inferre they were not baptized But I answer when the Gospel went first abroad into the world such as being of age were first taught were then baptized Act. 2. 41. Act. 8. 13. 37. After that time such as were taught are said to be catechized for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Catechisme leads men to faith saith Clem. Alexandrinus When such were prepared and made fit to be baptized certain questions were propounded to them concerning their faith in Christ their resolution to forsake the Devil c. which are related by many of the Ancients when those of age afterwards brought their children to Baptisme these questions were likewise put to them though of themselves they were not able to make answer to them but how warrantably I will not goe about to prove yet that they were used at Infants Baptisme as well as at the baptisme of such as were of age it appeares by Balsamon in Can. 6. Conc. Neocaesar Aug. Ep. ad Januarium c. To all which questions at Childrens Baptisme such as undertooke their education made answer on their behalf Therefore you cannot by these questions infer that Children were not baptized seeing these Authors certifie that questions were put to them and also tell us who answered for them Thirdly you conceive because many children borne of Christian parents were not baptized when they were young Therefore it was not their custome to baptize Infants For the making good hereof you bring forth instances of Constantine the Great Greg. Nazianz. and Chrysostome Before I speak of these instances it will not be impertinent to speake somewhat of the practice of some among the Ancients in deferring Baptisme and here I finde that some Ancient Christians deferr'd their owne Baptisme many times as well as their Infants but upon no good ground as may appeare by many sharpe invectives against them for it which are extant in the Greek Fathers see Basil exhortat ad Baptismum Greg Nazienz orat 40. in Lanct Bapt. Chrysost Hom. 2. in Act. Apo. From these severall Authors and others may be gathered the grounds upon which they defer'd Baptisme Sometimes they would doe it in imitation of Christ who was not baptized till he was about thirty yeares of age they would put off their baptisme untill they came to the like age Greg. Naxianz disputes against these Constantine the Great put off his Baptisme untill hee should come to the River Jordan in which Christ was baptized though he never attained to that desired place for he dyed at Nicomedia Some againe deferred Baptisme untill they should have opportunity to be baptized by some speciall Bishop of some eminent place these Greg. Nazian reproves at large Some also put off their Baptisme upon another ground they conceived it did wash away all sin so thought Orig. Hom. 15. in Ihesh Hom. 5. in Ex. Cypr. lib. 3. ad Quirinum lib. 4. ep 7. Whereup-upon it was a common speech when they saw one to follow his sinfull courses sine illum faciat quod vult nondum baptizatus est to the same purpose Greg. Nyssenus in his exhortation to Baptisme brings in the very same speeches of them who put off their Baptisme upon this ground saying Sine carne abutar turpi libidine fruar in caeno voluptatum volutabor manus sanguine polluam aliena auseram dâ—lose ambulabo pejerabo mentiar baptismum tum demum suscipiam cum a vitiis iniquitatibus desistam Hee speakes much more to that purpose in that place to which I refer the Reader all which testifies what they thought of Baptisme that it washed away all their sins therefore they defer'd it for they would have none abridged of their sinfull delights untill they were baptized Epiphanius tells us that Marcion gave order to have Baptisme thrice administred first when a man had committed any great sinne after that in his judgement hee might bee baptized for the doing of it away Againe if after that Baptisme hee had renewed his sinne hee was the second time to bee baptized and so the third time if after the second he had renewed his sin again This opinion of the efficacy of Baptisme to doe away sinne might induce them to defer it untill they were ready to leave the world that by baptisme then administred to them in their opinion all their sinnes might bee done away But Naz. confutes such telling them all times were fit for Baptisme seeing no time was free from death So did Greg. Nyssenus also They were also led into this error by another some thought that baptized persons might live and not sin for if they did sinne after Baptisme in their conceit there remained no repentance for them misunderstanding that place of Heb. 6. 4. which place also was abused by the Novatians denying remission of sins to Christians â—inning after baptisme It is cleare upon these and the like grounds but how justly I leave it to you to judge many put off their owne baptisme Neither doe I see why that others also may not be thought even upon no better grounds to have deferred the baptisme of their Infants which yet doth no wayes prejudice the commonly received and constantly practiced ordinance of Infants-Baptisme no more then the above-named practise may bee brought to prove that it was not the received practise of the Church to baptize such as were converted from Paganisme to Christianity at their first conversion Yet here I cannot but adde further that sometimes it might fall out that Christians might not have the opportunity of bringing their Children to Baptisme because they dwelt among Infidels or Paynims where they could not enjoy the benefit of the Word and Sacraments for themselves or their children therefore in such a case they were necessitated to put off the baptizing of their Children Greg. Naz. sayes expressely that some may be hindered from Baptism by some violence or some unexpected accident 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that though they would they could not enjoy the Grace of baptisme whereof he is speaking if by such accidents they themselves might be hindered from Baptisme why might not the like accidents hinder them also from receiving Baptisme for their children Againe sometimes their lot might fall out to live among Heretiques which corrupted the Faith and therefore would not have their Children baptized by them might they not do herein as that pious man Moses who refused to receive imposition of hands from bloody Lucius that Arian Bishop Neither would Antiochus bee ordained by Jovinian who adhered sometimes to the Arians assuredly such as scrupled to bee ordained officers in the Church by such may upon the like grounds be thought rather to chuse to defer the baptizing of their children then to have them baptized by such Many questions were moved in the Church about Baptisme administred by such as were not sound in the Faith which were agitated so farre by Cyprian and other Asrieans that they held their Baptisme to
children of Women as come out from among Infidells being then converted when they are with childe for Balsamon sayes Such Women as were with childe and come from the Church or company of unbeleevers and what is this to our Question which is about children born in the Church of beleeving Parents Secondly Balsamon distinguishes of children some are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yet in the wombe and not brought forth into the world others are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 young but borne into the world for the first of these he sayes no man can undertake he meanes in Baptisme but as for children that are borne 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they affirme by such as undertake for them and they being actually Baptized are accounted worthy of divine illumination your inference by Balsamons testimony is directly contrary to Balsamons words for hee rotundis verbis affirmeth that children born do in Baptisme answer by such as undertake for them which words are mentioned neither by Grotius nor your selfe herein you wrong the truth and labour to deceive the Reader in the beginning you charged me with overlashing which yet was your haste and not my errour but here I may safely put you in mind of docking or Curtalling the Author cited by you Lastly in this Paragraph you tell us that Grotius addes that many of the Greeks in every age unto this day doe keepe the custome of deferring the Baptisme of little ones till they could themselves make confession of their saith you bragge much of the Greeke Church but I will not deale with the Greeke Churches as you deale with the Fathers I will not put the Latine Church Augustine and those Fathers and Councells which accord with him in one scale and the Greeke Church in the other such comparisons are odious But this I can and must say that when you have searched into the Greek Church to the utmost that you and all the Anabaptists in England cannot prove that the Greeke Church did for many hundred yeers reject the Baptisme of Infants which is the assertion which I said might well put the Anabaptists to the blush and now I adde your self also for justifying them in so saying To returne to Grotius his Annotations who sayes that many of the Greeks c. What some of the Greeks may doe at this day I know not but against his testimony of the Greeks in every age I will produce some testimonies gathered by a learned Grecian to whom the customes of the Greek Church were better knowne then to Grotius or the Anabaptists who relye on Grotius his relation whereby it is evident that baptizing Infants was held eeven necessary to be observed in the Greek Church Photius that learned Grecian gathering together the Greek Councells and laws for ordering of Church affaires and reconciling them one with another hath many things for Infant-Baptisme as first hee brings in an Imperiall Constitution wherein it was provided that all baptized Samaritans and Grecians should be punished who brought not their wives and children in their families to holy baptisme Here was a Law which required Grecians that were baptized to procure baptisme for their children otherwise they should be punished Again Tit. 4. ca. â— he brings forth another Imperiall Constitution concerning Samaritans such among them as are of age must not rashly bee baptized but requires they should bee trained up in good Doctrine and then admitted to Baptisme but their children though they know not the Doctrine are to bee baptized So for Grecians it 's required that all their little ones without delay be baptized Conc. in Trullo Can. 84. Whereupon it was appointed in that Councell when there were no sure Witnesses to be produced who were able to testifie little Children whose baptisme was doubted of were baptized neither for their tender age could testifie it themselves without any offence such should be baptized Balsamon in his glosse upon that Canon relates a story how Children comming from a Christian Countrey were taken by the Scythians and Agarens and bought by the Romans the question was whether the Children should bee baptized or no though some pleaded they came from a Countrey where Christians dwelt and therefore it is to be presumed that they were baptized 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in their Infancy Some pleaded it was the care of their Mothers to procure baptisme to them and others pleaded other Arguments for their Baptisme yet if they could produce no witnesse to make it good they were to bee baptized All which clearely testifies that Infant baptisme was then generally in use among Christians seeing they were so carefull to have it testified that they were baptized and did presume where Christians dwelt it was in use Now see what from these testimonies may bee held out for Paedo-baptisme among the Greeks if such among them as brought not their Children to Baptisme were punished if Imperiall Laws as well as Synodicall Canons required Infant-baptisme