be given why these Infants did belong to Gods Kingdome because they were such as Christ would blesse and then all that you can gather from hence will be that of the Infants of Believers whom Christ blesseth is the Kingdome of heaven But this will never prove your Assumption except you can prove that Christ blesseth all the Infants of Believers Lastly Christs action in this businesse is proper to him as the great Prophet of the Church and extraordinary and therefore yeelds no ground for an ordinary rule of baptizing by the publique Ministery And if an ordinary rule should be made in imitation of it it would serve better for the proving the Sacrament of confirmation which Art 25. of the Church of England puts among things grown from a corrupt following the Apostles then Baptisme And in all probability if Christ would have this accident to be a rule or precedent for bringing Infants to him by a visible signe in the new Testament as Mr. Thomâ—s Goodwin at Bow dictated he would have appointed his Apostles to have baptized these Infants as a samplar For which reason it seems to me that this example rather shews Christ would not have Infants baptized then that he intended to make this accident a precedent for paedobaptisme But you will prove your Minor by reasons and thus you reason Beside what one thing can be named belonging to the initiation and being of a Christian whereof Baptisme is a seal which Infants are not capable of as well as grown men they are capable of receiving the Holy Ghost of union with Christ of adoption of forgivenesse of sins of regeneration of everlasting life all which things are signified and seâ—led in the Sacrament of Baptisme I may apply to you the words of Horace Amphora coepit institui currente rota curâ—â—recus exit A barrell began to be made why the wheel running doth a pitcher come forth The thing you should prove is that all the Infants of Believers are actually partakers of the inward grace of Baptisme but in stead of this you prove they are capable of it they may have it but doth it therefore follow that they actually have it It was once an Axiome in the Schools a posse ad esse non valet argumentum from it may be â—o it is an Argument holds not and I think it is so still Besides must children be baptized because they are capable of Grace Then may all children be baptized for they are all capable of the inward Grace of Baptisme But you have yet something more to say And it is further considerable that in the working of that inward grace of which Baptisme is the signe and seal all who partake of that grace are but meer patients and contribute no more to it then a childâ— doth to its own begetting and therefore Infants as fit subjects to have it wrought in them as grown men and the most grown men are in no more fitnesse to receive this grace when it is given them in respect either of any faith or repentance which they yet have then a very little childe it being the primary intention of the covenant of Grace in its first work to shew what free grace can and will do to miserable nothing to cut miserable man off from the wild Olive and graffe him into the true Olive to take away the heart of stone â—o create in them a heart of flesh to forgive their iniquities to love them freely what doth the most grown men in any of these more then an Infant may do being only passive in them all and of this first grace is the Sacrament of Baptisme properly a seal That which you say it is true is further considerable but to what purpose it is here brought in I cannot readily divine whether it be for a proof of the Minor of your Syllogisme or that which you said immediatly before that Infants are capable of the inward grace of Baptisme or whether you would make a further Argument for Infant-baptisme thus Baptisme is to be given to those that are capable of the first grace as well as grown men and the proof of this seems to be because Baptisme seals properly the first grace But Infants are capable of the first grace as well as grown men and the proof of this seems to be because all who partake of that grace are but meer patients c. Therefore Infants are to be baptized as well as grown men If this be your Argument the Major is to be denyed For a person is not to be baptized because he may have grace but because he hath it And for the reason that Baptisme seals properly the first grace it is obscure what you mean by the first grace is not cleare If the free favour of God mentioned before when you say to love them freely this indeed is the first grace simply Gods eternall love and election and I deny not but Baptisme seals it in some sense properly and so doth the Lords Supper as properly if you mean by the first grace the covenant of Grace which is the first transient act of grace that also is sealed properly in Baptisme and as properly in the Lords Supper if you mean the first grace in execution it is uncertain which you put first justification or regeneration or as some adoption And then which is the second grace is uncertain whether after-sanctification cooperating concomitant subsequent grace sustentation against temptations remission of sins hearing prayers or eternall glory Now I do not well understand in what sense or why Baptisme seals properly rather the first grace then the second sith according to your doctrine it is a seal of the covenant of grace and therefore of all the promises in it Nor can I tell why it should be said that Baptisme seals the first grace properly rather then the Lords Supper I confesse in exactnesse of speech Baptisme seals no grace first or second properly taking it for propriety of speech but improperly because metaphorically as sealing is taken for assuring And if properly notes propriety of right or title or possession in opposition to anothers or that which is alien I see not how Baptisme doth seal that is assure the first grace in respect of the propriety of right more then the second or more then the Lords Supper And therefore your speech seems to me very ambiguous And for the Minor as I conceive you frame it that Infants are capable of the first grace as well as grown men it is true and so they are of the second or at least some of them but both by extraordinary working As for receiving grace by ordinary means they are not capable of one or other And for the speeches which you heap together though I grant that in the first conversion in the sense that some learned men understand it we are meerly passive yet I doubt whether Dr. Twisse and such as have most acutely handled the controversie about the irresistibility of grace in the
that God commanded the one but no where the other and your self say pag. 84. Our knowledge of the will of Christ is that which is the only direction we are to follow But you adde a second answer which I let passe because it is but a declaration of your own conceits how you conceive a childe may seal the covenant in his infancy telling us that their name is put into the Deed and that a child may seal fiâ—st in infancy and then after agnize it and that God is pleased to seal to Infants while they are such and to accept such a seal as they can give without any proof but only spinning out the simile of a seal as if Gods wayes were like mans wayes or a simile did gâ—â—deare in omnibus a similitude were even in all things only where you say that in the mean time Jesus Christ who is the surety of the covenant and surety of all the covenanters is pleased to be their surety this speech is further to be examined 'T is true Jesus Christ is the surety of a better Testament Heb. 7.12 he is the surety of all the covenanters he doth strike hands and becomes a surety of the whole covenant and of every condition in it take it in the largest sense and this of all both on Gods part and ours as very rightly and excellently Mr. Thomas Goodwin in his Teatise intituled Christ set forth Sect. 3. Chap. 3. And to like purpose Mr. Rutherfurd The triall and triumph of Faith serm 7. But are any other among men covenanters but the elect who are purchased by the blood of the everlasting covenant Heb. 13.20 It is a very inconsiderate boldnesse in you to make every baptized person or at least every baptized Infant of a Believer a covenanter for whom Christ is a surety and one to whom God seals when the Scripture makes Christ the surety only for his redeemed ones as may be gathered out of sundry places in the Epistle to the Hebrews but I doubt not but when you have considered it a little better you will easily espie your error in these dictates and therefore I passe on to the next objection BVt what benefit comes to children by such kinde of sealing as this is it seems then say they by your own confession that this is but a conditionall sealing on Gods part viz. that they own it and ratifie it when they come to age and if they then refuse to stand to it all is then nullified were it noâ— therefore better to deferre iâ— to their yeers of discretion to see whether they will then make it their own voluntary act yea or no. In what sense baptizâ—ng may be called sealing I have above shewed Part. 3. Sect. 12. but I cannot allow of this to say that God seals to every one that is baptized It is true that Baptisme is in its nature a seal of the righteousnesse of faith 1 Pet. 3.21 but yet God doth not seal this to every one that is baptized but only to true believers For what is Gods sealing but the confirming of his promise But God promiseth righteousnesse only to Believers therefore he seals only to Believers As for the sealing by God upon condition persons agnize the covenant it is but a notion the Scripture makes not Gods promise in the covenant of Grace conditionall in that sense For Gods promise is for those he enters into covenant with That he will put his Law in their hearts and in their mindes will write them Heb. 10.16 Nor do I know any but Corvinus in his Examen of Moulins Anatomy chap. 9. sect 6. and the Arminians that do so speak of Gods covenant of Grace as if it were common to the elect and reprobates and conditionall in this sense as if God left it to mens liberty to whom he had sealed to agnize or recognize that sealing or to free themselves if they please and so nullifie all yet so as to afford them a while the favour and priviledge of being in covenant with him as you speak I appeal to them who have been conversant in the writings of the Arminians whether these speeches do not symbolize with their language And therefore this that you make an objection I look on as a frivolous supposing a Chimaera and then disputing about it But yet there are some things I shall take notice of in your answer The question is What benefit to Infants by such a sealing you answer thus This objection lay as strongly against Gods wisedome in requiring the Jews Infants even in their infancy thus to seal and therefore argues no great wisdome or modesty in man who would thus reason with God about his administrations It is true God appointed the male children of Abrahams family to be circumcised and thereby they were bound to keep the whole Law and it were a sinfull presumption to reason with God about it and in like manner if God had appointed Infants to be baptized it would silence all arguings about it though we knew not the reason but how it is to be understood that God required the Jews even in their infancy to seal I do not well understand our sealing to God is believing Joh. 3.33 I do not finde that God required this of the Jews Infants in their infancy nor of our Infants nor was Circumcision it self the Infants duty required by God of the Infant though it were its priviledge it was the parents duty Exod. 4.24 You say secondly God hath other ends and uses of applying the seal of the covenant to them who are in covenant with him then their present gain it 's â— homage worship and honour to himself and it behoves us even in that respect to fulfill all righteousnesse when Christ was baptized and circumcised he was as unfit for the Ordinance through his perfection as children through their imperfection being as much above them as children are below them It is true Baptisme is a worship of God but Paedobaptisme for ought yet appears is but a will-worship Christs Baptisme it is true was of a transcendent nature as is said before that children are unfit for the Ordinance is not to be imputed to their imperfection but to the defect of Gods appointment if God did appoint it there would be no doubt of their fitnesse But you adde further 3. I answer The benefit and fruit of it at the present is very much both to the parents and to the children to the parents first whilest God doth thereby honour them to have their children counted to his Church to his Kingdome and Family and to be under his wing and grace whilest all the other Infants in the world have their visible standing under the prince and in the kingdome of darknesse and consequently whilest others have no hope of their childrens spirituall welfare untill they be called out of that condition these need not have any doubt of their childrens welfare if they die in their infancy nor if they live
untill they shew signes to the contrary God having both reckoned them unto his people and given them all the means of salvation which an Infants age is capable of All this passage is but dictates what or how much of it is true or false hath been considered before only that you say all the other Infants of the world have their visible standing under the prince and in the kingdome of darknesse and consequently whilest others have no hope of their childrens spirituall welfare untill they be called out of that condition If you mean by all other Infants all that are unbaptized though the Infants of Believers in the Church it is a very harsh and uncharitable speech and you oppose those that in dispute against the Papists concerning the necessity of Baptisme to salvation do hold that Infants of Believers are holy and in the Church afore they be baptized and joyn with Lutherans and Papists denying it if you mean only the unbaptized Infants of Infidels what comfort do you give more to believing parents that have their children baptized then belongs to them though their children were not baptized And when you say that all others have no hope of their childrens spirituall welfare if you mean it of believing parents that baptize not their children it is in like manner an uncharitable speech and doth border too neer on the opinion of the necessity of Baptisme for Infants to salvation and when you say these need not have any doubt of their childrens welfare if they die in their infancy if you mean it of parents because their children are baptized you do speak like one that did hold that Baptisme doth conferre gratiam ex opere operato conferre grace by the work done but for ought you can shew out of Scripture a believing parent hath as much ground of hope for his Infant that dies unbaptized as for the baptized and as much reason of doubt concerning the baptized as the unbaptized And therefore what you here speak doth no whit encourage parents to baptize children if it be well weighed except there can be proved an institution and a promise But you say secondly here is much priviledge and benefit to the children when as beside what inward secret work God is pleased to work in them they being members of the Church of Christ have their share in the communion of Saints are remembred at the Throne of grace every day by those that pray for the welfare of the Church and particularly in those prayers which are made for his blessing upon his Ordinances By your parenthesis you intimate some inward secret work God is pleased to work in the Infants baptized by Baptisme If you conceive a bestowing of grace ex opere operato by the work done or baptismall initiall regeneration of the elect supposed to be in the Infants in baptisme notwithstanding till death they live wickedly speak plainly that we may know what you mean and then an answer may be framed to your speâ—ch As for being members of the Church if you meâ—n the invisible Church neither I nor you can affirm or deny it s in Gods bosome alone if you mean the visible you must make a new definition of the visible Church afore Infants baptized will be proved members For their remembring at the Throne of grace daily if you mean it particularly and by name I do not finde that to be in use after Baptisme any more then afore and I think they are remembred by the godly in generall as well afore Baptisme as after and for the praying for Gods blessing upon his Ordinances if Infant-baptisme be not Gods Ordinance this prayer in reference to Infant-baptisme at that time might be better spared You say And lastly it 's no small priviledge to have that seale bestowed on them in their infancy which may afterwards plead when they are growne and come to fulfill the condition When where and how Baptisme should be pleaded as you shew not neither doe I well conceive It is not Baptisme of it selfe that will yeeld a plea of any force either in foro soli in the Court of earth or in foro poli in the Court of heaven but the promise of God and the condition of faith in Christ. And these will be good pleas in prayeâ—s to God and in the court of conscience when Infant-baptisme will stand in no stead The plea of the Apostle will hold Rom. 8.31 32 33 34. which baptisme rightly administred doth strengthen 1 Pet. 3.21 But I never knew any Saint that pleaded his infant-baptisme in such cases YOu say further But if their being capable of the spirituall part must intitle them to the outward signe why then doe we not also admit them to the Sacrament of the Lords Supper which is the seale of the Covenant of grace as well as the Sacrament of Baptisme And this is urged the rather because say they the infants of the Jewes did eate of the Passeover as well as were circumcised Now if our infants have every way as large a priviledge as the infants of the Jewes had then can we not deny them the same priviledge which their infants had and consequently they must partake of the one Sacrament as well as the other This argument is good ad homines against the partie opposite proceeding upon the Paedobaptists hypotheses or suppositions to wit 1. That those to whom the Covenant belongs to them the seale belongs 2. That to the infants of believers the Covenant belongs 3. That the Lords Supper is a seale of the Covenant as well as Baptisme And these are your hypotheses Now then if this be a good argument children are to be baptized because they are in the Covenant and the seale belongs to those in Covenant by the same reason they are to receive the Lords Supper because they are in Covenant and the seale belongs to those in Covenant Now this argument is strengthened from other hypotheses as that the Lords Supper succeeds the Passeover as Baptisme Circumcision but children not of yeares of discretion had the Passeover therefore they are to havâ— the Lords Supper And this is confirmed by the practise and opinion of the Ancients that gave the Lords Supper to infants for 600 yeares after Christ as well as baptisme To this you say I answer that infants are capable of the grace of Baptisme we are sure not sure that they are capable of the grace signed and sealed in the Sacrament of the Lords Supper This answer supposeth that there is grace sealed in the Lords Supper which is not sealed in Baptisme To me that Sacrament that confirmes the covenant of grace confirmes all the promises in it and therefore if Baptisme be the seale of the covenant it seales all the graces and all the promises in it and therefore you are as sure that infants are capable of all graces annexed to the Covenant as of one But you say For both of them are seales of the new Covenant yet it is
them to him by his Spirit forgiving them their birth-sin through Christs obedience â—lthough they be not baptized As corrupt as the Schoolmen were they could say Gratia Dei non alligatur Sacramentis The grace of God is not tyed to Sacraments If most of the Anabaptists hold universall grace and free-will there may be as much said of most of the paedobaptists taking in a great part of the Papists almost all the Lutherans and Arminians and if they denyed originall sin it is their dangerous error but it is not consequent on their denying Paedobaptisme But the late confession of faith made â—n the name of 7. Churches of them in London Art 4 5 21 22 23 24 26. will abundantly answer for them in this point of Pelagianisme The third is Or that although they be tainted with originall corruption and so need a Saviour Christ doth pro bene placito save some of the infants of Turks and Indians dying in their infancy as well as some of the infants of Christians and so carry salvation by Christ out of the Church beyond the Covenant of grace where God never made any promise Nor doth this follow for it may be said all that dye in their infancy are not damned nor all saved because they have no birth-sin nor some of the Indians saved For the some that may be saved may be the infants of believers to whom God may forgive their birth-sin without baptisme Thus you may perceive how the push of all the horns of your horned Syllogisme may be avoyded But you conceive it a great absurdity to say That Christ doth pro bene placito save some of the infants of Indians it is true it is a bold saying to say he doth save them but â—is as bad to say that God may not save them pro bene placito according to his good pleasure He hath mercy on whom he will have mercy Buâ— then salvation by Christ is carried out of the Church where he hath made no promise if you mean by the Church the invisible Church of the elect the Church of the first-born that are written in heaven of which Protestant Divines as Morton de Ecclesia and others against Bellarmine understand that saying Extra Ecclesiam non est salus without the Church is no salvation then it follows noâ— that if the infants of Indians be saved salvation is carryed without the Church for they may be of the invisible Church of the elect to whom belongs the promise made to Abraham I will be thy God and the God of thy seed But if you mean it of the visible though I disclaim Zuinglius his opinion who was a stiffe assertor of Paedobaptisme and I think the founder of the new way of maintaining it by the new addition to the Covenant of grace that Hercules Arist des Socrates Numa and such like heathens are now in heaven yet I cannot say no persons without the communion of the visiblâ— Church are saved He that could call Abraham in Vr of Chaldea Job in the land of Vz and Rahab in Jericho may save some amongst Turks and Indians out of the visible Church You will not call Rome a true visible Church nor will you I think say that all are damned that are in Rome You adde That God hath made a promise to be the God of believers and of their seed we all know If you know it yet I professe my ignorance of such a promise I reade indeed of a promise made to Abraham That he would be his God and the God of his seed and I reade That they that are of the faith of Abraham are the children of Abraham Gal. 3.7.29 Rom. 4.11 12 13 16. But I am yet to seek for that promise you speake of to be the God of believers and their seed You say But where the promise is to be found that he will be thâ— God of the seed of such Parents who live and die his enemies and theâ—â— seed not so much as called by the preaching of the Gospel I know not Nor do I. Only I know this I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion Rom. 9.15 which is the Apostles answer in this very case Thus have I entred your out-works I shall now try the strength of your walls I mean the third part of your Sermon Infant-baptisme cannot be deduced from holy Scripture PART III. Concerning the Arguments from Scripture for Infant-baptism YOu say My first argument to â—his The Infants of believing parents are foederati therefore they must be signati They are within the Covenant of Grace belonging to Christs body Kingdome Family therefore are to partake of the seal of his covenant or the distinguishing badge between them who are under the Covenant of grace and them who are not The ordinary answer to this argument is by denying that Infants are under the Covenant of grace only some few deny the consequence that although they were within the Covenant yet it follows not that they must be sealed because say they the women among the Jews were under the covenant yet received not circumcision which was the seal of the Covenant They that deny the consequence of your argument do it justly for the consequence must be proved by this universall All that are foederati must be signati all that are in the covenant of Grace must be sealed which is not true If it were true it must be so either by reason of some necessary connexion between the termes which is none for it is but a common accident to a man that hath a promise or a covenant made to him that he should have a speciall sign it may adesse vel abesse a subjecto it may be present or absent from the subject God made a speciall promise to Joshuah that he should bring Israel into the Land of Canaan to Phineas a covenant of an everlasting Priesthood without any speciall sign or seal distinct from the Covenant or else it must be so by reason of Gods will declared concerning the covenant of Grace but that is not true The promise made to Adam which you confesse was the same in substance with the covenant of Grace had no speciall sign or seal annexed to it Noah Abel were within the covenant of Grace yet no speciall sign appointed them therefore it is not Gods will that all that are foederati in the Covenant must be signati Sealed if they had been signati though they were foederati it had been will-worship God not appointing it to them But you will say all that are foederati should be signati since the solemn Covenant with Abraham But neither is this certain sith we finde no such thing concerning Melchizedeck and Lot that lived in Abrahams time nor concerning Job that it 's conceived lived after his time You will say but it is true of all the foederati in Abrahams family but neither is that true for male children before
