of Satan Hee would have Infants of all who are taken into Covenant with him to bee accounted his to belong to him to his Church and family and not to the Devills So much weight lies upon this Conclusion and it so neerely concernes you to make at least a shew of overthrowing it that in 40 Pages and upward you try all your wits and artifices to shake the strength of it by scornefull speeches by clouding and darkning what was expressed plainely by framing senses and confuting what was never asserted nor intended by Bringing in at the by opinions of other men and disputing against them by alledging the Testimonies of some eminently learned men when they are nothing to the purpose in hand and by seeking to elude the strength of my arguments In all these I shall attend you and endeavour to cleare what you would seeme to have obscure briefly to passe over what is impertinent and chiefly buckle with you in that which concernes the cause in hand First you tell me this conclusion is a bâ—â—kin that may bee put on either leg right or left exprest so ambiguously that you know not in what sense to take it Truely Sir you take a course to make it seeme so I knew a man in Cambridge that went for a great Scholler whose remarkable facultie was so to expound a Text as to make a cleare Text darke by his interpretation even thus have you dealt with a plaine Conclusion you bring first three sorts of senses then you subdivide them and under each of them bring severall Imaginable senses foure or five under one head five or six under another head and then blame me that I have not distinctly set downâ— in which of these senses Infants of Beleevers belong to the Covenant whether in respect of Election or of a promise of grace in Christ whether potentially or actually whether they are so to bee accounted by an act of science or faith or opinion and that grounded on a rule of haritie or prudence or probable hopes for the future thus you expresse your skill in multiplication of senses But I reply that hee that runs may reade my sense and with the tenth part of the paines you have taken to fasten a sense upon it which I never thought upon might confidently have concluded that I meant of a visible priviledge in facie visibilis Ecelesiae or have their share in the faedus externum which my words plainely enough held forth when I spake of Gods separating a number out of the world to be his Kingdome Citie Household in apposition to the rest of the world which is the Devills Kingdome and afterwards in the same Conclusion God having left all the rest of the world to bee visibly the Devills Kingdome although among them many belong to his invisible kingdome as being of the number of his elect he will not permit the Devill to come and lay visible claime to the off-spring of those who are begotten of the children of the most High is not this plaine enough that as all they who by externall vocation and profession joyne to the Church of God though few of those many so called are elected have a visible right to bee esteemed members of the Church Kingdom of God which is a visible Corporation distinct and opposite to the rest of the world which is visibly the corporation and kingdom over which the Devill doth reign So God would have their children even while they are children to enjoy the same priviledge with them what Delian Diver is there any need of to fetch up the meaning of this But that you may no longer complaint of not understanding my sense I say plainly The Covenant of grace is sometime taken strictly sometime largely as it is considered strictly it is a Covenant in which the spirituall benefits of justification regeneration perseverance and glorification are freely promised in Christ Secondly as the Covenant of grace is taken largely it compâ—â—hendss all Evangelicall administrations which doe wholly depend upon the free and gratious appointment of God and this administration is fulfilled according to the counsell of Gods will sometimes it was administred by his appointment in typeâ— shadowes and other legall Ordinances this Covenant of administration God said Zâ—â—â—ary 11. 10. hâ—â— did 〈◊〉 with the people of the Jews and at the death of Christ hee did wholly evacuate and abolish and in stead thereof brought in the administration which wee live under where also hee rejected the Jews or booke them off from being his people in Covenant and called the Gentiles and graffed them in ramâ—rum defractorum locum into the place of the branches broken off as your selfe page 65. doe with Beza rightly expresse it Now according to this different acceptation of the Covenant are men differently said to bee in covenant with God or to be members of his Church and family some are mysticall members by inward grace the inward grace of the Covenant being bestowed upon them being made new creatures c. others are members in regard of the externall and visible aeconomy accordingly among the Jewes some were said to bee Abrahams seed according to the promise and not onely after the flesh who had the Circumcision of the heart as well as that which was outward others were Jewes in propatulo Jewes onely in foro visibilis ecolesia and in like manner is it under the Evangelicall administration in the Christian Church some are in Christ by mysticall 〈◊〉 so as to bee regenerate c. 1 Cor. 6. 17. 2 Cor. 5. 17. others are said to bee in Christ by visible and externall profession as branches which beare no fruite Iohn 15. 2. and these also are called branches of the Vine though such branches as for unfruitfulnesse shall at last bee cut off and cast away and often times tells us many are called but few are chosen Unto both these do belong great priviledges though the priviledgâ—â— of the one be saving the other not as shall by and by appeare Furthermore according to this different notion of the Covenant grounded upon the different manner of mens being in Christ there are also different Sâ—ales belonging unto the Covenant some peculiar and proper onely unto those who are in Covenant spiritually a quoâ—d substantiam et gratiâ—â— faeâ—â—ris as the testimony and Seale of the Spirit 2 Cor. 1. 2â— Ephes 1. 13. 14. 30. Rom. 8. 16. others common and belonging unto all who are in the visible body and branches of Christ the Vine in any relation and so in Covenant quoad 〈…〉 till by scandalous 〈◊〉 which are 〈◊〉 with that very outward dignitie and profession they cut themselves off from that relation and such are the visible and externall Seales annexed to the externall profession among Christians as the Jewish Seales were to those who were Jewes externally When therefore I say they are visibly to bee reckoned to belong to the Covenant with their parents I meane looke what
sense every child of a beleever is brone a Christian that is hee is a member of the visible Church in the second sense none can claime it as a birthright men must be made Christians in that sense and not borne Christians thus this which is a weake objection of the Lutherans against the Calvinists is easily answered to bee children of wrath by nature and yet to bee holy in an externall Covenant being borne of beleeving parents do no whit oppose one another thus it was not onely among the Jewes who had a visible standing under the Covenant of grace and yet multitudes of them were the children of wrath but even thus it is unto this day among growne men who are admitted to be Christians in your way some of them are sancti called and holy in the face of the visible Church and yet not so coram facie dei whilst others are so both in the spirit and in the letter Your great errour and mistake is that you speake not distinctly of the Covenant of grace for whereas the Covenant is to bee largely understood for the whole dispensation of it in outward Ordinances as well as saving graces you usually take it strictly for saving graces which belong onely to the elect You cannot bee ignorant how our Divines owne the outward administration of the Covenant under the notion of faedus externum and the spirituall grace of it under the notion of faedus inteâ—â—um you still restraine the Covenant to the spirituall part onely and would perswade your Reader that they who speake of the Covenant of grace must meane it thus strictly and yet you bring not arguments to disprove a true visible membership upon a visible profession whether the inward saving grace be known or not Now I returne with you to my Sermon where your examen proceeds I used for illustration sake â—â— comparison from other Kingdomes Corporations and Families the children follow the condition of their parents free mâ—nâ— children are borne free the children of slaves are borne slaves c. and thus hath God ordained said I that it shall bee in his Kingdome and Family children follow the Covenant condition of their parents this passage you slight first in generall as that which containes nothing but dictates but parâ—ius-ista-vitis you may give your adversary two in the seven at dictating you who call my onely using a comparison or allusion to bee a dictating can dictate in this very place Christianitie say you is no mans birthright this was but even just now the question betwixt you and Mr. Blake and you here without any proofe â—et downe this peremptory conclusion which was the very question betwixt you Christianitis is no mans birth-right but the thing is true call it what you please and will not bee blowne away with a scornefull puffe but say you I doâ—very carnally imagine the Church of God to bee like civill Corporations as if persons were to bee