baptizing of persons but that it may appeare that onely such were not then in the assembly albeit the growne persons were those to whom especially such speeches were directed compare this with that of Austin in his 4. Serm. in octav Paschae adneophytos where hee saith To day are celebrated the octaves of Infants their heads are uncovered in token of libertie c. Those children Infants little ones sucklings hanging on their mothers breasts and ignorant of what grace is bestowed as you may perceive because they are called Infants even they also also have their octaves to day And these old men young men striplings all are also Infants By this testimony we may perceive a larger interpretation of the word Neophytos scil any one newly planted into the Church whether Infant youth or other any one who was as new borne Sacramentally in baptisme of what age soever And that at the solemnitie of Easter * Infants sucklings were baptized as well as elder ones even before that change of the limitatiō of Baptism to Easter and and Pentecost Of which Rupertus and Boemius speake baptisme of Infants was not brought in for mortalities sake upon the change of the old use of baptisme at Easter and Pentecost but was in use while yet those limited times stood and long before this corrupt use of limiting the time of baptisme was in force of which more anon Yet also this I deny not but that corrupt addition to Paedobaptisme being in use in those times of asking questions to the child by the sureties c. this answer might suffice that even Infants too were in that number of young plants mentioned which did answer as is there said by their sureties Austin is againe quoted for proofe of the 7th Proposition de baptismo contra Donat. lib. 4. cap. 23. de Genesi ad literam lib. 10. cap. 23. now then let us examine what Austine saith there and how pertinent a proofe it is of the proposition hee calleth it there saith the Treatise a Church custome and thence concludes by the witnesse that Paededobaptisme is an ordinance of man brought into the Church by Teachers since the Apostles time and instituted by councells c. but let us heare Austin speake for himselfe at the first hand and not take a report of his words at second hand lest it prove a slander thus he speaketh in the former place the which the whole Church holdeth as delivered to it that even little Infants are baptized which truely yet cannot beleeve with the heart unto righteousnesse nor confesse with the mouth unto salvation as the Thiefe he meanes the converted Thiefe c. and yet no Christian hath affirmed that they are baptized in vaine and immediatly Chap. 24. addeth And if any seeke divine authoritie in this matter scil of Infants baptisme although that which the whole Church holdeth neither was instituted by councells but alwayes retained wee assuredly beleeve that it was not delivered but by Apostolicall authoritie yet wee may truely conjecture opposing this to all false and uncertaine conjectures of what authoritie or force the Sacrament of Infants baptisme is from circumcision c. where first in the very place quoted hee saith not that it was a tradition of the Church onely or from the Church but was delivered to the Church and least any should imagine that this was delivered to the Church by any corrupt teachers since the Apostles times Austin in the next Chapter within five or six lines of that in the 23. Chapter mentioned giveth his arguments to prove that it could not bee delivered to the Church but by Apostolicall authoritie first in that it was never instituted by any councells secondly because it was ever held by the Churches scil since there was any Church planted by the Apostles and I thinke his arguments are weightie other things which were of such note as this of Paedobaptisme was if innovations either they may bee proved that they came in by such or such councells or authors or it may be proved that there was never any such thing in use before such or such a time which in this case will be hard for any to undertake to make the same good by convincing testimonies or arguments But to returne to our Authors they bring in this testimony to prove that baptisme of Infants was instituted by councells * The first witnesse saith flatly it was not instituted by Councells what forgery is this they make him their witnesse to prove it to bee an ordinance of man the witnesse proveth that it 's of divine authoritie What notable jugling is this Will they never leave this trade Let us examine the other place where Austin saith that it is a Church custome if our Authors speake truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth of the place quoted the words there are as followeth the custome of our mother the Church in baptizing Infants is not to bee despised nor by any meanes is the same to be thought superfluous Yery good then will they say this place is full for us Nay stay Sirs be not too hasty to interrupt the witnesse whilst hee is speaking let him speake all hee hath here to say scil nor were it at all to bee beleeved unlesse it were an Apostolicall tradition c. So you heare Sirs hee tells you it 's such a Church custome as withall it is an Apostolicall tradition and that in the other place quoted is of Divine authority hee makes account which is delivered to the Church by the Apostles As indeed it is unlesse that any thinke that the Apostles in their Apostolicall ministry erred