did only contain the covenant of Grace in Christ whereas it is apparent ouâ— of the Text that the Covenant was a mixt Covenant consisting of temporall benefits to wit the multiplying of his seed v. 6. the possâ—ssion of Canaan v. 8. the birth of Isaac v. 16. and the spirituall blessings v. 5 7. Yea Cameron thâ—sibus de triplici foedere Dei thesi 78. saith That circumcision did primarily separate Abrahams seed from other Nations sealed the earthly promise it signified sanctification secondarily And indeed this is so plainly delivered in the Scripture that the Psalmist cals the promise of Canaaâ— the covenant made with Abraham Ps. 105.8 9 10 11. He hath remembred his Covenant for ever the word which he commanded to a thousand generations which Covenant he made with Abraham and his Oath unto Isaac and confirmed the same to Jacob for a Law and to Israel for an everlasting covenant Saying unto thee will I give the Land of Canaan the lot of your inheritance If you should say that these promises were types of spirituâ—ll and heavenly things the reply is that though it be true yet the things promised were but carnall and earthly as the Sacrifices were but carnall things though shadowes of spirituall 2. When you say thus The manner of administration of this Covenant was at first by types and shadowes and sacrifices c. It had been convenient to have named Circumcision that it might not be conceived to belong to the substance of the Covenant But of this there may be more occasion to speak at pag. 35. of your Sermon 3. Whereas pag. 14. you place among the third sort of Abrahams seed Proselytes that were selfe-justitiaries carnall and formall professors it behoved you to shew where in Scripture they are called Abrahams seed which I think you cannot Yea the truth is you herein joyn with Arminius who in his Analysis of the 9. to the Romans makes this as the ground of his wresting that Scripture that there is a seed of Abraham mentioned Romans 4.9 10. and Galat. 3. 4. cap. Qui per opera legis justitiam salutem consequuntur Who follow after righteousnesse and salvation by the works of the Law To whom Baine on Eph. 1.5 p. 139. answers Beside though the sons of the flesh may signifie such who carnally not spiritually conceive of the Law yet the seed of Abraham without any adjoyned is never so taken But it is yet stranger to me that which Mr. Blake hath pag. 9. where he saith That there yet remaines in the bosome of the Church a distinction of the seed of Abraham borne after the flesh and after the spirit And that now by vertue of being born after the flesh some have a Church-interest And applies that of Gal. 4 29. Even so it is now to children born of believing parents after the flesh as having there by title to Church-interest Which passages are very grosse though he makes this the medium of his fourth Argument For first whereas the Apostle by being born after the flesh means not infants born of believing parents but those that are under the covenant of Mount Sinai that is who sought righteousnesse by the law and not by faith Mr. Blake means by being born after the flesh birth by naturall generation of infants born of Christian parents 2. Whereas he saith that such are in the bosome of the Church the Apostle saith they persecute the Church and are cast out 3. Whereas â—e makes such Abrahams seed he therein joyns with Arminius against the truâ—h and against the Apostle for though the Apostle makes Ismael to be the son of Abraham and speaks of him as born after the flesh whom he typically makes to represent legall justitiaries yet doth he not call Abrahams seed simply such justitiaries 4. Whereas the covenant of grace is made the reason of baptizing infants by alleâ—ging this place for baptizing of infants To be born of Hagar that is to be in the covenant of works should give a child interest into the Church of Christ. For my part I can see no other consequence than this of that cloudy argument The rest of your explication of the first Conclusion I let passe without any further animadversions as being unwilling sectare minutias to insist on small things or to stand upon matters of expression where I think you mean right and your words are likely to be so taken YOur second Conclusion is this Ever-since God gathered a distinct number out of the world to be his Kingdom City household in opposition to the rest of the world which is the kingdom city and houshold of Sathan He would have the Infants of all who are taken into Covenant with him to be accounted his to belong to him to his Church and family and not to the Devils This Conclusion you expresse so ambiguously that it is a Cothurnus a buskin that may be put on either legge right or left which should not have been in the main Proposition upon which the whole frame of your Argument hangs You say The Infants of all who are taken into covenant with God are to be accounted his but you tell us not in what sense this is to be understood For whereas persons may be said to be accounted his either before God or in facie Ecclesiae visibilis in the face of the visible Church 1. Before God either in respect of his election from eternity or his promise of grace in Christ congruous to it Or of their present estate of inbeing in Christ or the future estate they shall have 2. In facie Ecclesiae visibilis persons may be said to be accounted God's either as born among his people and so potentially members of the Church as being in a way to be in time actuall members of the Church of Christ or who already enquire after God and professe Christ though they do not well understand the doctrine of Christian Religion such as the Catechumeni of old were or they are to be accounted his in respect of actuall participation of Baptisme and the Lords supper 3. The accounting of them to be God's may be either an act of science or faith or opinion and that grounded on a rule of charity of prudence or probable hope for the future You do not declare distinctly in which of these senses or respects the Infants of all who are taken into covenant with God are to be accounted his so that I am almost at a stand what to deny or grant It cannot be denied but God would have the infants of believers in some sort to be accounted his to belong to him his Church and family and not to the Devils which expression I fear you use in this and other places ad faciendum populum to please the peoplâ— It is true in facie Ecclesiae visibilis the infants of believers are to be accounted Gods to belong to his family and church and not to the Devils as being in a neer possibility of
being members of the church of God by an act of opinion grounded on probable hopes for the future But to make them actually members of the visible Church is to overthrow the definitions of the visible Church that Protestant writers give particularly the Church of England Art 19. who make the visible Church a number of Chrâ—stians by profession to make a member of the visible Church â—o whom the note of a member of the visible Church doth not agree to make them visible members that are only passive and do nothing by which they may be denominated visible Christians Yea it will follow that there may be a visible Church which consists only of Infants of believers for a number of visible members makes a visible Church It is also true that we are not to account Infants of believers to belong to God before God in respect of election from eternity or promise of grace in Christ or present estate of in being in Christ or future estate by any act of science or of faith without a particular revelation for there is no generall declaration of God that the Infants of present believers indefinitely all or some either are elected to life or are in the covenant of grace in Christ either in respect of present in being or future estate Mr. Cotton The Covenant of Gods free-grace p. 15. Fifthly it is ordered in regard of the persons to whom it is given Gal. 3.16 It was given to Christ and in Christ to every godly man Gen. 17.7 and in every godly man to his seed God will have some of the seed of every godly man to stand before him for ever Against this passage I except That when he saith that the covenant of grace is given in every godly man to his seed he exprâ—sseth himself in an unusuall phrase so obscurely that his meaning is not easily conceived For when he saith it is given in every godly man If he mean it as he said in the words next before in Christ to every godly man that every godly man should be to his seed as Christ to eveâ—y godly man this were to make every godly man a mediator to his seed as Christ is to eveâ—y godly man which would be blasphemy If he mean that every godly man is a root of the Covenant as Abraham it is most false sith this is proper to Abrahamâ—lone â—lone to be the father of the faithfull Rom. 4.11 And the root that beares the branches whether naturall or ingrafted Rom. 11.16 c. And when he saith it is given to his seed he speaks indefinitely which may be understood universally to all his seed which is most manifestly false or else particularly as the words following seem to import But neither is this true as shall be presently shewed Nor doth he tell us whether the covenant of grace be given to the godly mans seed absoluâ—ely as his seed which if he affiâ—m then he must affirm the covenant of grace is given to all the seed of evâ—ry godly man for Quatenus ipsum includes de omni That which is said of any thing as such agrees to all that are such Or whether it be given conditionally Now it is true that some promises do sâ—ppâ—se a condiâ—ion as justification presupposeth believing and if this be the meaning the Covenant of grace is given to every godly man and in every godly man to his seed if they do believe then it is no more then the Covenant of grace is given to every godly man and then it is but trifling to adde and in every godly man to his seed sith nothing more is expressed but what was said before nor any thing convayed from the godly man to his seed some promises have no condition as the promise of writing Gods Laws in our hearts for if any condition be put we shall fall into Pelagianisme that grace is given according to our merits 2. That which he saith he saith without any proofe at all yea contrary to the expresse words of the Apostle Rom. 4.11 l2 13. Rom. 9.6 7 8. Gal. 3.7 14 29. who limiteth this promise Gen. 17.7 to the seed of Abraham and the seed of Abraham he explains to be the elect and believers only whether of Jews or Gentiles and those of the Jews that are in that Covenant not to be in that Covenant because Abrahams naturall seed though God have more regard in his election and covenant of grace to Abrahams naturall seed then to any other godly mans naturall seed that hath been since but as his seed by calling And for that which he saith God will have some of the seed of every godly man to stand before him for ever meaning this as I conceive of election and covenant of grace or some state consequent upon these it is but a bold dictate without proofe imposing on Gods counsell and covenant especially sith God hath declared so expresly after the Covenant Gen. 17.7 That he will have mercy on whom he will have mercy Exod. 33.19 whence the Apostle infers Rom. 9.18 an unlimited freedome notwâ—thstanding his Covenant to Abraham to shew mercy on whom he will any other being passed by and therefore that promise wâ—s made good to Abraham in the calling of the Gentiles Rom. 9.24 Rom. 4 16 17. yea John Baptist saith That God could raise up children to Abraham out of stones Mat. 3.9 And for the thing it selfe it is not true That God will have some of the seed of every godly man to stand before him for ever For millions of godly persons die childlesse as Abel c. millions that have children yet their posterity are rooted up Were there not other godly persons from Seth to Noah besides thâ—se mentioned in the Genealogy Gen. 5. yet it is certain that none of their seed stood before God at the time of the Flood but Noah and some of his Is it not more likely that none of Elies children or Samuels stood before God in Mr. Cottons sense Besides if that which Mr. Cotton saith were true how is it that the Candlestick is removed quite from some people and the naturall branches broken off and the branches besides nature even of the wilde Olive graffed into the true Olive Then suppose a godly man have but one childe that childe must infalliby stand before God It is said indeed Jer. 35.19 and Mr. Cotton seems to allude to it Jonadab the son of Rechab shall not want a man to stand before me for ever But this standing before God is not meant of election to eternall life and the covenant of grace but of preservation in the destruction of Jerusalem and being after the Captivity of Babylon Scribes as Junius annot in Jerem. 35.19 gathers from 1 Chron. 2.55 and for ever is in many places meant of a temporall duration for some ages This digression will not be thought unnecâ—ssary by those that know how apt many are to swallow down such mens dictates without examination But I proceed Nor are we
but a derivative holines a holines derived to them froÌ„ their ancestors the first fruit is holy the lump holy the root holy the branches holy that is the fathers holy accepted in covenant with God the children beloved for their fathers sake and when the vail of unbelief shall be taken away the children and their posterity shal be taken in again because beloved for their fathers sakes Now then if our graffing in be answerable to theirs in all or any of these three particulars we and our children are graffed in together Your argument needs a swimmer of Delos to bring it out of the deep I will dive as deep as I can to fetch it up the thing it seems you would prove is that we and our children are grâ—ffed in together but the words are Metaphoricall and therefore obscure they may be true in a sense and yet not for your purpose The insition you speak of may be either into the visible or invsible church the graffing in may be either by faith or by profession of faith or by some outward ordinance Children may be either grown men or infants the graffing in may be either certain or probable certain either by reason of election covenant of grace made by them or naturall birth being children of believers probable as being likely either because frâ—quently or for the the most part it happens so though not necessary so not certain The thing that is to be proved is that all the infants of every believer are in the covenant of free grace in Christ by vertue thereof to be baptized into the communion of the vâ—sible church now it may be granted that infants of believers are frequently or for the most part under the election covenant of gracâ— whâ—ch whether it be so or not no meere man can tâ—l and so in the visible chuâ—ch yet it not follow that every infant of a believer in asmuch as he is tâ—e child of a beliâ—ver is under the covenant of grace therefore by baptisme is to be admitted into the visible church now let it be never so probâ—ble that God continues his election in the posterity of bâ—lievers accordingly hath promised to be thâ—ir God in his covenant of grace yet if this be the rule of baptizing children of beleivers no other infants are to bâ— baptized but such as are thus the practise must agree with the rulâ— so not all infants of believers are to be baptized but the elect in the covenant of grace If it be said but we are to judge all to be elected in the covenant of grace till the contrary appeares I answer that we are not to judge all to be â—lâ—cted or in the covenant of grace because we have Gods declaration of his mind to the contrary Rom. 9.6 7 8. and all experience proves the contrary to be truâ— nor is the administration of an outward ordinaÌ„ce instituted by God according to such a rule as is not possible to be known but according to that which is manifest to the ministers of it therefore sith God conceals his purpose of election and the covenant of grâ—ce which is congruous to it in respect of the persons elected it is certain God would not have this the rule according to which outward ordinances are to be administred because such persons are in the election and covenant of grace not others You say our graffing in is answerable to the Jews and their infants were graffed in by circuÌ„cision therefore ours are to be graffed in by baptism But in good sadnesse doe you thinke the Apostle here meanes by graffing in baptizing or circumcision or insition by an outward ordinance if that were the meâ—ning then breaking off must be meant of uncircumcising or unbâ—ptizing The whole context spâ—aks of election of some and rejection of others of the breaking off by uâ—beliefe and the standing by faith and your selfe seeme to understand the phrase so when you say pag. 43. to cut miserable man off from the wilde olive and graffe him into the true olive Tâ—e ingraffing to me is meant of the invisible church by election and faith which invisible church was first amongst the Jews and therefore called the olive out of Abraham the root who is therefore said to beare them And because Abraham had a double capacitie one of a naturall father and another of the father of the faithfull in respect of the former câ—pacitie some are called branches according to nature others wilde olives by nature yet graffed in by faith and when it is said that some of the naturall branches were broken off the meaning is not that some of the branches in the invisible church may be broken off but as when our Saviour Christ saith using the same similitude Joh. 15.2 Every branch in me not bearing fruit he taketh away The meaning is not that any branch truely in him câ—uld be fruitlesse or taken away but he calleth that a branch in him which was only so in appearance So the Apostle speaking of branches broken off meanes it not of such as were truely so but in appearance For similitudes doe not runne with four feet but vary in some things Now if this be the meaning of your words that the insition of the Gentiles is the same with the Jewes and the insition is meant of ingraffing by faith into the invâ—sible church it onely proves this that now beleâ—vâ—rs of Gentiles are by faith in the church of the elect as the Jewes but neither the beleeving Jewes Infants were in the covenant of grace becâ—use their children nor are our children But let us consider the three particulars you speake of that we may examine whether there be any shew of an argument for your purpose in this text You say as plaine it is out of the eleventh of Rom. 16 c. where the Apostles scope is to shew that we Gentiles have now the same graffing into the true olive which the Jews formerly had and our present graffing in is answerable to their present casting out and their taking in in the latter end of the world shal be the same graffing in though more gloriously as ours is now The Apostles scope in the whole chapter is plaine to answer that question v. 1. Hath God cast away his people which he doth 1. by shewing for the present in himselfe and others perhaps unknowne That God had then a remnant according to the election of grace 2. For the future from ver 11. to the end that he intends a calling of all Israel when the fulnesse of the Gentiles shall come in and ver 16. is one argument to prove it It is not the scope of the Apostle as you say To shew that the Gentiles have now the same graffing into the true Olive which the Jews formerly had but to prove that the Jews notwithstanding their presâ—nt defraction shall be graffed into their owne Olive But for the thing it selfe You say That the Gentiles havâ— now
as Mr. Mather in answer to Mr. Herle or that there must be an imparity in the Clergy and so Bishops above Presbyters as the Prelates Bilson Davenâ—nt Dâ—terminat Quest. 42. and others were wont to argue or that a Doctor in Divinity may be a Justice of Peace because Eli and Samuel were Judges as the Prelaticall Doctors or that there must be a Pope because there was an High Priest as Bellarmine and the Papists If the consequence be not good in the one neither is it in the other You say in the next words that the Lords Supper succeeds in the room of the Passeover This I confesse goes current but the Scripture doth not say so that I know The Scripture expresly saith that Christ our Passeover was sacrificed for us 1 Cor. 5.7 It iâ— true the Lords Supper was appointed after the Paschal Supper but it is but our collection that thereby the Lord would make an end of the Passeover and substitute the other in its room In other places we rather finde the Lords Supper to answer the Manna and the Rock or water out of the Rock in the Wildernesse 1 Cor. 10.3 4. It is true the Apostle 1 Cor. 10.16 17. argues from the eating of the sacrifices to the eating of the Lords Supper But that was not only from the Passeover but from the rest of the peace-offerings as well as it yea from the Heathens feasts upon their sacrifices It is true 1 Cor. 5.8 we are required to keep the feast and the allusion is to the Paschal Supper but whether the keeping the feast be meant of the Lords Supper or as Beza paraphraseth it totam vitam in justitia integritate consumamus let us spend our whole life in justice and integrity or something else sub judice lis est is a controversie undetermined But let it be granted that the Lords Supper imitates I will not say succeeds into the room of the Jewish Passeover for that was a sacrifice and Christ offered is only in stead of it the Paschal Supper which because of the time and the form of words used in the institution and such like circumstances is very probable and therefore there is great Analogy between them yet he that should argue therefore we must receive the Lords Supper with unleavened bread as the Papists or that the bread and wine must be first consecrated on an Altar as was the Paschal Lamb or that the Lords Supper is not to be administred but in a Church gathered after the Church-way as the Elders of New-England in answer to the nine Positions or that we must keep an Easter and then have the Lords Supper as in ancient and later times hath been conceived you would reject these things as ill gathered and perhaps call them superstitious But whether these and more like to them do not as well follow as baptizing of Infants from circumcision of Infants because of their Analogy I leave to your self to consider You adde And this our Lord himself taught us by his own example who was circumcised as a professed member of the Church of the Jews and when he set up the new Christian Church he would be initiated into it by the Sacrament of Baptisme It is confessed that Christ was circumcised and baptized but that it was to teach us by his example either your conclusion or the agreements between Baptisme and Circumcision which you set down or that which next goes before your speech the succession of the Lords Supper to the Passeover remains yet to be proved much more that which you drive at that there is such a parity or rather identity between Baptisme and Circumcision that the command to circumcise Infants is a command to baptize Infants The circumcision of Christ was undoubtedly as his presenting in the Temple and the offering for him to accomplish the Law under which it pleased him to be made of a woman Gal. 4.4 5. and it had a spirituall use to assure our circumcision in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh Col. 2.11 This is certain we have cleare Scripture for it if you shall shew the like Scriptures for the inferences you make from Christs circumcision I shall imbrace them with both arms The Baptisme of Christ was that Christ might fulfill all righteousnesse Mat. 3.15 But how to expound this speech hath not a little difficulty Various conjectures there are about the meaning of it this seems to me most likely that righteousnesse is there taken for that which was appointed by God either in secret instructions or some particular Prophecy from God But then if it be asked why God did appoint it this seems most likely sith it is plain that this was the time of Christs anointing with the Spirit as appears Luke 4.18 that Baptisme was used to signifie his anointing by the Spirit for his great function he was then to enter on which me thinks the story it self and the speech of Peter Acts 10.37 38. do evince That which you say That being to set up the new Christian Church he would be initiated into it by the Sacrament of Baptisme seems not probable partly because Christ did not set up in his own dayes on earth a visible Church Discipline and Worship distinct from the Jewish partly because his Baptisme was of a far higher nature then our Baptisme Who was anointed with the oyl of gladnesse above his fellows Heb. 1.9 and therefore his Baptisme was of a transcendent nature above ours But if it were granted that Christs Baptisme were to teach us that he that is a member of the Church must be initiated by baptisme it will rather disadvantage your cause then advantage it sith Christ who was the holy One of God and the Angel of the Covenant and the seed of Abraham in whom all the nations of the earth should be blessed to whom the promises were made in whom the Covenant was confirmed Gal. 3.16 17. yet was not baptized till he began to be about thirty yeers of age Luke 3.23 So that you see how little help you have from your parities or Christs example to prove a like reason of circumcising and baptizing Infants But you have yet another string to your bow out of Col. 2.11 12. I will follow you to try the strength of that also You say of this conclusion there iâ— no great doubt but becâ—use some of the Anabaptists do deny the Sâ—crament of Baptisme to succeed into the room place and use of Circumcision be pleased to observe how plain the Apostle makes it Col. 2.8 9 10 11 12. It is necessary that I should first consider in what sense your Position is to be taken before I examine your proof for it The thing that you say the Apostle makes plain is that the Sacrament of Baptisme doth succeed in the room place and use of Circumcision Succession properly notes a coming after another as we say Kings succeed one another High priests one after another To speak exactly Baptisme
