Baptizing of Infants but none for the observation of the â—ords day although herein I humbly conceive they are mistaken I doubt not but it doth and will appeare to impartiall and unprejudiced Readers that there is sufficient evidence of an Institution for both of them though not in such expresse Texts of Scripture in the New-Testament as the Anabaptists require and I shall now examine whether you bring any better evidence for the one then is to be found for the other First you say they meane it of positive worship consisting in outward rites and not of worship which is naturall or morall Answ But this but a blind morall and naturall are not to be confounded whatever worship is naturall may bee indeed acknowledged to be morall but not whatever is morall is to be esteemed naturall I know you cannot bee ignorant of the received distinction of Morale Naturale and Morale positivum and I beseech you though a Sabbath be grantâ—d to be Naturall yea if I should adde that one day in the revolution of seaven should bee so yet that this or that seventh day in the revolution of a weeke should bee observed all grant this depends upon an Institution and hath no more moralitie in it then what can bee made out from an Institution and consequently that the first day of the weeke should be the Christian Sabbath or that this one day of seven which God hath separated to himself and had once expresly fixed upon the seventh or last day of the week should be translated from the last day to the first day of the weeke must depend wholly upon an Institution and consequently they who reject that which depends upon positive Institution unlesse its Institution can bee expresly found in the New-Testament are as much at a losse for the Lords day as for the baptizing of Infants Nay give me leave to adde that in this point in question the advantage lies more on this hand I meane for Infant-Baptisme because there is more necessitie of clearing the Institution for the Lords day then for baptizing of Infants because in the one the ordinance it selfe and its institution is questioned but in this of Infant-Baptisme the question is not of the Institution of the Ordinance it selfe but onely of the subject to whom the Ordinance is to be applyed If the question bee betwixt Baptisme and the Lords day all grant that we have clearer Institution for the Sacrament of Baptisme then for the Lords day Baptisme is clearly instituted in the New-Testament to bee the Sacrament of our admission into the Covenant of grace and to succeed in the roome of Circumcision as your selfe grant Now the onely question is whether taking this for granted that baptism succeeds in the roome of Circumcicision and to bee applyed unto all persons by the will of God who are in Covenant with him whether the same persons may partake of this Sacrament as might partake of the other unlesse those persons bee expresly set downe in the New-Tement I hope in the judgement of all indifferent men a question about the persons to whom an ordinance is to bee applyed is a question of a farre inferiour nature to that question whether such a thing pretended to be an Ordinance have any Institution at all or not It 's one thing to invent a new Ordinance of worship another and that of inferiour rank to mistake in some of the persons to whom an Ordinance is to be applyed In some of the ancient times the Lords Supper was given to Infants and carried to sick persons when absent to testifie their communion with the Church I take them both for errours but yet not for errors of the like nature with inventing a new Sacrament I say againe there is a great difference betweene bringing in a new Ordinance and applying it to these or these persons especially when the question is not of the persons in generall who are the subject matter as whether men or Angels men or beasts but whether men of such an age or of such a Sex Sir to my best understanding these two questions are not parallell a just parallell question to this of Infant-Baptisme would be such a one as was once disputed betwixt Mr. Bifield and Mr. Brerewood viz. Taking it for granted that by a cleare Institution the Lords day succeeds in the roome of the old Sabbath whether yet the same persons are tied to keepe the Lords day who of old were tied to keepe the Sabbath unlesse those parties were mentioned in the New-Testament as whether servants as well as their masters the same holds here All this I speake not as any whit doubting that there is as cleare evidence for Baptizing of Infants as there is for the religious observation of the Christian Sabbath notwithstanding the latter seemes to require fuller evidence then this doth Your second explication gives you as little advantage you say that Apostolicall example which hath not a meâ—re temporary reason is enough to prove an Institution from God to which that practise doth relate especially when such examples come to bee backed with the constant practise of all Churches in all ages And then you bring in Pauls preaching