and delivered that to the Church as the mind meaning and intent of Christ which hee never meant And Austin hath the very same words as here in his third Epistle ad Yolusiam Nay lest there should bee any stick in the words traditum ab Apostolis and Apostolicall tradition hee peremptorily affirmeth speaking of the Churches authority in this case of Paedobaptisme lib. 1. de peccat merit remiss cap. 16 proculdubio per Dominum Apostolos traditum that without all question it was delivered by the Lord and his Apostles But our Authors here will not leave Austin thus but they will make him speake for them ere they have done therefore hee is quoted againe in the 28th Epistle to Jerom to confirme their 7th Proposition Content wee will heare any thing hee can say What saith Austin there Nay pag. 32. our Authors are silent and onely quote the place not the words and leave us to finde the sense out as Nebuchanezzar did his dreame and them to interpret it But let mee assure them Austin doth rather confirme the contrary in that Epistle then otherwise clearing both the spirituall ends of Christian parents in hastning with their children to Baptisme and ratifying Cyprians judgement touching the case of Paedobaptisme that hee therein did not frame some new decree but held the most firme beleefe
so that their bleeding wound is unstanched 2. The Apostles which as yet preached not for the abolishing even of Mosaicall rites would much lesse at that time so publiquely hold forth implicitely at least the exclusion of the Jewes babes from Abrahams Covenant Gen. 17. 7. And verily the Apostles which so long after were so tender of the better and more pliable part of the Jewes that they would have Paul to take off that aspersion as if hee should as yet lay a necessitie upon the Jewes not to circumcise their children Acts 21. 20. 22 23 24. would much lesse give such manifest and just offence to them as to hold forth an exclusion of their babes from right in that Covenant of Abraham it selfe whereof Circumcision was a visible seale as the places quoted in Gen. 17. 11. 13. and Acts 7. 8. declare 3. If Peter should intend by that clause such an exclusion at present of the Jewes babes from that externall interest in the Covenant of grace it were to bee crosse to Pauls doctrine Rom. 15. 8. who makes it Christs end not to evacuate undermine or abolish by his comming the promises indefinitely made to the fathers whether in Gen. 17. 7. or Deut. 30 6. or the like as respecting parents or children but to confirme the same Ibid. But some will yeeld the case as verified in those Jewish children as being never before denied to bee visibly in Abrahams Covenant but what is this to our childrens federall interest in the dayes of the Gospel An. Yes it 's very much 1 It proveth that by the Apostles since Christs ascension this tenent of the children of visible members of the Church are visibly interested in the Covenant of grace is of divine authoritie and is no humane invention 2. These Jewes are eyed by the Apostles as persons to partake of priviledges of a Church of Christians as was baptisme and therefore what extent of federal right priviledge is granted by the Apostles to them and theirs in that way is equally belonging to Gentiles in a like way 3. To suppose God by Apostolical ratification to allow to children of Jewish parents comming on to Christ c. a larger priviledge then to Gentile parents as came on to Christ c. is to make God a respecter of persons 4. The force of the words seeme to carry it that the same promise which was to those Jewes actually in Church and Covenant estate was intentionally to those afarre off which were strangers actually from a like estate whether those of the ten tribes or rather those of the Gentiles and should be actually to them when they came to bee called actually into the fellowship of that Covenant and Church estate Now what promise was that Verily a promise which carried with it a partiall reference unto their children The promise is to you and to your children And the same is unto them afar off whom God shall call scil in reference to their children also CHAP. III. Sect. I. The Explication of Gen. 17. 7 c. ANother Scripture holding forth the former doctrine of the Federall holinesse of such children is Gen. 17. 7. a place that in these later dayes hath been through mens distempers like Isaacs well an Esek for contention about the waters in it Touching which and so the whole doctrine of Federall holinesse propounded let us make use of a few distinctions and then set downe some few conclusions and withall take off what is brought to the contrary The Covenant of grace is considered either nakedly or as invested with a visible politicall Church-covenant if not explicite yet implicit Wee are to consider this place Gen. 17. not so much in the former as in the later sense God making of it with reference to the Church which was to remaine in the posteritie of Isaac vers 18 19 20 21. albeit at present it bee to bee contained in Abrahams owne family whence also hee ordaineth an initiatory seale and way of restipulation to which they submitting together as one selected body collectively and as members thereof distributively they did implicitly make confession and promise to God and bind themselves in a nearer religious tie one unto another Hence often renued Deut. 29. 2 Chro. 15. and 30. and 34. Nehem. 10. Ezek. 16. 