to prove it Rom. 3.1 2 3. Rom. 9.4 And the truth is priviledges are so arbitrary and various that God gives them as he thinkes good oft times without assigning any special reason so that no argument can be drawne thus God gave such a priviledge to the Jewes Ergo we must have such a priviledge too except we can prove it is Gods will it should be so And therefore this Argument is of no force but rather an argument of arrogant presumption without an institution to attempt to prove that because the Jewes had a priviledge to circumcise infants therefore we must have a priviledge to baptize infants nor doe any of the many Scriptures you have alledged prove that Baptisme of infants is a priviledge granted by God in lieu of Circumcision But you take upon you to answer this objection You say but these things have no weight we are inquiring for priviledges which are branches of the Covenant of Grace which every man who is in Covenant with God may expect from God by vertue of the Covenant were he a Jew or a proselyte not for any particular or peculiar favour to a particular man or woman or family or tribe All these forementioned things and many other of the like kind as the ministery of the Tabernacle Temple to belong to one Tribe the Kingly office to one family such and such men never to lacke a man of their house to stand and before God proceeded indeed from free grace but were no parts of the Covenant of Grace which God made to Abraham and all his seed For could every man in Covenant challenge these things at Gods hand and that by vertue of the Covenant Could every one of them promise that Christ should be borne of his flesh or every one of their women that shee should be the mother of Christ Could every one whom God owned to be in Covenant with him promise by vertue of the Covenant that their Children if cast off by unbeliefe should after many hundred yeares be againe called in We speak onely of such priviledges as were universall and common to all who were in Covenant for which by vertue of the Covenant they might relie upon God Though you say the things objected have no weight yet it may seeme they are so heavy presse your conclusion so hard as that you cannot well ease it of them The things objected you deny not but you answer that they are impertinent you tell us why because you enquire for priviledges which are branches of the Covenant of Grace common to all in Covenant which they may challenge at Gods hand by vertue of the Covenant and such are not these It is not materiall what you inquire after men may sectari Aquilam in nubibus follow after an Eagle in the Clouds But sure I am the Scriptures you bring prove not that believers now have more priviledges belonging to the Covenant of grace which all may challenge at Gods hands then the Jewes had Yea your second conclusion contradicts your fifth understood in this sense Beside Circumcision was not a priviledge common to all in the Covenant of Grace For besides all the faithfull before Abraham and those of his time Melchisedeck and Lot and their households and Job after his time there was a sort of proselytes called strangers or of the gate who were not circumcised yet the Scripture reckons them among the worshippers of God Such is Cornelius conceived to be by Mede in his discourse on Acts 17.4 by Selden lib. 2. de jure nat Gent. c. 4. who is said to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a godly or devout man and one that feared God with all his house which gave much almes to the people and prayed to God alwayes Act. 10.2 and therefore within the Covenant of Grace Besides the priviledges alledged in the objection doe some of them at least belong to the Covenant of Grace as well as Circumcision as to be Father of the faithfull to be the Mother of Christ and the last belongs much more to the Covenant of Grace then circumcision And those Rom. 9.4 are priviledges which you alledge as belonging to the Covenant of Grace to which I may joyne that Rom. 3.2 that to them were committed the Oracles of God which yet were prerogatives of the Jewes as Mr Rutherford rightly and according to truth Lastly the phrases Rom. 11.21 of the naturall branches ver 24. of the wild Olive by nature thou wast graffed in besides nature these according to nature doe seeme to me to import not that the Jewes were in the Covenant of Grace by nature but that they had this priviledge to be reckoned in the outward administration as branches of the olive by their birth by vertue of Gods appointment which the Gentiles have not But you goe on Let any mâ—n shew out of the Scripture where our priviledges under the Gospel are cut short in any of these things and be saith somewhat and in particular for the case in hand concerning our infants right to the Covenant of Grace and the seale of it Once we are sure the infant children of all Covenanters were within the Covenant and the seale also belonged to them and by vertue of the Covenant which is still the same we plead their interest in it Let any man shew when and where this was taken away when the infant children of believers were expunged out of the Covenant of grace It is unreasonable to require men to shew what they doe not avouch it were equall to exact this taske at the hands of those who doe expunge the infant children of believers out of the Covenant of Grace