at Troaâ— the collections upon the first day of the weeks in the first of the Corinthians and the sixteenth the mentioning of the Lords day Revel 1. Sir I except against none of all this to bee a part of that good evidence which wee have for the religious observation of the Lords day but I dare confidently speake it that out of these you can never evince more laying all things together to prove the Institution of the Lords day then I have done for the lawfulnesse of baptizing of Infants and I appeale to all learned Readers whether the many bookes written of late against the Institution of the Lords day give not as specious and plausible answers to these places alledged by you concerning the Christian Sabbath as yours are against Infant-baptisme although they have received sufficient cleare and solid answers yea and tread under their feet all arguments taken from these examples with as much confidence and scorne as your selfe doe that which I and others have named for Paedo-Baptisme And as for the supplement which you bring out of the constant practise of the Churches for the religious observation of the Lords day in stead of the old Sabbath I earnestly desire you in your next to produce as many of the ancients to beare witnesse to that truth as I have done in this point for Paedo-Baptisme and I promise you you shall receive my hearty thanks among the rest of your Readers in the meane time the Reader shall judge whether I have not brought a moity of that for the Baptizing of Infants which you have done for the Lords day Further whether you have not abused your reader in so confident averring that there are no footsteps in Antiquity for Paedo-Baptisme till the erroneous conceit of giving Gods grace by it the
overlashing herein is not so much as you would have the world believe though my testimonies had pleaded for no higher time then 150 after Christ Neither have I overlashed so farre in this as God willing hereafter shall appeare as you have done more then once I said the Church was so long in possession of it and if you bee pleased to subtract 150 from 1645. I hope the remaining number will shew the mistake was not great as appeares in the margent If the Church was not all the while in possession of it it had been your part to have informed your Reader of the time wherein the Churches quiet possession was disturbed and by whom It is true I named Baltazzar Pacommitanus with his associates who to their own ruine started up to disturbe this possession but the claim of an unjust intruder to justle out the true owner will not carry the Title in any Court where equity takes place In pleading the Churches possession of this truth for so long time I said not so much as others have affirmed before me Learned Augustine though his judgement bee slighted by you affirmed as much in his time and yet I read not of any then that excepted against him for it The Church saith he ever had it ever held it they received this from the faith of their Ancestors and this will it with perseverance keep unto the end If he might say that the Church before his time ever had maintained it and if after his time it was more clearely hâ—ld out then I hope I did not overlash in saying the Church had bin 1500 years possessed of it And it were an easie task to produce abundance of testimonies giving evidence not onely for their own age but that it was the received custome in all ages even from the Apostles time that this evidence was true we may hence know saith Learned Vossius because the Pelagians never durst deny it when the Orthodox Divines used to presse it who certainly wanted neither Learning nor will to have gainsayed them if they could have found them abusing Antiquity nay they not onely not denyed this but concurred in it so saith Augustine lib. 2. contra Caelist Pelag. Caelistus saith he in a book which hee set forth at Rome grants That Infants were baptized for the remission os sins according to the rule of the universall Church and according to the sentence of the Gospell In the next place you tell me I know that booke from whence this testimony was taken was questioned whether it was Justine Martyrs or no. Truly I was not ignorant thereof therefore I said in a Treatise that goes under his name I did not confidently averre that he was the Author of it yet you plainly call it a bastard Treatise and never prove it but whosesoever it was it is well known to be ancient and both Protestants and Papists asserting Paedobaptisme cite it Thirdly I take notice that you answer nothing against the truth of the testimony it selfe onely you say that by it I may see that the reason of baptizing Infants was not the Covenant of grace made to beleevers and their seed which you make the ground of baptizing Infants at this day You cannot be ignorant that this testimony was not alledged by me to prove the ground why it was administred I onely made use of it to beare witnesse to the matter of fact that Infants were baptized in that age in which that booke was written