8. Againe that Covenant of grace is considered either in it selfe or in its administration to which purpose circumcision is called the Covenant partly because it was the signe and seale of the Covenant of grace Gen. 17. 11 12 13. Partly too because it was the Covenant of grace in the administration of it Jer. 13. 11. and Esay 24. 5. and Zach. 11. 10. hath reference to the Covenant of grace both as invested with Church-covenant and in respect of Church-administration thereof Concerning persons being in covenant some are said to bee in the covenant intentionally so children of the Church which are yet unborne Deut. 29. 15. so those afarre off the promise was to them at that time Acts 2. 39. so the Jewes also which yet were to come in were in Pauls time holy Federally Rom. 11. 15 16. or actually so were the Jewes holy which were not cut off in Pauls time Ibid. so Deut. 29. 14. we attend rather to the later then the former in this discourse Persons actually in covenant are either internally and savingly in covenant as are all true beleevers and their children which belong to Gods election and as were many of those included in that phrase Rom. 11. 16. and as were Isaac and Jacob which were not onely children of the promise intentionally before they were borne Rom. 9. 9 10 11. but actually as soone as borne God revealing his mind of covenant-grace in such sort as never reversing the same after they were actually borne hence that Gal. 4. 23. 28. compared albeit many of the Galatians were but such in point of visibilitie as appeareth Or they are such as are onely externally in the covenant thus even Ishmael was for circumcision was even to him also Gods covenant or visible seale thereof This distinction is the Apostles Rom. 9. 4. hee speakes of some to whom the promises belonged scil onely externally and of others to whom they belonged in respect of the saving efficacy thereof Vers 6 7 8. Such as are externally in covenant are either such as are so upon their owne personall right meerely as many proselytes Exod. 12. 44 45. Deut. 29. 10 11. even those Gibeonites so were the soules in Abrahams house which hee gained to his religion according to Ainsworth Gen. 12. 5. such as hee had commanded to feare God Gen. 19. 19. as appeares by their free submission to that ridiculous painefull ordinance to flesh and blood Genesis 17. 27. Or such as withall are externally in Covenant so considered as invested with Church-covenant in their parents right as the Jewes and Proselytes Children Deut. 29. 10 11. God accepting the actuall owning of his Covenant by the grown part and parents instead of
baptisme was ordained by the Apostles and thinke that the same is to be received as the placita Scholasticorum Theologorum which cannot bee proved by Scripture Here the Authors use their old art of substraction and addition His words are thus It is probable that to baptize Infants was instituted by the Apostles and yet they are not to bee condemned which doubt thereof With the same moderation many tenents of Schoole Divines are to bee received which cannot evidently be proved from the Scriptures The first speech of Erasmus is wholly left out which is crosse both to that peremptory if not impudent conclusion expressed in the 6th Proposition and this set downe in the 7th if even Erasmus his judgement bee adhered to for if it bee probable that Paedobaptisme was of Apostolicall institution then it is not so peremptorily and with such plerophory to bee asserted that it was never ordained of Christ or practised by the Apostles but is an ordinance of man And whereas it is rendred and think that the same is to bee received inter placita Scholasticorum c. there is no such connexion or expression But it is a distinct sentence With the same moderation c. many Schoole tenents are to be received c. scil they are also not to bee condemned which doubt of some Schoole tenents which are not so expresse and cleare from Scripture Hee doth not say that Baptisme of of Infants is to bee thought placitum Scholasticorum but speakes of other instances of things probable Nor doth hee speake of bare Schoole Notions which have no bottome at all in Scripture and which cannot at all bee proved from the Scripture as the Treatise saith which cannot bee proved but which cannot evidenter probari per Scripturas True it is Henry Denne hee saith that Bellarmine taxeth Erasmus with that opinion of denying childrens Baptisme but in Erasmus his preface to his Paraphrase on Matthew hee rather condemneth the carelesnesse of Priests in so much that many Christians are in respect of knowledge rather as Pagans and at best are rather in titles customes and ceremonies Christians then indeed And adviseth that children after they have been baptized and come to riper yeeres that they bee well instructed in what their sureties have promised for them and called to account how they profit thereby and whether they doe avouch and owne the promise made by their sureties and if so then at some time or other that they in the open Congregation expressing it bee then with some solemnitie approved And if they reject this motion then to be debarred the Eucharist untill they change their mind So that hee seemeth not to disallow Paedobaptisme but carelesnesse afterwards This I speake that none may bee rendred worse then they are bee they Papists or others Albeit I would not much weigh the expressions of Papists this way to whom bare Church traditions are equivalent to Scripture commands expresse or virtuall SECT IIII. THe next Author is Bullinger in his Decads expounding Matth. â—… 28. Docete omnes Gentes c. make Disciples of all Nations c. What then doth Bullinger intend baptizing Infants as not here enjoyned Nay in the place quoted in his Decades of Sermons Tom. 5. Decad. 