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
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
Infant-Baptisme hath been perpetually observed in the Christian Church for there is no ancient Doctor that doth not acknowledge that Infant-Baptisme was constantly administred by the Apostles 4. That notwithstanding all this evidence I have brought from Antiquity yet I build as little upon Antiquitie as any other man I acknowledge what learned Rivet saith to be very true that Tradition is in most points uncertaine and therefore he that will build sure must build upon the Scripture Proinde necessario veniendum erat ad argumenta ex Scripturis quae si rem non evincant frustra traditionem advocabimus Animadv in Annot. Grotii in Cassandrum Art 9. Pag. 71. And I would have you and every Reader to remember that I doe not build my faith upon humane Traditions in this Argument nor did the ancients build upon humane traditions in this thing the very Pelagians themselves acknowledge it upon this ground Parvulos baptizandos esse concedunt saith Augustine of the Pelagians qui contra authoritatem universae Ecclesiae procul-dubio per Dominum et Apostolos traditam venire non possunt lib. 1. de peccat merit et Remiss cap. 26. Nay they were forced to their owne prejudice to acknowledge that Infants were baptized secundum regulam universalis Ecclesiae Evangelii sententiam lib. cont Caelest Pelag Now that which was pressed from the scope of the Gospell was not pressed as a Tradition and that which was acknowledged by the Pelagians to be the practise of the universall Church according to the rule of the Gospell was not built upon tradition I will therefore close up my testimonies produced out of the ancient writers with that savoury passage of learned Calvin in his Instructions against the Anabaptists Caeterum minime peto ut in eo probando nos Antiquitâ—s â—â—llo modo juvet c. I doe not desire saith hee to borrow any helpe from Antiquity for the proofe of this point any whit farther then the judgement of the Ancients shall be found to bee grounded on the Word of God for I know full well that as the custome of men doth not give authority to the Sacraments so the use of the Sacrament cannot hee said to be right and regular because regulated by custome PART II. HAving made good the practise of Antiquity for the Baptizing of Infants I follow you in that which you are pleased to make the second part of my Sermon which you call prejudices against Antipaedo-baptists from their noveltie and miscarriages Where first you blame me for seeking by prefacing and setting downe a briefe touch of the Anabaptists carriage in Germany to create prejudice in my Auditors To which I answer that I yet never learned that a briefe setting downe the Originall History and State of a Controversie or the weight and consequence of it thereby the more to ingage the Readers attention was against any Rule or Law of Art either divine or humane but in case it were a fault Quis tulerit Gracchos You who begin your booke with telling how nine moneths since you sent thus many Arguments in Latine drawne up in a Scholastique way c. and never yet received any Answer and in the end of your booke intimated that though you allowed me but a moneth yet I have kept your booke a whole yeere unanswered and throughout your whole Treatise strive to make an ostentation of reading and put abundance of scoffes and jeeres upon them who are of a contrary mind to you and seeke to loade the opinion you write against as if it carried all kind of mischiefes in the wombe of it All which things you know well enough are apt to take the people but have no weight with them who use onely to weigh Proofe with Proofe and Argument with Argument you I say of all other should pardon such a peccadillo and might very well have passed over what either my selfe or Dr. Featlies Frontispice or Mr. Edwards his expressions might seeme to bee lyable to of exception in this kind In your second Section you blame mee for two things first that I gave you no more light out of Augustine to know who they were that questioned Paedo-Baptisme in his dayes you have searched and cannot finde any the Pelagians you acknowledge opposed it not the custome was so universall and esteemed so sacred that they durst not oppose it All the further light I shall now give in a matter of no greater consequence is that if you cannot finde any in Augustines dayes who questioned it I am contented you shall beleeve there were none Secondly you blame me for making such a leape from Augustines time to Baltazzar Pacommitanus as if be were the first who opposed it where as you alledge many who opposed it 400. yeeres before his time To which I answer I sayd not hee was the first whose judgement was against it but the first that made an head against it or a division or Schisme in the Church about it It is possible men may hold a private opinion differing from the received doctrine and yet never make a rent or divide the Church into factions about it But let us examine your instances you alledge the famous Berengarius as one 2. The Albingenses 3. Out of Bernard you mention another namelesse Sect. 4. Petrus Cluniacensis charges the same upon the Petro-Brusians To all which I answer first in generall That these instances of yours having occasioned mee to make a more dilligent search into the doctrine and practise