which is plainely held out in the answer to the question you may also remember what I said of all the testimonies quoted by me that I did not relate them to prove the truth of the thing but onely the practice of it and so much it doth notwithstanding the answer which yet you have brought unto it what ground the Covenant of Grace made to beleevers and their seed gives to Baptisme shall bee manifested hereafter and whether the Ancients used not at least some of the Arguments which we doe Come we now to consider what you answer to Irenaeus his testimony here you speake 1. Of his Countrey 2. Of the age he lived in 3. You question his translation 4. And in the last place you speake a little against the testimony it self Before you fall upon the examination of the testimony you say Hee was a Greeke and wrote in Greeke but wee have his Works in Latine except some fragments this you conceive to be a reason why we cannot be so certain of his meaning as we should be if wee had his owne words in the language in which he wrote and may not this Objection lie against any Translation whatsoever and upon that ground you may slight it I cannot guesse why you adde this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that hee was a Greeke c. unlesse it were to intimate to your Reader that I could not discern whether he were to be numbred in the Catalogue of Greek or Latine Fathers yet you know that I mentioned him in the first rank of those Renowned Lights of the Church which wrote in the Greek tongue to which afterwards I added two other and when I came to speake of any of the Latine Fathers Cyprian was the first in whom this question did occurre But whether his words in the testimony alledged bee truly translated into Latine shall by and by be considered As for his age you acknowledge with me that hee lived in the same Century with Just Martyr the yeare in which he flourished is variously related by the Authors named by your selfe one sayes 180 the other 183 I may adde iâ— third who varies from them both and sayes 175 and may not others point at other times also For ought I know you needlesly trouble your selfe and your Reader in naming particular yearâ— in which these famous Lights of the Church lived which I thinke can hardly with exactnesse be done it is safe to say about such a time or in such a Century such and such lived which cannot bee prejudiciall to the Reader when wee know a Century includes many years neither can any man warrantably restrain it to any one year alone wherein such a man flourished as if he had flourished one year and no more But I proceed to what you say of the testimony it selfe it is extant Iren. 2. 39. Christus venit salvare 〈◊〉 c. Your exceptions against it are many First you question whether reâ—asuatur there signifies baptisme or no as Feuardemiur his glosse takeâ— it Secondly You say that neither Christ nor his Apostles call Baptisme a new birth Thirdly possibly this was not the word used by Irenaeus in his own Writing Fourthly that the Latine alters Irenaeus his minde as learned Rivet sayes Lastly that Irenaeus meant not Baptisme in this place you goe about to prove by his scope therein These are your exceptions which now wee come to examine To begin with the first of them when Irenaeus saith Christus
added hee seemed afterwards to restraine baptizing Infants to the case of necessity You ask of me Doth he seeme onely to restrain it to the case of necessity He gives say you his reason why they should be baptized but withall declares his opinion that others should stay longer but what of all this what follows hence more then this that in his dayes Infants were baptized though his advice was that they should defer it unlesse there were danger of death These are the Greek Authors alledged by me none of which are denyed by you to testifie the practice of the Church in this point in their severall ages onely your exceptions have been all on the by not against the testimonies themselves which yet notwithstanding what you have answered I doubt not will by any judicious Reader bee allowed for cleare proofes of the practice of Paedo-baptisme in the Greek Church After your examination of the former Testimonies you adde 3 Arguments to shew that Infant-Baptisme was not known in the Greek Church First if it had been known among them you wonder why I finde nothing for it in Eusebius Ignatius Clemens Alexandrinus Athanasius and Epiphanius To this I say they spake to the clearing of such questions as were afoot in their times had any question been started when they wrote about Paedo-baptisme no doubt they would have cleared it as Cyprian did and as it was done in the Councell of Neocaesarea It is enough to mee that none of the Authors named by you speake against it can wee say that the Fathers living before the Pelagians troubled the Church denyed the traduction of originall sin because they spake not clearly of it before it was denyed by those cursed Heretiques Nor is it any glory to you that your Error was not ancient enough to be confuted by Eusebius Ignatius Clemens Alexandrinus Athanasius and Epiphanius yet whether any of these named by you spake for Infant-Baptisme shall now bee considered I finde even in some of them which you have named expressions which doth induce mee to beleeve that they were farre from rejecting of Paedo-baptisme I will not search into them all for if any thing were brought out of Ignatius you would tell mee that you did not know Ignatius when you see him as you have done with others named before and I have no time to wrangle You desire to know what Clemens Alexandrinus saith why sure he had none but great Infants to his Scholars if you who pretend to be acquainted familiarly with the secrets of antiquity be acquainted with him you 'll know what I meane He desired as it is likely more Greeke Fathers who were converted from Paganisme did to set forth Religion in such a way as might move other Pagans to come and make confession of the Christian faith that so they might be added to the Church by Baptisme in such a way as was proper to the baptizing of grown men The next whose testimony you misse is Athanasius you desire mee to quote any thing out of him to prove the Greeke Church did admit Infants to Baptisme if that will make you cease wondering I 'll doe it what say you to that passage in Athanasius where hee is shewing how we are buryed with Christ in Baptisme and rise againe hee sayes the dipping of the Infant quite under water thrice and raising of it up again doth signifie the death of Christ and his resurrection upon the third day is not that testimony plaine In his Questions ad Antioch in the second question of that booke it is desired to be known how shall we know that he was truly baptized and received the holy Ghost 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in holy Baptism when he was a Child it seems then it was a custome for Infants to receive Baptisme He sets down an answer to it that is to be known saith he by the motions of the Spirit in his heart afterwards as a Woman knows she hath conceived when she feels the child to stir in her womb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not because his Parents say so If that place doth not plainly and in an Orthodoxall way beare witnesse to Paedo-baptisme I know not what can doe it I could out of the same Booke adde another testimony but you will perhaps tell me the words next following those that I shall cite are questioned But I shall then reply 1. The words that follow may bee erroneous and yet written by Athanasius 2. The words which I shall cite may be the words of Athanasius and the words which follow none of his but added by some other 3. How doe you prove that Tertullian or Greg. Nazianzen wrote those words which you cite out of them 4. You can more then once make this a plea for your selfe that your allegations may gaine a favourable construction That your proofes taken out of Antiquity doe â—s strongly prove the point in hand as proofes are usually taken in such matters I doubt not but all impartiall Readers will vouchsafe me the same favourable graines of allowance and then this testimony also of Athanasius may passe for currant These words then which are safe sound grounded upon the same Scripture which I have much insisted on are read in the works of Athanasius where the question is about Infants dying requiring a resolution that might clearly set forth whether they goe to be punished or to the Kingdom The answer is Seeing the Lord said Suffer little children to come unto me for of such is the Kingdom of Heaven And the Apostle sayes Now your children are holy observe that Gospel ground the same that I build upon it is manifest that the Infants of beleevers which are baptized doe as unspotted and faithfull enter into the Kingdome This assertion is owned by all the Reformed Churches Epiphanius you say sayes nothing of it in a place which you cite and are you sure he sayes nothing any where else admit he doth not forme a Syllogisme and see how your argument will run c. but I desire you at your leasure to cast your eye upon that expression of Epiphanius which doth induce mee to beleeve that hee did not reject Paedo-baptisme where hee tells us That Circumcision had its time untill the great Circumcision came that is the washing of the new birth as is manifest to every one What 's the washing of Regeneration but Baptisme which he would scarcely have called Circumcision if hee had rejected Infant-Baptisme and denyed that the children of beleevers who are hopefully capable of Circumcision made without hands may lawfully partake of this great Circumcision and addes That this was notoriously knowne to all surely then none denyed it in his time Secondly you reason from the continuance of the Questions put to persons when they were to be baptized and answered by them which I think because we must conceive children were not able to returne an answer to them thereby you would