which they held so fit that if there were any Children of whose Baptisme it was doubted they required they should be baptized may not I from all this wonder why Grotius or you from him do affirme That in every age they deferr'd the baptisme of their children till they could make themselves a confession of their faith Whereas the former Constitutions about Infants Baptisme testifie that among them in those ages it was held an undoubted truth I might also adde to these one of the eight Canons concluded in Carthage against the Pelaegians wherein was affirmed That whosoever denyed Baptisme for the remission of sinne to a new borne Infant c. should be anathematized All which being duely weighed it will easily appeare Whether the Anabaptists need to blush in saying that the Ancients especially the Greeke Church rejected the Baptisme of Infants for many hundred yeares Let the severall testimonies of the Ancients in the Greeke Church alledged by mee speake whether the Greeks rejected that ordinance or no And so wee passe from the Greek Church here though afterwards you give me occasion to search further into the Grecians Come we now to examine whether the Writers of the Latine Church will be more propitions to you in opposing Paedo-baptisme then the Greeks have been here Cyprian is the first that comes under your Examen and calculating his age you tell us Vsher places him in anno 240 Perkins 250 I might tell you that others take notice of him in other yeares as Trithemius 249 Henr. Ocâ—us 245 so hard a thing it is to set down precâ—sely the particular year yet all as I said before agree in the Century in which he lived You acknowledge with me that he was one of the anciencest Writers among the Latine Fathers onely Tertullian you say was before him and who denies that here upon your Semi-Socinian Grotius his credit you say That nothing was determined in Tertull. his time concerning the age in which children were consecrated by their Parents to Christian Discipline
they should prove but other parents have none And here againe you bring in Rom. 11. to be meant of a personall priviledge by faith which hath been before confuted I answer to all this in a word or two there is a known rule viz. when a whole Nation consists of visible Professors that Nation is to be reputed a Christian Nation and when the major part of a people may by a figurative expression bee called a Nation that major part if they bee visible Professors may by the same figurative expression be called a Christian Nation a holy Nation a separated people whether any who having been visible Professors and afterwards prove apostates or be excommunicate may have their children baptized or whether children in right of their forefathers or râ—mote ancestorâ— when their immediate Parents are cut off from the Church may be baptized or whether the Infants of infidels brought up by Christians and so adopted into their Families may be initiated into Christianity by Baptisme whether upon the ground of federall holinesse or other warrant of Scripture are questions not belonging to our present businesse therefore I passe them over I added when that one Nation of the Jews were made Disciples and circumcised their Infants were made Disciples made to belong to Gods Schoole and circumcised with them when that Nation was made Disciples in Abrahams Ioynes and circumcised their seed was also the same when they were taken out of Egypt and actually made Disciples their chiâ—dren were also with them You answer First this supposeth that Christ bid them baptize all Nations after the manner that the Iews did circumcise one Nation Secondly that the Nation of the Iews were discipled when they were circumcised And you say to the first Supposition there is no ground for it the Apostle knew Christs meaning well enough that thâ—y were to preach and then to baptize and that there was no allusion from circumcision to Baptisme as Mr. Blake conceives But Sir since it is apparent that here is no commission for any new Method in their work but onely an enlargement of their commission to apply their Ministery to new persons how could they understand our Saviours meaning to proceed any other wayes to the Gentiles then among the Jews Now among the Jews and Proselytes it is apparent that children receive the initiall seale with their parents yea and you your selfe grant that their infants were baptized when they were circumcised though baptisme was not then a Sacrament and when it was taken into the honour of being a Sacrament there is not one word in the Scripture of restraining it from being applyed to infants as in times past the reason of the silence of the new Testament about baptizing Infants comes afterward to be considered when your Objection from it comes to hand To the second Supposition That the Iews were discipled and their children were discipled when they were circumcised You say it is such a construction of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 make disciples as you beleeve no Lexicon nor any Expositor to this day hath ever made of that woâ—d which plainly signifies â—o to teach as that the persons taught do learn and accordingly professe the things taught Sir I pretend not to be a Critick though you doe but I have learnâ— from better Criticks then your self that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is a â—abbinick phrase and from their use of it it is best to be understood and with them it signifies to admit Scholars 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is a familiar manner of speech among them for to admit Scholars and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to get or retaine a Master now this admission of Scholars was not quia erant docti sed ut essent and there is this difference with them about this matter that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is to admit Scholars to be taught and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is to breed Scholars or to make them learned And if you please to consult the Learned Spanbemius in his Dubia Evangelica upon this very place wherein he vindicates it from the Anabaptists he will tell you that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies not onely to teach but to make disciples which saith he in this place is done by baptizing and teaching therefore saith he the sending forth of disciples in this place is shewed or laid down First from the end of their sending Secondly from the severall acts they are to doe to to attaine this end The end of their sending is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to make Disciples the actions whereby they are to attaine this end are baptizing and teaching and he gives this good reason for this his Analysis because if 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 should simply signifie onely to teach there would be found a tautologie in Christs words thus Go teach all Nations baptizing them teaching them The sense therefore saith he of Christs words is this Goe ye make disciples to me out of all Nations by baptizing and teaching and this making disciples suo modo infantibus etiam aptari poterat quando enim parentes c. For when parents doe give their names to Christ for themselves and their families their whole house is discipled their children as well as themselves By this time I hope you may be perswaded that baptizing may well bee rendred discipling And among the Jews to become a disciple was not by being first taught and then initiated into a Master but is meant of being initiated into a Master to bee taught by him so all Israel was baptized into Moses 1 Cor. 10. not as already instructed but to bee instructed and guided by him for the future so Ioseph of Arimathea 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Mat. 27. 57. discipled in himselfe entred himselfe into Christs schoole so the blind man to the Pharisees Iohn 9. will ye bee his Disciples will ye professe him will ye bee initiated into him the very first day any one initiated themselves to learn they were called Disciples Further you say if the Apostles had understood our Saviours command thus Disciple all nations baptizing them that is admit the Infants of all nations to baptisme as the Jewes did the males of that one nation to Circumcision they might have saved themselves a great deale of labour of preaching before Baptisme and of baptizing females and would have left us some president of such a practise I reply why the baptizing of Infants of Beleeving Parents should spare any Preachers the paines of teaching growne men who are infidells before they are converted doth wholly transcend my capacity because the Infants of Proselytes were to bee Circumcised with their Parents therefore the Jewes might spare the labour of preaching to growne men before they circumcised them this is a most wild consequence or why the vertuall and analogicall arguing from circumcision to baptisme should be brought as an Argument against baptizing of women hath as little reason in it there being now under the Gospell in reference to this
be null and therefore condemning their dipping or washing ordered that such should be baptized Some other causes might be found out why men might defer both their owne and their childrens Baptisme which yet I will not justifie they might herein doe as holy Moses Exod. 4. defer'd the Circumcising of his son yet Moses well knew it was an Ordinance in Israel that every son of eight dayes old should be circumcised Holy men in this might aliquid humanum pati I will neither excuse nor aggravate their fault onely I thought good to speake somewhat in generall of the custome of some in deferring Baptisme I come to the instances here given by you the first is Constantine the Great though the sonne of Helena who is reported to have been a zealous Christian not baptized till hee was aged You should have done well to have proved her to have been such when Constantine was borne otherwise what gaine you if shee were converted afterwards The true cause why he received not Baptisme at his Infancy so neare as I can gather it from the story of his life was this Constantius his Father albeit a man of a sweet temper and a Prince wonderfull tender of the welfare of all his Subjects first out of the mildnesse of his nature favoured Christians seeing and observing their unblameable conversation and faithfulnesse in all their employments therefore he did not in an hostile way pursue their Religion as others Emperors did yea at length he grew to a good esteem of it especially towards the latter end of his life in this time his son Constantine the Great lived in Dioclesian his Court from whence his life being twice in danger he suddenly escaping came to his father then sick and presently upon his death hee was by the Army saluted Emperour These things considered it is no marvaile if hee were not baptized in his Infancy when for ought I read his Parents had not then embraced the Christian Religion when he returned at his Fathers death he was 30 yeares of age and whether ever his Father was baptized the story is silent Neither is Helena her affection to Religion in his Infancy related in the Story though afterwards it is often mentioned You need not then wonder why when hee was an Infant hee was not baptized inasmuch as it appears not that his Parents were then become Christians yea and himselfe also was an unbeleever many years as is apparent in the story The next mentioned by you is Greg. Naz. the sonne of a Christian Bishop and brought up long by him was not baptized till hee came to be a youth You say he was the sonne of a Christian Bishop but how doe you prove it he that writes his life tells us there was a time when his father was not a Christian yet afterwards when hee had cast of the superstition and deceit of the