admitted into it by birth whereas in this all is done by free election of grace and according to Gods appointment I reply you carnally and sinfully judge of Gods wayes in this particular for is it not evident that the Jewish Church was in this like civill corporations were not children then admitted in by birth-right and yet was not grace then as free as it is now had the Jewes by birth no seale of grace and that by Covenant because God was the God of them and their seed or was there no grace accompanying the Jewish Sacraments I suppose you are not so Popish as to deny it And further I pray you tell mee was not all done among them as much by the free election of grace as among us are you of Arminius his mind that Iacob and Esaâ— both circumcised persons are not proposed to us Rom. 9. as such who hold forth to us the soveraigntie of God in election and reprobation Secondly what meane you when you say all is done in the Church according to the fâ—â—â— election of grace T is true if you meane it of the Church invisible all is there done by the free election of grace but wee are speaking of the visible Church and I hope you will not say all is there done by free election of grace you will not say that none have any interest in the visible priviledges but onely they who are elected You adde yea to conceive that it is in Gods Church as in other kingdomes is a seminary of dangerous superstitions and errors Dr. Reynolds in his conference with Hart hath shewed that hence arose the frame of government by Patriarchs Metropolitans c. and this is say you the reason of invocation of Saints c. I reply true for men to say thus it must be or thus it may bâ—e in Godâ— kingdome because it is so in other kingdomes is the very Seminary which Dr. Reynolds speaks of but to mention some things alike in Gods Kingdome and other kingdomes when God himselfe hath made them so it is obedience and not presumption Yea it is a great sinne to call that a carnall imagination which is Gods owne doing Next when I say if hee take a father into Covenant hee takes the children in with him if hee reject the parents the children are east out with them You answer if I meane this in respect of election and reprobation it is not true or in respect of the Covenant of grace which is congruous to election or reprobation I answer you judge right I meant it not of election or reprobation nor that the saving graces of the Covenant are alwayes made good either to Infants or growne men who are taken into Covenant I meant it as before I expressed it of taking in into a visible Church-standing But say you neither is that true it is not true in respect of outward Ordinances the father may bee baptized and not the child and è contra the father may bee deprived and the child may enjoy them I answer but this is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the thing that is in question betwixt us the contrary whereunto I undertake to justifie Indeed de sacto the one may enjoy them and the other hee deprived of them a father may bee baptized and his child die before it bee baptized but our question is de jure whether a Parent being a beleever his child hath not right to Baptisme and other Church-priviledges as it growes copable of them at the â—ewâ—s children had to Circumcision c. De sacto it fell out sometimes so among the Jewes David the â—ather circumcised and not the child borne to him by Bathsheba which dyed the seventh day and was not Circumcised and many multitudes more in the same condition but is this any thing against the right of Infants to beâ— Circumcised Next say you In this point there i◠〈◊〉 certaintie or agreement in the paedobaptists determination becausâ— Mr. Rutherford saies the children of Papists and excommunicate Protestants which are barne
you and your children so many of them as the Lord shall call viz. you and your children have hitherto been an holy seed But now if you beleeve in Christ your selves your children shall bee in no better condition then the rest of the Pagan world but if afterward any of them or any of the heathen shall beleeve and be baptized their particular persons shall be taken into Covenant but their Children still left out this said I would not have been a very comfortable Argument to perswade them to come in in relation to the good of their children To this your answer is that this witlesse descant followes not on the applying the restriction in the end of the verse to them their children and all that are afarre off and that which I burden my adversaries Tenet with of putting beleevers Infants out of the Covenant into the condition of Pagans children is a Coâ—cysme answered before But Sir bee it witlesse or witty they must owne it whose it is and I perceive you can more easily put it off with a scoffe then give it a solid answer and it is a thorne which will not so easily bee plucked out of your side the strength of it is Peter could not have used this as an Argument to perswade them to come under this administration of the Covenant whereof Baptisme was a seale from the benefit which should come to their children if your interpretation bee true because by this their children should be in a worse condition in relation to the Covenant then they were before all grant in the former they were included you say in this latter you know no more promise for them then for the children of 〈…〉 How then could this argument be fit to be used tel me I pray you suppose a man held some Farm or Office under some great man and that in his Grant or Patent there were some apparent priviledges or benefits included concerning his posterity If now the Lord of whom hee held it should offer him a new Grant in which his children should be expressely left out and no more priviledges for them then for meere strangers could an Argument bee taken from the benefit that should come to his Children to perswade him to give up his former and accept this latter Grant I thinke not And whereas you call that expression of putting of the children of beleevers into the same state with the children of Turks a Coccysme which you have answered before I pardon your scornfull expression you doe but kick at that which bites you it is a truth which you have no cause to delight to heare of you have answered it indeed by granting the truth of it as the Reader may plainly see in my Answer to your 10 Section of the second Part and to Sect. 3. of this part Whereas I further said in my Sermon except in relation to the Covenant there was no occasion to name their children it bad been sufficient to have said a promise is made to as many as the Lord shall call You answer Their children indeed are named in relation to the Covenant But there was another reason then that which I alledge not onely their imprecation Matth. 27. 25. but especially because Christ was first sent to the Jews and their children Acts 3. 26. I Reply but this reason which you alledge affords no Argument for them now to beleeve and repent from any benefit should come to their posterity by vertue of that promise I will bee thy God and the God of thy seed To close this Section you say The Antipadobaptists have hence a good Argument against baptizing of Infants because Poter required of such as were in Covenant repentance before baptisms I answer just as good an one as because Abraham was in Covenant and an actuall beleever and justified by the faith he had in uncircumcision and received it as a seal of the righteousnesse of faith therefore all these must go before Circumcision and because all who turned Proselytes to the Jews must first make profession of their faith therefore none may bee circumcised but such as they are But more of this when we consider this Argument in your Exercitation Next let us try whether your successe bee any better against the next Text of Scripture which I brought to prove this Conclusion viz. Rom. 11. 16. c. where I said The Apostles scope was to shew that we Gentiles have now the same graffing into the true Olive which the Jewes formerly had and our present graffing in is answerable to their present casting out and their taking in at the latter end of the World shall bee the same graffing in though more gloriously as ours is now and it is apparent that at their first graffing in they and their chiâ—dren were taken in at their casting out they and their children were broken off and when they shall be taken in again at the end of the world they and their children shall be taken in together and all this by vertue of the Covenant Ero Deus tuus c. Which is the same to us and to them we and they making up the Church of God In your Examen of this Argument you still proceed in your old method first to cast scorne upon it as such an obscure Argument That none but a Diver of Delos can fetch up the meaning of it and indeed should you not pretend difficulties you could have no colour to bring in so many imaginary senses thereby to darken an Argument which is the second branch of your Artifice As whether this ingraffing be meant of the visible or invisible Church by faith or profession of saith certain by reason of election or Covenant of grace made to them or probable and likely because for the most part it happens so c. Alas Sir why doe you thus strip your selfe to dive under the water when the sense swims upon the top Look how the Jewes were Gods people so are the Churches of the Gentiles looke how the Jewes children were graffed in so are our children we are taken in in stead of them who were cast out and become one visible kingdom of Christ with the rest of them who kept their station this is the plaine sense of my Argument Now if you please but to apply all your imaginary senses to the Jews and their children and say if they and their children were graffed in together was it into the visible or invisible Church was it by faith or the profession of faith was it certain or probable Doe you not thinke your Reader would smile at the vanity of these questions When you have set downe your senses next you thus proceed the thing that is to be proved is That all the infants of every beleever are in the Covenant of Free grace in Christ and by vertue thereof to bee baptized into the Communi of the visible Church No Sir the thing to bee proved from this Text is That our infants have
