A Mirrour for Anabaptiſts.
The firſt Point that I am to begin with is, the Arguments juſtifying Paedobaptiſm.
THE firſt Ground and Argument for Paedo-baptiſm,Arg. 1that I ſhall lay down, is the general Commandment that our Saviour Chriſt gave to his Apoſtles, Mat. 28.19. Go, teach all Nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghoſt: All the exception againſt this is, that Teaching being firſt enjoyned, makes Infants uncapable of Baptiſm, becauſe they are uncapable of Teaching.
To this it is anſwered, that the teaching there enjoyned, was the publication and preaching of the Goſpel to all Nations in the firſt place, before the Sacrament of Baptiſm was2 to be adminiſtred unto them; which is moſt apparent from St. Mark his expreſſion of the ſame Commiſſion and Precept, Mark 16.15. Go ye into all the world and preach the Gospel to every Creature. That which St. Matthew phraſeth [teach] or [Diſciple] St. Mark expounds to be the preaching of the Goſpel. And this was neceſſary to be done in the firſt place, and accordingly was done before ever any Nation received Baptiſm. So that when the Goſpel is preached to any Nation, and that Nation doth receive and entertain it, then is that Nation diſcipled or taught, and ſo put into a capacity and ſuſceptibility of the Sacrament of Baptiſm, and all in that Nation have a title unto it, whereof Infants are a conſiderable Party; whoſe Incapacity of teaching doth not make them uncapable of Baptiſm, becauſe while they remain Infants, they are not included among thoſe that are to be taught: For our Saviour did not ſend his Diſciples to teach Infants, but men of years: And therefore the teaching pre-required, as antecedent3 to Baptiſm, is neceſſarily required only of men of years, that be docible, and not of Infants that are indocible. So that we acknowledge a neceſſity of a praevious & precedaneous teaching, before Baptiſm of docible perſons, but not of Infants; becauſe they are capable of Baptiſm, though not of teaching. I know that protervious and peeviſh Spirits are able and apt enough to cavil at any truth, be it never ſo clear, and ſo its probable, will cavil at the interpretation of this place of Scripture: But the indifferent Reader may diſcern it to be both can did and conſonant to other Texts; for no where in Scripture is there any exception againſt this general Command of battizing all. Nations that embrace the Goſpel, amongſt which Infants are a conſiderable party (as was ſaid before) And therefore where the Goſpel is preached and embraced, there Infants of that Nation are to be baptized by vertue of that command. For a general Command in Scripture to perform any duty appertaines to all perſons of what condition ſoever, unleſs in the4 ſame Scripture ſome exception be added; whereas in this caſe there is no any.
A Second Argument may be th•teſtimony of the ancient Fathers o•the Church, who affirm it to be a•Apoſtolick Tradition, and ſo of the ſame authority and credibility with other Apoſtolick Traditions; ſuch as theſe, The Apoſtles Creed, Th•change of the Sabbath from the la••day of the week to the firſt; an•what Books of Scripture are Canon•cal, and what Apocryphal. Whic•Aſſertions being received by th•Church, as Apoſtolick Tradition•are, and ever have been, acknowled•ed and embraced as undoubt••Truths, though they be not (in t•minis) word for word expreſſed i•Scripture: And ſo in like manner hath Infant-Baptiſm, as leaning upon the ſame ground with them; ſo that the Anabaptiſts may as well queſtion the truth of the Apoſtles Creed, an•the ſanctification of the firſt day of the week for the Sabbath, and the Canon of Scripture, as the lawfulneſs of Infant-Baptiſm, in that they〈◊〉5lean upon one and the ſame foundation, i. e. Apoſtolick Tradition; which was ever held by the Churches of God to be of authentical authority, next unto Scripture it ſelf: For though the Reformed Churches diſclaim Popiſh, Humane Traditions, as mens Inventions; yet theſe Apoſtolick Traditions, they receive and reverence, as unqueſtionable Truths. Now that the ancienteſt Fathers, as Dionyſius Areopagita, Juſtin Martyr, Origen, St. Auguſtine, with many others have witneſſed Paedo-Baptiſm to have been accounted and received as a Tradition Apoſtolical, neither can, nor is denied by the Learnedeſt Anabaptiſts. But yet they will not give credence to their teſtimony hereof, which how void of Charity it is to cenſure ſuch renowned Doctors, as reporters of an untruth, eſpecially in matters of Religion, I leave it to be conſidered of, by all perſons of underſtanding. Arg. 3
A Third Argument may be the conſtant practice of Infant-Baptiſm by all Chriſtian Churches from the very next age after the Apoſtles, to this6 preſent age. This was witneſſed by Dionyſius, who lived in the Apoſtles time, and Ignatius, and Juſtin Martyr, and Iraeneus and Origen. This is proved at large by many learned men, who of late have written of this Subject, and therefore I will ſuperſede the labour of rehearſing the particular proofs thereof; eſpecially conſidering that the moſt learned of the Adverſaries of this truth, do not deny this; but yet condemn it as an errour and a very pernicious abuſe, needful to be taken away out of the Church of God, as is to be ſeen in Mr. Tombes his Antipedo-Baptiſm, in the 3d Part, and Section the 98 about the middle of the Section; which is a preſumptuous cenſure, unfit for any particular man to paſs againſt the Church.