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of such like that is such as are graced with such like qualities who are humble and meek as children are and that Luke 18. is parallel to this in the meaning of it whosoever doth not receive the Kingdome of heaven as a little child be shall not enter therein But I answer though it be true that in other places this is one use that Christ makes of an Infants age and condition to shew that such as receive the Kingdome of heaven must be qualified with humility c. like unto children yet here it cannot be his meaning because his argument is Suffer them to come to me and forbid them not because of such is the Kingdome of God that iâ— my Church and Kingdome is made of those as well as of others This was the very cause why the disciples rebuked those who brought the children to Christ because they were little not fit to be instructed and therefore not fit that Christ should be troubled about them this Christ rebukes in them and tels them that the littlenesse of children is no argument why they should be kept from him Suffer them said he to come and forbid them not for of such is the Kingdome of God and what kinde of argument had this been if the Text should be interpreted as these men would have it Suffer little children to come unto me that I may touch them take them up in mine arms put my hands upon them and blesse them because the Kingdome of God belongeth to them who have such like qualities who resemble children in some select properties By the very same ground if any had brought doves and sheep to Christ to put his hands upon them and blesse them the Disciples had been liable to the same reproof because of such is the Kingdome of God such as are partakers of the Kingdome of God must be endued with such like properties The Minor to be proved is that all the Infants of Believers or the Infants of Believers in as much as they are Infants of Believers are actually partakers of the inward grace of Baptisme else your Argument will not serve for your purpose as hath been shewed Now neither doth the Apostles speech 1 Cor. 7.14 prove it as hath been shewed above nor doth this Text Mar. 10.14 prove it For first it is doubtfull whether these were Infants or no. I presume you are not ignorant that Piscator observat in Mat. 19.14 doth maintain that the speech of Christ is not of Infants but of children which were capable of instruction which he gathers from this that Christ called them Luke 18.16 And whereas it is said in Mark he took up in his arms the word so translated is used Mark 9.36 For the imbracing of those that were of some growth whom he placed in the midst and of whose scandalizing he there warnes nor doth the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 used Luke 18.15 translated in English Infants prove it for it signifies a childe capable of teaching as when it iâ— said Timothy knew the sacred Scripture from a childe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is ever sinne he was a boy not an Infant nor doth the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 translated brought unto him prove that they were Infants For the same word is applied to them that were guided though they were not carried but did go by themselves as the blinde and deaf Daemoniake Matth. 12.22 and the lunatick childe Matth. 17.16 To this purpose Piscator As for Mr. Thomas Goodwins reason from Julius Pollux that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth signifie one that is madidus moist or sappie it is of no force to prove that they were Infants For besides that not etymologie but use must expound words if it were so yet we know children are moist till they be adolescentes youths we say till they be of good yeers they are but a gristle tender green so that notwithstanding this the children brought to Christ might be of yeers sufficient to be catechumeni and yet fit enough to resemble humility and harmlesnesse by Secondly It is yet doubtfull whether our Saviour said of them is the Kingdome of heaven for the word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of such not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of these And Luke 18.17 Mark 10.15 both adde this speech Verely I say unto you whosoever doth not receive the Kingdome of God as a little childe shall not enter therein like to which is that Matth. 18.3 But you have two exceptions against this First because this had been no reason why they should suffer these little children to come to him because of such is the Kingdome of God Secondly he might as well have said suffer sheep or doves to come to me for of such is the Kingdome of God To these exceptions it may be replied the reason may be thus conceived therefore you should not despise that age as prophane and keep them from me for even they that are my Disciples must become children again in putting off their vices being converted unlearning what they have learned becoming humble and docible which things could not be resembled by sheep and doves Thirdly but let it be granted that these were Infants and that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is to be expounded as Beza in his Annot. on Mat. 19.14 horum similium these and the like yet there is no certainty only conjecture that they were believers Infants For though Christ was in the coasts of Judea then yet it might as well be that the children were brought by others as parents and that without faith in Christ as the Messiah upon the fame of his miracles and the conceit he was a prophet and so they might bring children to him to be blessed as Jacob and Esau by Isaac Josephs children by Jacob c. Fourthly but let it be granted they were the Infants of Believers and that it is said of these is the Kingdome of God it may be as Piscator observes referred not to theiâ— present estate as if for the present they were in the kingdome of God that is believers and justified but that they were elect persons and so in time of them should be the Kingdom of God Now that which gives right to Baptisme 〈◊〉 the present estate of a person Fifthly but let that be also granted yet all this proves not your Minor unlesse you can prove that the reason why the Kingdome of heaven belongs to Infants is common with these to other Infants of Believerâ— and the reason why theirâ— is the Kingdome of God is because they were the Infants of Believers that â—o it may be true of all the Infants of Believers But this cannot be true being contrary to expresse Scripture Rom. 9.6 7 8.13 and inferring this error that a childe hath right to the Kingdom of God in that he is the childe of a Believer And experience proves innumerable of them have no interest in the Kingdome of God Besides this reason may
An Examen OF THE SERMON Of Mr. STEPHEN MARSHAL About Infant-Baptisme in a Letter sent to him Divided into Foure Parts 1. Concerning the Antiquity of Infant-baptisme 2. Concerning the prejudices against Antipaedobaptists from their miscarriages 3. Concerning the Arguments from Scripture for Infant-baptisme 4. Concerning the Objections against Infant-baptisme In which are maintained these Positions 1. Infant-baptisme is not so ancient as is pretended but as now taught is a late Innovation 2. Antipaedobaptisme hath no ill influence on Church or Common-wealth 3. Infant-baptisme cannot be deduced from Holy Scripture 4. Infant-baptisme is a corruption of the Ordinance of Baptisme LONDON Printed by R. W. for George Whitington 1645. Infant-Baptisme Is not so Ancient as is pretended As now Taught Is a late Innovation PART I. Concerning the antiquity of Infant-Baptisme SIR IT is now full nine moneths since that being informed by one of the Members of the Assembly in which you are one that there was a Committee chosen out of the Members of the Assembly to give satisfaction in the point of Paedo-baptisme and advised by the same person out of his tender love to me to present the reasons of my doubts about Paedo-baptisme to that Committee I drew them up in Latine in nine Arguments in a scholastique way and they were delivered unto Mr. Whitaker the Chair-man of the Committee about nine moneths since to which I added after an addition of three more reasons of doubting with a supplement of some other things wanting which was delivered to Mr. Tuckney and joyned by him to the former Papers My aim therein was either to find better ground then I had then found to practise the baptizing of Infants from that Assembly of learned and holy men whom I supposed able and willing to resolve their Brother in the Minâ—stâ—ry Or else according to the solemn Covenant I have taken to endeavour the reformation of these Churches according to Gods word by informing that Assembly what I conceived amisse in the great ordinance of Baptizing The successe was such as I little expected to this day I have heard nothing from the Committee by way of answer to those doubts but I have met with many Pamphlets and some Sermons tending to make the questioning of that point odious to the People and to the Magistracie Among others reading the Sermon of Mr. Richard Vines on Ephes. 4.14 before the Lord Major and the Sermon you preached at Westminster Abbey I perceive there is such a prejudice in you and it may seem by the Vote passâ—d about the members of the visible Church in the generality of the Assembly that he is likely to be exploded if not censured that shall but dispute against it and therefore little or no likelihood that this matter will be argued as I conceive it doth deserve in your Assembly And further I perceive there is a great zeale in your spirit against the denying of Children baptisme as if it were a more cruâ—ll thing than Hazaels dashing out Childrens brains That it were an exclusion of them out of the Covenant of Grace c. Which I the more admire considering the report which hath been of you as a sober learned holy well-tempered man that you should be so transported in this matter as to be so vehement in maintaining that which was accounted heretofore in many ages but an Ecclesiasticall tradition for which you are fain to fetch a command from Circumcision and confâ—sse no expresse example in Scripture for it and go not about to prove it but by consequence inferr'd from five Conclusions which though you call undeniable yet others do not think so nor yet see reason to subscribe to your judgment You are not ignorant I prâ—sume that Mr. Daniel Rogers in his Treatise of the Sacrament of Baptisme part 1. pag. 79. confessed himself yet unconvinced by demonstration of Scripture for it And whereas your Achilles for Paedo-baptisme is the Circumcision of Infants me thinks Mr. Balls words Reply to the Answer of the New-England Elders about the third and fourth Positions pag. 38 39. cut the sinews of that argument But in whatsoever they agree or differ we must look to the Institution and neither stretch it wider nor draw it narrower then the Lord hath made it â—or he is the Institutor of the Sacraments according to his own good pleasure and it is our part to leaâ—n of him both to whom how and for what end the Sacraments are to be administred how they agree and wherein they differ In all which we must affirm nothing but what God hath taught us and as he hath taught us And whereas the words of Paul 1 Cor. 7.14 are your principall strength to prove the Covenant-holines of Infants of a believing parent Musculus a writer of good esteem in his Commentary upon that place confesseth that he had abused formerly that place against the Anabaptists but found it impertinent to that purpose And for my part after most carefull and serious reading and perusing of many Authors and among the rest your Sermon I cannot yet find it to be any other then an innovation in comparison of many other things rejected late maintained by erroneous and dangerous principles having no true ground from Christs institution which alone can acquit it from Will-worship and which hath occasioned many errors in doctrine corruptions in discipline and manners unnecessary and vain disputes and almost quite changed the ordinance of Baptisme Wherefore upon advise I have resolved to examine your Sermon who are a leading man and in respect of your eminency either likely to be a very good or very bad instrument as you are guiâ—dd that you may either rectifie me or I you and that we may if the Lord shall see it good give one another the right hand of fellowship and stand fast in one mind in the truth of the Gospel and cleare the truth of God to the people whose eyes are upon us And so much the rather have I pitched upon your Sermon because I conceive it contains in a plain way as much as can be wel said for Poedo-baptisme and your Epistle seems to intimate your publishing of it to be for the ease of the Assembly and possibly it may be all I may expect from them Now the Lord vouchsafe to frame both your spirit and mine that we may seek and find truth in humility and love in this great businesse which concerns the soules perhaps lives and estates of many millions yea of all godly persons and the glory of God and honour of our Lord Jesus Christ and that we may trample under our feet our own credit our own opinion if it stand not with the honour of Christ and the truth of God LEtting passe the Epistle and leaving the various Questions and allowing the stating of the Question conceiving you mean it of baptizing by warrant of ordinary rule of Scripture without extraordinary revelation or direction Whereas you affirme that the Infants of
Believers are to be baptized with Christs baptisme by the lawfull Minister according to ordinary rule I deny it That which you say for the practise of baptizing infants may be reduced 1. To the testimonies of Antiquity 2. To the novelties and miscarriages of the opposers of it 3. To the arguments produced for it 4. To the answering objections against it I shall by Gods assistence examine each of these First you affirm That the Christian Church hath been in possession of it for the space of fifteen hundred years and upwards as is manifest out of most of the Records that weâ— have of Antiquity both in the Greek and Latine Churches To this I answer that if it were true yet it is not so much as may be said for Episcopacy keeping of Easter the religious use of the Crosse c. which I conceive you reject 2. That the highest testimonies you produce come not so high 3. Those that be alleaged being judiciously weighed will rather make against the present doctrine and practise then for it 4. There are many evidences that do as strongly prove as proofes usually are taken in such matters Quod ab initio non fuit sic That from the beginning it was not so and therefore it is but an innovation The first of these I presume you will acknowledge that for Antiquity not-Apostolicall there are plain testimonies of Episcopacy keeping of Easter the religious use of the Crosse being in use before any of the testimonies you or any other can produce for baptizing of infants and therefore I will forbear mentioning proofes so obvious to Schollars The second and third thing I shall make good in the weighing of the Testimonies you produce and the fourth in the close YOur Testimonies are either of the Greek or Latine Churches Of the Greekes you alleage foure The first is Justine Martyr of whom you say That he lived Anno 150. which wants somewhat of 1500. years and therefore you did somewhat overlash in saying that it is manifest out of most of the Records of the Greeke and Latine Church The Church hath been in possession of the priviledge of baptizing Infants 1500. years and upwards and then you say In a Treatise that goes under his name By which it is manifest that you know that it was questioned whether it was his or no and I conceive you could not be ignorant that it is not only questioned but also proved by Perkins in his preparative to the demonstration of the Probleme by Rivet in his Critieus sacer by Robert Cooke of Leeds if my memory faile me not to which I am inforced to trust in many things being spoiled of my bookes in his Censure and confessed by Papists to be none of Justine Martyrs but to bee written a great while after his dayes for as much as it mentions not only Irenaeus but also Origen and the Manichees Now what doth this bastard Treatise say You say Question 56. Justine Martyr disputes the different condition of those children who die baptized and of those children who die unbaptized The question propounded is If Infants dying have neither praise nor blame by works what is the difference in the resurrection of those that have been baptized by others and have done nothing and of those that have not been baptizâ—d and in like manner have done nothing The Answer is this is the difference of the baptized from the not baptiâ—â—d that the baptized obtaine good things meaning at the Resurrection by baptisme but the unbaptized obtain not good things And theâ— are accounted worthy of the good things they have by their baptisâ—â— by the faith of those that bring them to baptisme You may by thâ—â— testimony see what ever Age the book was made in what the reason of baptizing of Infants was Not the supposed Covenant of grace made to believers and their seed which you make the ground of baptizing of infants but the opinion that the not baptized should not obtain good things at the resurrection meaning the Kingdome of God mentioned Joh. 3.5 but the baptized should and that by reason of the faith of the bringers what ever the Parents were and therefore they baptized the children of unbâ—lievers as well as believers if they were brought YOur next Greek Author is Irenaeus who was indeed a Greeke and wrote in Greek but now only we have his works in Latine except some few fragments for which reason we are not so certain of his meaning as we might be if we had his own words in the language in which he wrote You say he lived in the same Century and it is acknowledged he lived in the same Century with Justine Martyr but not with the Author of the Questions Answers ad Orthodoxâ—s who as hath been said lived in some Age after Irenaeus is by Vsher placed at the yeare 180. by Osiander at the yeare 183. so that though he were of that Century yet he flourished in the latter part of it and so reacheth not to your 1500. years upwards Of him you say that l. 2. c. 39. he saith Christus venit per seipsuÌ„ omnes salvare omnes inquaÌ„ qui per eum renascuntur in DeuÌ„ infantes parvuloâ— pueros c. Now it is well knowne say the Glossers upon that text renascentiâ— nomine Dominica Apostolica Phrasi Baptismum intelligi You might have added what follows Aperte confirmans Apostolorum traditionem de baptismo infantium parvulorum adversus Anabaptisticam impietatem But I pray you whose Glosse was this Was it any other then Fevardentius if I mistake not of whom Rivet Crit. Sacr. lib. 2 cap. 6. Juniores tantum qui in opera Irenaei incident monitos volo ut caveant ab illis Editionibus quas impudentissimus ille Monarchus Fevardentius homo projecta audacia et nullius fidei foede in multis corrupit annotationibus impiiâ— et mendacibus conspuâ—cavit And for the glosse its false for no where doth our Lord or the Apostles call baptisme Now birth although our Lord speake of being borne againe of water Ioh. 3.5 and Paul of the washing of regeneration Tit. 3.5 and for the words themselves without the glosse all the strength lyes in this that the word Renascuntur is used for Baptisme by the Ancients which yet possibly was not the word Irenaeus used in his owne writing and how the Latine translation alters the meaning of Irenaeus you may see somewhat in Rivet Vossius Thesibus Theologic de Padebapt Thesi. 7. intimates that the proper acception is of sanctification and that the word may be so taken yea and that it is not meant of Baptisme the words and the whole scope of Irenaeus in that place shew For the scope of Irenaeus in that chapter is to refute the Gnosticks who sayd that Christ did not exceede one and thirty yeeres of age against whom Irenaeus alleageth that Christ lived in every age of infancy youth old age that by his age example
he might sanctifie every age so that here Irenaeus speakes not of being borne againe by Baptisme for it is said who are borne againe by him that is by Christ. Not as if he had baptized infants but because he was an infant that by the example or vertue of his age he might sanctifie infants as the whole context will shew which is this Magister ergo existens Magistri quoque habebat aetatem non reprobans nec supergrediens hominem neque solvens suam legâ—m in se humani generis sed omnemâ—tatem sanctificans per illam quae ad ipsum erat similitudinem Omnes enim venit per seipsum salvare omnes inquam qui per eum renascuntur in Deum Infantes parvulos pueros juvenes seniores Ideo per omnem venit aetatem infantibus infans factus sanctificans infantes in parvuliâ— parvuluâ— sanctificans hanc ipsam habentes aetatem simul exemplum illis pietatis effectus justitiae subjectionis In Iuvenibus Iuvenis exemplum Iuvenibus fiens Sanctificans Domino sic et senior in senioribus ut sit perfectus Magister non solum secundum expositionem veritatis sed secundum aetatem sanctificans simul seniores exemplum ipsis quoque fiens deinde usque ad mortem pervenit ut sit primogenitus ex mortuis ipse primatum tenens in omnibus princeps vitae prior omnium et praecedens omnes Which he confirmes by the testimony of Iohn the Apostle from whom he saith those that conversed with him related that Christ lived about fifty yeares which all sorts of writers doe reckon among Irenaeus his blemishes and thereby shew how little credit is to be given to the too much entertained Apostolicall traditions THe next Greeke Author is Origen who you say lived in the beginning of the third Century Perkins and Vsher place him at the yeare 230. but for his works as of old they were counted full of errours and dangerous to be reade so as now they are we can hardly tell in some of them what is Origens What not for the originall being lost we have only the Latine translation which being performed in many of his works and particularly the Homilies on Leviticus and the Epistle to the Romanes by Ruffinus it appeares by his owne confâ—ssion that he added many things of his own insomuch that Erasmus in his censure of the Homilies on Leviticus saith that a man cannot be certaine whether he reades Ruffinus or Origen and Perkins puts among Origens Counterfeit works his Comentary on the Epistle to the Romans as being not faithfully translated by Ruffinus the like is the judgement of Rivet and others and I suppose did you reade the passages themselves you cite and consider how they are brought in and how plaine the expressions are against the Pelagians you would quickly conceive that those passages were put in after the Pelagien heresie was confuted by Hierom and Augustine who often tells us that the Fathers afore that controversie arose did not speake plainly against the Pelagiens and of all others Origen is most taxed as Pelagianizing Wherefore Vossius in the place aforenamed though he cite him for company yet addes sed de Origene minus laborabimus quia quae citabamus Graece non extant But what saith the supposed Origen In one place that the Church received this tradition of baptizing infants from the Apostles in another according to the observance of the Church baptisme is granted to infants you adde as foreseeing that this passage would prove that then it was held but a tradition that then the greatest points of faith were ordinarily called traditions received from the Apostles and you cite 2 Thes. 2.15 To which I reply true it is that they did call the greatest points of faith though written traditions Apostolicall as conceiving they might best learne what to hold in points of faith from the Bishops of those Churches where the Apostles preached and therefore in prescriptions against Heretickes Tertullian Irenaeus and others direct persons to go to the Churches where the Apostles sate specially the Romane Church which seemes to have beene the seed of Appeals to Rome and the ground of the conceit which was had of the Popes unerring Chaire But it is tâ—ue also they called Apostolicall traditions any thing though unwriâ—ten which was reported to have come from the Apostles as the time of keeping Easter and many more which was the fountaine of all corruptions in discipline and worship And that in those places you cite is meant an unwritten tradition not only the not citing any Scripture for Baptizing of Infants but also the very Phrases Pro hoc et Ecclesia ab Apostolis traditionem suscepit Secundum Ecclesiae observantiam are sufficient proofe to them who are acquainted with the Ancients writings of those times So that yet you have not proved that the baptisme of Infants was time out of minde that it had beene received in the Church or was delivered over to the Church in Origens time and was of ancient use in the Church afore his time But these passages prove that in the time when the framer of those passages wrote it was accounted but an Apostolicall tradition according to the observance of the Church Like speeches to which are found in Pseudo-Dyonisius in the end of his Hierachy and Augustin lib. 10. de Genesi ad literam c. 23. and elsewhere which argue that it was held as an Ecclesiasticall tradition in those times THe fourth and last of the Greeke Church you name is Gregory Nazianzen who is by Perkins placed at the yeare 380. by Vsher 370. much short of 1500 yeares and upwards you say that Orat. 40. in Baptismum he calls baptisme signaculum vita cursum in euntibus and commands Children to be baptized though afterwards he seemed to restraine it to the case of necessity But doth he seeme onely to restraine it to the case of necessity the words are plaine that he gives the reason why Infants in danger of death should be baptized 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that they might not misse of the common grace but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he gives his opinion of others that they should stay longer that they might be instructed and so their minds and bodyes might be Sanctified and these are all you bring of the Greek Church By the examination of which you may perceive how well you have proved that it is manifest out of most of the Records that we have of antiquitie both in the Greeke and Latine Church that the Christian Church hath beene in possession of the priviledge of baptizing the infants of beleivers for the space of 1500. yeares and upwards Whereas the highest is but a bastard Treatise and yet comes not so high if it were genuine the next without a glosse which agrees not with the text speakes nothing to the purpose the third is of very doubtfull credit the fourth which was