the same right which the infants of the Jews had and your Arguments fight against the Infants of the Jews as much as against the Infants of the Gentiles for to apply your own words spoken of beleevers now to the Jewes then Though it may bee granted that the infants of the Jews were for the most part under the election and Covenant of grace and so in the visible Church yet it will not follow that every infant of a Jew in as much as hee is the child of a Jew or a beleever is under the Covenant of grace because we have Gods expresse declaration to the contrary Rom. 9. 6 7 8. and all experience proves the contrary is not this as much against the one as the other To what I said the Jewes Infants were graffed in by Circumcision therefore ours are to be ingraffed in by Baptisme You answer by demanding whether in good sadnesse I doe thinke the Apostle here meanes by graffing in baptizing or Circumcision or incision by outward Ordinances for if that were the meaning then breaking off must be meant of uncircumcising or unbaptizing To which I reply that in good sober sadnesse I do think that graffing in is admission into visible membership or visible communion with the Church of Christ and that the externall seale of their visible graffing in was Circumcision and of ours Baptisme and yet it follows not that breaking off is onely uncircumcising or unbaptizing but breaking offâ—â—â— a casting out from that visible membership whereof this Sacrament is a Symbole But to you it seems that ingraffing here is meant of the invisible Church by election and faith I Reply if it be meant of the invisible Church onely and that all who are graffed in in the Apostles sense whether Jews or Gentiles are onely electones I will solemnly promise you never to plead this Scripture more for any Infants either of Jews or Gentiles no nor for visible Professors of either of them provided onely if you cannot make that good you will as indeed you must yeeld that some are to be reputed visible Church-members though not elect whether Jews or Gentiles and that our graffing in is as theirs was they and their children we and our children and if you please let us a little try it out The Text is plaine some of the branches were broken off such branches whose naturall growing in the Olive yeelded them that priviledge which they now partake of who are graffed in in their stead were these broken off from the invisible Church you dare not say so if then the Olive from which they were broken off bee the visible Church I have enough and I wonder that any but an Arminian should make any question that the Apostle speaks onely of rejecting the Nation of the Jewes from being the visible Church and taking the body of the Gentiles in their stead to be Gods visible Kingdom in that it is meant of such an ingraffing as may be broken off which cannot bee from the invisible Church But let us see how you seek to evade this and how you prove that it must bee meant of the invisible Church Abraham say you bad a a double capacity one of a naturall Father and another the father of the faithfull in respect of the former capacity 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 brokin off the meaning is not that some of the branches of the invisible Church may be broken off but onely such as were so in appearance according as our Saviour expresses it Joh. 15. 2. But I Reply I professe I understand not how this distinction gives you the least helpe for tell me I pray you were not these whom you cal naturall branches is truly in the Olive as they who being wilde by nature were yet graffed in in the stead of them who were broke off If they were how doth this distinction help you You say indeed That the Infants of beleeving Jewes were not in the Covenant of grace because they were their children if by this you meane they were not members of the invisible Church you say the truth but nothing to the purpose But if your meaning be that they had not a visible membership such an ingraffing as gave them a right to outward Ordinances you not onely contradict the Scripture but your selfe who plead this That it was a peculiar priviledge to Abraham that his children should have such a visible standing as ours have not plainly the Jewes were the naturall branches some of them were elect some not the body of them were the branches spoke of in this place many of these were broke off others of them kept their station yet Gods election failes not even so is it now the Gentiles were graffed in that is their visible faith gave them a visible ingraffing their invisible faith gave them who have it an invisible membership yea to me your selfe seem to say as much when pag. 63. you affirme incision may be either into the visible or invisible Church graffing in may be either by faith or profession of faith And pag. 65. It is true that our present graffing in is answerable to or rather for their casting out that is God would supply in his Olive tree the Church the casting away of the Iews by the calling of the Gentiles so much the Apostle saith ver 17. thou being a wilde Olive wer 't graffed in in ramorum defractorum locum into the place of the branches broken off if you mean it in this sense say you I grant it And truly Sir in these words to my understanding you grant not onely my interpretation of this place but even the question controverted betwixt us First you grant my interpretation that it is not meant of the invisible but the visible Church for I know you will not say that any of the elect Jewes were broken off and the Gentiles elected and put into their place It must therefore be meant of the visible and of the visible Church of the New Testament and that those Jewes who kept their station and we who are in the roome of those that were broke off doe make that Olive which the Jewes made before Yea secondly you by necessary confequence grant that our children are taken in as theirs were we are graffed in in ramorum defractorum loeum we supply in the Olive tree the Church the casting away of the Jews Now if we thus supply our children supply the place of their children which were broken off and beside we are one with the rest of the Jews who remained in this Olive and their remaining in the Olive did not I hope deprive them of that priviledge which before-times they had for their children and therefore we must have the same with them and a greater then they had for their children none of us ever pleaded though ours be clearer and a greater
Covenanters is pleased to be their surety this I illustrated from things done amongst men thus when severall parties stand obliged in the same bond they may seale at severall times and yet be in force afterward together or even a child sealing in infancy may agnize and recognize that sealing when they come to yeares of discretion if then they will renounce it as done when they understood not they may free themselves if they please if they finde the former act a burden to them so said I is it here God is pleased to seale to infants while they are such and accepts of such as seale on their parts as they are able to give in their infant-age expecting a further ratification on their part when they are come to riper yeares in the meanâ— time affording them the priviledge of being reckoned unto his kingdome and family rather then the devils if when they are growne men they refuse to stand to this Covenant there is no hurt done on Gods part let them serve another God and take their lot for the time to come To this you answer First this is onely the spinning out the simile of a seale which whether it bee to the purpose or no I as willingly as your selfe leave it to the Reader to judge Secondly you say it is very inconsiderate boldnesse in meâ— to make every baptized person a Covenanter for whom Jesus Christ is a surety when as the Scripture makes Christ the surety onely for his redeemed ones I answer it is very true that Jesus Christ is the surety onely of the elect so farre as to performe all the conditions of the Covenant in them but he is also the surety of all visible Professors aliquo modo upon their condition of performing the Covenant looke in what respect your selfe will acknowledge Christ undertakes for visible Professors as they are visible Professors the same will serve my turne and I shall ask no more The fifth Objection was that no benefit comes by such a sealing as this is My answer was The same which came to the infants of the Jews who received the seale in their infancy You answer First you allow not that expression That God seales to every one that is baptized he seales onely to beleevers to whom be undertakes to make good his promise of writing his law in their heart c. And here againe you charge me with symbolizing with the Arminians who make the Covenant of grace common to elect