Now this practice of Paedo-Baptiſm by the Univerſal Church of Chriſt in all ages and places is an Argument irrefragable and unanſwerable, to prove the lawfulneſs of it: For the Church is the ground and pillar of truth, ſo ſaith the Apoſtle, 1 Tim. 3.16. Particular Churches may erre both in judgment7 and practiſe, but the Univerſal Church cannot erre in any important point of Faith, ſuch as this is; becauſe of Chriſts promiſe to it, both of protection and direction in ſeveral Texts, as Mat. 28.20. Teaching them to obſerve all things whatſoever I have commanded you, and lo, I am with you alway, even to the end of the world; which could not be meant only of the Apoſtles, (as who could not live to the end of the world) but of neceſſity of the whole Catholick Church. And John 14.16. I will pray the Father, and he ſhall ſend you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever, even the Spirit of truth. And again, John 16.13. He promiſeth his Diſciples again, to ſend them the Spirit of truth, which ſhould guide them into all truth. Seeing therefore the Univerſal Church for many ages, and thoſe next ſucceeding the Apoſtles, have allowed and practiſed Infant-Baptiſm, no intelligent godly Chriſtian may oppoſe it, without manifeſt contempt of the ſentence and judgment of the Catholick Church; which whoſe will not hear, is to be accounted as a heathen8 man, and a publican, Mat. 18.17. If ſome particular Churches only had practiſed it, the Legality of it might have been queſtioned; but ſeeing all Churches for many ages did practile it, the legality of it is thereby made unqueſtionable.
A Fourth Argument may be the Circumciſion of Infants in the time of the Jewiſh Church. Arg. 4For if Baptiſm be the Sacrament, now under the Goſpel, that ſucceeds the Jewiſh Circumciſion, which is aboliſhed; then, by the rule of analogy and proportion, and parity that is betwixt them, to whom Circumciſion belonged under the Law, to thoſe Baptiſm belongs under the Goſpel. But Baptiſm is the Sacrament now under the Goſpel, that ſucceeds and comes in place of the Jewiſh Circumciſion: Which is moſt apparent from Col. 2.11, 12. Where the Apoſtle proves that the Colloſſians were circumciſed with the circumciſion made without hands, in putting off the body of the ſins of the fleſh, by the circumciſion of Chriſt, being buried with him in Baptiſm; that is, becauſe they were baptized in or9 into his name; for elſe the Apoſtles argumentation were inconſequent, if Baptiſm did not come in place of Circumciſion; for in affirming they were circumciſed, becauſe they were baptized, he declares Baptiſme to come in room of Circumciſion: Hence therefore it followes that as Infants were to be circumciſed in the time of the Law, ſo Infants are to be baptized under the Goſpel.
I cannot conceive what exceptions can be brought againſt this argument, but one of theſe two.
1. Either the unfitneſs to require a Covenant of a Child, that cannot ſpeak to declare it. Or,
2. Becauſe there is not a particular Commanding Scripture for it.
If the firſt be objected, I Anſwer, That to lay an imputation of unfitneſs upon Infant-Baptiſm in that reſpect; is to charge God, himſelf with commanding that which was unfit (which were audacious preſumption, if not blaſphemy) for he commanded Infants to be circumciſed, whereby they entred into a Covenant with God, though they could neither expreſs10 it nor know of it, Gen. 17.
To the ſecond exception (which I find in Mr. Tombes, in the 3d. Part of his Anti-paedo-Baptiſm, ſection, 11. near the end) I return a threefold Anſwer.
1. I anſwer, That what is colligible and deducible from Scripture by good and undeniable conſequence, (as Infant-Baptiſm is) is of force and creditable, as well as what hath precept or example. For its an erroneous Principle (as the learned & judicious Doctor Saunderſon hath obſerved and taxed in his Preface lately prefixed to a new Addition of ſome Sermons of his that had been formerly publiſhed) to hold that a man may do nothing (meaning about the religious Service of God) for which there cannot be produced either command or example from Scripture; for ſo he ſhould be barred from deducting any doctrinal concluſions from Scripture, but what are ſpecified in it either by precept or example; which would much infringe and ſtraighten the Ordinance of preaching.
2. I anſwer, that though it were11 granted, that it's fit to have either precept or example for performance of religious duties; yet for circumſtances about the pe•formance of them it's not neceſſary; and this is but a circumſtance, Ergo.
3. I anſwer, that there is an implicite Command as well as an explicite, and the former is a ſufficient warrant, and that Infant-Baptiſm hath; namely in Mat. 28.19. as formerly hath been declared.