perticularly in that forenamed booke De successione Christianarum Ecclesiarum But not any one of them denying this point they indeed denyed any Sacrament to conferre grace ex opere operato and thereupon some of their adversaries would lay to their charge that they denied gratiam Baptismi the grace of Baptisme And others of them denyed the trumperies that went along with Baptisme in the Church of Rome And thereupon some of their adversaries charged them that they laughed at the Baptisme of Infants but I can finde none who layd to their charge simply that they denyed the lawfulnesse of Baptizing of Infants except onely such who also charged them with Manicheisme and other abominable doctrins practises which we all beleeve they utterly abhorred Nothing tendes more fully to manifest their doctrine then their owne confessions one whereof was published by Baltazzar Lidius which was presented to Vladislaus King of Hungary In their Apologie and defence of their doctrine they have a whole Chapter wherein they assert and prove Paedo-Baptisme largely The confession of the Taborites hath not a word sounding against it I finde also in the History of the Waldenses this is set downe among the calumnies unjustly cast upon them That they reject the Baptisme of Infants for which Bernard is cited in his 66. Hom. in Cant. but of this they are purged out of their owne writings and there the ground and occasion of imputing this errour to them is expressed line 15. True it is that having been constrained some 100. yeers c. The same Author in the third part of his history professedly sets downe the doctrine of the Waldenses and Albigenses and among other things concerning Baptisme he expresses this And whereas Baptisme is administrâ—d in a full Congregation and for this cause it is that we present our children in Baptisme which they ought to doe to whom the children are nearest as parents c. Waldensis against the Wicklevists and Hussits imputes this heresie to some of the Lollards that beleevers children were not to be baptized and that Baptisme was to no purpose administred to them secundum ritum quem servat Ecclesia but he imputes it not to Wicklefs followers in generall onely ascribes it to some Lollards of the Highlands in Scotland and some few of the Diocesse of Norwich and yet in the same place confesses hee had seene none of their writings to that purpose nor knew what their grounds were but onely had transiently heard that they used to produce 1 Cor. 7. Sanctificatus est c. 2. I answer to your particular instances first for Berengarius it is true that Deoduinus Leodienses tooke it up as a common fame and upon his credit Guitmund Archbishop of Averse relates it But saith Bishop Vsher in so many Synods held against Berengarius wee never find any thing of this nature laid to his charge and to him it appeares that they who in those dayes were charged to hold that Baptisme did not parvulis proficere ad salutem held nothing but this that Baptisme doth not conferre grace ex opere operato The same answer serves for the Albigenses and Waldenses cleare it is that neither Aeneâ— Sylvius in his booke de Origine Bohemorum when he sets downe their opinions nor the Magdeburgenses who out of an ancient Manuscript relate their doctrines no nor William Reynolds in his Calvino-Turcismus wherein he indeavours to reproch them layes any such thing to their charge Sure I am the confession of the faith of the Albingenses recorded by Hoveden doth enough and more then enough owne the baptizing of Infants T is true Bernard in the place cited by you sayes of those Anonymous people whom he wrote against who were no other then some of the Waldenses Irrident nos quia baptizamus Infantes and the rest of the Doctrines which you mention but withall in the same place charges them with Manechisme and relates how the people threw them into the water as if they were witches and when they would not sinke they fell upon them with stones and killed them and if you beleeve Bernard slandered them in these two last you will forgive the Reader if he beleeve that he did no lesse in the other And as for what Petrus Cluniacensis writes against Peter de Bruis and his successour Henry the truth is these two men did for 20. yeers together so much spread the Doctrine of the Waldenses and so plague the Bishops Miters and the Monks bellies that I wonder not though they charged any thing upon them which might make them odious to the people He who reads that rayling booke of Petrus Cluniacensis will find that he acknowledges most of what he layes to their charge to be upon the report of others and layes this for one of their Articles that Children who died before they could actually beleeve were damned and that they would have all Churches demolished and incouraged people to pull them downe and that common fame gave out that they condemned all the Latine Fathers and not onely excluded the Latine Doctors è Cathedra Doctorum but è regno Caelorum that they did not altogether beleeve the Prophets Apostles nor Christ himselfe And no marvaile that these