Hypsistarians bee appeared a true follower or disciple of the Divine grace and so first hee became a Sheepe and afterwards a skilfull Shepheard to the Church What was the Hypsistarian errour Greg. himselfe explaines in his Funerall Oration for his Father Whether hee was converted from it before Gregory was born it is not exprest Yet the Historians tell us when Naz. was but young he with Basil were bred in humane literature at Athens from thence he past to Antioch all this while we read not of his studying the Christian Religion till afterwards For it is to bee remembred that when he with Basil had spent much time and well profited in humane literature some would have perswaded them to become Teachers of that kinde of learning others moved them to betake themselves to publike pleading of causes but refusing that way of study they begâ—n to thinke how to order their lives holily as the rule of Christian Religion did direct them wherein they profited much in the knowledge whereof Origens books were helpfull to them Greg. Nazianz. having spent 30 yeares in those studies he returned to his Father and was baptized his education was not under his Father as you relate and if his parents were Christians when he was borne I wonder they should send him to Athens to be trained up under Heathens and why hee was not baptized as soone as hee was converted to Christianity if you can lay downe the true cause I desire you to doe it I dare goe no further then I have warrant from the story and the relation of his life Yet I may hint my conjecture from his own words where he says there were three sorts of men besides those which I named before who deferred Baptisme 1. Some purposely put it off because they would live in sin there were others living more temperately taking in as it were the meane between vertue and vice who though they sinned yet approved not of their sins but were over-power'd by them Lastly some defer'd their Baptisme that they might the better prepare themselves to receive it and possibly hee for a while might bee ranked in the third sort of them that for such a thing put off their Baptisme yet himselfe reasons strongly against delayes of that nature in that Oration which peradventure was after hee was better informed Thirdly you bring in Chrysostome among your instances Educated by Meletius a Bishop yet not baptized till hee was past 21 yeares of age If you can make this out you say somewhat though it will fall short of that you intend to evidence thereby Christian birth and Episcopall education might justly give occasion to a man to wonder how such a one came to escape the priviledge which other Infants so borne had if it were the custome to baptize such But stay a little herein you have adhered too farre to your friend Grotius upon whose credit you have avouched all this though neither he nor you tell us from whence you fetch this relation I being loath to be led by an implicite faith without some ground after some search I have found that which makes me think you are deceived both in Chrysostome his Parents and education The Ecclesiasticall Story the Penman whereof undertakes to set forth the place of his birth his parentage his call to his Episcopall dignity and his removall from it sayes he was born of a prime family in Antioch and names his parents but not a word of his Religion nor of his Baptisme I could here tell you that some others speaking of his Parents and of himselfe say 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he and they were Heathens for so is the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there to bee taken and they that say so are Grecians But however by Chrysostome his mothers own words it appeares that his father dyed within a very short time after his birth so much is manifest from his mother see Chrys de Sacerdotio lib. 1. the death of thy Father presently followed upon the sorrows which I had in thy birth which unseasonably
to prove against Augustine that Infant-baptism was not universally received in that Church as he said which you thinke to evince by the induction of these instances First that it was universally used in the Church testimonies of good Witnesses recording the practise of the Church make it manifest and wee have heard of some of them before in their severall ages as Irenaus lib. 2. cap 39. notwithstanding the bar you put in against him hee tells us that Christ came to save all sorts of people whether young or old for they are regenerated by him in Baptisme Origen in severall places as in Luc. 14. lib. 5. in Ep. ad Rom. in Levit. Hom. 80. in which places he tells us it was the custome of the Church to give Baptisme to little ones and sayes not of this or that Church which by a constant course they had observed therefore in his time we find it universally practised in the Church otherwise he could not say that the Church observed it Cypr. Ep. 39. proves as we have heard that Baptisme is to be denyed to no age then hee addes quanto magis prohiberi non debet Infans c. this he sets down as no new Doctrine but faithfully adhearing to the order of the Church as we heard from Augustine before may wee not now from all these say it was in his time the universall custome of the Church to baptize Infants Shall I adde other Witnesses who lived in the same Century with him Chrysostome Hom. ad Neophytos Ambrose Ep. ad Demetriadem Virginem Hieron ad Laetam lib. 3. adv Pelag. all which I now passe over and are not all these Witnesses of the practise of the Church which being weighed who can deny that Augustine might well relate Paedo-baptism to bee universally practised having such a cloud of Witnesses to confirm it And to manifest it further this is somewhat to mee Epiphanius whose testimony you looked for in the end of his worke relating what was generally observed in the Church tells us The Baptisme administred in the Church in his time was performed according to the Tradition of the Gospel and the authority of the Apostles as well as other mysteries then in use And we know that in his time Baptisme was administred to Infants therefore in his judgement what the Church did therein they had authority for it from the Gospel and the Apostles to make that good he says afterwards That Baptisme came in stead of Circumcision which then was not in use Furthermore sometimes Historians relating particular customes in some things which were not in use in some Churches and Countreys upon which arose some debatâ—s in the Church doe not mention that of Infants Baptisme as one of these particular customes observed in some Churches and not in other See Socrates Hist lib. 5. 22. it's true he relates some diversities of severall Churches about persons that had power to baptize and about the time in which Baptisme was commonly administred but he mentions none that excluded Infants from Baptisme whilst others baptized them which no doubt he would have done if there had been any such custome then afoot in the Church Sozom. likewise setting down the severall customes of severall Churches though they were of the same Opinion among all which singular customes baptizing Infants is not named for one yet in use in that age therefore it is to be conceived as the generall practise of the Church Indeed there was a different custome especially in some after ages in the manner of baptizing both Infants and grown men in some places they dipt them thrice in some but once and of this very custome Gregory the great meanes when he saith In una side nil officit ecclesiae diversa consuetudo But in none of these Ancients doe I read any such diversity of customes that some Churches baptized Infants others baptized them not if you know any I pray you produce them in your next Now I come to speake to the particular instances by which you goe about to disprove this universall practise of the Church you tell me Augustine was not baptized till above 30 yeares though educated as a Christian by his Mother Monica First I might answer you with the Proverb una hirundo non facit ver or that one exception takes not away the generall rule if after ages come to read the stories of the Church after the Lord was pleased to begin the Reformation thereof in Luthers time and then find that even in that time Baltazzar Pacommitanus with some of his seduced brethren did withstand Paedo-Baptisme or if after generations among us shall find that when God begun so happily to advance that blessed work of Reformation beyond the pitch it was brought unto in our Ancestors dayes if they should meet with Mr. Tombes Examen of this question and therein see your Judgement against the constant and universall practlse of the Church at this day if such should from a few particular Examples infer that this was the Doctrine commonly received in the Reformed Churches that children should not be baptized Or deny that this was the common received Doctrine that children should be baptized assuredly a man that knows the Doctrine and present practise of the Church might with all reason deny the consequence because some among them did not stand for Infant-Baptisme therefore the generality of them denyed it So it may be here thought peradventure some though born of Christian Parents were not in that age baptized in their Infancy yet that is no way prejudiciall to the universall practise of the Church in which Paedo-baptisme was received But secondly I answer more particularly I grant Augustine was not baptized till hee was 30 years old And I will not take upon me to determine besides the generall observation of the reasons upon which Baptisme in those dayes was deferred by some which formerly have been hinted what the particular reason was of his not being baptized in his Infancy but I will hold forth unto the Reader so much as shall clearely shew that you have no cause from that example to say That children of Christians by profession in that age were not baptized in thâ—ir Infancy because you should first prove that Augustine his parents were Christians at his birth otherwise you speake not to the question before us What was the profession of his Parents when he was borne take it from Augustine himselfe who sayes though Possidonius in his life seemes to say otherwise when he was Putr a child grown hee fell extreame sick which put him in feare of death then hee and his mother also were both troubled that hee was not baptized he sayes of his Father at that time as yet he beleeved not in Christ When Augustine was about 16 yeares of age his father was but catechumenus Conf. lib. 2. ca. 6. In another place speaking of his mothers peaceable cohabitation with him though he was a man of a