sundry hundreds of yeares after Christ restraines it to the case of necessity But it is wonder to me that if it were so manifest as you speake you should finde nothing in Eusebius for it nor in Ignatius nor in Clemens Alexandrinus nor in Athanasius nor in Epiphanius that I mention not others to me it is no small argument that baptisme of Infants was not universally knowne in the Greek Church no not in Epiphanius his dayes who is said to flourish in the yeare 390. because in his Panarium disputing against the Hieracites that denied Infants inheriting the Kingdome of heaven because not striving He brings the Infants killed by Herod the words of the Lord concerning Ieremiah Chap. 1. of his prophesie Christs blessing and receiving of infants the children crying Hosanna but nothing at all of Infants-baptisme which had beene as proper to his purpose if he had beene acquainted with it But besides the continuance of the questions to baptized persons and answered by them in many Authors mentioned this is to me and it seemed so to Hugo Grotius Annot. in Matth. 19.14 No small evidence that baptisme of Infants many hundred yeares was not ordainary in the Greeke Church because not onely Constantine the Great though the sonne of Helena a zealous Christian as it s reported was not baptized till aged but also that Gregory Nazianzen who was the sonne of a Christian Bishop and brought up long by him was not baptized till he came to be a youth as is related in his life And Chrysostome though as Grotius saith according to the truer opinion borne of Christian Parents and educated by Meletius a Bishop yet was he not baptized till past 21 yeares of age Grotius addes that the Canon of the Synod of Neocaesarea held in the yeare 315. determines that a woman with childe might be baptized because the baptisme reached not to the fruit of her wombe because in the confession made in baptisme each one 's own free choice is shewed From which Canon Balsamon and Zonaras do inferre that an Infant cannot be baptized because it hath not power to choose the confession of divine baptisme And Grotius adds furâ—her that many of the Greeks in every age unto this day do keep the custome of diffâ—ring the baptisme of little ones till they could themselves make a confession of their faith From all which I inferre That the Anabaptists need not blush to say which you seem to make a part of their impudence that the Ancients especially the Greek Church rejected the baptisme of Infants for many hundred yeeres I Proceed to the Writers of the Latine Church you alledge for Baptisme of Infants First Cyprian one of the ancientest writers amongst the Latines which is true He is placed by Perkins at the yeare 240. by Vsher at the yeare 250. Yet Tertullian was before him and counted his master Now in Tertullians time it appeares saith Grotius in Mat. 19.14 there was nothing defined cencerning the age in which they were to be baptized that were consecrated by their parents to Christian discipline because he disswades by so many reasons in his book of Baptism c. 18. the baptizing of Infants And if he did allow it it was only in case of necessity as may appeare by his words in his book de anima c. 39. But you say Cyprian handles it at large in Epist. 59. ad Fidum It is true he doth say enough in that Epistle for baptâ—zing of Infants and more then enough except he had spoken to better purpose The truth is the very reading of that Epistle upon which Hierom and especially Augustine rely for the proving of the baptizing of Infants is sufficient to discover how great darknesse there was then upon the spirits of those that were counted the greatest lights in the Church You say upon this occasion Fidus denied not the baptisme of Infants but denied that they ought to be baptized before the eighth day But you might have further observed that Fidus alleadged considerandam esse legem Circumcisionis antiquae that he thought the law of ancient Circumcision was to be considered And Vestigium Infantis in primis partus sui diebus constitutâ— mundum non esse dixistì Thou hast said that the footstep of an Infant being in the first dayes of his birth is not clean Whence it plainly appeares that there was a relique of Judaisme in him and that he did not well understand the abrogation of the Ceremoniall Law and the truth is the contentions about Easter neere that age do plainly shew that Iudaisme was not quite weeded out of the mindes of the chiâ—fe teachers among Christians You say Cyprian assures him that by the unanimous consent of 66 Bishops gathered together in a Councell baptisme was to be administred to Infantes as well as to growne men and not to be restrained to any time which is true but you adde and proves it by such arguments as these They are under originall sinne they neede pardon are capable of grace and mercy God regards not age c. But the resolution of Cyprian with his Collegues is not so lightly to be passed over sith the determination of this Councell as far as I can by search finde is the very spring-head of Infant-baptisme To conceive it aright it is to be considered that you are mistaken about the proofe of their opinion the things you mention are not the proofe but are produced in answer of objections The proofe is but one except you will make a proofe of that which is in the close of the Epistle which is that whereas none is to be kept from baptisme and the grace of God much lesse New-borne Infants who in this respect doe deserve more of our ayde and Gods mercy because in the beginning of their birth they presently crying and weeping doe nothing else but pray The onely proofe is this the mercy and grace of God is to be denyed to none that are borne of man for the Lord saith in the Gospell that the sonne of man came not to destroy mens soules but to save them and therefore as much as in us lyes if it may be no soule is to be lost and therefore all infants at all times to be baptized Whence we may observe 1. That they thought baptizing giving Gods grace and the denying it denying Gods grace Secondly that they thought the soules to be lost that were not baptized Thirdly that therefore not onely Infants of beleivers but all infants were to be baptized Whence Tossanus in his Synopsis Notes this for Cyprians errour that he taught Infantes Statim esse baptizandos ne pereant quod eis misericordia non sit deneganda Ep. 8. lib. 3. Then follow the objections which are three First That Infants are not capable being so young this he answers by saying God regards not age which he proves by an allegoricall accomodation of Elisha his stretching himselfe upon the little Childe to the applying of Gods grace to Infants The second
objection is But we shun to kisse Infantes as uncleane in the first dayes of their birth to this he answers that to the cleane all things are cleane and we ought not to decline the embracing Gods worke The third objection was the Law of circumcision to this he answers that in Circumcision the eighth day was a figure of the resurrection of Christ Which is now accomplished and we are to account now nothing common or uncleane and therefore we are not to account this an impedinent to obtaine grace by Baptisme Then he addes further if any thing could hinder from obtaining of grace greater sinnes should hinder men of yeares from it now if greater sinnes hinder not men of yeares from it but that they when they beleive obtaine forgivenes grace and Baptisme by how much rather is an Infant not to be forbidden who being newly borne hath not sinned except in that being borne carnally according to Adam he hath contracted the contagion of ancient death in his first Nativity who in this respect comes more easily to receive remission of sinnes because not his owne sinnes but anothers are forgiven him So that whereas you say that Cyprian proves that Infants are to be baptized because they are under Originall sinne they neede pardon You may perceive that the argument is rather thus they have lesser sinnes then others they neede lesse pardon then men of growne yeares and therefore there is lesse hinderance in them to come to Gods grace remission of sinnes and Baptisme thus have I considered that famous resolution of a Councel of 66. Bishops which for the nakednes of it I should more willingly have covered were it not that the truth hath so much suffered by the great esteeme that this absurd Epistle hath had in many Ages YOu adde next to Cyprian Augustine who flourished about the yeare 405. according to Perkins 410. according to Vsher and I follow you to consider him next for though Ambrose and Hierome are reckoned somewhat afore him about 30. or 20. yeares yet they lived at the same time and the Authority of Augustine was it which carryed the Baptisme of Infants in the following ages almost without controule as may appeare out of Walafridus Strabo placed by Vsher at the yeare 840. who in his booke De rebus Ecclesiasticis cap. 26. having said â—hat in the first times the grace of Baptisme was wont to be given to them onely who were come to that integrity of minde and body that they could know and understand what profit was to be gotten in Baptisme what is to be confessed and beleived what lastly is to be observed by them that are new borne in Châ—ist confirmes it by Augustines owne confession of himselfe continuing a Catechumenus long afore Baptized But afterwards Christians understanding Originall sinne c. Ne perirent parvuli si sine remedio regenerationis gratiae defungerentur statuerunt eos baptizari in remissionem peccatorum quod S. Augustinus in libro de baptismo parvulorum ostendit Africana testantur Concilia aliorum Patrum documenta quamplurima And then adds how God-fathers and God-mothers were invented and addes one superstitious and impious consequent on it in these words Non autem debet Pater vel mater de fonte suam suscipere sobolem ut sit discretio inter spiritalem generationem carnalem Quod si casu evenerit non habebunt carnalis copulae deniceps adiuvicem consortium qui in communui filio compaternitatis spiritale vinculum susceperant To which I adde that Petrus Cluniacensis placed by Vsher at the yeare 1150. writing to three Bishops of France against Peter de Bruis who denyed Baptisme of Infants sayes of him that he did reject the Authority of the Latine Doctors being himselfe a Latine ignorant of Greeke and after having said recurrit ergo ad scripturas therefore he runnes to the Scriptures he alleageth the examples in the New Testament of Christs curing of persons at the request of others to prove Infants Baptisme by and then adds Quid vos ad ista Ecce non de Augustino sed de Evangelio protuli cui cum maxime vos credere dicatis aut aliorum fide alios tandem posse salvari concedite aut de Evangelio esse quae posui si potestis negate From these passages I gather that as Petrus Cluniacensis urged for paedo-baptisme the authority of Augustine and the Latine Doctors So Peter de Bruis and Henricus appealed to the Scriptures and the Greeke Church Now the reason of Augustines authority was this the Pelagian heresie being generally condemned and Augustines workes being greatly esteemed as being the hammer of the Pelagians the following refuters of Pelagianisme Prosper Fulgentius c. the Councells that did condemne it as those of Carthage Arles Milevis c. did rest altogether on Augustines arguments and often on his words and Augustine in time was accounted one of the foure Doctors of the Chuâ—ch esteemed like the foure Evangelists so that his â—pâ—nion was the rule of the Churches Judgement and the schooles determination as to the great hurt of Gods Church Luther and others have beene of late Now Augustine did very much insist on this argument to prove originall sinne because Infants were baptized for remission of sinnes and therefore in the Councill of Milevis he was adjudged accursed that did deny it But for my part I value Augustines judgement iust at so much as his proofes and reasons weigh which how light they are you may conceive First In that whereas he makes it so Univeâ—sall a tradition his owne baptisme not till above thirty though educated as a Christian by his mother Monica the Baptisme of his sonne Adeodatus at 15. of his friend Alipius if there were no more were enough to pâ—ove that this custome of baptizing infants was not so received as that the Church thought necessary that all children of Christians by profession should be baptized in their infancy And though I conceive with Grotius annot in Mattâ— 19.14 that baptisme of Infants was much more frequented and with greater opinion of necessity in Africa then in Asia or other parts of the world for saith he in the Councells you cannot finde ancienter mention of that custome then the Councell of Carthage Yet I doe very much question whether they did in Africa even in Augustines time baptize children except in danger of death or for the health of body or such like reason I do not finde that they held that Infants must be baptized out of such cases for it is cleare out of sundry of Augustines Tracts as particularly tract 11 in Johan that the order held of distinguishing the Catechumeni and baptized and the use of Catechizing afore baptisme still continued yea and a great while after insomuch that when Petrus Cluniacensis disputed against Peter de Bruis he said only that therâ— had beene none but infants baptized for 300. yeares or almost 500. yeares in Gallia Spaine Germany
Italy and all Europe and it seemes he denyed not the baptizing of growne persons in Asia still whence I collect that even in the Latine Church after Augustines dayes in sundry ages the baptizing of persons of growne age did continue as well as baptizing of infants till the great darknes that over-spred the Wâ—sterne Churches spoiled by Barbarâ—us Nations destitute of learned men and â—uled by ambitious and unlearnâ—d Popes when there were none to Catechizâ— and therefore they baptized whole Countries upon the baptisme of the King of that Country though both Prince and people knew little or nothing of Christianity but were in respect of manners and knowledge Pagans still which hath beene the great cause of the upholding of Papacie and corrupting of Christian Churches I mean this great corruption of baptizing making Christians giving Christendome as it is called afore ever persons were taught what Christianity was or if they were taught any thing it was only the ceremonies and rites of the Church as they called them 2. You may conceive how light Augustine's juâ—gement was by considering the ground upon which Augustine held and urged the baptisme of Infants so vehemently which was as all know that read his works the opinion he had that without baptisme Infants must be damned by reason of originall sinne which is not taken away but by Baptisme yea though he wanted baptisme out of necessity urging those places Joh. 3.5 Rom. 5.12 continually in his disputes against the Pelagianâ— particularly tom 7. de natura gratia c. 8. And tom 2. ep 28. he saith Item quisquis dixerit quod in Christo vivificabuntur etiam parvuli qui sine Sacramenti ejus participatione de vita exeunt hic profecto contra Apostolicam praedicationem venit totam condemnat ecclesiam And in the close of the Epistle calls it robustissimam fundatissimam fidem qua Christi ecclesia nec parvulos homines recentissime natos a damnatione credit nisi per gratiam domini Christi quam in suis Sacramentis commendavit posse liberari And this Perkins in his Probleme proves was the opinion of Ambrose and many more And hence as Aquinas so Bellarmine proves baptisme of Infants froâ— Joh. 3 5. And this hath been still the principall ground The ground that you go on that the covenant of grace belongs to believers and their seed I cannot find amongst the Ancients Yea as you may perceive out of Perkins in the place alleadged although Ambrose and Augustine in his 4. book de Baptismo contra Donatistas c. 22. yielded that either Martyrdome or the desire of Baptisme might supply the defect of Baptisme and some of the School-men Biel Cajetan Gerson do allow the desire and prayer of parents for children in the wombe in stead of baptisme Yet we finde no remedy allowed by them but actuall baptisme for children born into the world So strictly did Augustine and the Ancients urge the necessity of Baptisme for Infants born 3. You may consider that Augustine held a like necessity of Infants receiving the Lords supper from the words Joh. 6.53 as is plainly expressed by him lib. 1. de peccat merit remis c. 20. And accordingly as in Cyprians time the Communion was given to Infants as appears by the story which he relates of himself giving the Communion to an Infant in his book de lapsis mentioned by August epist. 23. So it is confested by Maldonat on Joh. 6. that Innocentius the first Bishop of Rome held it necessary for Infants and that this opinion and practise continued about 600 yeares in the Church though it be now rejâ—cted by the Romane Church in the Councel of Trent 4. You may consider that Augustine held such a certainty of obtaining regeneration by Baptisme that not only he puts usually regeneration for Baptisme but also he makes no question of the regeneration of Infants though they that brought them did not bring them with that faith that they might be regenerated by spirituall grace to eternall life but because by Baptisme they thought to procure health to their bodies as is plain by his words epist. 23. ad Bonifacium Nec illud te moveat quod quidam non ea fide ad Baptismum percipiendum parvulos ferunt ut gratia spiritali ad vitam regenerentur aeternam sed quod eos putant hoc remedio temporalem retinere aut recipere sanitatem non enim propterea illi non regenerantur quia non ab illis hac intentione offeruntur celebrantur enim per eos necessaria ministeria By which last words you may perceive how corrupt Augustine was in this matter so as to excuse if not to justifie their fact who made use of Baptisme in so profane a manner as to cure diseases by it which is no marvaile if it be be true which is related of the approbation that was given of the Baptisme used by Athanasius in play amongst boyes 5. You may consider that in the same Epistle when Bonifacius pressed Augustine to shew how Sureties could be excused from lying who being asked of the Childs faith answered He doth believe for even in Baptisme of Infants they thought in all ages it necessary that a profession of faith go before He defends that act in this absurd manner Respondetur credere propter fidâ—i Sacramentum And thence is he called a believer because he hath the Sacrament of faith Which as it is a ridiculous playing with words in so serious a matter before God so it is a senslesse answer sith the interrogation was of the Childs faith before it was baptized and the answer was given before and therefore it cannot be understood of believing by receiving the sacrament of faith which came after 6. It is apparent out of the same Epistle that Infants were then admitted to baptisme whether they were the children of believers or not it was no matter with what intention they brought them nor whose children were brought yea it was counted a work of charity to bring any children to baptisme and in this case the faith of the whole Church was counted a sufficient supplement of the defect of the parents or bringers faith So that whereas the present defenders of Infant-baptisme pretend Covenant-holinesse a priviledge of Believers it was no such matter in the time of the Ancients but they baptized any Infants even of Infidels upon this opinion That Baptisme did certainly give grace to them and if they dyed without baptismâ— they did perish And thus I grant that it is true the Epistle of Cyprian is cited and approved by Augustine but neither is Augustine to be approved for approving it nor doth it advantage your tenet that you have cited his citation of it NExt to Augustine you place Hierom and it is true that he cites and approves Cyprians Epistle in the end of his third book of his Dialogues against the Pelagians and he cites and approves and commends Augustine's books de peccat merito
remissione ad Marcellinum in which he maintains baptisme of Infants and Infant-communion as necessary to salvation and the certainty of regeneration and salvation to Infants that are baptized and receive the Lords supper So that the same answer is to be given concerning Hierom which is to be given concerning Augustine The last you alleadge is Ambrose who lived about the same time though he be placed some yeares before Augustine and Hierom And it is confessed that he was of the same judgement and many other of thâ— Ancients of the same time and in after-ages but nothing comparable to those already named and therefore adding no more weight to the cause NOw these you say you relate not to prove the truth of the thing but only the practise of it It is well you added this that you might disclaime the validity of these tâ—stimonies for proof for the truth is they rather prove the thing to be an error than a truth which was held upon such erroneous ground as they taught and practised it to wit the necessity of Baptisme to salvation Joh. 3.5 The certainty of remission of originall sin by baptisme The denying of Gods grace to none And the perishing of those to whom Baptisme was not given Whether you have any better pâ—oofs I shall consider hereafter in the mean time this I adde 1. That concerning the practise your testimonies prove not that it was in practise buâ— in case of supposed nâ—cessity 2. That there was still in use a constant course of baptizing not only the converted from infidelity but also the grown children of professed believers when they were at full age 3. That they did alike conceive a necessâ—ry of and accordingly practise the giving of the Lords supper to Infants 4. That they made no distinction between the Infants of believers and unbelievers being brought to them 5. That your ancientest testimonie for practise according to any Rule determined is Cyprian neer 300 yeeres after Christ. 6. Lastly there are many evidences that do as strongly prove as proofs are usually taken in such matters That it was not so from the beginning As particularly 1. The continued propounding of the ordinary questions even to Infants concerning their faith repentance and obedience afore they were baptized which in the School-men was still held necessary and therefore Sureties thought necessary to answer for them yea even in Reformed Churches unto this day which as it was conceived by Strabo and Vives in his Comment on Aug. lib. 1. de civit Dei c. 27. a cleare evidence so I conceive any reasonable man will think it to be a manifest proof that at first none were baptized but such as understood the faith of Christ. 2 The examples before mentioned of the baptizing Gregory Nazianzen Chrysostom Augustine Constantine the great c. being children of professors of Christianity is a manifest proof they did not then baptize Infants ordinarily but extraordinarily in case of necessity 3. Specially if we joyn hereto the disswasions of Tertullian and Gregory Nazianzen forementioned 4. The plain testimony of the Councel of Neo-Caesarea agaiâ—st it before mentioned 5. The silence of the chiefe writers Eusebius c. concerning it 6. The many passages in Augustine and others referring it only to Apostolicall tradition and that usually proved by no higher testimony than Cyprian that brought in upon erroneous grounds is a strong evidence it came not from the Apostles To all which I may add the testimony of Hugo Grotius before recited concerning the Greek Church the testimony of Ludovicus Vives Comment in August de civit Dei l. 1. c. 27. affirming that he heard the old use continued in some Cities of Italy of not baptizing till the party baptized did desire it Which it seems Bellarmine an Italian when he mentions that speech of Vives did not deny More testimonies and â—vidences might be brought out of sundry authors but these are enough to me and I think to any that search into Antiquity to prove that the custome of baptizing Infants was not from the beginning and therâ—fore is but an Innovation especially that your tenet and practise accordingly is a very late innovation That Baptisme is to be given to Infants of Believers only because of supposed Covenant-holinesse not elder then Zuinglius and so not much above one hundred yeares old so far as I can find Antipaedobaptisme hath no ill influence on Church or Common-wealth PART II. Concerning the prejudices against Antipaedobaptists from their miscarriages HAving examined the first part of that you produce for baptizing of infants I proceede to the second taken from the noveltie and miscarriages of the opposers of it And here I wish you had remembred the order of the Areopagites mentioned by Smectymnuus that in pleading causes before them prefaces should be avoyded as tending to create prejudice in the Judges For to what end serves this your Narration of your adversaries but to beget an Odium hatred or prejudice at least in your Auditors which if it had come after other arguments might have been more excusable but placed as it is neither suites with serenity of minde fit for judging in you or your Auditors Unto which give me leave to adde that the courses taken by too many as namely by the Author of the Frontispice to Doctor Featlies booke which is light and immodest by Mr. Edwards in his prejudices agâ—inst the persons of his opposites as that none that ever maintained Antipaedobaptisme lived and died with repute in the Church of God the historie of the Anabaptists the Anabaptists Catechisme with the invectives against this as an heresie everting the Fundamentals as leading into all heresie over-throwing all government used in Sermons every where to make Antipaedobaptists odious and to forestall men with prejudice though for the present they serve like Medusaes head to astonish men specially the more unlearned yet are they not right courses but Artifices serving only to prevent impartiall discussing of things which is necessary that truth may appeare and perhaps when truth shâ—ll appeare will returne on the head of the Authors of â—hem But I resolve to follow your steps YOu begin thus And indeed although some in those times questioned as Augustine grants in his Sermons de verbis Apostol yet the first that ever made a head against it or a division in the Church about it was Baltazar Pacommitanus in Germany in Luthers time about the yeare 1527. You say in those times some questioned as August grants in his Sermons de verbis Apostol But you doe not tell us who those some were nor in which Sermons which might have been requisite for your Reader Upon search I finde the 14. Sermon De verbis Apostol om 10. intituled de baptismo parvulorum contra Pelagianos but it is plaine out of that Sermon and out of Augustines bookes of Heresies ad Quod vult Deum Tom. 6. Heres 88. and else where that the Pelagians did