5. Serm. 8. hee brings this as an Argument for Paedobaptisme God hath commanded to baptize all Nations and therefore Infants for these are comprehended in the words all Nations Bullinger is againe cited as a Testimony for the proofe of the second Proposition in the same place speaking upon the words of Paul 1 Cor. 1. God hath not sent mee to baptize but to preach the Gospel Hee is quoted to say This must not so slightly be understood as if hee were sent not to baptize at all but that teaching should goe before baptisme For the Lord commanded his Apostles both to preach and to administer the Sacraments Bullingers words are Non quod negaret absolutè which our present translators render this must not so sleightly bee understood Negaret is in their English not to bee understood and absolutè is in their English slightly If they had translated it simply it would have hit it but I thinke sleightly fits them indifferent well se ad baptizandum non esse missum sed quod doctrinam praeferret utrumque enim c. That clause is expounded but that teaching should goe before baptisme c. Here I want my construing booke but I will follow my translators sed quod but that doctrina teaching praeferret should go before Risum teneatis amici But if the translators had learned common rules and read the place they would have clearely discerned Bullingers meaning to bee farre wide from their purpose scil To prove rather the prioritie of the Gospel to baptisme in dignitie and excellency then in order of dispensation For besides that the common Grammer construction of that passage sed quod doctrinam praeferret will beare no sense so well as that mentioned See Bullingers Commentary on 1 Cor. 17. his words immediatly preceding also cleare the same Evangelium majus est baptismo the Gospel is more excellent then Baptisme or greater then Baptisme For Paul said the Lord sent mee not to baptize but to preach the Gospel not that hee denied it absolutely c. Sed quod doctrinam praeferret And it is yet more strange that this which Bullinger brings as his third Argument to prove Paedobaptisme to bee of God the Authors of this Pamphlet bring as a testimony to their purpose against Baptisme for Bullinger subjoynes to the words before That children are received in the Gospel doctrin they are not refused of God who therefore unlesse he were besides himselfe would exclude them from the lesse In Sacraments are considered the thing signified and the signe the former is the more excellent Infants are not excluded from that scil the Gospel the promise who will deny then the signe for truely the Sacraments of God are rather to bee esteemed by the word scil the promise then by the signe As for Bullingers expressions out of Austin contra IulianuÌ„ quoted in the 7th Proposition they prove that the Carthaginian councell did indeed ratifie Baptisme but not that it came in first by that councell Nay the testimony cited of Austin against the Donatists lib. 4. cap. 23 24. useth that as an argument that it was of Divine authoritie because not instituted by any councells And Origens testimony there cited Proposi 7. proveth it to be in his time which was 200. yeeres before that Carthage councell in the time of Innocent the first Yea Origen proveth it to bee at least a Church custome long before from the time of the Apostles Bullingers testimony in his Decads as proving the 7th Proposition scil that Paedobaptisme is an humane ordinance when in that very Sermon of his there quoted in this Treatise hee by many arguments from Scripture proveth it to be of divine authority is also abused and shamefully misconstrued and perverted
that it came to bee used by the Fathers that lived 300. yeers after the Apostles as much saith A. R. in his Childish baptisme But say Cassander spoke as Proposition 4. hee is said to doe yet that proveth not that children of the faithfull were commonly first instructed ere baptized because some beleevers deferred baptisme or Tertullian and Gregory counselled it much lesse that this was well done according to Christs mind for wee have seene upon what unsound principles they did it and as for the Councell of Tertullian and Gregory it hath been before weighed of what force herein As for the other speech of Cassander that Pedobaptisme came in use by the Fathers 300. yeeres after the Apostles time it maketh mee stand and wonder at the impudent forehead of errour and yet I might wonder the lesse since it 's but just with God that they which hold lies should also tell lies I read Cassander with as much heed as I could to finde out whether there might bee any colour of ground of such a speech of him but could not finde out any like it unlesse that which hee saith bee this way wrested scil that the Apostles in the beginning by the command and charge of the Lord set up their worke and did every where constitute Churches gathered of the Gentiles to the Communion of the Gospel growne ones which consented to the Apostles doctrine after confession of the faith were without any distinction of times or places knit