of those middletimes between the Fathers and the beginning of Reformation in Lâ—â—bers time I dare confidently think that you will have an hard taske to prove out of any impartiall Authors that there were any company of men before the Anabaptists in Germany who rejected the baptizing of Infants out of the confession of their faith possibly some private man might doe it but I shall desire you to shew that any company or Sect if you will so call them have ever denied the lawfulnesse of baptizing of Infants produce if you can any of their confessions alledge any Acts of any Councells where this doctrine was charged upon any and condemned in that Councell you know the generalitie of the visible Christian world was in those dayes divided into the followers of the Beast and the small number of those who followed the Lambe who bare witnesse to the truth of the Gospel in the times of that Antichristian Apostasie these were called by severall names Berengarians Waldenses poore men of Lyons Albingenses Catharists Petr-Brusians and severall other names as may bee seene in Bishop Vshers book of the Succession and State of the Christian Churches Now all grant that the Church of Rome even in those dayes owned the baptizing of Infants and so did all those persecuted Companies or Churches of the Christians for any thing I can find to the contrary Severall Catalogues of their confessions and opinions I finde in severall Authors and more
not some of ours for the mortality of the soule as well as they have not some of ours laid downe their Armes out of opinion that even in a just cause warre is unlawfull have not many of ours drunke in the conceits of immediate revelations and Enthysiasmes as much as they doe not many of ours conceit a perfection of grace doe they not oppose the Christian Sabbath doe they not cry downe our Ministry as no Ministry our Churches as no Churches Verily one egge is not more like another then this brood of new opinions lately hatched in England and entertained among them who are called Anabaptists is like that Spawne which so suddenly grew up among the Anabaptists in Germany and ours plead the same Arguments which theirs did and if they flow not from the same Logicall or Theologicall principles it is yet their unhappy fate to be led by the same spirit I confesse I yet heare not much of their denying the Magistrates authoritie but if these men should increase to much strength I will not take upon me to divine but I shall pray that Mr. Vines prove not too true a Prophet especially considering the nature of erroneous and hereticall spirits is to grow worse and worse and not at first to vent all their poyson even the Anabaptists of Munster in the beginning of their Schisme set forth a confession of faith every way as Orthodox as that which you mention of the seven Churches of the Anabaptists of London in their Confession mentioned in the latter end of this Section as I am credibly informed by a Reverend and Learned Divine who hath many yeers agoe both seene and read it in Germany To your third and fourth I answer onely this that I shall waite untill you cleare them as being not able out of my small judgement and Reading to conjecture either what proofes you can bring for the one or example for the other you who make your selfe merry with Mr. Vines his Logick will shew your owne to bee supereminent when you make this consequence good that pleading baptizing of Infants from Circumcision of Infants overthrows much of the Magistracy and Lawes of England But your fifth seemes very strange that you cannot finde that since Munster and Munâ—er the Anabaptists in Germany have either by writing or action made any opposition against magistracy as for their actions they have of old paid so deare for their insurrections that wee have not lately heard of any new ones but for their writings it is most apparent that their bookes written by them even to this day do constantly defend that though Magistracy bee an Ordinance of God as to them who are not under the kingdome and dominion of Christ yet Christ hath put an end to it among his owne people taken away all Magistracy from among them that no Christian can be a Magistrate with a good conscience and that if Christians doe live under any such they are to beare them but as other plagues and judgements are to be borne You oppose Cassanders moderate testimony of some of them to the Duke of Cleave a Papist against Mr. Vines his speech before the Lord Major and City of London Cassander indeed spake favourably of some of their persons but doth not excuse or plead for their doctrine or principles and Mr. Vines speakes against their doctrine or principles but speakes nothing against the persons of any of them so that I can see no cause of your bringing in this long testimony out of Cassander in the favour of Menno and his followers but onely to shew your good-will to the Anabaptists and your displeasure against Mr. Vines who differs from your opinion One thing more I adde concerning this Menno whom you pleade for by Cassanders pen that his whole doctrine is as full of blasphemy about our Saviours taking flesh of the Virgin Mary and other Hereticall and abominable stuffe as the rest of his fellowes though I thinke his spirit was not so seditious as many of theirs And as to your allegation out of the compassionate Samaritan which indeavours to speake