from the command of Circumcision to Baptisme be not every way as strong clear As for your ten Arguments to prove the abolition of the Jewish Sacraments ceremonies they are al agreed to are brought nothing to he purpose in hand I have already shewed that this argument from the Analogie betweene Circumcision and Baptisme and the reason end and use of them both stands still in force though Circumcision it selfe be abolished and I doubt not but the impartiall Reader will acknowledge this argument to be as good Circumcise your children because your children have right to this initiall seale Ergo by analogie let Christians baptize their children who have the same right to the initiall seale as this ye Iewes keepe the Sabbath on the seventh or last day of the weeke Ergo ye Christians keep the Sabbath on the first of the weeke As for your ridiculous consequences which you put upon me of thou art Peter Ergo the Pope is Monarch of the Church c. I answer onely this I shall desire you in your next to deal with your Adversary by solid Arguments rather then seek to render him ridiculous by jeeres and scoffes lest in the end you meet with some adversary who may dresse you in your own kind which I have no minde to doe whether I have not made good this command of Circumcising Infants to prove baptizing of Infants by good consequence I leave the Reader to judge and proceed to try your strength against the next Another command by good consequence I gathered out of Mat. 28. compared with Mar. 16. 15. Gal. 3. 89. Rom. 1. 16 17. where our Saviour bids his Disciples goe and teach all Naâ—ions baptizing them c. VVherein I observed two things First what they were to doe viz. to teach the whole Covenant the Covenant made with Abraham whereof this was one branch I will be the God of thee and of thy seed they were also to baptize that is to administer Baptisme as a seale of the Covenant to all who received the Covenant Secondly wee have the persons to whom they were to doe this all Nations whereas before the Church was tyed to one Nation one Nation onely were disciples now their Commission was extended to make all Nations Disciples every Nation which should receive the faith should be to him now as the peculiar Nation of the Iews had been in times past now we know when that one Nation of the Iews were made Disciples and circumcised their Children were made Disciples made to belong to Gods school and circumcised with them c. To this you answer First that promise I will be the God of thee and thy seed that it should be thus interpreted the seed of beleevers are taken into Covenant with their Parents is a new Gospel no older then Zwinglius But I have sufficiently proved that this was good Gospel in the Apostles dayes and in the times of the Fathers of the Primitive Church Secondly concerning the persons who were to be baptized every Nation or all Natitions to this because it is like to trouble you you bring forth your old artifice of framing many senses whether by every Nation be meant beleevers of every Nation then you grant the sense is good or whether by Nation be meant a great or eminent part of the Nation the Goveâ—nours and chiefe Cities the representative body of a Nation Then you fly out and talke of baptizing all within the Precinâ—â— of a Parish a concâ—it which you fasten upon Cyprian and talke of necessity of baptizing by officiating Priests and bring in the Independents nothing to the purpose and enquire whether 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or them referre to Nations or Disciples in those words of our Saviour then you vent your Criticismes against the author of Infant-Baptisme and undertake to shew that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies to teach cum effectu or teach till they be made Scholars and after a long Discourse upon these things your result is that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 them may be meant of Disciples and Nations respectively Disciples of Nations or Nations who be Disciples but not to baptize any of them till they were Disciples But Sir what need all these things the meaning is plaine by Nations I neither meane the major part of a Nation nor representative body of a Nation nor the King of a Nation but whereas before onely one Nation of the Jews were Gods people in Covenant now other Nations should be taken in likewise and whereas before their Commission to preach and baptize was restrictive Goe not to the Gentiles or Samaritans now he enlarges their Commission to all Nations and wherever their Ministery should bee so blessed as to have any Nation accept the Gospel they should be his people now as the Jewes had been in times past according to that Evangelicall promise Esa 19. 24. In that day shall Israel he a third with Egypt and Assyria even a blessing in the midst of the Land whom the Lord of Hosts shalâ— blesse saying Blessed be Egypt my people and Assyria the work of my â—ands and Israel mine inheritance Here is the Nation of Egypt and the Nation of Assyria taken into Covenant as well as Israel Gods inheritance and now Abraham indeed became the Father of many Nations so that the emphasis of this Text is in the word Nations in opposition to the one Nation of the Jews that whereas the Apostles thought they were never to go to those vile nations who were esteemed as Dogs and Swine our Lord instructed them That now hee would pluck up the partition wall and that the rest of the Nations should be brought within the verge of his Church and partake of the same Covenant which the Jewes had before enjoyed as their peculiar treasure a wonder of mercy as the Jews themselves judged when they came first to understand it Act. 11. 8. and consequently when other Nations should thus by receiving and professing the Gospel come under his wing they should enjoy the same benefit of the Covenant with the Jews He would henceforth be the God of them and their seed Against this you except many things First say you then there may bee a rule assigned to know when a Nation may be called a beleeving Nation but there is none And to prove this minor you run out at large not when a King is baptized nor when the representative body nor when the greatest part are beleevers and further if the children of wicked parents in a nation may be baptized it must be either from their descent or place of birth or both if by descent it must be either from their immediate parents or forefathers within memory or beyond memory if from the place of their birth then the children of Turks born in England may be baptized and if the children of wicked parents may claime it it must be from some Charter Abraham indeed had a Charter to circumâ—ise his how wicked soever
hastie disposition and sometimes used her unkindly yet he sayes of her virum suum in extrema vita temporali ejus lucrata est tibi i. e. Deo c. Doth not that testimony plainly hold out that hee was not gained to the Christian faith untill hee drew neare the end of his life and if it was so long before he was truly gained to the Lord how can it seeme strange to any that he who beleeved not in Christ himself should neglect or it may bee hinder the baptizing of his Childe in the name of Christ It is also said of Monica that when shee was but 13 yeares old she was marryed her mother taught her to pray but we read not of her baptisme when she was young or if she were baptized when hee was borne how shall wee know that her husband would give way to her to have Baptisme administred to her son she suffered many things of him whilst he continued an Infidell as Augustine confesseth Nay more if she were baptized herself at his birth why might shee not be conceived to be carryed away with the error of some in that time of deferring Baptisme till death that they might not sinne after it it appeares not his Parents were Christians it is out of doubt his Father was not at his birth therefore nothing for the strengthening of your assertion is gained by this instance Afterwards Augustine put off his own Baptism till he was about 30 years and upward and what marvaile He was poysoned with the Manichaean heresie in which hee continued almost 9 years Conf. lib. 3. c. 11. in which time what account hee made of Baptism may bee seen in his deriding of it to his deare and intimate friend who was baptized in his sicknesse by whom hee is sharply rebuked for it I might also adde what hee confesses that the strength of his lustfull disposition carryed him on to many sins which made him make no haste to bee baptized quia post lavacrum illud major periculosior in sordibus delictorum reatus sorct so much may be read in Augustine himselfe of the causes of deferring his baptisme which yet can be no prejudice to the general practise of the Church in that age as it is mentioned by himself and others Neither is it any wonder why Adeodatus his sonne was not baptized in his Infancy for how can wee seeke for his Baptisme in Infancy when as his father was unbaptized he being borne when his father was about some 15. or 16. yeers of age When Augustine himselfe was baptized hee caused him to be baptized with himselfe Adeodatus being almost 15. yeers old Indeed if Adeodate had continued unbaptized after Augustine his baptisme your objection drawne from him might have had some colourable pretence which now it hath not much lesse any weight in it to confirme what you seeke to strengthen thereby As for Alipius besides his scandalous conversation hee was also poysoned by the Manichees and further it appeares also what mistakings he had concerning the doctrine taught in the Church about Christs soule whereupon it is said of him ad ipsam Christianam sidem tardius movebatur therefore considering how long he continued in his errors it is not to be wondered at that he also was so long unbaptized So much for your three instances Afterwards because you feare these instances will not bee sufficient to make good your answer therefore you grant with Grotius that Paedo-baptisme was much more frequented and with greater opinion of necessitie in Africa then in Asia or other parts of the world I take what you grant that it was used both in Africa and Asia and may I not then with Augustine say it was universall both among Greekes and Latines And when you say it was more frequented in Africa then in Asia I know you would intimate that the received custome was that some did others did it not each doing what hee thought best but that the Greekes lesse regarded it then the Latines for so I finde both Grotius and the Arminians in their book Censura censurae Cap. 23. to affirme confidently but neither you nor they must be beleeved upon your bare assertion against so many witnesses yet this sticks with you that in the Councells as Grotius saith you cannot find ancienter mention of that custome then the councell of Carthage I have formerly told you why Fathers and Councells mention not all things which are controverted in our age which was this because their care was to resolve the doubts which troubled the Church in their dayes if there bee no Canon concerning it why may it not be thought that they did not mention it because in their times none did scruple it yet when any thing relating to childrens Baptisme was started then the Church maintained it witnesse the 66 Bishops assembled in a Councell answering Fidus about that question I might also put you in mind that Constitutiones Clementis make mention of it saying But baptize yee your Children 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 albeit for my part I conceive these Constitutions not to be his under whose name they goe yet with the best Criticks I may affirme this that they relate the ancient customes of the Greek Church gathered into one volume the Compiler of them desiring to put credit upon them would have severall Constitutions to come from severall Apostles And although it was more used in Africa then else-where yet you question whether they did in Africa baptize Infants but in case of necessitie or for healths sake I pray remember what Tertullian that learned African said de Anima Fulgentius tells us baptisme is sufficient to wash away originall sinne from Infants so Hilarius Ep. 2. ad Augustinum mentions it yet neither of these speake of Baptisme in the danger of death to which you say they restrained it You mention the distinction of Catechumeni and persons Baptized and the use of catechizing before Baptisme that even after Augustine his dayes the baptizing of persons of growne age did continue as well as of Infants c. Doe you not forget the question before us you should have proved that Infants were not baptized and now you speake of baptizing of men of yeers which gives you occasion to mention the distinction of Catechumeni and others and that is nothing to our question for who ever doubted that even in Augustine his time many still adhered to Paganisme and when any of them had embraced the faith why might they not be catechized and so prepared for Baptisme and when they were sound fit baptized Augustine could us before that his father was Catechumenus when hee was sixteene yeers of age Then you come to censure baptizing of whole Countries upon the baptizing of their King c. which is nothing to our question otherwise I might relate unto you severall examples where you might see what a notable preparation for the conversion of Nations it hath been to