unto the Church of Christ by the Sacrament of Baptisme administred by the Disciples of the Apostles But saith also in the next words although even at that time it is to be beleeved that Infants also and especially sickly ones were offered to bee consecrated by the baptisme of Christ but clearely to evince the falsehood of that speech before cited to confirme Proposition 7. the very title of this booke contradicteth the same George Cassander of Infants baptisme The testimonies of the Ancient Ecclesiasticall writers which flourished within the 300. yeeres from the times of the Apostles that is from the departure of John the Apostles being more then the hundreth yeere from the birth of Christ And according to this his worke that hee propoundeth hee bringeth in very notable testimonies of the antients both Latine and Greeke that lived in that space for the proofe of Paedobaptisme that any that had not sâ—ene authorities before might have been thence well furnished for this purpose and after the testimonies produced Cassander closeth thus These are the testimonies of ancient Fathers which wee suppose are sufficient for the deciding of this controversie of childrens baptisme which hath been raised up by certaine wretched persons for in as much as all these whose testimonies wee have produced in a continued series from the Apostles were Orthodox teachers and guiders of Churches of Christ at severall times and places there is no question but that this Tenent being held forth by them all severally as with one mouth it was the very doctrine of the whole Church which the Church had received from the Apostles and transmitted the same to those in after times and upon the speech of Austin l. 4. contra Donat. c. 13 14. addeth To this Apostolicall doctrine of baptisme of Infants all the Apostolique Churches planted by the Apostles throughout the whole world they doe give testimony c. Who seeth not now the grosnesse of this falshood in fathering that upon Cassander the very contrary whereunto is his businesse there to evince SECT V. Zwinglius THe next testimony is of as grand an adversarie to Anabaptisme as any and that is Zuinglius who is quoted to confirme the 4th and 6th Proposition hee is said to affirme that there is no plaine word in Scripture whereby childrens baptisme is commanded his meaning is no more then thus that it is not in so many words said you shall baptize children as neither the first day of the weeke shall bee to you the Lords day or Christian Sabbath c. but the principall place and for the other two quotations they are to no purpose is that mentioned in his booke of Articles Act. 18. whose words because the treatise is so often tripping wee shall set downe verbatim who there speaking of Confirmation saith although I am not ignorant as it may bee gathered out of the Ancients that of old time Infants were baptized this is rendred otherwise in the Treatise and yet not so common as now it is but the children were alwayes instructed openly and when their faith had made impression upon their hearts and they confessed with their mouthes then they were admitted to baptisme this custome of teaching I wish were used and recalled now namely that baptisme being given to Infants they may bee afterwards taught when they come to age as they are capable of instruction from the Word of God this the Treatise leaveth out Zwinglius his judgment was that the maine in the childs right to baptisme was the Parents Covenant estate whence the child being federally holy which else had been uncleane had its maine title to baptisme so that in case both parents were visibly Pagans or Idolatrous c. they were not to bee baptized when yet in his time many such were baptized And thus I take it is that which hee intendeth that since in Ancient times albeit sometimes every little children of Infidels as may appeare were baptized yet not so commonly as now such like children are baptized promiscuously hand over head for which some as it appeares by Beza upon 1 Cor. 7. 14. have pleaded albeit hee counts it their errour ibid. and since in those times Catechising as it appeareth of children was too little in use Zwinglius maketh that use of the Catechising of children of old both of persons joyned to the Church which were capable of instruction when first their parents joyned in Church estate before their baptisme which was one sort of children so catechised and of the exposititious children of Pagans also those children of their Pagan captive or slaves which were another sort of children catechized before baptisme Zwinglius wisheth that albeit it were not in his time used as neither before baptisme to such like children so neither after the baptisme neither of such children nor of others of visible beleevers which ought in Infancy to bee baptized yet now catechizing of children might bee in more use Assuredly Zwinglius was strong for this that baptisme of Infants was no practise taken up after the Apostles but by the Apostles no bare old custome taken upon humane grounds but his judgement was directly crosse to the Proposition hee is brought as a witnesse to that Christ did not institute Infants baptisme c. witnesse his many arguments from Scripture for it and his judicious answers to the evasions of the adversaries to that truth And as much may bee said of Oecolampadius his companion who is cited to confirme the 6th Proposition whereas in the first