all possible good of such as oppose Presbyteriall government pleading to obtaine an universall libertie for all their opinions and practices and indeavors to brand as infamous and cast all manner of filth in the faces of such as indeavor to promote it I leave such Lettice to their lips who like it And for what you alledge out of the London Anabaptists confession I acknowledge it the most Orthodox of any Anabaptists confession that ever I read although there are sundry Heterodox opinions in it and such an one as I beleeve thousands of our new Anabaptists will be farre from owning as any man may bee able to say without a spirit of divination knowing that their received and usuall doctrines doe much more agree with the Anabaptists in Germany then with this handfull who made this confession here in London In your seventh you first expresse your good affection to further Reformation secondly you propound what in your judgement is the best way to promote it In the first you are sensible of your â—ath and Covenant declare the sincerity of your desires and prayers to promote it according to the Word of God c. Your desires and prayers and intentions are holy and good well suiting with the report I have often heard of you before I read this your booke and would the Lord please to draw out those good Talents he hath given you in the most usefull way I conceive you may be a very profitable instrument in this great worke and I verily thinke your abilities greater then many others whom you suppose to have been imployed more eminently then your selfe But pardon me that I tell you sadly and freely that the frame of spirit which the genius of your booke shewes forth makes me feare the contrary you every where manifest such height of selfe-confidence you powre out such abundance of scorne upon them who thinke otherwise then you doe you so magisterially tread under foot the Arguments and Reasons of those who differ from your opinion though they appeare never so strong or evident to others you so boldly call into question some doctrines which few have ever questioned before you you so slight the Authoritie both of ancient and moderne writers especially in this point though you know the generality of all Confessions and Harmonies except onely the Anabaptists concurre in one against you that unlesse God alter your present temper I suspect this is not the last trouble you are like to put the Church unto and I assure you very many who willingly acknowledge your learning and other abilities and are no whit sorry your booke is extant because they conceive this controversie may thereby receive a fuller scanning are extremely scandalized at your high and scornefull spirit You propound what you conceive is the best way to promote Reformation and your thoughts are that the onely way to
sense every child of a beleever is brone a Christian that is hee is a member of the visible Church in the second sense none can claime it as a birthright men must be made Christians in that sense and not borne Christians thus this which is a weake objection of the Lutherans against the Calvinists is easily answered to bee children of wrath by nature and yet to bee holy in an externall Covenant being borne of beleeving parents do no whit oppose one another thus it was not onely among the Jewes who had a visible standing under the Covenant of grace and yet multitudes of them were the children of wrath but even thus it is unto this day among growne men who are admitted to be Christians in your way some of them are sancti called and holy in the face of the visible Church and yet not so coram facie dei whilst others are so both in the spirit and in the letter Your great errour and mistake is that you speake not distinctly of the Covenant of grace for whereas the Covenant is to bee largely understood for the whole dispensation of it in outward Ordinances as well as saving graces you usually take it strictly for saving graces which belong onely to the elect You cannot bee ignorant how our Divines owne the outward administration of the Covenant under the notion of faedus externum and the spirituall grace of it under the notion of faedus inteâ—â—um you still restraine the Covenant to the spirituall part onely and would perswade your Reader that they who speake of the Covenant of grace must meane it thus strictly and yet you bring not arguments to disprove a true visible membership upon a visible profession whether the inward saving grace be known or not Now I returne with you to my Sermon where your examen proceeds I used for illustration sake â—â— comparison from other Kingdomes Corporations and Families the children follow the condition of their parents free mâ—nâ— children are borne free the children of slaves are borne slaves c. and thus hath God ordained said I that it shall bee in his Kingdome and Family children follow the Covenant condition of their parents this passage you slight first in generall as that which containes nothing but dictates but parâ—ius-ista-vitis you may give your adversary two in the seven at dictating you who call my onely using a comparison or allusion to bee a dictating can dictate in this very place Christianitie say you is no mans birthright this was but even just now the question betwixt you and Mr. Blake and you here without any proofe â—et downe this peremptory conclusion which was the very question