and reprobates and left to every â—ans liberty to free themselves if they please and so nullifie all I passe by your scoffes of my frivolous supposing of Chimeraes and other such good language you have pretty well enured me also to receive the reproach of Arminianisme As to the thing it selfe I answer was not Circumcision Gods signe and seale which by his owne appointment was applyed to all the Jews and Proselytes and their children did it ingage God absolutely to every one of them to write his law in their heart c. And are not the Sacraments signa conditionalia conditionall signes and seales and did any Orthodox Divine before your self charge this to be Arminianism to say that the Gospel runs upon conditions I confesse it is Arminianisme to say any thing is conditionall to GOD this I never asserted but that the Gospell is both preached and by the Sacraments sealed to us upon condition of faith will passe for orthodox doctrine when you and I are dead and rotten You adde that you doe not well understand that God required of the Jewes Infants to seale in their Infancy I reply but I hope you understand that the Jewes Infants were sealed in their Infancy and by this they received not onely a priviledge to bee accounted as belonging to Gods family but it also obliged them to the severall duties of the Covenant as they grew up to bee capable of performing them I added secondly God hath other ends and uses of applying the Seale of the Covenant to them who are in Covenant with him then their present gaine it is an homage worship and honour to himselfe and it behooves us in that respect to fulfill all righteousnesse when Christ was baptized and circumcised hee was as unfit for the ordinance through his perfection as children through their imperfection being as much above them as Children are below them your answer is Baptisme is Gods worship Paedobaptisme a wil-worship Christs Baptisme was of a transcondens nature children are unfit for this ordinance not because of their imperfection but through defect of Gods appointment had God appointed it there were no doubt to bee made of their fitnesse all this hath been considered and weighed againe and againe and I desire not to burden the Reader needlesly I added thirdly the benefit and fruite of it at the present is great both to the parents and to the children to the parents whilst God doth thereby honour them to have their children counted to his Church and under his wing whilst all the other Infants in the world have their visible standing under the Prince and in the kingdome of darknesse and consequently while others have no hope of their childrens spirituall welfare untill they bee 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 meanes of salvation which an Infants age is capable of You answer First all this passage is but dictates Secondly you say if I meane the unbaptized children of beleevers doe belong to the kingdome of the devill it is a harsh and uncharitable speech Sir I am glad to heare you give that censure upon your owne judgement it is your judgement that all Infants even of Beleevers as well as Pagans though they may potentially belong to the kingdome of Christ yet actually they belong to the Kingdome of the devill but for my selfe I meant onely the children of Infidells I doe not thinke that beleeving Anabaptists doe through their ignorance or errour put their children out of this priviledge You demand further What comfort doe I give more to beleeving parents that have their children baptized then belongs to them though their children were not baptized I answer if it bee not through the parents fault that their children be unbaptized but onely by the providence of God they may have the same comfort yet I conceive it a greater inlargement of comfort to enjoy the visible Seale an ordinance which they are capable of and which God uses to blesse according to his good pleasure but I say when parents doe therefore not baptize upon this principle that their children doe not belong to the Church of Christ no more then the children of Turkes and Pagans and consequently are without that pale where ordinarily salvation is onely to bee had it is easie to say that their
order as our food is a witnesse that wee are alive and is a meanes to preserve our life but yet it must bee supposed that wee are first made alive before wee are capable of the benefit of our food And whereas you jerke at that phrase of the Lords Supper sealing the growth and augmentation of the Covenant as an unfit expression truely I thought every child would have understood that by nourishment and augmentation I meant nothing but the nourishment and growth of those graces of the Covenant which the Covenant promiseth and all are tied to seek after As to that of the Jewes Infants eating the Passeover I answered there is no such thing mentioned in the books of God It is said indeed that the severall families were to eate the Lambe and if the family were too little to eate a Lambe severall families were to joyne together and that when their children should aske them the meaning of it they were to instruct them about it but not a word of institution appointing them to eate it nor any example witnessing that they did eate it You answer All the males were appointed three times a yeere to appeare before the Lord one of which was the Passeover and at that time there was no other food to bee eaten but unleavened bread and the Pascall Supper and you observe out of Ainsworth that every child that could hold his father by the hand and could goe up from Jerusalem gates to the mountaine of the Temple his father was bound to carry him up to the end hee might catechise him in the Commandements and they who went up were bound to keepe the feast I answer were the Jewes bound to carry all their Babes up with them to Jerusalem or any of them before they had understanding in those rites and mysteries and was there no food among them all that time but the Sacramentall food were the uncleane and uncircumcised in their families to fast all that time produce any Scripture that witnesseth these you indeed quote two or three broken testimonies out of the Rabbins who lived some hundred yeers after Christ but not one text of Scripture and yet even your Rabbins say no more then I am willing to grant that when they could understand the service they might partake of it nor doth the Gospell prohibite such young ones to partake of the Lords Supper who are able to discerne the Lords body I observe also that when a testimony out of a Jewish Rabbi seemes to make any thing on your side you draw more confident conclusions from it and fetch consequences further then you will allow mee to doe out of the holy Scriptures The application of my Sermon you passe over as not being argumentative onely in the first use you againe fall upon the comparison which I made betwixt Hazaels slaying the Infants of Israel and the principles of the Anabaptists in putting the children of beleevers out of the Covenant of grace and this you aggravate to the utmost calling it a false accusation a fruit of passion not of holy zeale this also you fell upon in the very beginning of your treatise where I answered I compared not their intentions with his but the fruit of their principles casting all beleevers children as much out of the Covenant of grace as they doe the children of Turkes and Pagans and this I am sure they doe and your selfe joyne with them who acknowledge no more promise for the children of beleevers then for the children of Turkes and leave them to have their actuall standing in the visible kingdome of the Devill This I said in a spirituall sense was more heavy to the bowells of Christian parents then to see their Infants slaine before their face while in the meane time they might looke upon their Infants so dying to bee within the pale of the Church where salvation is ordinarily to bee found this I leave the Reader to judge of Whereas you adde that this followes not upon the doctrine of Antipaedobaptisme that Infants are thus excluded and that if to be within the Covenant of grace bee rightly expounded you exclude them from the Covenant of grace no more then I doe of the truth of this without any needlesse repetition I leave the Reader to judge by what hath been disputed betwixt you and mee if they find this assertion of yours to bee true I give them leave to charge mee with the same rashnesse false accusations and passions which here you powre upon mee if not I am sure they will lay it all at your dore I now come to your Epilogue wherein you intimate first that you presume you have said so much against my Sermon that you hope I see cause to consider more exactly of this businesse then I had done before that I am not now so confident as I was that this is Gods truth I answer as in the presence of the same great God to whom you and I both must give an account I have seriously weighed what you have written or any other who have come to my hands with a full resolution not to shut my eyes against what light hee would cause to shine upon mee and upon my most diligent study accompanied with my weake yet sincere and earnest prayers I am more confirmed in it and the more I have studied the clearer it appeares unto mee Secondly you say you have endeavored to examine every thing of weight delivered in my Sermon and what you could remember of Mr. Thomas Goodwins and what Mr. Blake or any other have written about this thing and I likewise have seriously weighed and not past over any thing of weight in this your Examen Thirdly you say you chose out my Sermon because I am in print stiled the Antefignanus the Ensigne-bearer a title which I neither deserve nor desire Fourthly you motion that all wee who have appeared in publique in this cause would joyne our strength together in a reply to this your Examen that you might see the whole strength imbattel'd that you might not be put to the reading of every Pamphlet Truely Sir this smells a little too rankly thus confidently to challenge all men not contented with Goliah to say Give mee a man that I might fight with him but to defie a whole host argues a little too much selfe-confidence But for your satisfaction here is my booke you may try your strength against it and though I find my impaired health and multitude of imployments is like to bee an apology for mee from drawing this saw any longer nor indeed is it needfull there being no end of writing all knowing that there is no controversie of faith wherein learned and prejudiced men have not been able to write booke after booke against the truth especially when they choose such a way of disputing as you have chosen However I feare not but it will indure your uttermost opposition and if my booke alone bee looked upon as too poore a businesse