A Fifth Argument,Arg. 5Infants have remiſſion of ſins and ſalvation by Chriſt, as well as thoſe of riper years: This is proved by Mat. 18.3. Where our Saviour ſaith, Except ye be converted and become as little children, ye ſhall not enter into the Kingdom of Heaven. And from (Mark 10.14. Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not, for of ſuch is the Kingdom of God. This being granted that Infants are ſaved (ſome at leaſt, which is ſufficient for the preſent purpoſe) it followes, that then they are made members of the Church of Chriſt; for, extra eccleſiam non eſt ſalus, out of the Church there is no ſalvation:12 It was the ſentence of Cyprian, Lib. de unitate Eccleſ. and it hath ever been owned as a truth by all Orthodox Divines; as which hath its ground from Acts 2.47. Where it's ſaid, that God added daily unto the Church ſuch as ſhould be ſaved; which implies thus much, that all ſuch as are ſaved, are firſt added unto the Church. And Mr. Tombes acknowledgeth this to be true, underſtanding by the Church, the inviſible Church of the Elect, in his Anti-paedo-Baptiſm, Part 3. Sect. 9. pauſo poſt medium, which is as much as we require to be granted.
Whence I argue thus, If Infants he members of the Church of Chriſt, then they are cleanſed from their ſins by ſuch waies and means as the Church is cleanſed (this is undeniable) But the Church is cleanſed by the waſhing of water through the Word, Eph. 5.26. i. e. by the Sacrament of Baptiſm, through the word; and therefore Infants alſo, as which are members of it. And if ſo, then the Sacrament of Baptiſm belongs to them, and may not be withheld from them, neither in Charity nor13 Equity. For if they be members of the Church, which is cleanſed by the waſhing of water through the word, then this waſhing of water through the word (which can be no other but Baptiſm) belongs unto them, as being the means whereby they are made members of the Church.
If it be objected againſt this Argument (which is all that can be objected) that ſome Infants are ſaved, and ſo are made members of the Church, and yet die before they be baptized,
I anſwer, that ſuch are ſaved after an unknown and extraordinary way, which puts no bar to the ordinary way and means of ſalvation by God appointed, which is Baptiſm; as the fore-cited Text of Scripture proves, with many other. For Gods extraordinary works wrought either without means or againſt means, are no Patterns and Preſidents for us to follow, nor do at all warrant us to neglect the uſe of ordinary means. Gods mitaculous preſervation of the lives of Moſes and Elias fourty daies without food, is no warrant for others to faſt ſo long: Nor his miraculous14 work in providing a Whale to ſave Jonas from drowning, when he was caſt into the ſea, any warrant for others to throw themſelves into the ſea, and yet expect to be ſaved from drowning. And therefore Gods mercy to Infants unbaptized, in ſaving them after an unknown and extraordinary way, is no warrant for us to neglect to baptize Infants, which is the ordinary way and means appointed by God for their ſanctification and ſalvation, as in the next Argument is largely proved.
If any Anabaptiſt can anſwer this Argument fully and fairly without ſhifting and ſhuffling, I ſhall never truſt my own Judgment again; but ſhall be ever jealous of the ſhallowneſs of it.
A Sixth Argument;Arg. 6All means of Grace and Salvation which God hath appointed as inſtrumetal to that end, are to be afforded to Infants, which they are ſuſceptive or receptive and capable of (this no rational perſon will deny) For when God hath appointed the means to any end, we are tied to the uſe thereof; if we15 expect to attain to that end; as I might inſtance in divers particulars: But Baptiſm is a means of Grace and ſalvation, which Infants are receptive and capable of, and therefore it is to be afforded and miniſtred unto them.
That it is a means of Grace, i. e. of remiſſion of ſin, and ſo conſequently of ſalvation (which is all that I ſtand in need to prove) is oft affirmed in Scripture, Acts. 2.38. Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jeſus Chriſt, for the remiſſion of ſins, Acts 22.16. Ariſe and be baptized (ſaith Ananias to Saul) and waſh away thy ſins, calling on the name of the Lord. Rom. 6.4. We are buried with him by Baptiſm into his death, i. e. made partakers by baptiſm of the merits of his death and burial. Eph. 5.26. (the Text before alledged) It is ſaid, that Chriſt ſanctifieth and cleanſeth his Church by the waſhing of water through the Word, Tit. 3.5. It is called the Laver of regeneration, 1. Pet. 3.21. It's called the Figure that ſaveth us. Out of all which Texts,〈◊〉apparent, that baptiſm16 is appointed of God as one means (together with other) of remiſſion of ſin, grace and ſalvation; which though it doth not alwaie; confer the ſame ex opere operato (as the Papiſts erroneouſly affirm) yet alwaies it doth ſo, when God is pleaſed to vouchſafe the concurrence and cooperation of his holy Spirit with it, which alſo of neceſſity is required to all other means of Grace, to make them effectual, as well as to Baptiſm; as namely, both to the Word preached, and to Prayer, or they avail not. This then being proved, that baptiſm is a means of Grace by Gods appointment, it neceſſarily follows, that it appertains to Infants, as who are receptible of Grace as well as thoſe that are of ripe years; and therefore baptiſm which is a means of grace, ought not to be withheld from them.