have their Governours shew them the way but I forbeare In your second Section you except against Augustine his judgement because he held that Infants without baptisme must bee damned by reason of originall sinne which is not taken away but by baptisme I grant that Augustine and some others of the Ancients pressed baptizing of Infants upon that ground but not onely upon that ground and they did most presse that ground when they had to doe with Heretiques denying originall sinne to be conveighed from parents to their children yet they maintained Paedo-Baptisme upon other sound grounds as formerly I have proved therefore this exception is of no vilidity nor was this Augustines constant Doctrine yea it was a Doctrine which hee retracted as an errour as shall afterwards appeare Againe you say that you cannot finde among the Ancients the ground that I goe upon that the Covenant of grace belongs to beleevers and their seede What if you have not found it will you therefore say it is not to be found in their writings Bernardus non vidit omnia why may not some things in the vast monuments of Antiquity passe unseene by you though you have seene much and thinke that you have seene more truth then all the Ancients did and can censure what they say at your pleasure But if you did find this in the writings of the Antients it would make nothing for or against me who have not placed Infant-baptisme upon that ground because they placed it so I have asserted that ground from the Scripture as afterwards God willing shall bee made good But that they also even many of the ancients pressed Baptisme upon the sound grounds which wee doe I have made it appeare out of severall writings As for the judgement of Bellarmine Aquinas and others quoted by you I will not trouble my selfe in answering for them they were not alledged by me neither will I stand to their judgement In your third Section you bid mee consider of Augustine his judgement holding it necessary for Infants to receive the Lords Supper that opinion is nothing to our question in debate before us therefore you can expect no answer from mee to it for I never pleaded it But what is your Argument from hence Augustine held it fit to give Infants the Lords Supper Ergo What draw a conclusion to hurt me if you can our question being whether Infants were baptized in his dayes Fourthly you tell me that Augustine held a certainety of Regeneration by Baptisme and he makes no question of the Regeneration of Infants c. I confesse that sometimes hee sayes so yet at other times as I told you before hee sayes there are some qui rem baptismi absque Sacramento baptismi consequentur So also did Ambrose comforting Valentinian his sisters upon his death for hee died whilst Ambrose was on his journey comming to Baptize him where he said of him Quem in Evangelio geniturus eram amisi sed ille non amisit gratiam quam poposcit vita jam fruitur aeterna qui habuit speculum tuum Sancte pâ—ter quomodo non accepit gratiam tuam hee speakes confidently of his eternall estate though unbaptized yet Ambrose as well as Augustine at other times attributed too much to outward Baptisme Fiftly you scorne his judgement in defending questions put to Infants at their Baptisme and answerd by others That 's enough to me to prove that Infants were then baptized though I will not take upon me to justifie that custome of putting forth questions to them who by reason of their age were not able to returne an answer possibly I could tell you how and that many other customes crept into the Church but because it is not to our purpose I forbeare Lastly you say it is apparent out of that Epistle of Augustine That Infants whether borne of Beleevers or of such as had not received the Christian faith were baptized neither doe â—â— in that justifie him you may take notice that here againe you confesse the question that Infants were baptized But because you make such a great matter of it that it must needs follow that they rejected covenant-holinesse or the birth-priviledge of beleevers Infants because they baptized other Infants if brought unto them I reply that you cannot bee ignorant that many learned men deny this consequence because they conceive that not onely such as are borne of Christian parents might bee baptized but that other Infants also if any Christian would undertake to traine them up in Christs Schoole might bee admitted into it by Baptisme you know many of the reformed Divines thinke this lawfull who yet plead covenant-holinesse as further warrant why beleevers children not onely may but ought to be Baptized and Tertullian pleads both these grounds in the place I quoted at large both prerogative of birth and benefit of education Furthermore many of the Rabbines say that the children of Gentiles might bee circumcised if a Jew would bring him up in Religion yet they all hold a birth-priviledge of Jewes children for Circumcision I alledge all this to shew that you should not thus vilifie and scorne their practise and grounds without a more cleare refutation of them then yet you have made whether that which hath beene spoken out of Cyprians Epistle and Augustines approbation of it doe not advantage my cause whether they have not proved as much as I alledged them for I leave to the judicious and impartiall Reader To all the forenamed Authors I added Hierome and Ambrose his testimonies to prove the same here you confesse that they were of the same judgement with Augustine in our question therefore you conceive your answer to Augustine his testimony to be a sufficient answer to them also in like manner I referre you to my reply to your former answer Your last Section of this Chapter is a Recollection of what you have already alleadged both for the invalidating of the testimonies brought by me to prove the practise of Infant-baptisme as also of what you have brought to induce an opinion that there was no such thing practised in the first and best Antiquity You must give me leave to recollect what I have already answered to these exceptions and allegations as for your Vives and Strabo I shall give you my thoughts of them anon You confesse I brought these testimonies onely to prove the practise of Infant-Baptisme and that you cannot deny they prove onely you adde they rather prove the thing an errour then a truth because practised upon such erroneous grounds As the necessitie of Baptisme to salvation The certaintie of the Remission of originall sinne The denying of Baptisme unto none But are these the onely proofes by which the Ancients did assert the baptizing of Infants I have proved that notwithstanding some of them owned that corrupt ground and pleaded it especially in the heate of disputation yet they baptized them upon the same grounds which we doe Doe not Tertullian Cyprian c.
are these Filii carnis Apostolo hoc loco sunt qui per opera legis justitiam salutem consectantur not consequuntur so that the question between Arminius and Mr. Bayne is whether in that place namely in the 9 to the Romans the Apostle by children of the flesh doe meane such as seek righteousnesse by the Law Hoc in loco saith Arminitor the phrase is to bee so interpreted in this place No saith Mr. Bayne it is not to bee taken so in this place though it may be taken so in other places I shall set down Mr. Baynes his own words that the Reader may see how grossely you have abused me For though saith Mr. Bayne children of the flesh in some other Scripture doth note out justiciaries seeking salvation in the Law yet here the literall meaning is to be taken a child of the flesh being such a one as descendeth from Abraham according to the flesh Good Reader observe 1. That I was not expounding the 9 to the Romans and therefore did not at all meddle with the question between Arminius and Mr. Bayne 2. I am cleared by Mr. Bayne himself whom Mr. Tombes produced against me 3. The words which cleare me are within six lines of those words which Mr. Tombes cites against me whether Mr. Tombes be guilty of negligence or falshood I leave to your judgement 4. The errours of Arminius are many in the place cited and I joyne not with him in any one of them First I doe not conceive that by Word Rom. 9. 6. the Jews meant the legall Covenant but the word of promise or else the Apostle had not answered directly v. the 9. Secondly by the word Seed was meant the children of the promise the elect Rom. 9. 8. as Mr. Bayne nay Arminius confesses onely Arminius saith that they were elected upon Gods forefight of their faith an Opinion wch I detest as being injurious to the free effectuall grace of God I need not instance in any other errours only draw this Corollary if God did fulfil this promise made to the seed of Abraham though God did reject so many of his seed that had the token of the Covenant in their flesh not onely from salvation but from the partaking of outward priviledges from the dignity of being accounted his people any longer then God may reject many of the seed of beleeveâ—s now under the Gospel though baptized not onely from salvation but from all Church-priviledges besides baptisme and yet make good his promise sealed in baptisme in which he engageth himselfe to be the God of beleeving Christians and their seed Fourthly Mr. Tombes speaks of Abrahams seed by celling and saith that promise I will be the God of thy seed was made good to Abraham in the calling of the Gentiles pag. 43. Now Mr. Tombes will not say that all the Gentiles were made partakers of an inward calling the Gentiles then which had but an outward calling are the seed of Abraham onely by profession say I because they are of the same profession with the spirituall seed of Abraham who are inwardly called If Mr. Tombes say that it is better to term them seed by calling then seed by profession if it bee but an outward call where lyes the difference Fifthly Mr. Bayne and Arminius are agreed that by the seed of Abraham Rom. 9. 8. is meant the elect onely Omnes filii promissionis censentur in semine nulli filii carnis censentur in sentine saith Arminius Sixthly the principall difference between Mr. Bayne and Arminius is that this elect seed was elected upon Gods foresight of their faith as Arminius would have it but I joyne with Mr. Bayne in detesting this opinion as injurious to the free and effectuall grace of God and Mr. Bayne joynes with me in confessing that in some places of Scripture they who seek to bee justified by the Law are termed children of the flesh To conclude this of Arminius I wonder you should seek to cast an odiâ—â— upon my expression as you do here and severall other times by saying it's a joyning with Arminius when you know well enough that you joyne not onely in an expression or two but in this your very doctrine of opposing Paedo-baptisme with that monster Servenus and other like him Lastly you are much more stumbled and offended that Mr. Blake should say There yet remaines in the Church a distinction of Abrahams seed some borne after the flesh some after the spirit and that both these have a Church interest or a 〈◊〉 bright to Church priviledges and that â—ee for this alledged Gal. 4. 