added hee seemed afterwards to restraine baptizing Infants to the case of necessity You ask of me Doth he seeme onely to restrain it to the case of necessity He gives say you his reason why they should be baptized but withall declares his opinion that others should stay longer but what of all this what follows hence more then this that in his dayes Infants were baptized though his advice was that they should defer it unlesse there were danger of death These are the Greek Authors alledged by me none of which are denyed by you to testifie the practice of the Church in this point in their severall ages onely your exceptions have been all on the by not against the testimonies themselves which yet notwithstanding what you have answered I doubt not will by any judicious Reader bee allowed for cleare proofes of the practice of Paedo-baptisme in the Greek Church After your examination of the former Testimonies you adde 3 Arguments to shew that Infant-Baptisme was not known in the Greek Church First if it had been known among them you wonder why I finde nothing for it in Eusebius Ignatius Clemens Alexandrinus Athanasius and Epiphanius To this I say they spake to the clearing of such questions as were afoot in their times had any question been started when they wrote about Paedo-baptisme no doubt they would have cleared it as Cyprian did and as it was done in the Councell of Neocaesarea It is enough to mee that none of the Authors named by you speake against it can wee say that the Fathers living before the Pelagians troubled the Church denyed the traduction of originall sin because they spake not clearly of it before it was denyed by those cursed Heretiques Nor is it any glory to you that your Error was not ancient enough to be confuted by Eusebius Ignatius Clemens Alexandrinus Athanasius and Epiphanius yet whether any of these named by you spake for Infant-Baptisme shall now bee considered I finde even in some of them which you have named expressions which doth induce mee to beleeve that they were farre from rejecting of Paedo-baptisme I will not search into them all for if any thing were brought out of Ignatius you would tell mee that you did not know Ignatius when you see him as you have done with others named before and I have no time to wrangle You desire to know what Clemens Alexandrinus saith why sure he had none but great Infants to his Scholars if you who pretend to be acquainted familiarly with the secrets of antiquity be acquainted with him you 'll know what I meane He desired as it is likely more Greeke Fathers who were converted from Paganisme did to set forth Religion in such a way as might move other Pagans to come and make confession of the Christian faith that so they might be added to the Church by Baptisme in such a way as was proper to the baptizing of grown men The next whose testimony you misse is Athanasius you desire mee to quote any thing out of him to prove the Greeke Church did admit Infants to Baptisme if that will make you cease wondering I 'll doe it what say you to that passage in Athanasius where hee is shewing how we are buryed with Christ in Baptisme and rise againe hee sayes the dipping of the Infant quite under water thrice and raising of it up again doth signifie the death of Christ and his resurrection upon the third day is not that testimony plaine In his Questions ad Antioch in the second question of that booke it is desired to be known how shall we know that he was truly baptized and received the holy Ghost 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in holy Baptism when he was a Child it seems then it was a custome for Infants to receive Baptisme He sets down an answer to it that is to be known saith he by the motions of the Spirit in his heart afterwards as a Woman knows she hath conceived when she feels the child to stir in her womb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not because his Parents say so If that place doth not plainly and in an Orthodoxall way beare witnesse to Paedo-baptisme I know not what can doe it I could out of the same Booke adde another testimony but you will perhaps tell me the words next following those that I shall cite are questioned But I shall then reply 1. The words that follow may bee erroneous and yet written by Athanasius 2. The words which I shall cite may be the words of Athanasius and the words which follow none of his but added by some other 3. How doe you prove that Tertullian or Greg. Nazianzen wrote those words which you cite out of them 4. You can more then once make this a plea for your selfe that your allegations may gaine a favourable construction That your proofes taken out of Antiquity doe â—s strongly prove the point in hand as proofes are usually taken in such matters I doubt not but all impartiall Readers will vouchsafe me the same favourable graines of allowance and then this testimony also of Athanasius may passe for currant These words then which are safe sound grounded upon the same Scripture which I have much insisted on are read in the works of Athanasius where the question is about Infants dying requiring a resolution that might clearly set forth whether they goe to be punished or to the Kingdom The answer is Seeing the Lord said Suffer little children to come unto me for of such is the Kingdom of Heaven And the Apostle sayes Now your children are holy observe that Gospel ground the same that I build upon it is manifest that the Infants of beleevers which are baptized doe as unspotted and faithfull enter into the Kingdome This assertion is owned by all the Reformed Churches Epiphanius you say sayes nothing of it in a place which you cite and are you sure he sayes nothing any where else admit he doth not forme a Syllogisme and see how your argument will run c. but I desire you at your leasure to cast your eye upon that expression of Epiphanius which doth induce mee to beleeve that hee did not reject Paedo-baptisme where hee tells us That Circumcision had its time untill the great Circumcision came that is the washing of the new birth as is manifest to every one What 's the washing of Regeneration but Baptisme which he would scarcely have called Circumcision if hee had rejected Infant-Baptisme and denyed that the children of beleevers who are hopefully capable of Circumcision made without hands may lawfully partake of this great Circumcision and addes That this was notoriously knowne to all surely then none denyed it in his time Secondly you reason from the continuance of the Questions put to persons when they were to be baptized and answered by them which I think because we must conceive children were not able to returne an answer to them thereby you would
that such Infants may bee elected though they are not regenerated for if there be any thing lesse then regeneration promised sure there can be no comfortable likelihood of the election of a child gathered from a promise of any thing which leaves a child in an unregenerate estate But I much admire that speech of yours where you feare you should incur blasphemy by challenging a promise which God doth not keepe because many of the children of beleevers prove wicked I beseech you tell me was it not so among Abrahams posteritie and yet you grant Abraham had a peculiar promise which wee have not might not they without blasphemy plead that promise notwithstanding that promise I will he the God of thee and thy seed was not made good to every one of them for it is most cleare by the Apostles discourse in the ninth and eleventh Chapters to the Romans that God was not the God of thousands of Abrahams seed either in respect of saving grace or outward priviledges for he cast off the Jewes from being his people and suffered them not to enjoy so much as outward priviledges but made choice of the Gentiles in their stead and yet I hope you will not say that God broke his Covenant with those that had the seale of the Covenant in their flesh and yet were rejected not onely from saving grace but from outward priviledges Next let us see how you avoid being goared by the three hornes of my Syllogisme I said all being left in the same condition 1. All must be saved Or 2. all must bee damned Or 3. God saves some of the Infants of the Turkes and some of the Infants of beleevers pro beneplacito After some discourse