we neither write in nor expunge out but leave that to God onely from whom we learne Esau have I hated Jacob have I loved Though you thinke your selfe sure that all the infants of Covenanters were within the Covenant of Grace yet I see no cause to believe you for as much as I thinke God never shewed you the booke of life that you may see who are written in who expunged out of the Covenant of Grace and St Paul who was as well read in that booke as you saith Rom. 9.8 They which are the children of the flesh are not the children of God but the children of the promise are counted for the seed which how to spell I have shewed above But you adde Certainly who ever will goe about to deprive them of it to cut off such a great part of the comfort of believing parents must produce cleare testimonies before they can perswade believers to part with either of them either right to the Covenant or to the seale of the Covenant And you adde two reasons of it You are now on your advantage ground in a veine of Oratory and on a subject of all others aptest to move affections to wit parents tendernesse to their children But wee must not sacrifice truth to either of these You insinuate that Antipaedobaptists goe about to deprive infant-children
Believers are to be baptized with Christs baptisme by the lawfull Minister according to ordinary rule I deny it That which you say for the practise of baptizing infants may be reduced 1. To the testimonies of Antiquity 2. To the novelties and miscarriages of the opposers of it 3. To the arguments produced for it 4. To the answering objections against it I shall by Gods assistence examine each of these First you affirm That the Christian Church hath been in possession of it for the space of fifteen hundred years and upwards as is manifest out of most of the Records that weâ— have of Antiquity both in the Greek and Latine Churches To this I answer that if it were true yet it is not so much as may be said for Episcopacy keeping of Easter the religious use of the Crosse c. which I conceive you reject 2. That the highest testimonies you produce come not so high 3. Those that be alleaged being judiciously weighed will rather make against the present doctrine and practise then for it 4. There are many evidences that do as strongly prove as proofes usually are taken in such matters Quod ab initio non fuit sic That from the beginning it was not so and therefore it is but an innovation The first of these I presume you will acknowledge that for Antiquity not-Apostolicall there are plain testimonies of Episcopacy keeping of Easter the religious use of the Crosse being in use before any of the testimonies you or any other can produce for baptizing of infants and therefore I will forbear mentioning proofes so obvious to Schollars The second and third thing I shall make good in the weighing of the Testimonies you produce and the fourth in the close YOur Testimonies are either of the Greek or Latine Churches Of the Greekes you alleage foure The first is Justine Martyr of whom you say That he lived Anno 150. which wants somewhat of 1500. years and therefore you did somewhat overlash in saying that it is manifest out of most of the Records of the Greeke and Latine Church The Church hath been in possession of the priviledge of baptizing Infants 1500. years and upwards and then you say In a Treatise that goes under his name By which it is manifest that you know that it was questioned whether it was his or no and I conceive you could not be ignorant that it is not only questioned but also proved by Perkins in his preparative to the demonstration of the Probleme by Rivet in his Critieus sacer by Robert Cooke of Leeds if my memory faile me not to which I am inforced to trust in many things being spoiled of my bookes in his Censure and confessed by Papists to be none of Justine Martyrs but to bee written a great while after his dayes for as much as it mentions not only Irenaeus but also Origen and the Manichees Now what doth this bastard Treatise say You say Question 56. Justine Martyr disputes the different condition of those children who die baptized and of those children who die unbaptized The question propounded is If Infants dying have neither praise nor blame by works what is the difference in the resurrection of those that have been baptized by others and have done nothing and of those that have not been baptizâ—d and in like manner have done nothing The Answer is this is the difference of the baptized from the not baptiâ—â—d that the baptized obtaine good things meaning at the Resurrection by baptisme but the unbaptized obtain not good things And theâ— are accounted worthy of the good things they have by their baptisâ—â— by the faith of those that bring them to baptisme You may by thâ—â— testimony see what ever Age the book was made in what the reason of baptizing of Infants was Not the supposed Covenant of grace made to believers and their seed which you make the ground of baptizing of infants but the opinion that the not baptized should not obtain good things at the resurrection meaning the Kingdome of God mentioned Joh. 3.5 but the baptized should and that by reason of the faith of the bringers what ever the Parents were and therefore they baptized the children of unbâ—lievers as well as believers if they were brought YOur next Greek