grant the baptizing of Infants because they durst not oppose the custome of the Church which in those dayes was accounted Sacred only they shifted â—ff the proofe of originall sinne from it by saying that they were baptized not for the remission of sinnes to eternall life for they had none but for the Kingdome of heaven which shift Augustine doth well refute in that Sermon and also opposeth some others that taught that the child not baptized might enter into the Kingdome of Heaven From Augustines time you make a great leape and say the first that ever made a head against or a division in the Church about it was Baltazar Pacommitanus in Germany in Luthers time about the yeare 1527. But therein you are much deceived For Cassander in his Testimonies of Infants baptisme in the Epistle to the Duke of Cleve tells us that Guitmund Bishop of Averse mentioneth the famous Berengarius Anno. 1030. opposing not only the corporall presence of Christ in the Eucharist but also the baptisme of little ones And that a little after sprung in Bernards time an heresie of an uncertaine Originall and appellation and he saith that they were called Cathari or Puritans and from a Country of France Albigenses spread over France and lower Germany and the banke of the Rhine of these he saith Hireliquis erroribus quos a Manichaeis et Priscillianistis mutuati sunt hoc insuper addiderunt ut Baptismum parvulorum inutilem esse dicerent ut qui prodesse nemini queat qui non et ipse credere et per seipsum Baptismi sacramentum petere possit quale nihil Manichaeos Priscillianistas docuisse legimus And indeed Bernard who is placed by Vsher at the yeare 1130. just a 100. yeares after Berengarius Sermon 66. in Cantica mentions the Heresie of some that had no name because their heresie was not from man nor received they it by man but they boasted themselves to be the successors of the Apostles and called themselves Apostolicos Now although he charge them with denying Marriage and abstaining from meates yet you may smell out of his owne words that this was but a calumny but take the Character he sets downe of them and weigh it and you would conceive he had spoken of Protestants Irrident nos quia baptizamus Infantes quod oramus pro mortuis quod sanctorum suffragia postulamus and a little after Non credunt autem ignem purgatorium restare post mortem sed statim animam solutam a corpore vel ad requiem tranfire vel ad damnationem And a little after Jam vero qui Ecclesiam non agnoscunt non est mirum si ordinibus Ecclesiae detrahunt si instituta non recipiunt si sacramenta contemnunt si mandatis non obediunt The same Bernard in Epist. 204. writes to Hildefonsus Earle of S. Gyles to take away Henricus once a Monke then an Apostate quod dies festos sacramenta Basilicas Sacerdotes sustulerit quod parvulis Christianorum Christi intercluditur vita dum baptismi negatur gratia nec saluti propinquare sinuntur and it is well known that Petrus Cluniacensis who is placed by Vsher at the yeare 1150. hath written an Epistle to three Bishops of France against Peter de Bruis and Henricus as defending errors digested into 5. Articles First That little ones may not be baptized Secondly that Temples or Altars are not to be made Thirdly that the Crosse of Christ is not to be adored or worshipped but rather to be broken and trodden under foote Fourthly that the Masse is nothing nor ought to be Celebrated Fiftly that the benefits of the living nothing profited the deceased that we are not to chant to God He saith that the heresie of the Petrobrusians was received in the Cities of Gallia Narbonensis and complaines that the people were rebaptized the Churches profaned the Altars digged downe the Crosses fired on the day it selfe of the Lords passion flesh was openly eaten the Priests scourged Monks imprisoned and by terrours and torments compelled to marry wives All this was done very neare 400. yeares before Baltazar Pacommitanus or as others write him Pacimontanus But perhaps you thinke however that Baltazar was the first that opposed the baptisme of Infâ—nts in the 16. Century which possibly may be true though herein you follow Cochlaeus and Bellarmine who addes that Erasmus himselfe had sowed some seedes of it also but Gerhard the Lutheran in the 40th Tome of his Common places where he handles this question rather derives the Originall from Carolostadius and alleageth Melancthon Com. on Coloss. and saith that he is called the father of the Anabaptists by Erasmus Alberus Now I doe not finde in Melancthon that which Gerhard saith of him yet Sleidan saith of him that he praised their opinion and Osiander that he joyned himselfe unto them and I finde that Melancthon in his Comment on 1 Cor. 9.24 sayes of him that he indeavoured to promote the Gospel though in a wrong course Arnoldus Meshovius hist Anabap lib. 1. § 2. sayes that the businesse of Anabaptisme began at Wittenberg Anno Christi 1522. Luther then lurking in the Castle of Wartpurg in Thuringia by Nicolas Pelargus and that he had Companions at first Carolostadius Philip Melancthon and others and that Luther returning from his Patmos as he called it banished Carolostadius and the rest and only received Philip Melancthon into favour againe Now they that know what was Luthers vehemency and pertinacy on the one side and Melancthons timerousnesse on the other side may well conceive â—hat as in the businesse of Images in Churches and Consubstantiation so in this about Infant-baptisme the temper of these two men much hindred the clearing of this truth perhaps fearing that a further reformation then they had begun would be an occasion of nullifying all they had done Surely it hath beene the unhappy fate of the reformed Churches that they have so stucke to Luther and Calvin that they have scarce stepped one step further in reformation then they did but stifly maintained onely the ground they had gotten Cassander in his Epistle to he D. of Cleve before mentioned reckons the error of Anabaptisme to have bin revived abouâ— the yeare 1622. by Nicolas Stork or Pelargus Thomas Munzer but it is not res tanti to search any further into this matter nor is it of any weight to enquire much after this Baltazar He is stiled Baltazar Huebmer Pacimontanus Dr. in Waldshuot in the Epistle Zuinglius writes to him before his answer to his booke about bapâ—isme in the Epistlâ— Zuinglius wrote to Gynoraeus he relates how he came to Zurich and was there demanded by the Emperor who it seemes sought his life there he made some recantation but it appeares he was afterwards taken and burnt at Vienna in Austria Anno 1528. For what cause I know not Zuinglius saith this of him in his Epistle to Gynoraeus Nos dexteritatem spectamus in homine ac mediocritatis
inseâ—tatione et perditione digni videantur How unlike is Mr. Vines his speech to the Lord Mâ—jor City of London to these words of Cassander a Papist to the D. of Clevâ—â—â—â—pist â—â—pist And for those in these dayes that deny or question Paedo-baptisme as I know them not or very few of them so I cannot say what they do or hold as being not privy to their tenets or proceedings onely undeâ—standing by one of your assembly that there was a little book puâ— forth intitled the compassionate Samaritane upon perusall I found that that Author who ever he were accounts it a calumny to charge thâ— Anabaptists with opposing Magistracy But concerning this the confession of faith lately put forth in the name of 7 Churches of them Artic. 48 49. will give best information But if you meane not this but some other error depending on the opinion of Antipaedobaptisme when I meete with them in your Sermon I shall in their proper place consider whether they do depend on it or no and for the opinion it selfe I say if it be not truth the spreading of it is unhappy if it be truth the more it spreads the more happy it is for the Kingdome YOu say further And so the worke of reformation without Gods mercy likely to be much hindered by it Sir you now touch upon a very tender point in which it concerned you and it in like mannâ—r concernes me and all that have any love to Iesus Christ or his people to be very considerate in what we say I have entred into Covenant to endeavour a reformation as well as you and though I have not had the happines as indeed wanting ability to be imployed in that eminent manner you have beene in the promoting of it in which I rejoyce yet have I in my affâ—ctions sincerely dâ—sired it in my intentions truely aimed at it in my prayers heaâ—tily sought it in my studies constantly minded it in my indeavours seriously prosecuted it for the promoting of it greatly suffered as having as deepe in interest in it as other men Now bâ—gging this Postulatum or demand that Paedobaptisme is a corruption of Christs institution which upon the reading of my answer and the 12 reasons of my doubts formerly mentioned will appeare not to be a mere Petitio principii begging that which is to be proved I say this being granted I humbly conceive that Paedobaptisme is a Mother-Corruption that hath in her wombe most of those abuses in discipline and manners and some of those errors in doctrine that doe dâ—file the reformed Churches and therefore that the reformation will be so far from being hindred by removing it that indeed it is the only way to further reformation to begin in a regular way at the purging of that ordinance of Iesus Christ to wit Baptisme without which experience shewes how insufficient after-Catechizing Excommunication Confirmation Vnio reformata solemne Covenant Separation the New Church-Covenant invented or used to supply the want of it are to heale the great abuses about the admitting visible professors into the priviledge of the Church from whence spring a great part if not all the abuses in discipline receiving the Lords Supper and manners of Christian people And therefore I earnestly beseech in the bowels of Iesus Christ both you and all others that ingage themselves for God to take this matter into deepe consideration I am sensible how inconsiderable a person I am and how inconsiderable a number there be that are affâ—cted with this motion I do consider how much against the streame of the Râ—formed Churches such a reformation would be Yet when I consider how far fetched the reasons for Paedobaptisme are how cleare the institution of Christ is against it how happily truthes opposed with as much pâ—â—jâ—dice as this have beene in processe of time vindicâ—ted of whaâ— moment the knowledge of this point is to every conscience how exact a râ—formation our solemne Covenant binds us to endeavour I do not despaire but that this truth also may take place upon second thoughts â—here it hath beene rejected at the first nor doe I doubt buâ— in time Gods people will consider what an influence baptisme had of old into the comfort and obligation of conscienâ—es and how litâ—le it hâ—th now And truely Sir though it may be but my weaknes yet I suppose it can doe you no hurt to tell it I feare you want much of that blessing which was hoped for by your Assembly in that you do waste so much time about inconsiderable things comparatively and hastily passe over or exclude from examination this which deserves most to be examined but rather seeke to stop the bringing of it to any tryall But having told you thus much I follow you in your Sermon You say I shall God-willing handle this question more largely then I have done any other in this place and the rather because of three other great mischeifes which go along with it First I see that all that reject the baptizing of Infants do must upon the same grounds reject the religious observation of the Lords day or the Christian Sabbath viz. because there is not say they an expresse institution or command in the New Testament Give me leave to take up the words of him in the Poet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 What a word hath gotten out of the hedge of your teeth They doe They must Though I doubt not of your will yet I see you want some skil in pleading for the Lords day that others have the truth is that it is neither so nor so They neither doe nor must reject upon the same ground the Lords day That they doe not I can speake for one and your owne words delivered after with more caution Verily I have hardly either knowne or read or heard intimate that though few yet you cannot say but you have heard or read or knowne of some that have not with baptizing of Infants rejected the Lords day but you have I presume heard or read of whole and those reformed Churches that have upon such a ground rejected the Lords day as not of divine institution who yet are zealous for paedobaptisme Nor must they And to make that good let us consider their ground as you mention it Their ground you say is because there is not an expresse institution or command in the New Testament this then is their principle that what hath not an expresse institution or command in the New Testament is to be rejected But give me leave to tell you that you leave out two explications that are needefull to be taken in First that when they say so they meane it of positive instituted worship consisting in outward rites such as Circumcision Baptisme and the Lords Supper are which have nothing morall or naturall in them but are in whole and in part Ceremoniall For that which is naturall or morall in worship they allow an institution or command in the old Testament as obligatory
Secondly the teachers of this opinion where ever they prevaile take their Proselites wholy off from the Ministery of the Word and Sacraments and all other acts of Christian Communion both publique and private from any but those that are of their owne opinion condemning them all as limbes of Antichrist worshippers and followers of the Beast This is indeed a wicked practise justly to be abhorred the making of sects upon difference of opinion reviling separating from their teachers and brethren otherwise faithfull because there is not the same opinion in disputable points or in cleare truths non-fundamentall is a thing too frequent in all sorts of Dogmatists and yet so contrary to common charity which teacheth us to beare all things to the rules of heathens who could say Non eadem sentire duos de rebus iisdem incolumi licuit semper amicitia It hath bin alwayes allowed that friends should differ in opinion about the same things yet continue fâ—iends much more against that neare concorporation of Christians that I looke upon it as one of the great plagues of Christianity you shal have me joyne with you in shewing my detestation of it Yet neverthelesse First It is to be considered that this is not the evill of Antipaedobaptisme you confesse some are otherwise minded and therefore must be charged on the persons not on the assertion it selfe and about this what they hold you may have now best satisfaction from the confession of faith in the name of seven Churches of them Art 33. and others following Secondly It is fit when such things happen that godly Ministers should looke upon it as their affliction take occasion excutere semetipsos to search themselves whether they have not by their harsh usage of their brethren unjust charging them misreporting their tenents stirring up hatred in Magistrates people against them â—nstead of instructing them unsatisfying handling of doubtfull quâ—stions and by other ways alienated them from them And I make bold to let you understand that among others you have beene one cause at my startling at this point of Paedobaptisme remembring a very moveing passage which is in your Sermon Preached and printed on 2 Chron. 15.2 Concerning the hedge that God hath set about the 2. Commandement that you admire that ever mortal man should dare in Gods worship to meddle any jot further then the Lord himselfâ— hath commanded I Come after you Thirdly this opinion puts all thâ— Infants of all believers into the self-same condition with the Infants of Turkes and Indians And so doth the opinion of Cyprian with his 66. Bishops that would have Gods grace denyed to none And so do the words of the grave confutation of the Brownists put forth by Mr. Rathband Part. 3. pag. 50. Children may be lawfully accounted within Gods Covenant if any of their Ancestors in any generations were faithfull Exod. 20.5 But it may be you do not so I pray you then tell me wherein you make their condition different Possibly if you open your selfe plainly there will be no difference between us I will deale freely with you herein 1. Concerning Gods Election I am not certaine any more concerning the election of a believers Infant then an unbelievers I rest upon Gods words I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy Rom. 9.15.2 For the Covenant or promise of grace that is righteousnesse and life in Christ though I acknowledge a peculiar promise to Abrahams naturall posterity mentioned Rom. 11 27. Yet I know not that God hath made such a covenant to any much lesse to all the naturall seed of any believing Gentile if you can shew me such a Character I shaâ—l count it a treasure but I dare not forge such grants 3. Yet I grant that the present estate of a believers Infants hath a more comfortable likelihood that they are in Gods election then the infants of Turks and Indians both because they have their parents prayers and the Churches for them they have some promises though generall indefinite and coÌ„ditional we find by experience God doth very frequeÌ„tly coÌ„tinue his Church in their posterity though it often happen that the childâ—eÌ„ of godly parents prove very wicked But this I dare not ground upon any promise of free grace made to the child of a believer as such for feare leâ—t I incurre blasphemy by challenging a promise which God doth not keep nor upon any pretended law of friendship lest that objection râ—flect on me Is there unrighteousnesse with God Rom. 9.14 which the Apostle thought best to answer by asserting to God the most absolute liberty v. 15.18 4. That the condition in respect of future hopes of a believers Infant is a thousand times better then of a Turk or Indian because it is born in the bosome of the Church of godly parents who by pâ—ayers instruction example will undoubtedly educate them in the true faith of Christ whereby they are not only as the Turks children in potentia Logica in a Logick possibility or in potentia remota in a remote possibility but in potentia prâ—quînqua in a near possibility to be believers and saved And surely this is a great and certain priviledge enough to satisfie us if we remember the distance between God and us Nor do I feare to be gored by any of the three horns of your Syllogisme of which one you say must unavoidably follow The first is That either all are damned who die in their infancy being without the Covenant of grace having no part in Christ. But this follows not there is no necessity from any thing said before of their condition that all of them should be damned or be without the Covenant of grace having no part in Christ God may choose them all or some take all or some into the covenant of Grace which is I will be thy God and the God of thy seed that is mine Elect Rom. 9.8.11 into communion with Christ who dyed for the Elect Rom. 8.33 34. notwithstanding any thing I have said of their condition The second is Or else all are saved as having no originall sin and consequently needing no Saviour which most of the Anabaptists in the world do owne and therewith bring in also all Pelagianisme universall grace free-will c. This I imagine is the error you conceive depends upon Anti-paedobaptisme I finde Mr. Blake stands much upon this in his Birth-right-priviledge pag. 17. where he saith The Anabaptists in this present age well see that all that joyn in this tenent saile between those rocks either to affirm that infants die in their pollution or perish in their birth-sin or else to deny this originall pollution or any birth-sin at all But for my part I see no reason of this unlesse it be granted that no infant can have sin forgiven unlesse it bâ— baptized May it not be said that some or all infants are saved notwithstanding their birth-sin by the grace of God electing them putting them into Christ uniting