of the two first of these you deny the consequence It follows not say you God may save some and those some may bee the Infants of beleevers and none of the Infants of Turks and Indians It 's true a man that will may venture to say so and if another will he may venture to say That those some are the Infants of Pagans and not of Christians and hee that should say so hath as good warrant for this as you have for the other according to your principle But what 's this to the question before us I said This opinion leaves them all in the like condition One having no more reference to a promise then another Now if you will avoid being goared by any of these three hornes you should have shewed that according to your opinion there is some promise for some of the Infants of beleevers though there be none for the Infants of Pagans But in stead of shewing how your doctrine and opinion leaves them you tell me what God may possibly doe in his secret Counsell which is altogether unknowne to us But I perceive your selfe suspected this answer would not endure the tryall and therefore you quarrell at that expression of mine That if any of the Infants of such as live and die Pagans be saved by Christ then salvation by Christ is earryed out of the Church whereof God hath made no promise Against this you except 1. That salvation is not carryed out of the invisible Church though some Infants of Pagans should bee saved by Christ I answer it 's true and I adde That if any man shall say the Devils should be saved by Christ even that Opinion would not carry salvation out of the invisible Church But Sir we are enquiring after the salvation of them to whom a promise of salvation is made Now when you can prove that God hath made a promise that he will gather a number or hath a number whose names are written in the Lambs book although their Parents never knew Jesus Christ nor themselves ever live to bee instructed you may then perswade your Reader to beleeve that even some of the Infants of Pagans dying in their Infancy belong to the invisible Church and till then you must give him leave to beleeve that this answer is brought in as a shift onely to serve your present need Secondly you answer That men may bee saved out of the communion of the visible Church and you instance Abraham called out of Chaldea Job in the Land of Vz Rahab in Jericho and you say Hee that called these may save some amongst Turkes and Indians out of the visible Church I answer I hope in your next you will a little better explaine your meaning The Reader will certainly take this to bee your meaning that as Abraham Job and Rahab were saved out of the communion of thâ— visible Church in their dayes so some among the Turkes and Indians may bee saved out of the communion of the visible Church in our dayes But surely this is not your meaning you doe not beleeve that Abraham Job and Rahab were out of the communion of the visible Church though possibly the manner of their calling might bee extraordinary as afterwards St. Pauls was Nor doe you beleeve that the Eunuch when he was returned into Ethiopia was out of the Communion of the visible Church though his habitation at least for aâ— while was not among Christians but Infidels I am perswaded that you thinke all visible beleevers to bee within the Communion of the visible Church though possibly they may be hindered from being actuall Members of any particular Church I will not so much as imagine that you mentioned these three examples as a Blinde to deceive your uncautelous Reader and therefore I only desire you in your next to let us know your meaning plainely and discover to us this mystery how men may bee called to fellowship with Jesus Christ and yet have no communion with the visible Church of Christ The rest of this Section wherein you enquire what those promises are which are are made to the seed of beleevers I shall God willing give you an account of them in the next part of the Sermon whither now you call me onely I cannot but take notice of your confident brag in the close of this Section how manfully you have entred my out-workes and thereby incourage your selfe to scale my walls You indeed entred and set up your flag but I hope it appeares to the indifferent Reader that you are in no great probabilitie of getting any great spoile unlesse my walls prove weaker then the outworke which as yet are farre from being taken by you PART III. NOw wee come to that wherein I rightly placed the strength of my cause the evidence which the Scripture gives for Infant-Baptisme which before I proceed in the examination of I briefly propound to the Readers consideration that you have this advantage to make your worke have a specious probabilitie in that the question is concerning Infants concerning whom there is much silence in the Scripture and should any man argue against the justification of Infants by the Theologicall doctrine that is to bee found cleare in the Scripture how specious a plea might he make especially if his
are these Filii carnis Apostolo hoc loco sunt qui per opera legis justitiam salutem consectantur not consequuntur so that the question between Arminius and Mr. Bayne is whether in that place namely in the 9 to the Romans the Apostle by children of the flesh doe meane such as seek righteousnesse by the Law Hoc in loco saith Arminitor the phrase is to bee so interpreted in this place No saith Mr. Bayne it is not to bee taken so in this place though it may be taken so in other places I shall set down Mr. Baynes his own words that the Reader may see how grossely you have abused me For though saith Mr. Bayne children of the flesh in some other Scripture doth note out justiciaries seeking salvation in the Law yet here the literall meaning is to be taken a child of the flesh being such a one as descendeth from Abraham according to the flesh Good Reader observe 1. That I was not expounding the 9 to the Romans and therefore did not at all meddle with the question between Arminius and Mr. Bayne 2. I am cleared by Mr. Bayne himself whom Mr. Tombes produced against me 3. The words which cleare me are within six lines of those words which Mr. Tombes cites against me whether Mr. Tombes be guilty of negligence or falshood I leave to your judgement 4. The errours of Arminius are many in the place cited and I joyne not with him in any one of them First I doe not conceive that by Word Rom. 9. 6. the Jews meant the legall Covenant but the word of promise or else the Apostle had not answered directly v. the 9. Secondly by the word Seed was meant the children of the promise the elect Rom. 9. 8. as Mr. Bayne nay Arminius confesses onely Arminius saith that they were elected upon Gods forefight of their faith an Opinion wch I detest as being injurious to the free effectuall grace of God I need not instance in any other errours only draw this Corollary if God did fulfil this promise made to the seed of Abraham though God did reject so many of his seed that had the token of the Covenant in their flesh not onely from salvation but from the partaking of outward priviledges from the dignity of being accounted his people any longer then God may reject many of the seed of beleeveâ—s now under the Gospel though baptized not onely from salvation but from all Church-priviledges besides baptisme and yet make good his promise sealed in baptisme in which he engageth himselfe to be the God of beleeving Christians and their seed Fourthly Mr. Tombes speaks of Abrahams seed by celling and saith that promise I will be the God of thy seed was made good to Abraham in the calling of the Gentiles pag. 43. Now Mr. Tombes will not say that all the Gentiles were made partakers of an inward calling the Gentiles then which had but an outward calling are the seed of Abraham onely by profession say I because they are of the same profession with the spirituall seed of Abraham who are inwardly called If Mr. Tombes say that it is better to term them seed by calling then seed by profession if it bee but an outward call where lyes the difference Fifthly Mr. Bayne and Arminius are agreed that by the seed of Abraham Rom. 9. 8. is meant the elect onely Omnes filii promissionis censentur in semine nulli filii carnis censentur in sentine saith Arminius Sixthly the principall difference between Mr. Bayne and Arminius is that this elect seed was elected upon Gods foresight of their faith as Arminius would have it but I joyne with Mr. Bayne in detesting this opinion as injurious to the free and effectuall grace of God and Mr. Bayne joynes with me in confessing that in some places of Scripture they who seek to bee justified by the Law are termed children of the flesh To conclude this of Arminius I wonder you should seek to cast an odiâ—â— upon my expression as you do here and severall other times by saying it's a joyning with Arminius when you know well enough that you joyne not onely in an expression or two but in this your very doctrine of opposing Paedo-baptisme with that monster Servenus and other like him Lastly you are much more stumbled and offended that Mr. Blake should say There yet remaines in the Church a distinction of Abrahams seed some borne after the flesh some after the spirit and that both these have a Church interest or a 〈◊〉 bright to Church priviledges and that â—ee for this alledged Gal. 4. 