opinions should bee charged upon them though they held them not seeing wee find this particular charged upon Luther Calvin and Beza who did all in speciall manner oppose this errour So that untill you or some other doe out of their owne confession or some other impartiall and authentique Register give better evidence then yet you have done I shall beleeve that this doctrine of opposing the baptizing of the Infants of beleevers is an Innovation no ancienter then the Anabaptists in Germany concerning whose practises wee now proceed to inquiry In your third Section you take great paines to shew out of your reading who first in Germany stirred this question I shall not stay the Reader long about it because your selfe grant that it is not tanti I deny not but Nicholaus Storch Marcus Stubner and Thomas Muncer did bring it first upon the Stage about 1521 or 1522 and that by Muneers doctrine a sad sedition was raised in the upper Germany among the Country people but because this Baltazzar Hubmir P acommitanus Pastor of the Waldshut a Towne neere the Helvetians was a man of greater note for learning of an active turbulent spirit one who both by preaching and writing much fomented their way was in very great repute among them I feared not as others have done before me to name him as the Antesignanus of that unhappy Sect of whose seditious practises doctrine recantation Apostasie and miserable death for which he was esteemed a Martyr by his followers I might out of many Germane writers easily informe the Reader if I affected a needlesse ostentation of reading In this Section upon occasion of the name of Anabaptisme and reiterating of Baptisme you desired to have it
disputation should bee carried as yours is altogether in the way of making exceptions against arguments but not positively affirming any thing But notwithstanding by the helpe of God I hope clearely to vindicate my arguments from your exceptions My first Argument was the Infants of beleeving parents are faederati therefore they must be signati they are within the Covenant of Grace therefore are to partake of the Seale of the Covenant This Argument because I knew the tearmes of the propositions and the reasons of the consequents would not be cleare at the first propounding I therefore made no further prosecution of untill first I had cleared five conclusions from which it receives not onely its light but strength and from which it ought not to bee separated because in them I both prove a Covenant and signe initiall this first you assault singly and denying both the propositions you try your strength in this Section against the consequence and affirme that they who deny the consequence doe it justly because say you if they who are faederati must be signati it must bee so either by reason of some necessary connexion betweene the tearmes or by reason of Gods will declared concerning the Covenant of Grace but for neither of these causes first there is no necessary consequence that God gives a promise ergo he must give a seale or a speciall signe Joshuah had none for his promise of bringing Israel into Canaan Phinehas none for his for the Priesthood to continue in his family nor secondly by any declaration of Gods will Adam and all the rest to Abraham had none yea and in Abrahams time Melchisedeck Lot Job and for Abrahams family there was no such universall order or declaration of Gods will for children under eight dayes old and all the females had no such command and therefore to have sealed them would have beene will-worship and so you conclude here and in many other places of your booke that it is not being foederati in Covenant which gives title to the seale but onely the declaration of Gods will to have it so To which I answer clearely and first in generall That concerning the truth of this consequence the difference betweene you and me is not so much as you would make the world beleeve wee differ indeed in the interpretation of the word faederati about what is meant by being in Covenant I assert that many are to bee reputed to belong to the Covenant of grace and in some sense to bee Covenanters though they be not partakers inwardly of the saving graces of the Covenant for the Covenant of grace containes not onely saving grace but the administration of it also in outward Ordinances and Church priviledges and that according to Gods owne word many are Covenanters with him or in some sense under the Covenant of grace who are partakers onely of the outward administrations and Church priviledges you allow none to be under the Covenant of grace in any true Gospel sense but onely such as are inwardly beleevers justified sanctified and partakers of the saving graces of the Covenant Whether of us are in the right shall God willing be tryed out in this dispute but as to the truth of the consequence That all who are in the Covenant of grace ought therefore to be partakers of thâ— seale you acknowledge more then once or twice or ten times for though you every where dispute that God