this for the comfort of parents and such an Odium cast on Anti-paedobaptists for denying it and therefore I see not but your assertion if you do not revoke your plea for paedobaptisme must be conceived thus That God hath made a Covenant or promise of saving grace in Christ not only to believers but also to their seed whom you baptize for this reason The Author of the little book intituled Infants baptizing proved lawfull by Scripture pag. 3 4 5. Intâ—rprâ—ts the Covenant I will be thy God and the God of thy seed thus I will be the God of every believer and the God of every believers seed in respect of outward Church-priviledges to be members of the visible Church partakers of baptisme c. to the naturall seed in respect of inward and meerly spirituall to none but true Saints in whom the new creature is formed But I say againe Abraham or thee in that Covenant is put only for Abraham and not for evâ—ry believer For sith the Apostle plainly interprets believers to be Abrahams seed Rom. 4.13 16. Gal. 3.29 to say Abraham is put for any believer makes the speech to have an inept tautology I will be the God of Abraham that is of every believer according to that Authors sense and I will be the God of thy seed that is of every believer according to the Apostles sense And that in that Covenant should be a promise to us believing Gentiles That to our seed should be conferred visible Church-priviledges to be members of the visible Church partakers of baptisme c. is but a dream the Scripture no where explaining it so and being so understood were not true there being many of the seed of believers that neither de facto in event nor de jure of right have those visible Church privilâ—dges to be members of the visible Church partakers of bapâ—isme c. and if there were such a promise God could not take away the Candlestick from the posterity of believers which he threatens Rev. 2.5 George Philips vind of Infant bapt p. 37. Cals the Covenant an offer to become their God and all along supposeth infants under the Covenant because grace was offered in circumcision and they sealed because it was offâ—red But the Covenant is not an offer but a promise nor is a man under the Covenant of grace or in the Covenant of grace because an offer is made for then refusers might be said to be under the Covenant but because God hath promised or performed to them And if infants are to be bapâ—ized which is his ground because the Covenant is offered to them in baptisme then in effect it is to argue they are to be baptizâ—d because they are to be baptized which iâ— nugatory I hâ—ve discussed this matter more fully that I may shew you how doubtfull your speeches are and give you the reason why I set down this as your conclusion to be denyed by me That the Covenant of saving grace in Christ expressed Gen. 17.7 In thâ—se words I will be thy God and the God of thy seed is made to believers and their naturall seed Now I will shew you the reason why I take this to be an error and that very dangerous MY first reason is taken from the Apostle Rom. 9 6. c. in which place this very Text that is now the apple of our contention was brought into question Beza thus expresseth the question Qui fieri possit ut rejectus sit Israel quin simul â—onstituendum videatur irritum esse pactum Dei cum Abrahamo ejus semine sancitum I deny not but there was also some other promise included in that objection to wit some promise made to Israel or the house of Israel probably that Jer. 31.33 36.37 for so the words ver 6. They are not all Israel which are of Israel do intimate But without question the promise made to Abraham Gen. 17.7 was one which was included in that objection Beza Twisse Ames and others answering Arminius call it the Covenant of God with Abraham which was that Gen. 17.7 and the very phrase of Abrahams seed In Isaac shall thy seed be called ver 7. The children of the promise are counted for the seed ver 8. Sarah shall have a son ver 9. do evidently shew that the promise objected to prove that if the Jews were rejected from being Gods people then God failed in making good his word was that promise to Abraham I will be thy God and the God of thy seed Whereto I may adde that the Answerers of Arminius and the cited Remonstrants to wit Baine and Ames do say It was the word of promise not of the Law as Arminius conceived for the word of promise saith Ames Animadv in Remonstran script Synod de praedest cap. 8. Sect. 4. Is distinguished and opposed to the words of the Law Gal. 3.17 18. Now the word of the promise there is to Abraham and his seed ver 16. and this is there called by him verbum foederis the word of the Covenant Now let us consider how the Apostle answers it He denies that Gods word made to Abraham did fall though the Jews were rejected because that promise I will be thy God and the God of thy seed as it coÌ„prehended saving grace was never meant by God of all Abrahams posterity or of any barely as they were descended from Abraham by natural generation but of the Elect whether descended by natural generation from Abraham or not And this is apparent both from the words v. 7. Neither because they are the seed of Abraham are they all children but in Isaac shall thy seed be called c. v. 8. It is expounded thus That is they which are the children of the flesh these are not the childâ—en of God but the children of the promise are counted for the seed Whence it is apparent that the same are not alwayes the seed by calling which are the seed of Abraham by naturall generation and that the children of the flesh are not the same with the children of promise and that the Apostle conceived this the right way of answering those that objected the falling of Gods word upon the rejâ—ction of the Jews by restraining the promise of being God to Abrahams seed only to the Elect whether of Abrahams naturall posterity or not with so little respect to any birth-right priviledge that he not only rejected Ismael and took Isaac but also loved Jacob and hated Esau by prophesie declaring his minde the elder shall serve the younger and in this the Apostle acquits God from unrighteousnesse in that He hath mercy on whom he will have mercy and whom he will he hardens notwithstanding his promise made to Abraham and Israel or any birth-right priviledge they could claime That I may not be thought to go alone in this I will recite some others concurring with me in this Dr. Twisse vind Grat. l. 1. part 3. digr 2. ArgumentuÌ„ Apostoli ad probanduÌ„
father into his covenant he takes the children in with him If he reject the parents out of covenant the children are cast out with them If you mean this taking in and casting out in respect of election and reprobation it is not true neither if you mean it of the Covenant of grace for that is congruous to election and reprobation Nor is it true in respect of outward Ordinances the father may be baptized heare the Word and not the child and on the contrary the father may be deprived and the child may enjoy them Nor is it true in respect of Ecclesiasticall censures the father may be excommunicated and the sonne in the Church and on the contrary And about that which you say there is no certainty in the Paedobaptists determination Rutherford The due right of Presbyterie p. 259. saith The children of Papists and excommunicate Protestants which are borne within our visible Church are baptized if their forefathers have been sound in the faith But others will deny it But it is true as well of Paedobaptists as of Anabaptists that like waves of the Sea they beat one agninst another You tell us That it was without question in the time of the Iews Gen. 17.9 And when any of any other Nation though a Canaanite or Hittite acknowledged Abrahams God to be their God they and their children came into covenant together That when Parents were circumcised the Children were to be circumcised is without questioâ— Gods command is manifest Whether this make any thing for baptizing Infants is to be considered in its place But that which you say It was in the time of the Iews if God did reject the parents out of the covenant the children were cast out with them is not true Parents might be Idolaters Apostates from Judaisme draw up the fore-skin again and yet the children were to be circumcised But in all this there is no Argument THe first Text you dwell upon is that Act. 2.38 39. and thus you speak And so it continues still though the Anabaptists boldly deny it Acts 2.38.39 When Peter exhorted his hearers who were pricked in their hearts to repent and to be baptized for the remission of sins he useth an argument to perswade them taken from the benefit which should come to their posterity For the promise saith he is to you and to your children and to all that are afar off even as many as the Lord our God shall call if once they obey the call of God as Abraham did the promise was made to them and their children VVhether they who obey this call were the present Jews to whom he spake or were afar off whether by afar off you will mean the Gentiles who as yet worshipped afar off or the Jews or any who were yet unborn and so were afar off in time or whether they dwelt in the remotest parts of the world and so were afar off in place The argument holds good to the end of the world Repent and be baptized for the remission of sins and ye shall receive the Holy Ghost for the promise is made to you and your children they shall be made free of Gods city according to Abrahams copy I will be thy God and the God of thy seed It is a very irksome thing to Readers and especially to Answerers when they that handle a controversie give a text for their assertion and make a paraphrase of it but shew not how they conclude from it by which meanes the enemy is more hardly found then vanquished I wish if ever you write any more in this kind you would distinctly expound and then frame your arguments out of the text you produce for the present I shall devorare taedium swallow downe the tediousnes of this defect as well as I can You do not distinctly tell us what that promise was onely I gather it is that which you after expresse calling it Abrahams copy I will be thy God and the God of thy seed But then you do not distinctly tell us under which part you comprehend the promise to them whether under the first part I will be thy God or under the second I will be the God of thy seed It may seem you thus parallel'd them I will be thy God with the promise is unto you and the God of thy seed with that the promise is to your children But I must see better proofe then yet I have seen afore I assent to this construction I wil be thy God that is of every believer though the Author or infants bâ—pâ—izing proved lawfull by scriptures page 4. sâ—ith It is plaine and manifest by the Gramaticall construction of this promise I professe that I neither know rule in Grammar Logicke or Divinity for that interpretation and yet I thinke all the strength of your proofe lies in this imagined parallelisme Nor doe you tell us of what thing this promise was which you parallel with Abrahams copy I will be thy God and the God of thy seed whether it was a promise of saving graces or outward priviledges Onely that which you bring in of Zaccheus to interpret it let him professe the faith of Christ and the covenant of salvation comes to his house seemes to import that you conceive the meaning thus if you once obey the call of God as Abraham did the promise of salvation is to you and your children and sith you answer the second objection which you call a shift by rejecting the limiting of to you and your children with those words as many as the Lord shall call the sense must be this The promise of salvation is to you and your children whether the Lord our God call them or not But this proposition I know you will not stand to though as you handle the matter this is made the Apostles assertion But it may be you mean otherwise thus If you once obey the call of God as Abraham did the promise of outward church-priviledges that is to be members of the visible Church partakers of Baptism c. is to you and your children Now what an uncouth reason is by this made in the Apostles speech that if they did repent and were baptized the promise should be made good to them and to their children I use your own words expressing what you conceive the strength of the argument lies in that you they shal be members of the visible church partakers of baptism c. So that the Apostle is made to say thus If you will repent and be baptized the promise is to you and your children that you they shal be baptized What I conceive is the meaning I will shew afterwards in the mean time because though on the by you alleage that Text which Mr. Tho. Goodwin also at Bow in Cheapside urged and insisted on for this purpose I shall by the way examine what you say You say Let Zaccheus the Publican once receive Christ himself be he a Gentile as some think he was be he
the same graffing into the true Olive which the Jews formerly had But you must remember your own distinction pag. 10. of the substance of the Covenant and the administration of it It is certain that in respect of the substance of the Covenant we have the same graffing into the Olive the Church of the faithfull of which Abraham is the root that the Jews had We by faith are partakers of the root and fatnesse of the Olive tree ver 17. or in plainer termes as the Apostle â—lâ—gantly Ephes. 3.6 that the Gentiles should be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Fellow-heirs and of the same body and partakers of his promise in Christ through the Gospel In respect of which all believing Gentiles are Abrahams seed the Israel of God one in Christ Jesus But if you mean it of the outward administration of this ingraffing by Circumcision Baptisme c. nothing is more false For indeed the outward administration is utteâ—ly taken away as separating the Jews from the Gentiles of very purpose that the enmity betwixt Jews and Gentiles may be removed and they made one in Christ by his death Eph. 2.14 15 16. and if you mean this when you say we have the same graffing in with the Jews which your whole arguing tends to and your expression in those words for these outward â—ispensations import you mean it you evacuate the blood of Châ—ist in this particular You say Our present graffing in is answerable to their present casting out It is true our present graffing in is anâ—wâ—rable to their or rather for their casting out that is God would supply in his Olive tree the Church the casting away of the Jews by the calling of the Gentiles so much the Apostle saith v. 17. Thou being a wilde Olive 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is in ramorum defrâ—ctorum locum into the place of the branches broken off as rightly Beza if you mean it in this sense I grant it You adde And their taking in though more gloriously as ours is now It is true their taking in will be by faith as ours is now concerning other particulars as I doubt not but it will be more gloriously as you say so for the manner I must confesse I am at a stand I look upon it as a mystery as the Apostle cals it Rom. 11.25 You go on Now all know that when they were taken in they and their children were taken in when they were broken off they and their children were broken off when they shall be takâ—n in in the latter end of the world they and their children shall be taken in I grant it they were taken in and broken off togethâ—r in respect of Gods election and reprobation and when they shall be taken in in the latter end of the world they and their children shall be taken in Yea I thinke that as at the calling of the Gentiles there was a fuller taking in of the children of the Gentiles then ever was of the children of the Jewes afore Châ—ists comming according to thâ—t Heb. 8.11 So at the calling of the Jâ—ws there shall be a more full taking in of the children of the Jâ—ws then is now of the Gentiles according to that Rom. 11.26 and so all Israel shall be saved But all this proves not that God would have either all Infants of believers counted his as elect persons or in the Covenant of grace in Christ or in the face of the visible Church admitted to baptisme which was to be proved by you You go on And that because the root is holy that is Gods Covenant with Abraham Isaac and Jacob extends yet unto them when their unbeliefe shall be taken away and then after an illustration from Nebuchadnezzars dreame Dan. 4.14 15. you say of the Jews their present Nation like this tree is cut down and this holy root the Covenant made with their forefathers is suspended bound with an Iron barre of unbeliefe blindnesse being come upon them till the fulnesse of the Gentiles be come in and then all Israel shall be saved In this passage you somewhat alter the Apostles resemblance who doth not make the Jewish Nation to answer the tree but the branches nor doth he say the tree is cut down but the branches broken off and here you make the Covenant the root but a little after your words import when you say a holinesse derived from their ancestors c. that by the root you mean their Ancestors And you say The Covenant made with their forefathers is suspended which in some sense may be true that is thus the effects of Gods love to Israel are for the present suspended from those generations and so in our apprehension the Covenant is suspended but in exact speech it cannot be true sith Gods Covenant according to his intention and meaning cannot be suspended or stayed but doth alwayes take effect irresistibly In that wherein you alter the resemblance of the Apostle by putting in the cutting down of the tree instead of breaking off thâ— branches you much pervert the Apostles meaning who makes the tree that is the Church of believers still standing and some branches broken off and others graffed in And for that of the root it is true it is variously conceived by Interpreters some understanding with you the Covenant some Christ some Abraham Isaac and Jacob and some Abraham only which last I conceive to be genuine for the expressions of some branches 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to nature and others 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 besides nature Some naturall some ingraffed our not bearing the root but the root bearing us are plain evidences to me that by the root Abraham is meant Nor know I how to make the resemblance right but by this Exposition Now to say the root that is Abraham is bound with an Iron band of unbeliefe cannot have any handsome construction But you tell us And marke that in all this discourse the holinesse of the branches there spoken of is not meant of a personall inherent holinesse Then Master Thomas Goodwin is answered who in urging 1 Cor. 7.14 for Paedobaptisme saith in the New Testament there is no other holinesse spoken of but personall or reall by regeneration about the which he challenged all the world to shew the contrary whereas here is according to you a holinesse which is not personall or as Mr. Blake speakes qualitative and inherent But to go on You say But a derivative holinesse a holinesse derived to them from their Ancestors the first fruit is holy the lump holy the root holy the branches holy that is the Fathers holy accepted in Covenant with God the children beloved for their Fathers sake and when the vail of unbeliefe shall be taken away the children their posterity shall be taken in again bâ—cause beloved for their fathers sake Now then if our graffing in be answerable to theirs in any or all of these three particulars we and our children are graffed in together Object
a people in Jobs and Lots families who were not circumcised nor to be circumcised and there may be a people of God whâ—â—re not baptiâ—ed as the thief on the crosse the Catechumeni dying aâ—oâ—e baptisme many martyrs and others that have dyed without Baptisme And in the signes themselves there is a great difference both in the acting of them the one of them was with blood the other without the one took away a part of the body the other not and after the acting the one was a permanent signe the other left no impression or footsteps of it that did remain The third agreement is both of them the way and means of solemn entrance and admission into the Church which may be granted yet in the solemnity there was a great difference the one to be done in a private house by a private person the other openly by the Minister thereto appointed The fourth agreement is both of them to be administred but once which I conceive true thus to wit that there is no necessity of administring either of them above once but a demonstrative Argument to prove it an heresie or unlawfull in it self to rebaptize I yet expect Yet this parity hath its disparity For Baptisme is not restrained to any set day but Circumcision was limited to the eighth day in its institution Your fifth And none might be received into the communion of the Church of the Jewes untill they were circumcised nor into the communion of the Church of the Christians untill they be baptized If you mean by Communion to be accounted members of the Church of the Jews I cannot assent unto you For not only the children were accounted in that Church who were not eight dayes old but also all the uncircumcised in the time of the travell through the Wildernesse untill they camâ— to Gilgal and all the females were members though they were not to be circumcised The reason was because God would have all within that Church that were within the families of Israel and therefore he would have the servants born in the house and that were bought with money of any stranger that were not of Abrahams seed circumcised And if you mean by the communion of the Church of Christians the accounting of them as visible members it is not true that none might be received into the communion of the Church of the Christians untill they be baptized unlesse you will with Bellarmine deny the Catechumeni to be actuall members of the Church and oppose Whitaker and others of the Protestant Divines herein The last agreement is that none but the circumcised might eat of the Paschâ—â— Lâ—mbe which is true of those that ought to be circumcised but it â—s not true simply taken for the females were to eat though not circumcised On the other side you say none may but those who are baptized be admitted to eat the Lords Supper This you affirm but you bring no other proof for it but the Analogie conceived by you between Circumcision and the Passeover and Baptisme and the Lordâ— Supper which can make but a Topick argument and that à simili which iâ— of all other the weakest Place to prove by proportions are weak probation saith Râ—â—therfuâ—d Due right of Presbyteries Ch. 2. Sect. 2. p. 37. 'T is true we find persons ordinarily upon their fiâ—st call were baptized and then after received the Lords Supper and it is true that 1 Cor. 10.2 3 4. and 1 Cor. 12.13 baptizing is put before eating and drinking and therefore thers is ground enough for ordering it so yet I make question whether if a person that professeth the faith of Christ sincerely and is not yet baptized suppose for want of a Minister or out of scruple at the way of baptizing only allowed or because the custome is not to baptize but at Easter or Whitsuntide as it was of old or the like reason should come to a Congregation of Christians receiving the Lords Supper and there receive it with love to Christ whether he should sin because not baptized as the Jews should sin that did eat the Passeover not circumcised For in the Jewes case a command is broken not here and so no transgression If he come without examination of himself not discerning the Lords body he sins he breaks the command 1 Cor. 11.28 But where is the command that he must be baptized first And for the same reason I question whether a Minister can justifiâ— it before God if he reject such a Christian from the Lords Supper because not baptized for the aforesaid reasons By this which I have said you may perceive how uncertain your agreements are and how many disagreements there are between Circumcision and Baptisme and therefore how poor a proof or rather none at all may be drawn from the supposed agreements you make between Circumcision and Baptisme for the making a command to circumcise Infants a command to baptize Infants without the Holy Ghost declaring Gods minde to be so All these agreements yâ—a if there were an hâ—ndrâ—d more cannot make it any other than an humane invention if the Holy Ghost do not shew that they agree in this particular But to make the weaknesse of this Argument the more apparent let me parallel the Priests of the Law with the Ministers of the Gospel as you do Circumcision with Baptisme As God appointed Aergâ—s and his sons to Minisâ—eâ— in the time of the Law so the Ministery of the Gospel now the Apostle makes the Analogy expresly 1 Cor. 9.13 14. and far more plainly then the Text you bring for the succession of Baptisme to Circumcision and they agree in many things As the Priests lips should preserve knowledge Mat. 2.7 Deut. 33.10 so must the Bishop be apt to teach 1 Tim. 3.2 As the Priest by offering the sacrifices held forth Christ to them Heb. 9. so the Minister by preaching Gal. 3.1 As the Priest was for the people of God so the Minister of the Gospel As the High Priest was to have the people on his breast so the Minister in his heart as the one was to blesse so the other was to pray for them As the Priest had a consecration so the Minister is to have an ordination As none was to thrust himself into the one without a calling so neither in the other And many more such agreements might be assigned will it therefore follow that a command to a Priest to offer a sacrifice propitiatory is a command to a Minister to offer a sacrifice propitiatory or a command for a Priest to wear a linen Ephod should be a command to a Minister to wear a Surplice as the Papists do just in your manner argue from Analogy or resemblance or that therefore tythes are due to Ministers jure divino by divine appointment as Bishop Carleton Dr. Sclater and others from Analogy of Melchisedecs and Aarons Priesthood would infer or that ordination may be by the people because the children of Israel laid hands on the Levites