betwixt you Christianitis is no mans birth-right but the thing is true call it what you please and will not bee blowne away with a scornefull puffe but say you I doâ—very carnally imagine the Church of God to bee like civill Corporations as if persons were to bee admitted into it by birth whereas in this all is done by free election of grace and according to Gods appointment I reply you carnally and sinfully judge of Gods wayes in this particular for is it not evident that the Jewish Church was in this like civill corporations were not children then admitted in by birth-right and yet was not grace then as free as it is now had the Jewes by birth no seale of grace and that by Covenant because God was the God of them and their seed or was there no grace accompanying the Jewish Sacraments I suppose you are not so Popish as to deny it And further I pray you tell mee was not all done among them as much by the free election of grace as among us are you of Arminius his mind that Iacob and Esaâ— both circumcised persons are not proposed to us Rom. 9. as such who hold forth to us the soveraigntie of God in election and reprobation Secondly what meane you when you say all is done in the Church according to the fâ—â—â— election of grace T is true if you meane it of the Church invisible all is there done by the free election of grace but wee are speaking of the visible Church and I hope you will not say all is there done by free election of grace you will not say that none have any interest in the visible priviledges but onely they who are elected You adde yea to conceive that it is in Gods Church as in other kingdomes is a seminary of dangerous superstitions and errors Dr. Reynolds in his conference with Hart hath shewed that hence arose the frame of government by Patriarchs Metropolitans c. and this is say you the reason of invocation of Saints c. I reply true for men to say thus it must be or thus it may bâ—e in Godâ— kingdome because it is so in other kingdomes is the very Seminary which Dr. Reynolds speaks of but to mention some things alike in Gods Kingdome and other kingdomes when God himselfe hath made them so it is obedience and not presumption Yea it is a great sinne to call that a carnall imagination which is Gods owne doing Next when I say if hee take a father into Covenant hee takes the children in with him if hee reject the parents the children are east out with them You answer if I meane this in respect of election and reprobation it is not true or in respect of the Covenant of grace which is congruous to election or reprobation I answer you judge right I meant it not of election or reprobation nor that the saving graces of the Covenant are alwayes made good either to Infants or growne men who are taken into Covenant I meant it as before I expressed it of taking in into a visible Church-standing But say you neither is that true it is not true in respect of outward Ordinances the father may bee baptized and not the child and è contra the father may bee deprived and the child may enjoy them I answer but this is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the thing that is in question betwixt us the contrary whereunto I undertake to justifie Indeed de sacto the one may enjoy them and the other hee deprived of them a father may bee baptized and his child die before it bee baptized but our question is de jure whether a Parent being a beleever his child hath not right to Baptisme and other Church-priviledges as it growes copable of them at the â—ewâ—s children had to Circumcision c. De sacto it fell out sometimes so among the Jewes David the â—ather circumcised and not the child borne to him by Bathsheba which dyed the seventh day and was not Circumcised and many multitudes more in the same condition but is this any thing against the right of Infants to beâ— Circumcised Next say you In this point there i◠〈◊〉 certaintie or agreement in the paedobaptists determination becausâ— Mr. Rutherford saies the children of Papists and excommunicate Protestants which are barne
once the Infants of all Covenanters had this priviledge may I not also exact of you to shew when and where this was taken away who though you goe not about to expunge them out of the book of life yet you expresly expunge them out of visible membership while you say the Jews Infants had it and ours have it not Lastly I added who ever will goe about to deprive them of it to cut off such a great part of the comfort of beleeving Parents must produce clear testimonies before they can perswade beleevers to part with either of them either right to the Covenant or to the seale of the Covenant because next to the glory of God and the salvation of their owne soules their Infants interest in the Covenant is one of the greatest benefits beleevers have from the Covenant of grace even to have their Children belong to Gods family and Kingdome and not to the Devills Children being the greatest treasure of their Parents and the salvation of their childrens soules the greatest treasure in their children and therefore to exclude them out of that society or visible standing where salvation is ordinary is so great a losse or eclipsing of their comfort aâ— whoever would make them yeeld to it had need produce very strong evidence and much more I said in my Sermon to this purpose You answer Here I am upon my advantage ground in a veine