29. even so it is now c. I reply for my part I as much wonder at your calling these passages very grosse for though it bee granted 1. That the Apostle shews Ishmael to be intended as a type of civill justiciaries who sought righteousnesse by the law Yea and 2. that these persecuted the true Church who sought justification by Christ And 3. That they are cast out from being heires never to partake of the spirituall priviledges of the Covenant yet because it is apparent that even these who Paul said were typified by the son of Hagar had a visible standing in the Jewish Church and were partakers of outward Church priviledges and were the same of whom Paul speaks Rom. 10. 3. Who being ignorant of Gods righteousnesse and going about to establish their own righteousnesse have not submitted themselves unto the righteousnesse of God And that in the same place Paul himself saith even so it is now even in the Church of Gallatia it was so and Paul by this Doctrine laboured to make them better I see not why Mr. Blake might not use this as an argument that some have a visible Church membership and ought to partake of outward Church priviledges notwithstanding they will not have the inheritance of children unlesse they repent The thing which I conceive offends you in his expression is that hee thinkes there is a fleshly seed of Abraham but I know no reason of stumbling at that phrase since by flesh is there intended any thing which is our own whatever we put confidence in and leane upon as that which may commend us to God whether our birth or parts our understanding or morall vertue yea or our Religious duties and performancâ—s all are but flesh and this St. Paul plainly signifies Phil. 3. 3 c. We are the Circumcision which worship God in the spirit and put no confidence in the flesh and in the verse following he tells you what he meant by flesh viz. his birthright his circumcision his unblameable conversation c. And might not Mr. Blake safely say there is still a seed of these who are visible members My second conclusion was to this effect Ever since God gathered a distinct number out of the world to be his Kingdome Citie Household in opposition to the rest of the world which is the Kingdome Citie and Household
to him who makes an outward profession because wee have not a Spirit of discerning to know them to bee reall beleevers then it undeniably follows That some may rightly be accounted to belong to the Church of God and Covenant of grace beside reall beleevers which is as much as I need to make my sense and meaning in this Proposition to passe for currant And truly Sir whoever will grant that a Minister in applying the seale must doe it de fide in faith being assured he applyes it according to rule must either grant such a right as I plead for that many have right to bee visible members and bee partakers of the externall administration of Ordinances though they be not inwardly sanctified or else hee must by revelation be able to see and know the inward conversion of every one hee applyes the seale unto for certainly hee hath no written Word to build his faith upon for the state of this or that man And for my own part when once you have disproved this that there is such a visible membership and right to externall administrations as I have here infisted upon I shall not onely forbeare baptizing Infants but the administration of the externall seale to any what profession soever they make untill I may bee de fide assured that they are inwardly regenerate This then was and is my meaning when I say That Infants of believers are confederates with their Parents that they have the same visible right to be reputed Church-members as their Parents have by being visible Professors and are therefore to be admitted to all such external Church-priviledges as their Infant age is capable of and that the visible Church is made up of such visible Professors and their Children that the invisible takes in neither all of the one nor the other but some of both Whereas therefore you say you are at a stand to finde out what my meaning is and know not what to deny or what to grant and again pag. 45. You are at a stand whether I meane they are to bee taken in with their Parents into Covenant in respect of saving grates or the outward priviledge of Church-ordinances I beseech you stand no longer doubtfull of my meaning I meane of them as I meane of other visible Professors they are taken into Covenant both ways respectively according as they are elect or not elect all of them are in Covenant in respect of outward priviledges the elect over and above the outward priviledges are in Covenant with respect to saving graces and the same is to bee said of visible members both Parents and Infants under the New Testament in this point of being in Covenant as was to be said of visible members in the former administration whether Jewes and their children or Proselytes and their children I endeavour in all this to speak as clearly as I can possibly not onely because you say you are oft at a stand to pick out my meaning but because this mistake runs through your whole book that none are to be reputed to have a visible right to the Covenant of grace but onely such as partake of the saving graces of it Now I proceed with you When I say That God would have beleevers children reputed to belong to his Church and family and not to the devills You answer That you feare I use that expression of not belonging to the Devills Kingdome to please the people But Sir why doe you judge my heart to intend amisse in using an expression which your self cannot mislike I have more cause to think you use all these words it cannot be denyed but God would have the Infants of beleevers in some sort to be accounted his to belong to him his Church and family and not to the Devills And againe it is true in facie visibilis Ecclesiae the Infants of beleevers are to bee accounted Gods c. onely ad faciendum populum to please the people because this is not your judgement for when you speake your full meaning and sense of this point you professe you know no more promise for them in reference to the Covenant then to the children of Turkes And even here you onely grant them a nearer possibility to belong to the Covenant of grace then the children of Infidels have therefore in your judgement they are not now actually belonging to it but onely in a possibility so that though they may be accounted to belong to the Kingdom of God potentially yet by your doctrine they belong to the Kingdom of the Devill actually and all this charitable opinion which here you expresse toward them dontaines no more then is to be allowed to the child of a Turk if born among Christians especially if a Christian will take it and bring it up in Christian Religion and by what may we ground any probable hopes they will actually receive the profession of Christ since by your rule there is no promise no externall Covenant why may I not have as good hopes of Heathens children if Gods promise helpe not here But say you To make them actually members of the visible Church is to overthrow the difinitions of the visible Church that Protestant Writers use to give because they must be all Christians by profession I reply it overthrows it not at all for they all include the Infants of such Professors as the visible Church among the Jewes did include their Infants male and female too lest you say that Circumcision made them members I adde also Baptisme now as well as Circumcision of old is a reall though impâ—iâ—â—â— Profession of the Christian Faith But say you Infants are oâ—ly passive and doe nothing whereby they may bee denominated visible Christians I answer even as much as the Infants of Jewes could doe of old who yet in their dayes were visible members Yea say you further it will follow That there may bee a visible Church which consists onely of Infants of beleevers I answer no more now then in the time of the Jewish Church it 's possible but very improbable that all the men and Women should dye and leave onely 〈◊〉 behindâ— them and it 's farre more probable that a Church 〈…〉 Anabaptists why may consist onely of Hypocritâ—â— Againe you affirme We are not to account Infants to belong to God either in respect of election or promise of grace or presenâ—◠〈◊〉 of in being in Christ 〈◊〉 â—state by any act of 〈…〉 with in a particulâ—â— revelation because there 〈…〉 declaration of God that the Infants of prisâ—â—◠〈…〉 all or some either are elected to life or in the Covenant of grace in Christ either in respect of present in-being or future estate To which I answer briefly though all this bee granted if meant of the spirituall part of the Covenant onely yet this makes nothing against that visible membership which I plead for Yea I reâ—ort the argument upon your selfe and dare boldly affirme that by this argument no visible Church or all
And whereas of old the seale was applyed onely to the males in this respect the differences of sexes is now taken away And although it be true that the spirituall part of all this be made good onely to true beleevers who likewise alone have the inward baptisme yet visible professors enjoy the visible priviledge Next you proceed to reply to an Objection which I propounded in my Sermon and answered viz. In some thing 's the Jews had greater priviledges then we have as that Abraham had the priviledge to bee called the Father of the faithfull that Christ should be born of his flesh the Virgin Mary had the priviledge to be the Mother of Christ the whole Nation of the Jews had this priviledge that God will call in their seed againe after they had been cast off for unbelief many hundred years which priviledges none of the Gentiles have or can have And my answer was That our question is about such priviledges as belong to all who have a standing under the Covenant which every one who is in covenant with God might expect by vertue of the covenant whether hee were a Jew or a Proselyte not for any peculiar or personall priviledge to any one man or woman or family or Tribe That it no ways derogates from us that some particular person or Tribe should enjoy some peculiar priviledges but if any of the common priviledges which they all enjoyed by vertue of their Church standing should be abridged then the priviledges of the New Testament would bee more restrained then those of the Old this said I is against the word of God Your answer is That this Argument hath no weight but onely amongst Vulgar and nonsyllogising capacities and therefore in your Latine Paper you mention these instances of the Virgin Mary c. And thence would shew That the Iews might have more priviledges in some respect in some things then we and yet our condition better then theirs by reason of some other priviledges we have above them which recompence the defect of those priviledges and therefore no good Argument can be drawne That because God gave such a priviledge to the Jews therefore we must have such a priviledge too yea it would bee an Argument of arrogant presumption to say the Iews had such a priviledge therefore we must have it They had a priviledge to circumcise Iufants therfore we mast baptise Infants I Answer I thinke indeed it would take with no sober Christian thus to argue The Jewes had it therefore wee must have it But Sir to argue thus God gave such a priviledge to the whole Church of the Jews that their Infants should be reputed to belong to his Church and have the initiall seale Therefore if hee have not granted to Christians that their Infants shall also bee reputed to belong to his Church and partake of the initiall seale then his grace to beleevers under the New Testament is straitned as to their posterity This Argument appeares so cleare to mee that I must confesse my selfe one of those Dull ones who know not how to deny the consequence In the meane time I observe that though you would make your Reader believe that these personall priviledges of Abraeham to have Christ born of his flesh the Virgin Mary to be the mother of Christ c. doe presse my Conclusion yet you spake not one word to vindicate them from my answer And therefore I