hath made no declaration of his will concerning baptizing of Infants yet rotundis verbis you professe that if you knew an Infant to bee regenerate you would baptize it And when I said Such as have the inward grace ought not to bee denyed the outward signe You answer There is none of the Antipaedobaptists but will grant that proposition to bee true pag. 142. And the present state of a person is that which gives right to baptisme pag. 158. It 's granted that such Infants such as are inwardly sanctified are disciples and may not be debarred from baptisme mark Infants disciples and is not this in plain English That such as are Covenanters ought not to be denyed the initiall seale of the covenant Now then if I can prove that not onely such as are inwardly regenerate but others also whether Infants or grown men are to bee reputed to belong to the Covenant and that an externall visible right in facie visibilis Ecclesiae may be made out for any person or persons to be by us owned received as Covenanters with God you your selfe grant that the seale may be applyed to them and whether this bee so or not shall God willing afterwards fully appeare Secondly I answer more particularly 1. I grant with you that there is no necessary dependance between a promise and a seale the addition of a seale to a promise is of free grace as well as the promise it self if God had never given any Sacrament or seal of his Covenant wee should have had no cause to complaine of him he well deserves to be believed upon his bare word Nor 2. did I ever think that by Gods revealed will this Proposition was true in all ages of the Church All Covenanters must bee sealed I carryed it no higher then Abrahams time when God first added this new mercy to his Church vouchsafing a seal to the Covenant And 3. from Abrahams time and so forward I say it was Gods will that such as are in Covenant should bee sealed with the initiall seale of the Covenant supposing them onely capable of the seale and no speciall barre put in against them by God himselfe which is apparent in the very first institution of an initiall seale Gen. 17. 7 9 10 14. Where the very ground why God would have them sealed is because of the Covenant I will establish my Covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting Covenant to be a God to thee and thy seed after thee thou shalt keepe my Covenant therefore and this is my Covenant which yee shall keep every man childe among you shall bee circumcised and afterward in the 14. the seale is by a Metonymia called the Covenant for that it 's apparent not onely that God commanded them who were in Covenant to be circumcised but that they should therefore be circumcised because of the Covenant or in token of the Covenant betweene God and them and he that rejected or neglected the seale is said not onely to breake Gods commandement but his covenant so that because the initiall Seale was added to the Covenant and such as received it received it as an evidence of the Covenant or because they were in Covenant I therefore concluded that by Gods own will such as enter into Covenant ought to receive the seal supposing still that they were capable of it So that to lay Circumcifion upon Gods command and the Covenant of grace too are well consistent together for the command is the cause of the
Infant-Baptisme hath been perpetually observed in the Christian Church for there is no ancient Doctor that doth not acknowledge that Infant-Baptisme was constantly administred by the Apostles 4. That notwithstanding all this evidence I have brought from Antiquity yet I build as little upon Antiquitie as any other man I acknowledge what learned Rivet saith to be very true that Tradition is in most points uncertaine and therefore he that will build sure must build upon the Scripture Proinde necessario veniendum erat ad argumenta ex Scripturis quae si rem non evincant frustra traditionem advocabimus Animadv in Annot. Grotii in Cassandrum Art 9. Pag. 71. And I would have you and every Reader to remember that I doe not build my faith upon humane Traditions in this Argument nor did the ancients build upon humane traditions in this thing the very Pelagians themselves acknowledge it upon this ground Parvulos baptizandos esse concedunt saith Augustine of the Pelagians qui contra authoritatem universae Ecclesiae procul-dubio per Dominum et Apostolos traditam venire non possunt lib. 1. de peccat merit et Remiss cap. 26. Nay they were forced to their owne prejudice to acknowledge that Infants were baptized secundum regulam universalis Ecclesiae Evangelii sententiam lib. cont Caelest Pelag Now that which was pressed from the scope of the Gospell was not pressed as a Tradition and that which was acknowledged by the Pelagians to be the practise of the universall Church according to the rule of the Gospell was not built upon tradition I will therefore close up my testimonies produced out of the ancient writers with that savoury passage of learned Calvin in his Instructions against the