29. even so it is now c. I reply for my part I as much wonder at your calling these passages very grosse for though it bee granted 1. That the Apostle shews Ishmael to be intended as a type of civill justiciaries who sought righteousnesse by the law Yea and 2. that these persecuted the true Church who sought justification by Christ And 3. That they are cast out from being heires never to partake of the spirituall priviledges of the Covenant yet because it is apparent that even these who Paul said were typified by the son of Hagar had a visible standing in the Jewish Church and were partakers of outward Church priviledges and were the same of whom Paul speaks Rom. 10. 3. Who being ignorant of Gods righteousnesse and going about to establish their own righteousnesse have not submitted themselves unto the righteousnesse of God And that in the same place Paul himself saith even so it is now even in the Church of Gallatia it was so and Paul by this Doctrine laboured to make them better I see not why Mr. Blake might not use this as an argument that some have a visible Church membership and ought to partake of outward Church priviledges notwithstanding they will not have the inheritance of children unlesse they repent The thing which I conceive offends you in his expression is that hee thinkes there is a fleshly seed of Abraham but I know no reason of stumbling at that phrase since by flesh is there intended any thing which is our own whatever we put confidence in and leane upon as that which may commend us to God whether our birth or parts our understanding or morall vertue yea or our Religious duties and performancâ—s all are but flesh and this St. Paul plainly signifies Phil. 3. 3 c. We are the Circumcision which worship God in the spirit and put no confidence in the flesh and in the verse following he tells you what he meant by flesh viz. his birthright his circumcision his unblameable conversation c. And might not Mr. Blake safely say there is still a seed of these who are visible members My second conclusion was to this effect Ever since God gathered a distinct number out of the world to be his Kingdome Citie Household in opposition to the rest of the world which is the Kingdome Citie and Household
to him who makes an outward profession because wee have not a Spirit of discerning to know them to bee reall beleevers then it undeniably follows That some may rightly be accounted to belong to the Church of God and Covenant of grace beside reall beleevers which is as much as I need to make my sense and meaning in this Proposition to passe for currant And truly Sir whoever will grant that a Minister in applying the seale must doe it de fide in faith being assured he applyes it according to rule must either grant such a right as I plead for that many have right to bee visible members and bee partakers of the externall administration of Ordinances though they be not inwardly sanctified or else hee must by revelation be able to see and know the inward conversion of every one hee applyes the seale unto for certainly hee hath no written Word to build his faith upon for the state of this or that man And for my own part when once you have disproved this that there is such a visible membership and right to externall administrations as I have here infisted upon I shall not onely forbeare baptizing Infants but the administration of the externall seale to any what profession soever they make untill I may bee de fide assured that they are inwardly regenerate This then was and is my meaning when I say That Infants of believers are confederates with their Parents that they have the same visible right to be reputed Church-members as their Parents have by being visible Professors and are therefore to be admitted to all such external Church-priviledges as their Infant age is capable of and that the visible Church is made up of such visible Professors and their Children that the invisible takes in neither all of the one nor the other but some of both Whereas therefore you say you are at a stand to finde out what my meaning is and know not what to deny or what to grant and again pag. 45. You are at a stand whether I meane they are to bee taken in with their Parents into Covenant in respect of saving grates or the outward priviledge of Church-ordinances I beseech you stand no longer doubtfull of my meaning I meane of them as I meane of other visible Professors they are taken into Covenant both ways respectively according as they are elect or not elect all of them are in Covenant in respect of outward priviledges the elect over and above the outward priviledges are in Covenant with respect to saving graces and the same is to bee said of visible members both Parents and Infants under the New Testament in this point of being in Covenant as was to be said of visible members in the former administration whether Jewes and their children or Proselytes and their children I endeavour in all this to speak as clearly as I can possibly not onely because you say you are oft at a stand to pick out my meaning but because this mistake runs through your whole book that none are to be reputed to have a visible right to the Covenant of grace but onely such as partake of the saving graces of it Now I proceed with you When I say That God would have beleevers children reputed to belong to his Church and family and not to the devills You answer That you feare I use that expression of not belonging to the Devills Kingdome to please the people But Sir why doe you judge my heart to intend amisse in using an expression which your self cannot mislike I have more cause to think you use all these words it cannot be denyed but God would have the Infants of beleevers in some sort to be accounted his to belong to him his Church and family and not to the Devills And againe it is true in facie visibilis Ecclesiae the Infants of beleevers are to bee accounted Gods c. onely ad faciendum populum to please the people because this is not your judgement for when you speake your full meaning and sense of this point you professe you know no more promise for them in reference to the Covenant then to the children of Turkes And even here you onely grant them a nearer possibility to belong to the Covenant of grace then the children of Infidels have therefore in your judgement they are not now actually belonging to it but onely in a possibility so that though they may be accounted to belong to the Kingdom of God potentially yet by your doctrine they belong to the Kingdom of the Devill actually and all this charitable opinion which here you expresse toward them dontaines no more then is to be allowed to the child of a Turk if born among Christians especially if a Christian will take it and bring it up in Christian Religion and by what may we ground any probable hopes they will actually receive the profession of Christ since by your rule there is no promise no externall Covenant why may I not have as good hopes of Heathens children if Gods promise helpe not here But say you To make them actually members of the visible Church is to overthrow the difinitions of the visible Church that Protestant Writers use to give because they must be all Christians by profession I reply it overthrows it not at all for they all include the Infants of such Professors as the visible Church among the Jewes did include their Infants male and female too lest you say that Circumcision made them members I adde also Baptisme now as well as Circumcision of old is a reall though impâ—iâ—â—â— Profession of the Christian Faith But say you Infants are oâ—ly passive and doe nothing whereby they may bee denominated visible Christians I answer even as much as the Infants of Jewes could doe of old who yet in their dayes were visible members Yea say you further it will follow That there may bee a visible Church which consists onely of Infants of beleevers I answer no more now then in the time of the Jewish Church it 's possible but very improbable that all the men and Women should dye and leave onely 〈◊〉 behindâ— them and it 's farre more probable that a Church 〈…〉 Anabaptists why may consist onely of Hypocritâ—â— Againe you affirme We are not to account Infants to belong to God either in respect of election or promise of grace or presenâ—◠〈◊〉 of in being in Christ 〈◊〉 â—state by any act of 〈…〉 with in a particulâ—â— revelation because there 〈…〉 declaration of God that the Infants of prisâ—â—◠〈…〉 all or some either are elected to life or in the Covenant of grace in Christ either in respect of present in-being or future estate To which I answer briefly though all this bee granted if meant of the spirituall part of the Covenant onely yet this makes nothing against that visible membership which I plead for Yea I reâ—ort the argument upon your selfe and dare boldly affirme that by this argument no visible Church or all