collect that by this time you see that now under this administration some personal priviledges which a few of the Jews had over and above what belonged to the rest may be denyed us and yet they make nothing against this Argument That if the common priviledges which every one of them had were denyed us our priviledges were straitned Your other exception which you make concerning Melchisedeck Lot and Job have been often answered before That which you adde concerning one kinde of Proselytes among the Iews who were called Proselytes of the gate who though they were not circumcised were yet reckoned among the Worshippers of God such at were Cornelius and others and were also within the Covenant of grace I know not what you intend to gather from it unlesse you would intimate that they were Church-members among the Jewes although they were not circumcised but had you said so that the priviledges and Church-membership of these Proselytes of the Gate were as honourable as those of the Proselytes of the Covenant your learned Readers would have smiled at you sure there would have been no need for God to have instructed Peter by a Vision from heaven that he should not call them to whom he was to be sent uncleane nor had Peter been ever put to have made his apologie for going in to Cornelius and his company if these uncircumcised Proselytes of the Gate had been reputed Church-members among the Jews Next you grant The Iews indeed had that priviledge to have their children reckoned in the outward administration as branches of the O live by their birth which the Gentiles have not But if we Gentiles have it not then are not wee I pray you straitned in that particular And I demand further when we are graffed in and so naturalized with them doe we not partake of all the fatnesse or priviledges of the Olive with them what Scripture ever denyed it I demand yet further did the many ten thousands of Jews who were baptized in the Apostles dayes by their comming under this best administration of the Covenant and thereby kept their former growing in the Olive with advantage did they thereby deprive their Children of that which you say was their naturall priviledge if you thinke so produce your evidence to prove it if they were not then it seemes the Jewes who beleeved in Christ and kept their station had a greater priviledge for their children then the Gentiles who grow together with them have for their children I added Let any man shew out of the Scripture where our priviledges under the Gospel are cut short in any of these things and in particular for the case in hand concerning our Infants right to the Covenant and seale of it once we are sure the Infant-children of all Covenanters were within the Covenant and the sedle also belonged to them and by vertue of the Covenant which is still the same 〈◊〉 plâ—ad their interest in it let any shew when and where this was taken away You answer it is unreasonable to require this at your hands to shew what you doe not avouch you goe not about to expunge Infants of beleevers out of the Covenant of Grace and you see no cause to beleeve me who affirme that once they were within the Covenant c. I reply but doe not you avouch That the Infants of the Jewes had this peculiar privilâ—dge and birth-right to be under the administration of the Covenant which ours have not which you know is the onely thing controverted betwixt us may not I boldly say That
without any further reply I leave it to the Reader to judge onely I thanke you for the reason you alledge why you deny the major because it is not said they would put it upon Disciples onely I hope you will receive the same law you give and therefore will rest satisfied when your selfe doe plead Johns and Christs Disciples required confession of saith and finnes of those whom they baptized and when Christ bid his Apostles and Disciples first to teach then to baptize I shall answer it is no where said they baptized onely such or were to baptize onely such Secondly you answer that this yoak of Circumcision which necessitated them to keep Moses Law to salvation was not put upon Infants but upon brethren who were taught the necessitie of it I answer then Paul himself was much mistaken who said that every one that was Circumcised was bound to keepe Moses Law and certainely Paul meant that which these false teachers alledged even Circumcision imposed after the manner of Moses Lastly you make your selfe merry with Mr. Blake as if hee alluding to Esa 49. 22. of bringing sonnes and daughters upon their shoulders to Christ c. had alledged that Text nothing to the purpose I confesse I am not satisfied that that Text is cleare to the purpose but I am fully satisfied that you often make a noyse with Texts lesse to the purpose as in bringing Acts. 19. for rebaptization 1 Cor. 7. 34. to prove holinesse to bee meant of Chastitie and many others My next instance was from the forementioned place Acts. 2. whence I shewed the Children of such as beleeve and are baptized are taken into Covenant and therefore by good consequence are to receive the Seale of the Covenant and that that Text not onely shewes that they are within the Covenant but also that a right to baptisme is a consequence of being within the Covenant Your answer is to this effect that you have already answered this plaoe and that it is so far from proving this for which I alledge it that it proves the contrary I cheerfully referre the Reader to my vindication of this place Sect 6. Part 3. I added wee have likewise examples enough by good consequence First I shewed that the Gospell tooke place by bringing in whole housholds as the former administration also did you alledge to the contrary severall examples page 138 139. that it was not constantly so nor did I ever say it was so alwayes or constantly either among Jewes or Christians you alledge the thousands converted in the Acts the Citie of Samaria and others yet no mention of the whole housholds yet possibly their whole housholds did come in with them the Scripture speakes nothing to the Contrary how ever I alledge it not nor doth the cause depend upon it I alledged many housholds who were baptized Cornelius and his houshold the Jaylor and his houshold the houshold of Stephanus of Crispus of Aristobulus of Narcissus and severall others to all which you answer this must bee interpreted by other places which when they expresse the haptizing of the houshold they expresse also the beleeving or receiving of the word by the whole houshold and that sometimes the house is put for the people of growth in the house but who taught you it must bee so interpreted hee that will may force such an interpretation upon himselfe and it is hard to open the eyes of a prejudiced man but I feare not try it when you will that you shall never finde so good evidence out of the housholde eating the Passeover Exod. 12. thereby to prove that women did eate the Passeover as this proves that the Infants of the house were baptized because according to your principles women might not bee numbred amongst the Circumcised and the Law was plain that no uncircumcised person might eate the Passeover whereas on this hand for Infants baptisme it is not to bee doubted but that there were some Infants amongst these housholds who were baptized and no Law made against the baptizing of them And for your evasion that though is bee sometimes said housholds were baptized yet it is said these housholds received the word though this might be pleaded concerning some of them yet there is no evidence why you should speake it of all of them And whereas you further alledge that a house is sometimes taken for the growne persons in that house though all the Scriptures which you mention are not fit instances it may very well bee granted and hurts not mee unlesse you can prove that it must bee so meant I have better warrant to affirme concerning the Jaylors house of whom it is said Paul preacht to all those that were in his house that either there were no Infants in that house or that the preaching of the word to all in the house is to bee limited pro subjecta mâ—teria to them who were capable of preaching and yet the rest received baptisme who were capable of it And thus I have cleared and vindicated my first and great Argument Infants are foedera â—â— therefore they must it 〈◊〉 they are in Covenant therefore the initial 〈◊〉 of the 〈◊〉 belongs unto them I proceed to the second My second Argument was to this effect the Infants of beleâ—vers even while they are Infants are made partakers of the inward graâ—â— of Baptismâ— as well as growne 〈◊〉 who are visible professors therefore they may and ought to 〈◊〉 Baptismâ— which is the outward signe of this inward grace In your answer you grant the major that all who partake of the inward grace may partake out of the outward signe and that â—o Antipaedobaptist will deny this but then you enquire what I meane by having the thing signified and you suppose I doe 〈◊〉 â—old that all Infants of beleevers have actually the inward grace signified by baptisme no indeed Sir nor do I thinke that you conceive that all grown persons who are visible professors have it In your answer to the minor proposition that Infants as well as growne men are partakers of the inward grace according to your usuall course you enquire after a great many senses whether I meane it of potentiall having it or actuall having it whether I meane onely some have it actually others potentially in one sense the argument hath foure termes in another forme the argument will conclude but for the baptizing of some Infants then you enter into a discourse upon the Lutherans and about a booke intituled Baptismall regeneration of elect Infants with which you say Doctor Feâ—tley concurs and of a book written by S. C. Intituled A Christians plea for Infants Baptisme which holds positions somewhat like the Lutherans all which you professe you mention to discover what stuffe the Pedobaptists doe feed the people withall you might have added to worke prejudice in your Readers and to shew your owne reading and to swell up a volume otherwise quorsum haec my meaning is as plaine as