Anabaptists Caeterum minime peto ut in eo probando nos Antiquitâ—s â—â—llo modo juvet c. I doe not desire saith hee to borrow any helpe from Antiquity for the proofe of this point any whit farther then the judgement of the Ancients shall be found to bee grounded on the Word of God for I know full well that as the custome of men doth not give authority to the Sacraments so the use of the Sacrament cannot hee said to be right and regular because regulated by custome PART II. HAving made good the practise of Antiquity for the Baptizing of Infants I follow you in that which you are pleased to make the second part of my Sermon which you call prejudices against Antipaedo-baptists from their noveltie and miscarriages Where first you blame me for seeking by prefacing and setting downe a briefe touch of the Anabaptists carriage in Germany to create prejudice in my Auditors To which I answer that I yet never learned that a briefe setting downe the Originall History and State of a Controversie or the weight and consequence of it thereby the more to ingage the Readers attention was against any Rule or Law of Art either divine or humane but in case it were a fault Quis tulerit Gracchos You who begin your booke with telling how nine moneths since you sent thus many Arguments in Latine drawne up in a Scholastique way c. and never yet received any Answer and in the end of your booke intimated that though you allowed me but a moneth yet I have kept your booke a whole yeere unanswered and throughout your whole Treatise strive to make an ostentation of reading and put abundance of scoffes and jeeres upon them who are of a contrary mind to you and seeke to loade the opinion you write against as if it carried all kind of mischiefes in the wombe of it All which things you know well enough are apt to take the people but have no weight with them who use onely to weigh Proofe with Proofe and Argument with Argument you I say of all other should pardon such a peccadillo and might very well have passed over what either my selfe or Dr. Featlies Frontispice or Mr. Edwards his expressions might seeme to bee lyable to of exception in this kind In your second Section you blame mee for two things first that I gave you no more light out of Augustine to know who they were that questioned Paedo-Baptisme in his dayes you have searched and cannot finde any the Pelagians you acknowledge opposed it not the custome was so universall and esteemed so sacred that they durst not oppose it All the further light I shall now give in a matter of no greater consequence is that if you cannot finde any in Augustines dayes who questioned it I am contented you shall beleeve there were none Secondly you blame me for making such a leape from Augustines time to Baltazzar Pacommitanus as if be were the first who opposed it where as you alledge many who opposed it 400. yeeres before his time To which I answer I sayd not hee was the first whose judgement was against it but the first that made an head against it or a division or Schisme in the Church about it It is possible men may hold a private opinion differing from the received doctrine and yet never make a rent or divide the Church into factions about it But let us examine your instances you alledge the famous Berengarius as one 2. The Albingenses 3. Out of Bernard you mention another namelesse Sect. 4. Petrus Cluniacensis charges the same upon the Petro-Brusians To all which I answer first in generall That these instances of yours having occasioned mee to make a more dilligent search into the doctrine and practise of those middletimes between the Fathers and the beginning of Reformation in Lâ—â—bers time I dare confidently think that you will have an hard taske to prove out of any impartiall Authors that there were any company of men before the Anabaptists in Germany who rejected the baptizing of Infants out of the confession of their faith possibly some private man might doe it but I shall desire you to shew that any company or Sect if you will so call them have ever denied the lawfulnesse of baptizing of Infants produce if you can any of their confessions alledge any Acts of any Councells where this doctrine was charged upon any and condemned in that Councell you know the generalitie of the visible Christian world was in those dayes divided into the followers of the Beast and the small number of those who followed the Lambe who bare witnesse to the truth of the Gospel in the times of that Antichristian Apostasie these were called by severall names Berengarians Waldenses poore men of Lyons Albingenses Catharists Petr-Brusians and severall other names as may bee seene in Bishop Vshers book of the Succession and State of the Christian Churches Now all grant that the Church of Rome even in those dayes owned the baptizing of Infants and so did all those persecuted Companies or Churches of the Christians for any thing I can find to the contrary Severall Catalogues of their confessions and opinions I finde in severall Authors and more