of discipling but to baptize and it would serve for a good plea for non-preaching or meer officiating Priests whereas in Mark. 16.15 which I think will not be denied to be parallel to this Matth. 28.19 Disciple all nations is preach the Gospel to every creature But this conceit is so absurd that I presume none that hath any wit will entertain it though the paper be licensed That which I have hitherto discoursed tends to this to prove that when Christ saith Teach all nations and baptize them his meaning is by preaching the Gospel to all nations make them Disciples and baptize those that become Disciples of all nations Now concerning the Position which after Mr. Blake and Mr. Rutherfurd you seem to imbrace concerning the federall or externall holinesse of a believing or chosen nation giving right to the Infants of that nation to be baptized Give me leave to argue a little First if Infants may be baptized because they are born in a chosen nation or a believing nation then there may be a rule whereby we may know when a nation may be called a believing or chosen nation when not otherwise we should not know when to make use of this title to baptisme when not and it were absurd to conceive God should give us a rule and no direction how to make use of it But no rule can be assigned whereby to know when a nation is a believing chosen or discipled nation giving right to baptize Infants of that nation when not Ergo If it be said they may be known in that they are descended from such a Believer as Abraham I reply then God would have lefâ— us a note to know such a nation by as he did Abrahams posterity by Circumcision But there is no such note nor any such nation marked out this were indeed contray to the appointment of admitting all nations If it be said when the king of a countrey is a Believer this is no rule for it may be he may be a Believer and all the rest unbelievers and then the practice of baptizing Infidels afore they are instructed at the command of Princes As when Charles the great foâ—ced the Saxons to be Christians were to be justified If it be said the nation is a believing nation when the representative body believes and so the children of that people may be baptized I answer the representative body may be Believers and the greatest part Infidels Papists c. these Infidels children must then be baptized yea the Infidels themselves by vertue of an implicit faith in their governours faith for they are a part of the nation And therefore if Mr. Blakes Argument be good The Infants of any nation make up a part of the nation and the nation where they came was to be discipled and therefore the Infants to be baptized the same reason holds for Infidels of age for they are a part of the nation If it be said it is a believing nation when the greatest part are Believers how shall that be known How shall a minister do when he cannot come to the knowledge of it must he stay till they be counted by poll as the Sheriffes do at the election of Knights of the Shire and upon Certificate that the major part is believing then baptize Why did not the Apostles so nor any other Ministers to this day How ill would it fare with some poor Christians who are but a handfull in respect of the multitude of unbelievers of their own nation as in the Primitive times when Princes and States were adversaries to Christianity If it be said when all adulti of ripe yeers are believers then such a right is asserted as never was nor perhaps ever will be except when all Israel shall be saved and so no Infants shall be baptized on this ground Secondly but if it could be resolved what number or sort of Believers make a believing nation giving title to Infant-baptisme yet there would be uncertainty concerning the kind of believing which might denominate a believing or chosen nation having federall or externall holinesse such as may create title to the baptisme of Infants of that nation There are some nations that are reckoned among Believers which yet are mis-believers as Heretiques for instance the nation of the Goths who were Arians or grosly Idolatrous as the Spaniards shall they give title to their children to baptisme when without repentance they cannot be deemed capable of communion in the body of Christ Thirdly if Infants of wicked parents be capable of baptisme because born in a believing nation then this priviledge agrees to them either in respect of their descent or the place of their birth or both If in respect of their descent then either their descent within mans memory or their descent beyond all the memory of man If of their descent within memory and knowledge then Foundlings have no title hereby to Baptisme of whose parentage there is no knowledge neerer or remoter who are neverthelesse baptized If of that beyond memory it must be upon such a ground as is common to all Infants in the world which are descended from some Believer in some precedent generation or else such a rule must be set down as hath no certainty in it by which to administer that Ordinance If from the place of birth only because the Church of God is there then children of Turks or Jews are to be baptized because born in London If by reason of both when they concurre and not otherwise then the children of an English Embassador at Constantinople or Agent at Aleppo supposed to be wicked as the Jews that persecuted Christ loose this priviledge because born out of England If there be any other nationall respect upon which this supposed priviledge may be fastened it either hath these or the like inconveniences consequent on it Fourthly if there be such a federall holinesse of a chosen discipled or believing nation as may make the Infants of that nation though their parents be openly wicked capable of Baptisme this right must come from some grant or charter or other We find indeed God would have the posterity of Abraham and all the males in that nation circumcised So God appointed it what ever their parents were for reasons before rehearsed but there is no such grant promise covenant or appointment now to any nation of Gentiles as was then to the posterity of Abraham because the reasons now cease the Messiah is now come and the prerogatives are now personall not nationall not one nation hath priviledge above another as a nation but personall as a Believer in any nation As for the Text which Mr. Rutherfurd alledgeth to wit Rom. 11.16 it hath been examined before and shewed out of the Text that holinesse of the branches there is meant personall by faith and the objection against it which he makes to wit that then the children of a believing parent should be all sanctified whereas the contrary is manifest as in Absolom the son
as Johns Disciples Christs Disciples the disciples of the Phâ—risees Luke 5.33 the disciples of the perverters Acts 20.30 and accordingly they administred Baptisme And in that Christ appoints these to be baptized he excludes others For the appointment of Christ is the rule according to which we are to administer holy things and he that doth otherwise follows his own invention and is guilty of will-worship and thus we construe the meaning of the Holy Ghost in other appointments As because it is said 1 Cor. 11. 28. Let a man examine himself and so let him eat therefore Infants are excluded though Infant-câ—â—â—union was held lawfull and necessary for six hundred yeers in the Church Wine is appointed in the Eucharist therefore not Water mixt with Wine as the Papists contend Water in Baptisme therefore not salt chrisme spettle the Preacher to baptize therefore not women or private persons Males to be circumcised therefore no females two shall be one flesh therefore no more then two against Polygamie Matth. 19.5 So that unlesse you will alter the definition of wil-worship according to Mat. 15.9 in point of worship that is excluded which is not expressed And therefore whereas you say it behoved the Lord to give them a caution for the leaving out of Infants in this new administration that they might know his minde if that be intends to have them left out which that ever he did in word or deed cannot be found in Scripture I may more truly invert thus it behoved the Lord to give them a Precept for the putting in of Infants in this which you truly call new administration as being not the same with Circumcision that they might know his mind if that he intends to have them put in which that ever he did in word or deed cannot be found in the Scripture Certainly you may as soon extract water out of a flint as draw a command to baptize Infants out of this Scripture by any expresse terms or virtuall consequence but the ordinary baptizing of Infants is and may be proved from this Text to be a wil-worship if this Scripture be the rule of administring ordinarily that Ordinance which it indeed is and hath been still taken to be As for that which you say The children make in every nation a great part of the nation so do the Infidels that are adulti of ripe yeers and yet are not therefore included in this speech Teach all nations and baptize them and as for that which you say the children are alwayes included under every administration to the nation whether promises or threatnings priviledges or benefits mercies or judgements unlesse they be excepted therefore here Infants are included when it is said Go teach all nations baptizing them I answer Fiâ—st that this speech in so universall and ample expressions if understood of temporall judgements and mercies is contrary to Ezek. 17.20 Jer. 31.29 30. Isai. 6.13 and 10.22 if of eternall as it seems you mean when you say to be either saved or damned it is contrary to Rom. 9.13.27.29 Rom. 13.5 Secondly if it were true yet makes nothing to the purpose sith this Precâ—pt is not an appointment to baptize all nations as nations without aâ— further circumscription for then every person in the world might be â—aptized but disciples of all nations and therefore it is not a nationall priviledge but a personall belonging to Disciples or Believers of every nation And for that which you say The disciples who received this commission knew well that in all Gods former administrations when any parents were made disciples their children were taken in with them to appertain to the same school if it be thus understood that God required that parents being called should instruct their children and so the children in potentia propinqua in a neer possibility were disciples it is granted according to that which God speaks of Abraham Gen. 18.19 and requires of the Israelites Deut. 6.7 But if you mean it thus that the Disciples knew that when any parents were made disciples barely and precisely for this reason without any other the children were actually disciples and so to have Baptisme administred to them it is an untruth that hath no ground for it But you have yet somewhat more to say for Infants being disciples and therefore you thus answer an objection If it be said they are not capable of being disciples I answer as capable as the Infants of the Jews and Proselytes were when they were made disciples It is granted but neither were the Infants of Jews or Proselytes capable of being actually disciples in an ordinary way nor are ours You go on And besides they are devoted to be disciples being to be trained up by their parents who are from their Infancy to teach them the knowledge of Christ. It is hard to say that parents are to teach Infants from their infancy the Knowledge of Christ For though it is said of Timothy Thou hast known the Holy Scriptures 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2 Tim. 3.15 yet our Translators would not render it from an Infant but from a child But however if their parents be to teach them from their infancy and the parents devote them to be disciples yet this doth not make them disciples actually but potentially they may never be disciples for all that But you tell us And at the present they are capable of his own teaching I deny not but Infants are capable of Christs own teaching yea of actuall faith yea of actuall profession of faith The same power that could make John Baptist in his mothers womb sensible of the presence of Christs mother and to leap for joy that could open the mouth of Balaams Asse can out of the mouth of babes and sucklings perfect praise But then this is done in an extraordinary way and extraordinary accidents make not an ordinary rule But you adde And suâ—e I am in Christs own dialect to belong to Christ and to be a Disciple of Christ or to bear the name of Christ are all one and that such Infants do belong to Christ and bear the name of Christ I have sufficiently proved already and in the margine you cite Mat. 10. 42. Mar. 9.41 Mat. 18.5 Mr. Blake pag. 21. seems to triumph in this Argument when he saith Who then is not afraid to refuse them who will receive Christ Who will not baptize them that is willing to baptize disciples in the name of Christ But this is a triumph afore victory The plain truth is there 's never a one of all the three Texts speaks of little ones in respect of age The first Mat. 10.42 is meant of the Apostles and as Beza in his Annotations sayes rightly Parvos vocat per concessionem suos discipulos homines nimirum coram mundo viles abjectos He calleth his Disciples little ones by concession to wit men vile and abject before the world so that they are called little in respect of their outward estate in the world
such as beleeve and are baptized are taken into Covenant and therefore by good consequence they are to receive the seale of the Covenant the Text not onely shewing that they are within the Covenant but also that a right to Baptisme is a consequence of being within the Covenant This text hath been examined before and it hath been proved that the promise there is the sending of Christ who was raised up to blesse them and their children first then those that were afarre off being called and that the promise doth not belong to their children as the children of beleevers but as called and that the promise is not alledged as of it selfe giving right for them or their children to be baptized without any other consideration but as a motive and incouragement for them to repent and so to be baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus for the remission of sinnes notwithstanding they had crucified the Lord of glory and wished his bloud to be upon them and their children which being thus rightly understood is so farre from proving a command to baptize infants that on the contrary it proves they are not to be baptized You say further Thus for Commands for examples though there should be none there is no great argument in it when the rule is so plaine yet we have examples enough by good consequence It is true if the rule were plaine there would be no need of an example and on the other side if wee had regulating examples we should thereby know how to interpret the rule But whereas you say wee have examples enough by good consequence it may be well suspected these examples will prove like the commands by consequence meere conjectures and conceits of men that would have it so But let us heare what you say For you shall finde that the Gospel tooke place just as the old administration by bringing in whole families together when Abraham was taken in his whole familie was taken in with him when any of the Gentiles turned proselytes ordinarily their whole families came in with them so in this new administration usually if the master of the house turned Christian his whole familie came in and were baptized with him the whole household of Cornelius the first converted Gentile Act. 11.14 the houshold of Stephanus the houshold of Aristobulus the houshold of Narcissus the houshold of Lydia the houshold of the Gaoler These are examples not to be contemned True nor any part of holy Scripture which is written for our learning but in all these there is no example of an infants baptizing in the Scripture You say the Gospel tooke place just as the old administration by bringing in whole families together By the old administration you meane circumcision But wee doe not finde the Gospel or Baptisme tooke place just in the manner or circumcision for in circumcision it was but in one familie singled out of the males onely whether in the covenant of grace or not children or servants elder or younger at eight dayes old in the house by the Master of the familie or others in his stead But in Baptisme it is cleane otherwise so that you might more truly have said the new administration of Baptisme is just opposite to that of circumcision yea in respect of that one thing wherein you make them agree so well the bringing in of whole families together it was but contingently so not alwayes so nor constantly so according to any promise or prophecy and when it did so happen we finde not any infant baptized nor any intimation of baptizing housholds in conformitie to the administration of circumcision And this may appeare by going through the examples of baptizing in the new Testament Concerning John the Baptist it is said Mat. 3.5 Then went out to him Jerusalem and all Judea and all the region round about Jordan and were baptized of him in Jordan confessing their sinnes Luk. 3.29 And all the people that heard him and the Publicans justified God being baptized with the baptisme of John but the Pharisees and Lawyers rejected the counsell of God against themselves being not baptized of him Concerning Christ and his disciples it is said Joh. 4.1 2. When the Lord knew how the Pharisees heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples then Iohn though Iesus himselfe baptized not but his disciples In these examples the practise of baptizing is not by taking in a familie but by admitting all that would become disciples over all the Countries After the ascension of Christ the first example of Baptisme is that Acts 2.44 and there it is said They that gladly received the Word were baptized and these were they to whom he had said ver the 39. the promise is to you and to your children and there were added unto them about three thousand soules and yet never an infant baptized unlesse we shall take Mr Thomas Goodwins conceit for an Oracle possibly the more willingly taken up that it might seeme the more credible that the Church of Jerusalem was but one single formed Congregation in a Church way that therefore it is said There were added three thousand soules to intimate that there were men women and children added he might have observed how ridiculous such a conceit is by that which follows ver 42. And they continued stedfastly in the Apostles doctrine and fellowship and in breaking of bread and in prayer and feare came upon every soule c. Which if he can apply to infants Erit mihi magnus Apollo I shall take his words for Oracles Now sure these three thousand soules were not one family The next example is of the Samaritanes of whom it is said Acts 8.12 That when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the Kingdome of God and the name of Jesus Christ they were baptized men and women Where it is plaine that in a manner the whole Citie were baptized for ver 6. it is said The multitude with one accord gaâ—e heed to that which Philip spake ver 13. Simon himselfe that did before lead them now believed and ver 14. Samaria received the word of God and yet not an infant mentioned to be baptized but those that believed and received the word of God nor was this administration by taking in of a familie but rather of a Citie The next are of the Eunuch Acts 8.38 and Paul Acts 9.18 which were single believing persons not a whole familie The next is of Cornelius of whom you gather from Acts 11.14 That his whole houshold were baptized But it is true withall that his house was not an ordinary familie but a garrison of Souldiers 2. That he called together his kinsmen and neare friends Acts 10.24 3. That ver 2. This whole house feared God 4. That no other are nominated to have been baptized but those who had heard the word ver 44. which spake with tongues and magnified God ver 46. which received the holy Ghost ver 47. who were saved by Peters words Acts 11.14
men therefore they may and ought to receive the outward signe of Baptisme The major proposition that they who are made partakers of the inward grace may not be debarred of the outward signe is undeniable it is Peters argument Acts 10. Can any forbid water that these should not be baptized who have received the holy Ghost as well as wee And againe for as much as God gave them the like gift as he did unto us what was I that I could withstand God And this is so cleare that the most learned of the Anabaptists doe readily grant that if they knew any infant to have received the inward grace they durst not deny them the outward signe and that the particular infants whom Christ took up in his armes and blessed might have been baptized The Question between us is whether the infants of believers universally or indifferently are to be admitted to the Sacrament of Baptisme according to ordinary rule Now I suppose you doe not hold that the infants of believers indifferently have actually the thing signified by Baptisme that is the Holy Ghost union with Christ adoption forgivenesse of sinnes regeneration and everlasting life for then they are all sanctified and are all believers and if this could be proved there would be no question about Paedobaptisme the texts Act. 8.37 Act. 10.47 Act. 11.17 would undeniably prove it and therefore there is no Antipaedobaptist I thinke but will grant your Major That regenerate persons united to Christ whose sins are forgiven adopted persons that have received the Holy Ghost are to be baptized But I conceive though in the laying down the Major you use these phrases who have the thing signified who have the heavenly part and in your Minor are made partakers yet you do not mean in this Assumption actuall having and being made partakers of the inward grace of Baptism concerning which the Antipaedobaptists do so readily grant the Major but a potentiall having or as you after speak being capable of the inward grace and so you use the fallacy of equivocation in the Major having being understood of actuall having and in the Minor of potentiall which makes four terms and so the Syllogisme is naught Or if you do mean in both actuall having you mean it only of some Infants of Believers not of all of whom the Question is and so your conclusion is but particular that some Infants of Believers who are sanctified actually are to be baptized But this will not reach home to your tenet or practice concerning the baptizing of all Infants of Believers in as much as they are the children of Believers without the consideration of actuall faith or sanctification It is true the Lutheranes do teach that Infants have actuall faith and are regenerate in Baptisme and therefore in Colloquio Mompelgarâ—ensi upon the fourth Artic. de Baptismo they put these among the Positions they reject as contrary to the Scripture Non omnes infantes qui baptizantur gratiae Christi participes esse regenerari infantes carere fide nihilominus baptizari that all the Infants which are baptized are not partakers of the grace of Christ and regenerate that Infants want faith and neverthelesse are baptized And I remember when I lived in Oxford there was a book published in English of Baptismal initiall regeneration of elect Infants the Position whereof was opposed as favouring the doctrine of conferring grace by Baptisme ex opere operato by the work wrought and intercision of regeneration sith according to that doctrine a person might have the Spirit initially in infancy and though it could not fall away finally as being an elect person yet might run out in a continued course of sinning grosse and scandalous sins with full consent untill his dying day which doth enervate the urging of that Text 1 John 3.9 against Apostasie of regenerate persons when out of it is proved that raigning sin is not in the regenerate and the like texts which in that Controversie are urged against Arminans With that book Dr. Featley in his late feeble and passionate Tract against Anabaptists and Antiprelatists concurs pag. 67. in these words Nay so farre are they from excluding faith from Infants that are baptized that they believe that all the children of the faithfull who are comprised in the covenant with their fathers and are ordained to eternall life at the very time of their baptisme receive some hidden grace of the Spirit and the seed of faith and holinesse which afterwards bears fruit in some sooner in some later And since I came to London I met with a Book intituled A Christian plea for Infants Baptisme by S.C. who holds positions somewhat like to the Lutherans that though children of believing parents be not all holy and righteous they may degenerate apostatize yet the Infants of believing parents are righteous by imputation are believers and confessors imputatively c. pag. 10. and elsewhere And he hath this passage pag. 3. It is a sure truth that the sins of the parents being forgiven the Lord will not impute the same unto their Infants Originall sin I say taketh no more hold on the Infants then on their parents and touching actuall sin they are as clear as their parents Many more like passages there are in that Book these I mention that you may see what stuffe Paedobaptists do feed the people with But I suppose you do not hold that all Infants of Believers either actually or initially or imputatively are sanctified regenerated adopted justified as knowing how contrary this is to Rom. 9.6 c. to daily experience to the doctrine of Beza and his Collegues at Monâ—pelgart to the reformed Churches of Geneva c. and what advantage it gives to Papists Lutherans Arminians and those that follow the way of Tomson in his Diatribe of which I suppose you are not ignorant and therefore conceiving you orthodox in this point the answer to your Syllogisme is either by shewing it doth not conclude the question if your Minor and conclusion be understood of actuall having the inward grace and they be particular only If you understand them of actuall having and they be universall then I deny your Minor If your Major be understood of potentiall having I deny it if of actuall and the Minor be of potentiall there be four terms and so the Syllogisme is naught Take away the ambiguity of your terms and the answer is easie But for the proof of your Minor you say thus And for the Assumption or Minor That the Infants of Believers even while they are Infants do receive the inward grace as well as grown men is as plain not only by that speech of the Apostle who saith they are holy but our Saviour saith expresly Mark 10. That to such belongs the Kingdome of God as well as to grown men And whereas some would evade it by saying that the Text saith not To them belongs the kingdome of God but of such is the Kingdome of heaven 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