Al that is or can be anſwerd to invalidate the force of this argument, is this, That though Infants are in themſelves capable of baptiſm, as being a means of Grace, yet the Scripture puts a bar to them, becauſe they want Faith,17 which is required before baptiſm.
To this it is anſwered, that the precedence of Faith is required only of ſuch as are capable of Faith, and not of Infants which are not in a capacity of it; which I thus demonſtrate:
If Faith, and ſo conſequently Remiſſion of ſin and Regeneration, were alwaies and of all, neceſſarily required before baptiſm, then baptiſm could never be a means and inſtrumental cauſe to bring forth faith and regeneration: For if Faith and regeneration muſt go before it, then it cannot be the inſtrumental cauſe of Faith and regeneration; for the effect cannot go before the cauſe.
But that it is ſomtimes and to ſome a means of regeneration, remiſſion of ſin, Faith and other Grace, is ſufficiently proved by the Texts before quo•ed.
Therefore the precedence of faith is not neceſſarily required of all to be baptized. I apprehend the force of this Argument, and the laſt before this, to be ſuch as will ſtall any Anabaptiſt whatſoever, to enevate or invalidate.
18To theſe,Arg. 7I might add a Seventh Argument, very valid and convincing, which is the Title and Intereſt which the Infants of Chriſtians have to the Covenant of Grace: For if the Covenant of Grace it ſelf belong to Infants (which hath been formerly proved from Mat. 18.3. & Mark 10.14. and is juſtifiable by many other Texts of Scripture) then the ſeal thereof alſo belongs to them.
But becauſe this Argument is ſo largely and fully preſſed already by divers learned men, I will omit all further proſecution of it: and conclude this firſt point thus: Its an old adage and a conſeſſed truth, that force united becomes more forcible. Lay now all theſe Arguments and conſiderations together (the leaſt whereof will ſway with any, but ſuch as are foreſtalled with prejudice) and paedobaptiſm will ſtand as a truth infringible, and a Fort impregnable and inſuperable.
The Second Point.
Having now ſufficiently proved the lawfulneſs and neceſſary uſe of Paedo-baptiſm, I come in the next place to confute what is repugnant to it, which is Anabaptiſm, or dipping ſuch as have been baptized in their Infancy. And my firſt Argument I frame thus:
THat opinion or Doctrine in Religion, which is new,Arg. 1is not true (this is denyed of none)
But ſuch is Anabaptiſm, or the rebaptization of ſuch as have been baptized in their infancy:
Therefore it's not true.
I prove the Aſſumption thus; becauſe its not to be found in Scripture, neither by precept not example, nor by good conſequence to be deducted from it, but was broached about 300 or 400 years after the Aoſtles, by one Donatus a Presbyter about Carthage in Affrica, as is teſtified by ſeveral Authors, amongſt whom St. Auguſtine is a principal; who writ a20 Book in confutation of him. I have heard that ſome Anabaptiſts in anſwer hereunto, have alledged, Acts 19.2, 3, 4, & 5 verſes, as a preſident and example for re-baptization. But I ſhall clear that Text from warranting it, which I do demonſtrate theſe two waies.
1. Becauſe the Evangeliſt doth not ſay of thoſe there mentioned that they were rebaptized, but baptized; he ſaith not,〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, he ſaith not, which when they heard, they were rebaptized (which had been the more proper ſpeech, if they had been truly baptized before) but he ſaith,〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, i. e. which when they heard, they were baptized; which intimates, they were not rightly baptized till then, and therefore that was no reiteration of their baptiſm, but their firſt baptiſm.
2. Its apparent from the Context, that they were not rightly baptized before, that is, baptized in a right form; and therefore this was no rebaptization, but a firſt baptiſm: For the right form is, to be baptized in21 the name, or into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghoſt, or in the name of the Lord Jeſus, which is the ſame in ſubſtance with the former, though in fewer words.
Now that they were not baptized in the Name of the Father, and of the Sonne, and of the holy Ghoſt, is moſt apparent, in that they ſaid in the ſecond verſe, that they had not ſo much as heard, whether there were a Holy Ghoſt; which they muſt needs have heard, if they had been baptized in his name. Neither were they baptized in the name of the Lord Jeſus before, for in that its ſaid, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jeſus then, it undeniably implies, that they were not baptized in his name till then; and ſo conſequently not truly and rightly baptized till then: And ſo I hope I have cleared this Text from warranting the Anabaptiſts rebaptization, or dipping thoſe that have been formerly baptized in their Infancy.
