heresies came. That any of my Antagonists are turned out of house and home is unknown to me, surely not for non-conformity to rebaptizing, most certain, that if any such thing hath been done it was never by my procurement, nor I think any of the Churches of Anabaptists. That which Mr. B. page 267. saies, that the same men that subscribe the Anabapiists confession have many of them written other kind of doctrine elsewhere. I doubt whether it be true, I find him onelyonly naming Paul Hobson page 147. and citing some passages of his, of which that which is most liable to exception Mr. B. himself gives us this excuse in his Saints evelasting rest part. 2. chap. 1. sect. 2. page 169. not understanding that they affirm and deny the same thing in several expressions: so that however his expressions be dangerous, yet it is probable he held not the Socinian opinion, which he contradicted in the subscription to the confession, but onelyonly discovered his weakness. And yet Mr. B. I think is not ignorant, that so holy & learned a man as M. Pemble near the beginning of his Vindicae gratiae hath a like conceit of Gods never hating the elect, but being reconciled from eternity, taking reconciliation for an immanent act in God: which as I imagine Mr. B. would excuse in Mr. Pemble, so might he with a like charity excuse the other in Paul Hobson. What he cites out of Cyprian I wish Mr. B. had Englished it, and that both Anabaptists and their opposites would learn it. Page 268. he saith if my book of scandals were read, men may perhaps receive a preservative from my own hand from the danger of my opinion, to which I say, I wish my book of Scandals were more read, nor do I fear that my doctrine will be the lesse embraced for reading it, if my interpretation of my own words justified even by Mr. B. be received, as I shew before. Page 269. he tells us the Levellers were Anabaptists, but I cannot yet learn of any of them he names except Den that was so: though I deny not but there might be sundry of them such, likely of the Free-willers disclaimed by the seven Churches in London, and that they were but few in comparrison of the rest: by the Newes-books I gather the Levelling businesse was carried on by such as were in no gathered Church, but lived above ordinances. As for Mr. Bs. dark criminations I can give no answer to them, unlesse I could plow with his heifer and find out his riddle: But my hope is those great instruments of God to break the enemies of those that are termed Sectaries, though Mr. Bs. words seem to forebode and misdeem evil of them, will and do prove better then he discribes them, though I imagine they be not Anabaptists. Nor do I like Mr. Bs. obscure satyrical criminations, they having some shew of a malevolent mind. Whatever Mr. B. may conceive of the danger of the Anabaptists way in other things, I am sure if they would keep themselves onelyonly to this to be baptized upon profession of faith, they should be in a safe way, even in the way of Christ.