other were capable of baptisme in this say you I grant many things which doe yeeld the cause Sir I shall not recall any one of them make your best of your advantage 1. Hence you collect it followes that baptizing of Infants is not according to Iohns and Christs Disciples and the Apostles practise I answer it no wayes followes if you take but that in which immediatly followes that their Infants came in in their parents right 2. Hence I grant say you that no other were capable of Baptisme but wherein I beseech you have I granted the cause in saying their Infants were not capable of it till their Parents came in and when they 〈◊〉 in their children came in also by vertue of the Covenant What need you keepe such a coyle in asking whether beleevers had then no children or whether the Apostles had no commission or whether wee have a Commission if they had not you goe on and say I thinke to salve it thus when once themselves were instructed and baptized then their children were capable of it by vertue of the Covenant I doe so and what have you to say against it why then say you they were capable in Iohns time and the Apostles time and this destroyes that which I said before that then none but taught persons were capable of Baptisme but where did I say so I said there was no expresse mention made of any other I said also Infants were not capable till their Parents came in because their Parents were to come under this new administration but I never said when their Parents were come in in Johns time and Christs time that their children then were not capable of it Yea I have shewed good grounds by consequence that the practise was otherwise Further you say it seemes I couâ—d produce no Institution in the new administration but the Institution of Circumcision because I say the children were capable by vertue of the Covenant and the validitie of arguing from Circumcision hath been considered before and you further adde that the Covenant being the same at all times as my first conclusion holds the children of belâ—evers were as capable in Johns time as after and thus you say my words doe plainely interfere I answer I have abundantly proved that this ground from the Covenants being the same and our Infants right the same with theirs to the Covenant and our Baptisme succeeding in the roome and place of Circumcision is a sufficient ground for this practise though there be no expresse mention of them in this new administration nor did I ever say that Infants of beleevers were not capable of it by vertue of the Covenant in Johns time so that this triumph of yours is not the fruit of my interfering but of your owne blindnesse or stumbling Whereas in the close of this Section I said if any in the Jewish Church had received Commission to goe and make other Cities Proselytes to them their Commission must have runne thus goe teach and circumcise and yet it would not thence have followed that none might bee circumcised but 〈◊〉 as were first taught you answer the Commission must have had reference in the execution of it either to the old institution of Circumcision Gen. 17. or to a new Institution and then it would have been told plainely what and whom they were to circumcise I reply supposing it had gone according to the institution Gen. 17. which as you say was to circumcise males at eight dayes old not taught I hope you will not say they might circumcise the males of any at eight dayes old although their Parents were not taught which is the case that I put you cannot I perceive deny this case to bee parallell onely this arguing from Circumcision to Baptism you cannot away with but Sir this reasoning is justified to be good rumpuntur ut ilia The second objection I thus expressed it is expresly said that he that beleeves and is baptized shall bee saved faith in Christ is the condition upon which men may bee baptized and no other unbeleevers may not be baptized children are unbeleevers therefore they may not bee baptized they say the negative is included under the affirmative beleeving is the affirmative unbeleeving is the negative therefore where beleevers are commanded to be baptized unbeleevers are forbidden to be baptized This Argument I said the Anabaptists doe very much glory in my answer to it was to this effect that if this Argument have any strength at all against the baptizing it hath much more strength against the salvation of Infants because it is expresly said both affirmatively and negatively hee that beleeveth shall bee saved but bee that beleeves not shall bee damned whereas though it bee said affirmatively hee that beleeveth and is baptized shall bee saved it is not said hee that is not baptized shall not bee saved looke by what distinction they will maintaine the salvation of Infants against this Argument by the same will I more clearely justifie the baptisme of Infants against this argument I adde now further if they take beleevers in a contradistinction to Infidells then I say Infants of beleevers are beleevers as well as the children of Infidells are Infidells if they take beleevers in a more restrained sense for positive and actuall faith then I deny that this is a necessary condition required to bee found and manifested in every one who is to bee baptized as I have at large proved before and your selfe cannot deny To this Argument your answer is onely this that you owne not the Argument onely thus farre you owne it viz. that a profession of faith is a pre-requisite to Baptisme and so it was accounted in the dayes of Justin Martyr Tertullian Cyprian and Augustine c. But I reply though you dare not owne this Argument yet it stands upon the same ground that the rest of your arguments doe and upon the same grounds that many of your expressions doe such as this That men are not to bee baptized because they may have grace but because they have it But now you will not stick to this That to have true faith is a pre-requisite to Baptism you are contented with an outward confession of it onely and that a visible profession gives right to a visible membership and consequently that a visible membership gives a right to Baptisme which is the thing I have been contending for all this while As for what you adde That in the dayes of Iustin Martyr Tertullian Cyprian and so forward this confession before baptisme was continued it is true it was continued for those that had been Pagans and Infidels that they should make such a confession before Baptisme and it is as true that in their days Infants of Christians were baptized 3. I said it was objected That though Infants are capable oâ— the inward grace and that God doth effectually worke in some of them yet that is no sufficient warrant for us to baptize all of
of imitation of Jewish circumcision Thirdly without universall practice Fourthly together with the error of giving Infants the Lords Supper and with many other humane inventions under the name of Apostolicall Traditions that is deservâ—dly doubtfull But such was Infant-Baptisme in those ages Ergo c. I answer first by denying your Major the observation of the Lords day hath beene by some accounted a Tradition others have said it is Jewish to keep any Sabbath at all because Sabbath dayes were a shadow of things to come but the body is Christ what will you thence conclude against our Christian Sabbath And for what you say about the practice of it that it was not universall I desire you to remember that argumentum ductum a non facto ad non jus est absurdissimum may wee plead thus such and such a thing was not generally observed Ergo it was not a duty the boyes in the Schooles would stamp and hisse at such an inference from the dayes of Iosoua to the dayes of Nehemiab the children of Israel had not kept the feast of Tabernacles in Booths or Tents which was about a thousand yeares was it therefore not their duty to have done it Dr. Hoylin in his History of the Sabbath urgeth this very argument against the Lords day in such and such Fathers days many did not observe the Lords day many did tipple and dance upon the Lords day ergo the Lords day was not generally observed and if it were not generally observed in those days Ergo we are not bound to observe it This kind of arguing is almost as wilde as that which the Schools call a baculo ad angulum my staffe stands in the corner Ergo it will rain tomorrow morning Your last Exception under this fourth argument is yet more strange There were many other things went under the name of Traditions which were meer humane inventions Ergo Infant-baptism which went under the name of a Tradition is also a humane invention Shall I shew the naturall face of this argument in a glasse such and such men who went under the name of honest men were knaves Ergo all that goe â—nder the name of honest men are knaves It is true many things went in those dayes under the name of Traditions which were but humane inventions and it is as true that many points of faith and other divine institutions went in the same ages under the name of Traditions as I have made apparent Part 1. Sect. 2. You see what a poore argument this would prove although your minor were true though the things were as you set them downe but I have abundantly proved the contrary I have shewed the Ancients received it as a Divine Institution and upon such arguments as we doe though some of them prest some corrupt grounds which we reject and as for the universality of the practice of it both in the Greek and Latin Churches I have abundantly cleared it from all Objections you make against it and you out of all your reading have not been able to produce one of the ancients who either beld it unlawfull or denyed that it was in use from the Apostles dayes One or two indeed you bring who advised the deferring Infant-Baptism as they did also the baptisme of grown men and some examples you produce of the children of Christians not baptized as you think in their Infancy to all which I have spoken at large Part. 1. sect 2. And as for what you alledge of their giving the Lords Supper unto Infants I have denyed and shall doe still till you bring some evidence for it that there was any such universall practise indeed in the African Churches that errour did obtain in the days of Cyprian and Austin but I finde no such generall practice of it however the Argument follows not That it was their error to give Infants the Lords Supper Ergo it was their error to baptize Infants Your sixth Argument runs thus that which hath occasioned many humane inventions partly by which Infant-Baptisme it selfe may bee underpropt partly the defect in the pâ—licy of the Church supplyed that is deservedly douhtfull But the matter iâ— so in the businesse of Infant-Baptisme and here you bring in witnesses in Baptisme Episcopall confirmation the reformed union by examination confession before receiving the Lords Supper Church-Covenant before the admission of Church-members into Church-fellowship c. I answer briefly if by occasioned you meane that Infant-Baptisme hath exnaturâ rei given occasion to these things I deny your minor Infant-Baptisme is no more an occasion of these things in the Christian Church then circumcising of Infants was an occasion of the like in the Jewish Church Infant-Baptisme may very well stand and doth very well stand in many reformed Churches without such witnesses without confirmation or any other examination confession c. before the Lords Supper or other Church-discipline then such as might bee in use to men though they were not baptized in their Infancy but if by occasioned you meane not 〈◊〉 daâ—a but 〈◊〉 temerâ— aâ—â—â—pta that the corrupt mind of man hath thence tooke occasion for other errors and mistakes if you meane that which hath thus â—â—casioned many humane inventions is doubtfull then I deny your major there is scarse any common place in the body of Divinity but hath occasioned humane inventions the Lords Supper hath occasioned kneeling at the Sacrament and that hath occasioned suspension excommunication separation what will you thence conclude against the Lords Supper Ergo the Lords Supper is a humane invention Your seventh eighth and ninth Arguments are but so many branches or rather so many repetitions of your sixth Argument possibly you have thus divided them that you might make up a whole Jury And the selfe same answer serves them as was given to the other I will conclude as strongly against you out of your owne premisses thus Antipaedobaptisme hath occasioned many errours many abuses and faults in discipline divine worship and conversation of men together with many unnecessary disputes fostering contention onely Ergo Antipaedobaptisme is what you please to all Infant-baptisme I leave out that passage onely in the major of your ninth Argument viz. which cannot bee determined by any certaine rule because therein you doe very heartily beg the question Your tenth argument is framed thus That in the midst of the darknesse of Popery the same men who opposed invocation of Saints Prayer for the dead adoration of the crosse and such like opposed also the baptizing of Infants and here you bring in Bernard his 66 Sermon upon the Canticles and his 140. Epistla against Henry the Heretick as you call him and Cluniacinsis against Peter de Bruis and Henry also a passage out of Ostander accusing the Albingenses â—s consenting with the Anabaptistâ— To which I answer first I deny the consequence because they opposed invocation of Saints prayer for the dead c. and also opposed Infant-Baptisme