of Oratory and on a subject of all others aptest to move affections to wit Parents tendernesse to their children I confesse in this point I stand upon a vantage ground not in Oratory to which I pretend not but in point of truth had I only spoken words without weight you could and would have discovered their emptiness and scoffed at them sufficiently you make severall small exceptions which I shal briefly touch as First That I touch something too neare upon the Popish Opinion as if I might be guess'd to symbolize with that Opinion of the Papists who judge all unbaptized infants to perish which is not worth the answering Then you demand What comfort doe wee give Parents which the Antipaedobaptists doe not give them as well as we or what discomforts in truth doe they give them which we doe not I answer the difference is very great you leave them in the state of Infidells we in the condition the Jews children were in while they were the people of God wee account them actually belonging to the visible kingdom of Christ you actually to belong to the visible kingdom of the Devill wee leave them under the benefit of that promise I will be the God of thee and of thy feed you acknowledge no more promise for them then for the children of Turks it may be these things are of no account to you but I doubt not but they will bee with your unprejudiced Reader I next proceeded to the maine and onely Objection made against this whole Argument which is this There is no command no expresse institution or cleare example in all the New Testament of baptizing of Infants and in administration of Sacraments wee are not to be led by our owne reason or grounds of seeming probabilities but by the expresse order of Christ and no otherwise You say this is indeed the maine Objection and without answering it all that I have said is to little purpose But Sir did not you formerly grant that upon the proving of my two first Conclusions the whole cause depended if therefore those Conclusions remaine firme there is enough already said to the purpose You adde Vnlesse this Objection be removed the practice of baptizing infants will never be acquitted from Will-worship and that the Prelatists will shew vertuall commands from analogy of the Ceremoniall Law of the Jews and Traditions Ecclesiasticall as ancient as ours for Paedobaptisme for their Prelacy Holy dayes Surplice c. And therefore if I stand not to iâ— here I must yeeld up my weapons Sure you think you are here like to get some advantage you speake so big but by this time I have had such sufficient experience of your strength that I much feare not your great words First for the point of Will-worship I shall desire you to prove this Conclusion That all things belonging to Christian worship even in the circumstances of it even the ages and sexes of the Persons to whom the Ordinances are to bee applyed must bee expresly set down in the new Testament if you prove not this you say nothing to the purpose for this is our very case I have already shewed the falsenesse of it in the point of the Christians Sabbath for though the Ceremoniall Worship which was a type of Christ be wholly abolished yet not every thing which concerns all Worship which must have an institution is abolished And for the plea which the Bishops and others may pretend from the analogy of the Ceremoniall Law when you shew how they will raise their Arguments which possibly you have more skill and experience to doe then I have as plainly as I doe for Infant-baptisme you may possibly prevaile with the Reader in their behalf And when you shew as much Ecclesiasticall Antiquity for Prelacy Holydayes Surplice c. I shall beleeve your Reading to be greater then I can yet be perswaded of that you have seen some such Monuments of Antiquity which the Prelaticall Party could never yet light upon But I proceed with you I first granted That there is no expresse syllabicall command for baptizing of Infants no expresse example where Children were baptized Sure say you this is a shrewd signe that I am not like to make good my ground having yeelded thus much And why so I pray your very next words leave me ground enough when you say That if it bee made good by good consequence it is sufficient what need was there then of this idle scoffe I added Many other points of high concernment are not expresly laid down in the New Testament aâ— forbidden degrees of marriage Laws against Polygamy the Law of a weekly Sabbath c. You answer In meere positive Worship it must be so it must have either Precept or Apostolicall example equivalent to a precept found in the New Testament else it is will-worship and this say you is our case in hand I answer as before there is no absolute necessitie that every circumstance of an Ordinance or the severall Sexes or ages to whom an Ordinance ought to bee applyed must bee thus set downe in the New Testament this is sufficiently cleared Part 2. Sect. 8. and part 3. Sect. 1. As for the forbidden degrees of marriage you say there is one branch mentioned and censured in the New Testament viz. the incestâ—ouâ— Corinthians case and that is say you a finne against a morall commandement but how would you laugh at such a consequence in another a man may not marry his fathers wife a thing which by the light of nature was abborred amongst the Heathens Ergo
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