The Profeſſors of Anabaptiſm at their firſt appearing in the Chriſtian Church,Arg. 2and boaſting themſelves to22 be the only true Church (which was done by Donatus and his Diſciples, as was declared in the former argument) were condemned by the Church then as Hereticks, and cut off as unſound members, and were ſo ſuppreſſed by it, that for the ſpace of 1000 years or thereabouts, there never appeared any face of them again in any Chriſtian Nation. This is a truth ſo clear out of all Hiſtories, that make mention of them, that I preſume there is none of them that have the face to go about to outface it.
But this, namely a ceſſation to be, can never befal the true Church of Chriſt, witneſs many Texts of Scripture, as Pſal. 125.1. They that truſt in the Lord, ſhall be as Mount Sion, that cannot be removed, but remaineth for ever. Mat. 16.18. Upon this Rock will I build my Church, and the gates of Hell ſhall not prevail againſt it. And Eſay 27.3. Leſt any aſſail it, I keep it, ſaith the Lord. with many ſuch like, which juſtifie that the true Church of God cannot fail and ceaſe to be.
Whereas therefore there appeared23 no face of Anabaptiſtical Profeſſors for ſo long a time, it proclaims them to be no true Church of Chriſt, and ſo their anabaptiſtical Profeſſion not to be truth. This argument I once uſed in a diſpute with one Mr. Oats (a Coryplaeus and teacher of note amongſt them) and all the anſwer he returned, was this, that he had heard that there had been ſome of their profeſſion formerly in Hungary; which was both an inſufficient anſwer, and a tacite and clandeſtine confeſſion, that they muſt either prove the continuance of ſuch profeſſion and profeſſors from the Apoſtles times, (which they never can, nor (that I ever heard) attempted to do) or elſe muſt yield themſelves in a manifeſt and obſtinate Errour.
The Anabaptiſts interpretation of ſeveral Texts of holy Scripture,Arg. 3as if they did impugn and diſallow Infant-Baptiſm, is diſſonant and diſſentaneous from the interpretation of all viſible Churches, both before and ſince their appearance; and therefore is a private interpretation, and ſo is repugnant to St. Peters Doctrine, who tels us, that no propheſie of Scripture is of24 any private Interpretation, 2 Pet. 1.20.
Divers of the Fathers affirm, that the Primitive Church received of the Apoſtles not only the Scripture, but the genuine and true Interpretation thereof, and this indeed in all probability was ſo. And therefore if the Primitive Church held Paedo-Baptiſm to be agreeable to Scripture, and ſo accordingly practiſed it (as before hath been declared) its out of doubt a doctrine of truth, and the Anabaptiſts reclamation and oppoſition of it (as if it were not warrantable by Scripture) a private and novel miſ-interpretation of Scripture, and therefore to be diſavowed, deteſted and exploded.
Re-baptization of thoſe that have been baptized before,Arg. 4is repugnant to Scripture, which allowes but one Baptiſm, Eph. 4.4. There is one Lord, one Faith, one Baptiſm.
But our Infants whom they re-baptize, have been truly baptized before. Ergo, They act therein againſt Scripture. Now that our Infants are truly baptized, I thus demonſtrate;25 Thoſe (whether men, women, or children) that are baptized in the right and true form of baptiſm, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Ghoſt, expreſly ſet down, Mat. 28.19. are truly baptized. But our Infants are thus baptized, and therefore are truly and rightly baptized: For its a known Canon in Logick, and received of all Learned men as a truth, that [forma dat eſſe] the form of a, thing gives its being unto it. And therefore Infants being baptized in this true and right form, are truly and rightly baptized and ſo ought not to be baptized again.
That Profeſſion of Chriſtian Faith,Arg. 5which was never publickly and openly acknowledged and owned by any Chriſtian Nation; but ever ſince its firſt hatching, hid it ſelf in corners and private Conventicles, & was profeſſed only of ſome private perſons, cannot be the truth: for Veritas non quaerit angulos, Truth ſeeks not to ſculk and hide it ſelf in corners; but ſuch is Anabaptiſm: Ergo. The major Propoſition I make good, from thoſe many Texts of Scripture, where26 its affirmed, that Nations, yea many nations ſhould flow unto the Church of the Goſpel (which is the ground and Pillar of truth, where truth is to be found) as Eſay 2.2. It ſhall come to paſs in the laſt daies, that the Mountain of the Lords Houſe ſhall be eſtabliſhed in the top of the Mountains, and ſhall be exalted above the hils, and all Nations ſhall flow unto it. And the like ſentence is in Micah 4.1. which was fore-ſpoken of the ſtate and condition of the Church under the New Teſtament. And for the minor Propoſition, let them make it appear, that ever any Nation did openly and publickly, without reſtraint, make profeſſion of Anabaptiſm, and they ſhall be quit from the Concluſion. But this was never yet done, nor indeed can be done, Eſay 49.23. Its foretold of the Church of the New Teſtament, that Kings ſhould be nurſing Fathers and Queens ſhould be nurſing Mothers unto it: That is, that there ſhould be ſome ſupream Civil Magiſtrates that ſhould be propitious to it, and Protectors of it: But this honour was never done to Anabaptiſts;27 there was never King nor Queen nor Supream Magiſtrate, that hath protected their Profeſſion, nor the Profeſſors thereof, under that notion; but have alwaies declared their diſlike and diſtaſt of them; which undeniably ſecludes them from being that true Church of Chriſt there ſpoken of, (which yet is their Phariſaical boaſt) and proclaims them to be a Set and Sect of Schiſmaticks, that have groundleſly made a ſcandalous and dangerous ſeparation of themſelves from that true Church of Chriſt, whereof divers Civil Magiſtrates have been for many ages, and ſtill are the conſtant and reſolute Protectors and Defenders.