Author is Irenaeus who was indeed a Greeke and wrote in Greek but now only we have his works in Latine except some few fragments for which reason we are not so certain of his meaning as we might be if we had his own words in the language in which he wrote You say he lived in the same Century and it is acknowledged he lived in the same Century with Justine Martyr but not with the Author of the Questions Answers ad Orthodoxâ—s who as hath been said lived in some Age after Irenaeus is by Vsher placed at the yeare 180. by Osiander at the yeare 183. so that though he were of that Century yet he flourished in the latter part of it and so reacheth not to your 1500. years upwards Of him you say that l. 2. c. 39. he saith Christus venit per seipsuÌ„ omnes salvare omnes inquaÌ„ qui per eum renascuntur in DeuÌ„ infantes parvuloâ— pueros c. Now it is well knowne say the Glossers upon that text renascentiâ— nomine Dominica Apostolica Phrasi Baptismum intelligi You might have added what follows Aperte confirmans Apostolorum traditionem de baptismo infantium parvulorum adversus Anabaptisticam impietatem But I pray you whose Glosse was this Was it any other then Fevardentius if I mistake not of whom Rivet Crit. Sacr. lib. 2 cap. 6. Juniores tantum qui in opera Irenaei incident monitos volo ut caveant ab illis Editionibus quas impudentissimus ille Monarchus Fevardentius homo projecta audacia et nullius fidei foede in multis corrupit annotationibus impiiâ— et mendacibus conspuâ—cavit And for the glosse its false for no where doth our Lord or the Apostles call baptisme Now birth although our Lord speake of being borne againe of water Ioh. 3.5 and Paul of the washing of regeneration Tit. 3.5 and for the words themselves without the glosse all the strength lyes in this that the word Renascuntur is used for Baptisme by the Ancients which yet possibly was not the word Irenaeus used in his owne writing and how the Latine translation alters the meaning of Irenaeus you may see somewhat in Rivet Vossius Thesibus Theologic de Padebapt Thesi. 7. intimates that the proper acception is of sanctification and that the word may be so taken yea and that it is not meant of Baptisme the words and the whole scope of Irenaeus in that place shew For the scope of Irenaeus in that chapter is to refute the Gnosticks who sayd that Christ did not exceede one and thirty yeeres of age against whom Irenaeus alleageth that Christ lived in every age of infancy youth old age that by his age example
grant the baptizing of Infants because they durst not oppose the custome of the Church which in those dayes was accounted Sacred only they shifted â—ff the proofe of originall sinne from it by saying that they were baptized not for the remission of sinnes to eternall life for they had none but for the Kingdome of heaven which shift Augustine doth well refute in that Sermon and also opposeth some others that taught that the child not baptized might enter into the Kingdome of Heaven From Augustines time you make a great leape and say the first that ever made a head against or a division in the Church about it was Baltazar Pacommitanus in Germany in Luthers time about the yeare 1527. But therein you are much deceived For Cassander in his Testimonies of Infants baptisme in the Epistle to the Duke of Cleve tells us that Guitmund Bishop of Averse mentioneth the famous Berengarius Anno. 1030. opposing not only the corporall presence of Christ in the Eucharist but also the baptisme of little ones And that a little after sprung in Bernards time an heresie of an uncertaine Originall and appellation and he saith that they were called Cathari or Puritans and from a Country of France Albigenses spread over France and lower Germany and the banke of the Rhine of these he saith Hireliquis erroribus quos a Manichaeis et Priscillianistis mutuati sunt hoc insuper addiderunt ut Baptismum parvulorum inutilem esse dicerent ut qui prodesse nemini queat qui non et ipse credere et per seipsum Baptismi sacramentum petere possit quale nihil Manichaeos Priscillianistas docuisse legimus And indeed Bernard who is placed by Vsher at the yeare 1130. just a 100. yeares after Berengarius Sermon 66. in Cantica mentions the Heresie of some that had no name because their heresie was not from man nor received they it by man but they boasted themselves to be the successors of the Apostles and called themselves Apostolicos Now although he charge them with denying Marriage and abstaining from meates yet you may smell out of his owne words that this was but a calumny but take the Character he sets downe of them and weigh it and you would conceive he had spoken of Protestants Irrident nos quia baptizamus Infantes quod oramus pro mortuis quod sanctorum suffragia postulamus and a little after Non credunt autem ignem purgatorium restare post mortem sed statim animam solutam a corpore vel ad requiem tranfire vel ad damnationem And a little after Jam vero qui Ecclesiam non agnoscunt non est mirum si ordinibus Ecclesiae detrahunt si instituta non recipiunt si sacramenta contemnunt si mandatis non obediunt The same Bernard in Epist. 