because then no other were capable of baptisme In this perioch you grant many things which doe yeeld the cause for 1. you say that both John and Christs disciples and the Apostles did teach before they baptized because then no other were capable of baptisme now by this reason you confesse 1. that baptizing of infants is not according to Johns and Christs disciples and Apostles practise 2. you say then no other were capable of baptisme Now this is true either because then there were no children of believers that might be baptized but that is absurd that in all the time of Johns and the disciples and Apostles ministery believers had no children to be baptized and contrary to the allegation of Mark. 10.14 and other Texts or because they had no Commission I cannot conceive how else your speech can be true But if John the disciples and Apostles had no Commission to baptize infants neither have we and so to doe it neither have our Ministers any commission for we have no other commission to baptize then they had But you thinke to salve it thus But when once themselves were instructed and baptized then their children were capable of it by vertue of the covenant Upon which I observe 1. If the children were capable when once parents were instructed and baptized then they were capable in Johns and the disciples and Apostles times and so this speech overthrowes that before that then no other but taught persons were capable of baptisme 2. When you say the children were capable by vertue of the covenant it seems you could produce no institution in the new administration but the institution of circumcision the validitie of which hath been considered before Besides the covenant being the same at all times as your Conclus 1. holds the children of believers were as capable in Johns time as after So that your words plainly enterfere But you put a case to be resolved If any in the Jewish Church had received commission to goe and make other Cities proselytes to them their commission must have run thus Goe teach and circumcise would it therefore have followed that none might be circumcised but such as were first taught To this I answer in this commission the precept of circumcising should have had reference in the execution of it either to the old institution of circumcision Gen. 17. and then they had been appointed to circumcise males at eight dayes old not taught or to a new institution and then it would have been told more plainly what they were to circumcise and whom and so they might have resolved themselves But what this makes for baptisme of infants I see not unlesse it be supposed that baptisme and circumcision are all one which like the string in the Lampry is an errour that runs along through your whole Sermon THe next objection you thus expresse But it is expresly said That he that believes and is baptized shall bâ— saved faith in Christ is the condition upon which men may be baptized and this is the most common objection among the Anabaptists unbelievers may not be baptized children are unbelievers therefore they may not be baptized wee have say they cleare evidence that faith is a condition required in those that are to be baptized no evidence of any other condition that makes them capable of baptisme Others of them adde that under an affirmative command the negative is to be included believing is the affirmative unbelieving is the negative therefore where believers are commanded to be baptized unbelievers are forbidden to be baptized this objection they much glory in and some of them dare all the world to answer it The objection framed in this later way I own not and consequently I may well let passe the answer for the truth is Mark 16.16 is not a command but an enuntiation onely that text with others specially that Acts 8. 37. where when the Eunuch asked Philip What letteth me to be baptized Philip answered if thou believest in the Lord Jesus with all thy heart thou mayest and thereby intimated that faith professed is a prerequisite to baptisme and the defect of it an hindrance confirme the objection as it is the first way formed which may be further strengthned from the baptisme of Lydia the Jaylor Crispus c. and is confirmed in that in the subsequent practise of baptizing a Confession of faith was made by the person baptized as appeares out of plaine passages in the Ancients Justin Martyr Tertullian Cyprian and Augustine lib. 8. confes c. 2. where speaking of one Victorinus who was to be baptized Denique ut ventum est ad horam profitendae fidei quae verbis certis retentisque memoriter de loco eminentiore in conspectu populi fidelis Romae reddi solet ab iis qui accessuri sunt ad gratiam tuam c. Lastly when it was come to the houre of professing the faith which is wont in certaine words and gotten by heart to be rendered from an higher place in the sight of the faithfull people at Rome by those that shall have accesse in thy grace and when it was offered him by the Presbyters that if he would he might then make his confession more secretly he refused it and made his confession publiquely with great acclamation But this is a thing confessed by you pag. 47. and it is usually answered that this was onely in the baptisme of growne men but infants might be baptized without such a confession I reply this answer might serve turne if either by institution or practise primitive there could be proved any other baptisme then of confessors of faith in the meane time till that be done the argument is good sith primum in unoquoque genere est mensura reliquorum The first in each kinde is the measure of the rest and this was a prerequisite condition in the first practise therefore it ought to be so still especially considering that God in his providence hath still preserved in all ages an image of the first practise in the interrogatories propounded to the baptized even to infants and thought necessary to be answered by some one for them and the altering of it hath been a great cause of many corruptions in the Church of God that so men might see what evils have followed the swerving from the rule and might be directed what is necessary to be reformed And so I passe to the third as you call it objection which you thus expresse BVt suppose they are capable of the inward grace of baptisme and that God doth effectually worke in some of the infants of believers is that sufficient warrant for us to baptize all the infants of beleevers if wee knew in what infants the Lord did worke then we might baptize those infants say some of them but that he doth not make knowne to us wee cannot know of any one infant by any ordinary way of knowledge that they are inwardly baptized with the holy Ghost and therefore
with some difference Baptisme properly seales the entrance into it the Lords Supper properly the growth nourishment and augmentation of it Baptisme for our birth the Lords Supper for our food Now infants may be borne againe while they are infants have their originall sin pardoned be united to Christ have his image stampt upon them but concerning the exercise of these graces and the augmentation of them in infants while they are infants the Scripture is altogether silent You spake somewhat to like purpose before which I examined part 3. sect 15. To me it is yet as a paradoxe that Baptisme seales properly the entrance into the Covenant and the Lords Supper the growth nourishment and augmentation of it If you make the entrance at remission of sins justification or mortification the Lords Supper that seales Christs death seales the entrance into the Covenant Mat. 26.28 And for Baptisme it seales dying with Christ and rising with Christ Rom. 6.3 4 5. Gal. 3.27 Col. 2.12 1 Pet. 3.21 and therefore not onely the first worke of conversion but also after-growth and exercise of holinesse And the Lords Supper signifies the same receiving the Spirit which Baptisme doth 1 Cor. 12.13 And according â—o the doctrine of Protestants Baptisme seales as well the pardon of other sins as of originall sin And so Peter Acts 2.38 and Ananias Act. 22.16 And therefore this difference you put is a difference which the Scripture makes not that I say nothing of your strange phraseology of the growth nourishment and augmentation of the Covenant But you say And what is said concerning the infants of the Jewes eating the Passeover to which our Sacrament of the Lords Supper doth succeed there is no such thing mentioned in the Book of God It is said indeed that the severall families were to eate their Lambe if the houshold were not too little for it and that when their children should aske them what that service meant they should instruct them about the meaning of it but no word injoyning nor any example witnessing thaâ— their little children did eate of it The Commands were that all the males should thrice a yeare appeare before the Lord one of which was the Passeover Exod. 23.17 Exod. 34.23 Deut. 16.16 And at that time there was no other food to be eaten but the unleavened bread and the paschall Supper Therefore those males that could eate though not come to yeares of discretion fit to receive the Lords Supper yet were to eate the Passeover Ainsworth notes on Exod. 12.26 So both the outward rite and the meaning of it was to be taught to their children Touching whom the Jewes hold from the Law in Exod. 23.14.17 Deut. 16.14.16 that every child that could hold his Father by the hand and goe up from Jerusalem gates to the mountaine of the Temple his Father was bound to cause him to goe up and appeare before God with him to the end he might catechize him in the Commandements And who sow as bound to appeare was bound to keep the feast Maimâ—ny in Hagigah Chap. 2. sect 3 4. Also they say A childe that is able to eate a marsell of bread they catechize him in the Commandements and give him to eate so much as an Olive of the unleavened bread Maimony Treatise of leaven and unleavened bread c. 6. sect 10. But you say If they say as some of them doe that those little ones who were able to enquire concerning the meaning of that service and capable to receive instruction about it did eate of the Passeover with their parents I answer although the Scripture speaks nothing of their eating yet if that be granted it is no prejudice to us because the Gospel prohibites not such young ones from the Lords Supper who are able to examine themselves and discerne the Lords body True but children that were to appeare at the Passeover and to partake of it were many of them such as might be instructed concerning the meaning of that service and yet too young to examine themselves or to discerne the Lords body so that if the Lords Supper succeed the Passeover and a rule may be drawne from the Passeover to the Lords Supper children unable to examine themselves may be admitted to the Lords Supper THe rest of your Sermon is application which being not argumentative I shall let it passe Onely whereas you charge Anabaptists with a rash and bloudy sentence condemning infants as out of the state of grace condemning all the infants of the whole Church of Christ as having nothing to doe with the Covenant of grace and then tragically aggravate this thing as parallel or rather exceeding the cruelty of Herod and Hazael in slaying and dashing the infants of Israel against the wall till you produce some testimonies of those you call Anabaptists so determining I shall take it to be but a false accusation and a fruit of passion not of holy zeale For the thing it selfe I have shewed part 2. sect 10. that it doth not follow on the doctrine of Antipaedobaptisme and I conceive that if to be in the Covenant of grace be rightly explained to wit so as to signifie the having of the promise of justification and salvation by Christ Jesus besides which I know not any other Evangelicall Covenant of grace your selfe will be found to exclude them from the covenant of grace as much as they As they dare not say that this or that particular infant of a believer is in the covenant of grace that is certainly elected justified and to be saved so neither dare you Your owne words are pag. 48. Charitie being not tyed to conclude certainly of any of them because they ought to know that all are not Israel who are of Israel and that many are called but few are chosen If you should you would gainsay the Apostle Rom. 9.6 7 8. And on the other side as you will not say they are damned so neither will they I am perswaded but suspending any sentence concerning this or that in particular leave them to God who is the soveraigne Lord both of them and us THus have I at last in the middest of many wants distractions discouragements and temptations with the assistence of God who hath never failed me to him be the praise examined your Sermon and thereby shewed that it doth not satisfie and how little reason you had to say in your Epistle I am assured that it is Gods truth which I have preached and which he will blesse Notwithstanding which confidence I presume you will see cause to consider more exactly of this matter upon the reading of this answer I dare not thinke any otherwise of you then as of one who loves and seekes the truth Nor doe I know any reason why you should conceive that I have taken this paines for any ends crosse to the finding of truth My reall intention in this worke is to discover truth and to doe what is meete for mee in my calling towards
little ones most lately born can be freed from damnation unlesse by the grace of the name of Christ which he hath commended in his Sacraments Pag. 16. Neither let that move thee that some do not bring little ones to receive baptisme with that faith that they may be regenerated by spirituall grace unto life eternall but because they think that by this remedy they keep or receive temporall health For not therefore are they not regenerate because they are not offered by them with this intention For necessarie ministeries are celebrated by them It is answered he doth beleeve by reason of the Sacrament of faith Pag. 18. in the margin Lastly who seeth not that this was the manner of that time when scarce the thousandth person was baptized afore he was of grown age and diligently exercised among the catechized Part. 2. Pag. 21. These to the rest of the errours which they borrowed from the Manichees and Priscillianists added this over and above that they said that the baptisme of little ones was unprofitable inasmuch as it could profit none who could not both himself beleeve and by himself ask the Sacrament of baptisme of which kind we read not that the Manichees and Priscillianists taught any thing They mock us because we baptize infants because we pray for the dead because we ask the suffrages of the Saints They beleeve not that Purgatory fire remains after death but that the soul loosed from the body doth presently passe either to rest or to damnation But now they who acknowledge not the Church it is no marvell if they detract from the orders of the Church if they receive not their appointments if they despise Sacraments if they obey not commands Because he took away Festivals Sacraments Temples Priests because the life of Christ is shut up from the little ones of Christians while the grace of baptisme is denied nor are they suffered to draw neer to salvation Pag. 23. We perceive in the man dexterity and a study of mediocrity But in that man I desire to be deceived I have seemed to my self to have found nothing but immoderate thirst of wealth and glory A fanatique man and grosse Anabaptist Pag. 24. They would seem studious of truth Pag. 25. The word of the Lord. From the staffe to the corner A proverbiall speech in Schools when one thing is inferred from another which have no connexion They who all along these places of Belgick and lower Germany are found bordering on this Anabaptisticall heresie are almost all followers of this Mennon whom I have named to whom now this Theodorick hath succeeded In whom for a great part you may perceive tokens of a certain godly mind who being incited by a certain unskilfull zeal out of errour rather then malice of mind have departed from the true sense of Divine Scriptures and the agreeing consent of the whole Church which may be perceived by this that they alwayes resisted the rage of Munster and Batenburgick that followed after stirred up by John Batenburg after the taking of Munster who plotted a certain new restitution of the kingdom of Christ which should be placed in the destruction of the wicked by outward force And they tauâ—ht thâ—t the instauration and propagation of the kingdom of Christ consists in the crosse alone whereby it happens that they which are such mâ—y seem rather worthy of pity and amendment then persecution and perdition Pag. 28. What part of time Pag. 48. Hâ—w it may be that Israel may be rejected but that together the Covenant of God established with Abraham and his seed should seem to be made void In the margin The credit of that promise Gen. 17.7 8. doth presently appear to be brought into danger by the rejecting of the Jews and the exclusion of them out of the Covenant of God sith they are born of Abraham according to the flâ—sh so saith he it appeares to them that look upon the first fâ—ce of things The Apostle shews thâ—t theâ—efâ—re the word of the Covenant and divine promises made to Israel failed not or was made void aâ—though a great part of the Jews were unbelieving because those promises of the Câ—venant are of God not to them properly who were to come from the seed of Abraham according to the flesh but to those who were to be ingraffed into the family of Abraham by vertue of divine promise Pag. 49. The argument of the Apostle to prove the Covenant of God entred into with Abraham doth not comprehend all the posterity of Abraham in its skirt we think should be thus simply framed Esau and Jacob were of the pâ—sterity of Abraham but God did not comprehend both of these in his Covenant with Abraham Therefore not all the posterity of Abraham It is proved that God did not comprehend both in the Covenant of grace because he did not comprehend Esau the elder but Jacob the younger Pag. 50. There are many of the seed of Abraham to whom the word of promise doth not belong as Ismael and Ismaelites But if so there be many of the seed of Abraham to whom the word of promise doth not belong then the rejâ—ction of many Jews who are of the seed of Abraham doth not make void the word of promise In the margin Calvin gathers hence in that any is the seed of Abraham the promise made to Abraham belongs to him but the answer is manifest that promise understood of spirituall blessing pertaines not to the carnall seed of Abraham but to the spirituall as the Apostle himselfe hath interpreted it Rom. 4. 9. For if you understand the carnall seed now that promise will belong to none of the Gentiles but to those alone who are begotten of Abraham and Isaac according to the flesh He teacheth also that the promises of God are not tied to the carnall birth but to belong onely to the believing and spirituall posterity For they are not the sons of Abraham who are of Abraham according to the flesh but who are according to the spirit Pag. 51. In the Margin The inculcation also of the seed sheweth that onely the elect and effectually called are noted the Apostle so interpreting this place Rom. 9.8 Gal. 3.16 4.28 Pag. 52. That baptisme doth not certainly seale in all the children of believers the grace of God sith among them some are absolutely reprobated even by an antecedent decree of God from eternity and therefore believers are to doubt of the truth of Gods Covenant I am thy God and the God of thy seed after thee Pag. 58. To be a son of Abraham doth declare nothing else but to be freely elected Rom. 9.8 and to tread in the steps of the faith of Abraham Rom. 4.12 and to doe the workes of Abraham Joh. 8.39 From which is rightly gathered certain expectation of salvation to come Rom. 8.29 Pag. 69. In the Margin Infants in their parents grandfathers great grandfathers grandfathers grandfathers have refused the grace of the Gospel by which act
est tale Scriptuâ— esse â—jus Authoris 〈◊〉 nomen prefâ—rt Rivet tractâ—t de Patrum Authâ—rit cap 14. Consuetudo tamen Man is Ecâ—lesia in baptizandis parvulis nequaquam sperâ—enda est neque ullo modo superflua deputanda nec omnino credenda nisi Apostolica esset traditio Augustin lib. 10. cap. 23. de Genesi § 6. Of the Testimonies of Gregory Nazianzen and the Greeke Church Lib. 2. heresi 47 vel 67. §. 7. Of the testimony of Cyprian §. 8. Of the testimony of Augustine August tâ—m 1. Confess lib. 1. c. 11 Sigâ—abar signo Cruâ—is ejus conâ—iâ—bâ—r ejus saâ—e jam inde ab uteâ—o matris mâ—ae quae multum speravit in te And then followes how being young and falling sick he desired and his mother thought to have him baptized but upon his recovery it was differred Rivet tract de Patrum authoritate c. 9. Augustinus aeternis flammis adjudicat Infantes fine baptismo morientes· §. 9. Of the testimonies of Hierom and Ambrose §. 10. Oâ— the valiâ—ity of proof by these testimonies and of the evidences that Infant-baptism is an innovation Chamier panstr Cathol to 4. l. 5. c. 15. §. 19. Denique hunc morem quis non videt ejus temporis â—sse cum vix milâ—esimus quisque baptâ—zabatur non adultus in Catechumenis diligenter exercitus H. Hamond A practicall Catech l. 1. §. 3. pag. 23. And those other fundamentals of faith which all men were instructed in anciently before they were permitted to be baptized §. 1. Of the fitnes of placing the Narration of miscarriages of opposers of Paedobaptisâ—e §. 2. Of the opposers of Infant-baptisme afore Baltazar § 3. Of Baltazar Pacimontanâ—◠§. 4. Of rebaptizing § 5. Of the Anabaptists in Germanie and the Antiprelatists in England §. 6. Of Anabaptists opposing Magistracy §. 7. Of the hindering of refoâ—mation by Anabaptisme §. 8. The Antipaedobaptists principle overthrows not the Lords day the Paedobaptists principle reduceth Judaisme and Popish Ceremonies and addes to the Gospell Vid. Rainold Confer with Hart c. 8. §. 4. §. 9. Of the evill of separating from the Ministry and Communion of Christians by reason of this opinion §. 10. Of the condition into which the opinion of Anti-paedobaptisme puts the infants of believers of originall sin salvation out of the Church and Covenant of grace §. 1. Of the connexion between the covenant and the seale §. 2. Of the first conclusion concerning the identity of the Covenant of grace fâ—r substâ—nce to Jews and Gâ—ntiles §. 3. Of the meaning of the second Conclusion The answer of the Assembly of Divines to the reasons of the 7 dissenting brâ—thren p. 48 praecog 1. The whole Churâ—h of Christ is but one made up of the collection and aggregation of all who are called out of the world by the preaching of the Word to professe the faith of Christ §. 4. That the Covenant of grace is not made to believers and their seed Twisse vind Grat. cont Armin. lib. 1. pa. 1. digr 7. Hujus autem promissionis Gen. 17.7 8. fides confestim apparet in discrimen adâ—uci ex rejectione Judaeorum exclusione eorundem ex foedâ—re Dei cum fint ex Abrahamo sâ—cundum carnem prosminati sic inquit apparet primas rerum facies intuentibus Walae cont Corvin cap. 15. pag. 377. Apostolus ostendit ideo verbum foederis divinarum promissionum Israelitis factarum non excidere aut irritum fieri licet magna Judaeorum pars esset incredula quia promissiones illae foedâ—ris factae sunt a Deo non iis proprie qui ex semine Abrahami secundum carnem erant orituri sed iis qui secundum electionâ—m gratuitam Abrahami familiae ex vi diâ—ina promissionis erant inserendi The new Annotations on the Bible Annot. on Rom. 9.8 The children of the flesh c Not all they who are carnally born of Abraham by the course of nature are the children of God to whom the promise of grace was made but the childâ—en of promise that is those who were born by vertue of the promise those who by Gods speciall grace were adopted as Isaac by a speciall and singular promise was begot by Abraham they only are accounted for thaâ— seed mentioned in the Covenant I will be thy God and the God of thy seed Estius annot ad Gen. 17.7 Colligit hinc Calvinus â—o ipso quo quis est semen Abrahae ad cum pertinere prâ—missionem Abrahae factam sed responsio manifesta prâ—missionem illam de benedictione spirituali intellectam non ad carnale semen Abrahaemi pertinere sed ad spirituale quemadmodum eam ipse Apostolus interpretatâ—â— est Rom. 4 9. Si enim carnale semen intelligas jam ad neminem ex gentibus illa promissio pertinebit sed ad solos ex Abraham Isaac secundum carnem genitos Paraeus Comment in Mat. 3.9 Docet quoque promissiones Dei non alligatas esse carnali origini sed pertinere tantum ad posteros fideles spirituales Non enim sunt filii Abrahae qui secundum carnem sunt ex Abraham sed qui secundum spiritum Ainsworth ann on Gâ—n 12.7 Thy seed That is to all the children of promise the elect who only are couâ—ted Abrahams seed Rom. 9.7 8. and in Christ are heirs by promise as well the Gentiles as the Jews Gal. 3.26.28.29 Ames Coron art 5. cap. 2. Seminis etiam inculcatio solos electos efficaciter vocatos notari docet Apostolo sic hunc titulum interprâ—tante Rom. 9.8 Gal. 3.16 4.28 §. 5. It is not in Gods church like other kingdomes Cotton Way of the Churches of Christ in N.E. c. 4. §. 6. Infants cannot claim right unto baptisme but in the right of one of their parents or both Where neither of the parents can claim right to the â—ords supper there thâ—ir Infants cannâ—t claim right to Baptisme Aâ— therefore we do not receive an heâ—â—hen to the fellowship of the supper nor their seed to Baptism so neither dare we receive an excommunicate person who is to us an heathen to the Lords supper or his children to Baptisme But after â— 7 §. 2. Or where either of the parents have made such profession Or it may be consiâ—ered alâ—o whether the children may not be baptized where either the grand-father or grand-mother have made suâ—h profâ—ssion and are still living to undertake for the Christian education of the child For it may be coâ—ceived where there is a stipulation of the Covenant on Gods part anâ— a restipulation on maâ—s part there may be an obligation of the Covenant on both parts Gen. 17.7 Or if these saile what hindereth but that if the parâ—nts will deâ—â—gne their infant to be educated in the house of any goâ—ly member of the Church the child may be lawfully baptized in the right of its household governour according to the proportion of the Law Gen 17.12 13. §. 6. Of the Texts which are Act.