The Third Point.
Swaſory and Conſiderable reaſons to bend and ſway with all Anabaptiſts to repudiate and renounce the errour of their way.
THE firſt reaſon that I ſhall tender to their due conſideration,Reaſ. 1is this, Becauſe Perſons of that Profeſſion, are generally void of Charity; which Charity being the cognizance of a diſciple of Chriſt, as is taught by Chriſt himſelf, John 13.35. By this ſhall all men know that ye are my Diſciples, if ye have love one to another: And being alſo a Badge of truth, as St. John affirms, 1 John 3.19. Thereby (ſaith he, ſpeaking of Love or Charity) we know that we are of the truth. The contrary thereto, which is uncharitableneſs, muſt needs be the Livery of ſuch as are adverſaries to Chriſt and his truth, and therefore to be abhorred and abandoned.
29Now that they are uncharitable, appears theſe two waies.
1. From their ſeparation of themſelves from all other Chriſtian Congregations, and refuſing Churh-fellowſhip and ſociety with them.
2. From their oſtentation and boaſting of themſelves to be the only Church and people of God upon earth, and cenſuring all others as unregenerate Perſons, and ſo out of Gods true Church; and thereupon term them the world, (as one that was of their Profeſſion and Aſſociation, but is now reclaimed, hath certified and aſſured me) Whereas Charity thinketh not evil, but believeth all things and hopeth all things, 1 Cor. 13.5, & 7r Now by this uncharitable cenſure of theirs, they condemn not only all the Reformed Churches of Chriſtendom (amongſt which there be Millions of Saints) but all the Martyrs in Queen Maries daies here in England, and all the Martyrs in the Primitive Church, that never were dipt after their Infant-Baptiſm,30 Baptiſm, and yet lived godlily, and ſuffered gloriouſly, and died comfortably.
That the Martyrs in the Primitive Church lived and died with ſignal and apparent evidences of extraordinary divine Graces, and ſupernatural comforts imparted and infuſed into them, is witneſſed (as by other Eccleſiaſtical Hiſtorians) ſo, by that creditable Author, Euſebius, in his Eccleſiaſtical Hiſtory, Lib. 8. Cap. 12. toward the end: where he teſtifieth of them, That they ſo ſhined throughout the world in their afflictions, that the beholders wondred at their patience and noble courage, and that (ſaith he there) was not without cauſe; for they expreſſed and ſhewed forth unto the world ſpecial and manifeſt ſigns of the divine and unſpeakable power of our Saviour Chriſt working by them.
And for the Martyrs in Queen Maries daies, Mr. Fox in his Hiſtory of them, recordeth many ſpeeches uttered by them, which were manifeſt evidences of Gods31 divine Graces and Comforts in an extraordinary meaſure and manner conferred and breathed upon them. And therefore to cenſure both theſe and all other Chriſtian Profeſſors in the world beſides themſelves, to be without God in the world, ſets a ſhameful brand of Phariſaical pride and uncharitableneſs upon them: And is enough to make both the ears of all that hear it to tingle, and their hearts to boil with indignation againſt them, and divers wiſe and godly perſons wonder, that they are not more ſtrictly dealt withal and reſtrained; this and ſome others of their groſs hallucinations and errours, and preſumptuous and irregular extravagancies and Practiſes conſidered.