204. writes to Hildefonsus Earle of S. Gyles to take away Henricus once a Monke then an Apostate quod dies festos sacramenta Basilicas Sacerdotes sustulerit quod parvulis Christianorum Christi intercluditur vita dum baptismi negatur gratia nec saluti propinquare sinuntur and it is well known that Petrus Cluniacensis who is placed by Vsher at the yeare 1150. hath written an Epistle to three Bishops of France against Peter de Bruis and Henricus as defending errors digested into 5. Articles First That little ones may not be baptized Secondly that Temples or Altars are not to be made Thirdly that the Crosse of Christ is not to be adored or worshipped but rather to be broken and trodden under foote Fourthly that the Masse is nothing nor ought to be Celebrated Fiftly that the benefits of the living nothing profited the deceased that we are not to chant to God He saith that the heresie of the Petrobrusians was received in the Cities of Gallia Narbonensis and complaines that the people were rebaptized the Churches profaned the Altars digged downe the Crosses fired on the day it selfe of the Lords passion flesh was openly eaten the Priests scourged Monks imprisoned and by terrours and torments compelled to marry wives All this was done very neare 400. yeares before Baltazar Pacommitanus or as others write him Pacimontanus But perhaps you thinke however that Baltazar was the first that opposed the baptisme of Infâ—nts in the 16. Century which possibly may be true though herein you follow Cochlaeus and Bellarmine who addes that Erasmus himselfe had sowed some seedes of it also but Gerhard the Lutheran in the 40th Tome of his Common places where he handles this question rather derives the Originall from Carolostadius and alleageth Melancthon Com. on Coloss. and saith that he is called the father of the Anabaptists by Erasmus Alberus Now I doe not finde in Melancthon that which Gerhard saith of him yet Sleidan saith of him that he praised their opinion and Osiander that he joyned himselfe unto them and I finde that Melancthon in his Comment on 1 Cor. 9.24 sayes of him that he indeavoured to promote the Gospel though in a wrong course Arnoldus Meshovius hist Anabap lib. 1. § 2. sayes that the businesse of Anabaptisme began at Wittenberg Anno Christi 1522. Luther then lurking in the Castle of Wartpurg in Thuringia by Nicolas Pelargus and that he had Companions at first Carolostadius Philip Melancthon and others and that Luther returning from his Patmos as he called it banished Carolostadius and the rest and only received Philip Melancthon into favour againe Now they that know what was Luthers vehemency and pertinacy on the one side and Melancthons timerousnesse on the other side may well conceive â—hat as in the businesse of Images in Churches and Consubstantiation so in this about Infant-baptisme the temper of these two men much hindred the clearing of this truth perhaps fearing that a further reformation then they had begun would be an occasion of nullifying all they had done Surely it hath beene the unhappy fate of the reformed Churches that they have so stucke to Luther and Calvin that they have scarce stepped one step further in reformation then they did but stifly maintained onely the ground they had gotten Cassander in his Epistle to he D. of Cleve before mentioned reckons the error of Anabaptisme to have bin revived abouâ— the yeare 1622. by Nicolas Stork or Pelargus Thomas Munzer but it is not res tanti to search any further into this matter nor is it of any weight to enquire much after this Baltazar He is stiled Baltazar Huebmer Pacimontanus Dr. in Waldshuot in the Epistle Zuinglius writes to him before his answer to his booke about bapâ—isme in the Epistlâ— Zuinglius wrote to Gynoraeus he relates how he came to Zurich and was there demanded by the Emperor who it seemes sought his life there he made some recantation but it appeares he was afterwards taken and burnt at Vienna in Austria Anno 1528. For what cause I know not Zuinglius saith this of him in his Epistle to Gynoraeus Nos dexteritatem spectamus in homine ac mediocritatis
men therefore they may and ought to receive the outward signe of Baptisme The major proposition that they who are made partakers of the inward grace may not be debarred of the outward signe is undeniable it is Peters argument Acts 10. Can any forbid water that these should not be baptized who have received the holy Ghost as well as wee And againe for as much as God gave them the like gift as he did unto us what was I that I could withstand God And this is so cleare that the most learned of the Anabaptists doe readily grant that if they knew any infant to have received the inward grace they durst not deny them the outward signe and that the particular infants whom Christ took up in his armes and blessed might have been baptized The Question between us is whether the infants of believers universally or indifferently are to be admitted to the Sacrament of Baptisme according to ordinary rule Now I suppose you doe not hold that the infants of believers indifferently have actually the thing signified by Baptisme that is the Holy Ghost union with Christ adoption forgivenesse of sinnes regeneration and everlasting life for then they are all sanctified and are all believers and if this could be proved there would be no question about Paedobaptisme the texts Act. 8.37 Act. 10.47 Act. 11.17 would undeniably prove it and therefore there is no Antipaedobaptist I thinke but will grant your Major That regenerate persons united to Christ whose sins are forgiven adopted persons that have received the Holy Ghost are to be baptized But I conceive though in the laying down the Major you use these phrases who have the thing signified who have the heavenly part and in your Minor are made partakers yet you do not mean in this Assumption actuall having and being made partakers of the inward grace of Baptism concerning which the Antipaedobaptists do so readily grant the Major but a potentiall having or as you after speak being capable of the inward grace and so you use the fallacy of equivocation in the Major having being understood of actuall having and in the Minor of potentiall which makes four terms and so the Syllogisme is naught Or if you do mean in both actuall having you mean it only of some Infants of Believers not of all of whom the Question is and so your conclusion is but particular that some Infants of Believers who are sanctified actually are to be baptized But this will not reach home to your tenet or practice concerning the baptizing of all Infants of Believers in as much as they are the children of Believers without the consideration of actuall faith or sanctification It is true the Lutheranes do teach that Infants have actuall faith and are regenerate in Baptisme and therefore in Colloquio Mompelgarâ—ensi upon the fourth Artic. de Baptismo they put these among the Positions they reject as contrary to the Scripture Non omnes infantes qui baptizantur gratiae Christi participes esse regenerari infantes carere fide nihilominus baptizari that all the Infants which are baptized are not partakers of the grace of Christ and regenerate that Infants want faith and neverthelesse are baptized And I remember when I lived in Oxford there was a book published in English of Baptismal initiall regeneration of elect Infants the Position whereof was opposed as favouring the doctrine of conferring grace by Baptisme ex opere operato by the work wrought and intercision of regeneration sith according to that doctrine a person might have the Spirit initially in infancy and though it could not fall away finally as being an elect person yet might run out in a continued course of sinning grosse and scandalous sins with full consent untill his dying day which doth enervate the urging of that Text 1 John 3.9 against Apostasie of regenerate persons when out of it is proved that raigning sin is not in the regenerate and the like texts which in that Controversie are urged against Arminans With that book Dr. Featley in his late feeble and passionate Tract against Anabaptists and Antiprelatists concurs pag. 67. in these words Nay so farre are they from excluding faith from Infants that are baptized that they believe that all the children of the faithfull who are comprised in the covenant with their fathers and are ordained to eternall life at the very time of their baptisme receive some hidden grace of the Spirit and the seed of faith and holinesse which afterwards bears fruit in some sooner in some later And since I came to London I met with a Book intituled A Christian plea for Infants Baptisme by S.C. who holds positions somewhat like to the Lutherans that though children of believing parents be not all holy and righteous they may degenerate apostatize yet the Infants of believing parents are righteous by imputation are believers and confessors imputatively c. pag. 10. and elsewhere And he hath this passage pag. 3. It is a sure truth that the sins of the parents being forgiven the Lord will not impute the same unto their Infants Originall sin I say taketh no more hold on the Infants then on their parents and touching actuall sin they are as clear as their parents Many more like passages there are in that Book these I mention that you may see what stuffe Paedobaptists do feed the people with But I suppose you do not hold that all Infants of Believers either actually or initially or imputatively are sanctified regenerated adopted justified as knowing how contrary this is to Rom. 9.6 c. to daily experience to the doctrine of Beza and his Collegues at Monâ—pelgart to the reformed Churches of Geneva c. and what advantage it gives to Papists Lutherans Arminians and those that follow the way of Tomson in his Diatribe of which I suppose you are not ignorant and therefore conceiving you orthodox in this point the answer to your Syllogisme is either by shewing it doth not conclude the question if your Minor and conclusion be understood of actuall having the inward grace and they be particular only If you understand them of actuall having and they be universall then I deny your Minor If your Major be understood of potentiall having I deny it if of actuall and the Minor be of potentiall there be four terms and so the Syllogisme is naught Take away the ambiguity of your terms and the answer is easie But for the proof of your Minor you say thus And for the Assumption or Minor That the Infants of Believers even while they are Infants do receive the inward grace as well as grown men is as plain not only by that speech of the Apostle who saith they are holy but our Saviour saith expresly Mark 10. That to such belongs the Kingdome of God as well as to grown men And whereas some would evade it by saying that the Text saith not To them belongs the kingdome of God but of such is the Kingdome of heaven 〈◊〉 〈◊〉