A ſecond Reaſon that I ſhall offer to their conſideration, is this,Reaſ. 2Their preſumptuous confidence in their own Opinions and Judiciouſneſs; preferring the ſame before the wiſdom and judgment of millions of eminently Learned and Godly Chriſtians (and many of them Martyrs) who lived before32 them, and that in all ages, even next to the Apoſtles, as hath been formerly declared. This is contrary to the preſcript Rules, Directions, and Sanctions of the holy Scripture, as in Prov. 3.7. Be not wiſe in thine own eyes. And Prov. 26.12. Seeſt thou a man wiſe in his own conceit? there is more hope of a fool than of him. Eſay. 5.21. Wo unto them that are wiſe in their own eyes, and prudent in their own ſight. Luke 9.23. If any man will come after me, let him deny himſelf: Which ſelfdenial in one point of it, conſiſts in the denial of a mans own reaſon and wiſdom, Rom. 12.6. Be not wiſe in your own conceit. Its not to be queſtioned, but that the Chriſtians of the Primitive Church, and the Learned holy Fathers that ſucceeded them (who were main and ſtrenuous Props and Pillars of the true Chriſtian Faith, in defence thereof againſt the Hereſies of thoſe times) as alſo the modern, learned and illuſtrious Divines, the late Reformers of Religion, Luther, Zuinglius, Melancthon, Peter Martyr,33 Calvin, Junius, Beza, Zanchy, Chemnitius, with many ſuch of other Nations; and thoſe Renowned, Pious and Learned Divines of our own Nation, that lived but a few years ſince; as Cranmer, a Biſhop and a Martyr, Jewel, Whittaker, Reighnolds, Andrews, Perkins, Biſhop Uſher, Biſhop Hall, Hooker, with thouſands more, who were Divines of ſingular and tranſcendent piety and Learning: It's not to be queſtioned (I ſay) but that theſe men did ſeriouſly and ſearchingly and throughly ſift and examine this Point of Infant-Baptiſm, yet concluded for it, and owned it to the laſt period of their lives without any ſcruple at all. And is it likely that a few Illiterate Perſons (I ſpeak it comparatively, namely, in reſpect of thoſe ſo profoundly Learned before-named) ſhould eſpy out ſuch an errour to be crept into Gods Church, as they were never able to diſcover.
Oh be humbled now in your ſelves, all ye ſelf-conceited and perverſe Anabaptiſts, and lay your34 hands upon your mouths, and deny your ſelves, if ye will be Chriſts Diſciples, as ye would be accounted. And take unto you theſe or the like words, and ſay (as the truth is) Alas! we are weak men, and far inferiour to thoſe renowned Worthies and glorious Martyrs now mentioned, both in Learning, Perſpicacity, Judgment, True Zeal and Piety; and therefore we do acquieſce and ſubmit to the Judgment and Sentence of thoſe Learned, Judicious and illuſtrious holy Ones of God, ſo far excelling us in all divine Graces and Vertues. And the rather to bend you hereunto, remember how St. Peter hath ſet this Preſumption and ſelf-conceitedneſs as a black Brand upon the Hereticks of theſe laſt times, in 2 Pet. 2.10. Where he ſpeaks thus of them, That they are preſumptuous, and ſtand in their own conceit, and fear not to speak evil of them that are in Authority: And therefore it ſtands you in hand to beware that you wear not this Reproachful Livery.
35A Third Reaſon may be this,Reaſ. 3Becauſe they give great offence to many Godly Chriſtians, by ſeparating themſelves from the Congregations of the Reformed Churches; which is repugnant to the Doctrine of the holy Scritpures, as is evident by theſe Texts, 1 Cor. 10.32. Give no offence neither to the Jews, nor to the Gentiles, nor to the Church of God. And Rom. 16.17. Now I beſeech you Brethren, mark them which cauſe diviſions and offences, contrary to the Doctrine which we have learned, and avoid them. Herein they proclaim themſelves to be ſuch vain oſtentators, as God complains of, Eſay 65.5. Who ſaid, ſtand by thy ſelf, come not near to me, for I am holier than thou; and yet they were a ſmoak in Gods Noſe, and a fire that burned all the day, as in the next words God himſelf pronounceth againſt them. Hereby alſo they declare themſelves to be ſuch Mockers, as St. Jude foretold ſhould appear in theſe laſt times, in the 18 and 19 v. of his Epiſtle; in that they thus ſeparate themſelves36 from other godly Chriſtians; for theſe be they (ſaith he) that ſeparate themſelves. If they ſhall ſay, that it is an offence taken, and not given: Its anſwered, that its the unanimous ſentence and judgment of all Learned and Orthodox Divines, both ancient and modern, and amply juſtifiable by Scripture, that neither corruption in manners in a particular Church, nor errours in matters of Ceremony, Circumſtance, or in the manner of Church-Government are a ſufficient ground or warrant for any particular perſons to deſert it and make ſeparation from it; but it muſt be ſome errour in the Fundamentals of Religion, that will juſtifie a ſeparation from any particular Church. Now the Church of England is not culpable or chargeable in the leaſt meaſure, of errour in any one particular Tenet, that ſtrikes at the Foundation of Chriſtian Belief, as I doubt not but they will ingeniouſly confeſs. And therefore their ſeparation from the Church of England, is an offence given by37 them, and not an offence taken by us, who profeſs our ſelves Members of the ſaid Church.
I wonder that the example of our bleſſed Saviour is no more minded and regarded by them; who never refuſed to joyn himſelf to the Congregations of the People of the Jews, though they were guilty of more foul errours, and groſs abuſes by many degrees, than the Church of England is. And its very apparent from St. Pauls Epiſtles to the Corinthians and Galatians, that neither errours which are not fundamental, nor corruption in Manners, will warrant a ſeparation from any Church; ſeeing he acknowledgeth and owneth both theſe, as the Churches of God; albeit he taxeth them both, both for palpable errours and foul miſdemeanors (as is evident in the ſaid Epiſtles) and ſuch as were more groſs and dangerous errours that any the Church of England holds. Reaſ. 4
A Fourth Reaſon ſhall be this; Becauſe their Sect hath hatched ſeveral Broods of Fanatick, Vertiginous,38 and Brain -•ick perſons, that are looked upon by prudent perſons, as Monſters among Chriſtian Profeſſors, as Quakers, Ranters, Seekers and Adamites, the very ſcum and ſhame of Chriſtians: For theſe were never heard of, till they ſprang up from among their Diſciples, which their reſorting ſtill together doth evince and evidence. Whereas therefore ſuch prodigious and abominable Brats, or rather Monſters are hatched in their Neſt, its a ſhrewd ſigne that the Brood is naught.
A Fifth and laſt Reaſon that I ſhall propound to them to be weighed in the ballance of their diſcretion,Reaſ. 5is this; Becauſe Perſons of their Profeſſion have never been accounted as ſound Members in the Body either of Church or Common-wealth; but as Incendiaries and ſeditious Perſons, and Perturbers of the Peace both of Church and Common-wealth in all Nations and Countreys where they have appeared; and have been proceeded againſt accordingly, as by divers39 examples in Hiſtories is very evident. One of the firſt of this Sect, that ſhewed himſelf openly, was one Thomas Muntzer, who in the year [1523] publiſhed his doating errours of this ſort, at the City of Alſted in Saxony; who ſtirring up the People to ſedition alſo and inſurrection, whereby great tumults were raiſed, grievous outrages committed, and many Thouſands ſlain, and himſelf being a principal Agitator and actor amongſt them, was at laſt apprehended by the Land-grave and the Duke of Saxony, at Frankenhuſium; where he was ſentenced to death by the ſaid Princes, and had his Head cut off and faſtened to a Stake. This ſtory of him and divers others of their Sect, is at large recorded by one Mr. Alexander Roſs, a late Reverend Divine, in the latter end of his Book entituled,〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉Or A View of all Religious in the world. Some queſtion is made, whether theſe Stories of the Anabaptiſts, were penned by himſelf or not; but it matters not, ſeeing the truth40 of them is avouched by divers other Authors.
After this, or about the ſame time, one Balthaſar Pacimontanus, (a Clergy man of Ingolſtade in Germany) declared himſelf to be of this Sect (he was confuted and convinced both by Luther and Zuinglius) who perſiſting obſtinately in his errours, was at laſt burnt at Vienna, a famous City of Auſtria in the ſaid Germany; as Bellarmine reports in his firſt Book, de Sacrament. Baptiſm. Cap. 8. from the Teſtimony of Johannes Cochlaeus.
Afterwards appeared John Becold of Leiden, with his Aſſociates, at the City of Munſter in Holland; who for their prodigious Errours, Blaſphemies and wicked Practiſes, were openly condemned and put to death, about the year [1537] as the Hiſtory of them is written both by Sleidan and divers others, and notoriouſly known to be true.
Laſtly, (to omit very many other Inſtances) ariſeth up one Michael Servetus, a Spaniard by birth; one that Mr. Calvin laboured much with41 to reduce from his errour of Anabaptiſm, and ſome other Opinions that were blaſphemous, but not prevailing with him, to reclaim him, he was at length ſentenced to death by the Senate of Geneva, and there burnt, in the year [1553] as Chemnitius witneſſeth, in locis communibus, Part 1. Cap. 2. de tribus Perſonis divinitatis.
Conſider now therefore with your ſelves what comfort or encouragement ye can have to be the Diſciples and Followers of ſuch Leaders; who never yet were approved of in any Chriſtian Nation; but were ever exploded, proceeded againſt and ſpued out as ſcandalous and criminous Offenders? Yea and even here amongſt your ſelves, divers of your eminent Leaders and Teachers have been notoriouſly and deſervedly famed to be of looſe and ſcandalous Converſation (whereof ye cannot be ignorant) which greatly blemiſheth your Profeſſion; becauſe ye pretend to more Holineſs (yea and make your boaſt thereof) than ye will acknowledge to be in others, who are42 not of your Faith and Perſwaſion. If theſe Reaſons will not prevail with you, do deſert the errour, yea, the dangerous errour of your way, I have no more to ſay to you, but ſhall tender my Prayers for you (as St. Paul did for the Epheſians) To the God of our Lord Jeſus Chriſt, the Father of Glory, that he may give unto you the Spirit of wiſdom and revelation in the knowledge of him, the eyes of your underſtandings being opened, that ye may know, what is the hope of his calling, and what the riches of the Glory of his inheritance in the Saints.