saving grace to Infants the Seale is set to a blank for give mee leave but to put the same case first for the Infants of the Jewes was the seale put to a blanke with them or had they all promises of saving graces Secondly let mee put the same case in growne men who make an externall visible profession and thereupon are admitted to baptisme can any man say that all the saving graces of the Covenant or the spirituall part of it is promised to all visible professors is it not abundantly knowne that in all ages even in the best times even in the Apostles times multitudes were baptized to whom God yet never gave saving graces and therefore never promised them for had hee made a promise hee would have performed it But I shall desire you a little to consider the nature of a Sacrament in what sense it is a seale and then you neede stumble at this no longer these three things are necessarily to be distinguished first the truth of the thing signified in a Sacrament and secondly my interest in that thing And thirdly my obligation to doe what is required in or by that Sacrament I say therefore that in every Sacrament the truth of the Covenant in it selfe and all the promises of it are sealed to be Yea and Amen Jesus Christ became a Minister of the circumcision to confirme the promises made unto the Fathers so to every one who is admitted to partake of Baptisme according to the rule which God hath given to his Church to administer that Sacrament there is sealed the truth of all the promises of the Gospel that they are all true in Christ and that whoever partakes of Christ shall partake of all these saving promises this is sealed absolutely in Baptisme but as to the second which is interesse meum or the receivers interest in that spirituall part of the Covenant that is sealed to no receiver absolutely but conditionally in this particular all Sacraments are but signa conditionalia conditionall seales sealing the spirituall part of the Covenant to the receiver upon condition that hee performe the spirituall condition of the Covenant thus our Divines use to answer the Papists thus Doctor Ames answers to Bellarmine when Bellarmine disputing against our doctrines that Sacraments are seales alledges then they are falsely applyed ostentimes hee answers to Bellarmine Sacraments are conditionall Seales and therefore not seales to us but upon condition Now for the third thing the obligation which is put upon the receiver a bond or the for him to performe who is admitted to receive the Sacrament this third I say is also absolute all Circumcised and Baptized persons did or doe stand absolutely ingaged to performe the conditions required on their part and therefore all circumcised persons were by the circumcision oblieged to keepe the Law that is that legall and typicall administration of the Covenant which was then in force and Infants among the rest were bound to this though they had no understanding of the Covenant or that administration of the Covenant when this Seale was administred to them Now then since in Baptisme there is first an absolute Seale of the truth of the Covenant of grace in it selfe a conditionall seale of the receivers interest in the Covenant and an absolute obligation upon the receiver to make good the Covenant on his part is there any reason that you should say that the seale is put to a blank where the spirituall part or saving grace is not partaked of What you further say here that by Abraham who is the father of the faithfull is meant Abrahams person and not every beleever that it was a personall priviledge to Abraham and not a common priviledge to beleevers as beleevers which thing you repeate very often it shall bee considered in a more proper place So that you having thus wholly mistaken my sense and undertaken to dispute against a sense which I never owned I may therefore passe over your six arguments which you bring to confute this sense which you have set downe I joyne with you that it is an errour to say that all Infants of beleevers indefinitely are under the saving graces of the Covenant for although I finde abundance of promises in the Scripture of Gods giving saving graces unto the posteritie of his people and that experience â—eacheth us that God uses to continue his Church in their posteritie and that Gods election lies more among their seed then among others yet neither to Jew nor Gentile was the Covenant so made at any time that the spirituall part and grace of the Covenant should bee conferred upon them all it is sufficient to mee that they may have a visible standing in the Church partake of the outward priviledges of the Church and bee trained up under that discipline or administration of the Covenant which God uses to make effectuall to salvation in the meane time all of them to bee visible members as well as their parents and some of them invisible as well as some of their parents And therefore although in some of your fix reasons there are divers expressions which I cannot swallow yet I shall not here stay upon them but examine them when you bring them elsewhere to dispute against mee as here you doe not onely give mee leave to touch upon the last of your fix arguments because in some sense it militates against my Thesis Is this were true say you that the Covenant of grace is a birthright priviledge then the children of beleevers are the children of grace by nature then Christians are borne Christians not made Christians if the child of a Christian be borne a Christian as the child of a Turke is borne a Turke and if so how are they borne the children of wrath as well as others I answer According to the sense which I owne I maintaine this assertion to bee true that the child of a Christian is borne a Christian it is his birthright to bee so esteemed I meane to bee reputed within the Covenant of grace or a member of the visible Church our I am sure it was so the child of a Iew was borne a Iew and it was his birthright to bee an Israelite a visible member of the Church of Israel and the Apostle Paul stuck not to use the word Iewes by nature Gal. 2. 15. We who are Iewes by nature and not 〈◊〉 of the â—â—â—tiles â—ee there opposes the naturall priviledge of the members of the Church to the condition of the heathens and Rom. 11. hee calls the whole nation of the Iewes the naturall branches of the Olive tree because they were the visible Church of God Will you say of them also how were they then the children of wrath by nature I answer doe but consider the Apostles distinction Rom. 2. last betwixt a Jew in propatulo in facievisibilis ecclesiae a Jew without and a Jew in abscondito a Jew within and your objection is answered in the first
measure of grace accompanying it You goe on and say when some of the naturall branches were cut off it is not meant any otherwise then our Saviour Christ meanes Joh. 15. 2. Every branch in me not bearing fruit hee takes away that is not that any branch truly in him could bee fruitlesse or taken away but onely those branches which were so in appearance I reply that this is my very meaning that this standing as branches of the Olive is not to be limited to the invisible but takes in the visible also not restrained to such as have a spirituall union with Christ by faith but takes in also the externall profession of faith which oft times is not in truth that which it appears to be Whereas you say the Apostles scope in the whole chapter is to answer that question Hath God cast away his people c. and not to shew that wee have now the same graffing into the true Olive which the Jews formerly had I answer I undertook not to Analize the whole Chapter but to open the scope of that matter or argument which begins at the 16 ver and that you cannot gainsay but that there the Apostle makes an Argument from our graffing in in their stead And you minde me also of my owne distinction of the substance of the Covenant and the administration of it Sir I thank you for remembring me of it it is of very good use in this place though not of that use which you bring it for we have the same Covenant with them for the substance which Covenant consists of the same blessings and is applyable upon the same conditions belongs to the same sorts of persons but the administration of it is clean differing from theirs You grant That by faith wee partake of the substance of the Covenant in respect of which all beleeving Gentiles are Abrahams seed Yea and you may adde visible beleevers are his visible seed But if you mean it say you of the outward administration of this ingraffing by Circumcision Baptisme c. nothing is more false the outward administration is utterly taken away and to affirme that it is not were to â—vacuate the blood of Christ in this particular But Sir this is at the best but cunning dealing and in part a confident false assertion it is cunning to say by Circumcision Baptisme c. as if both these belonged to one administration Indeed to affirme that ingraffing into the visible Church should now bee by Circumcision were to evacuate the death of Christ in that particular but to say as you ought if you would speake plainly that to have our initiation now by Baptisme into the visible Church as formerly by Circumcision or to say that all outward administrations of the Covenant are now utterly taken away though the old one is vanished is not onely a coâ—fident but a false assertion and if you say not this you apply my distinction to no purpose You goe on whereas I said their taking in in the end of the world wil be as ours they and their children you grant this is true If it be true that their children by being the children of beleevers shal be accounted to belong to the Church you grant my Argument if you meane not so but think that at their last and best restauration their children shal not enjoy that priviledge which they had when they were Gods people before why doe you not say so that all the world may see that you think in their best condition they shall bee deprived of that glorious priviledge which they enjoyed in their non-age and yet you grant That they and their children shall bee taken in yea and a more full taking in of the children of the Jews then is now of the Gentiles according to that Rom. 11. 26. And so all Israel shall be saved But say you all this proves not that God would have either all Infants of beleevers counted his as elect persons or in the Covenant of grace in Christ or in the face of the visible Church admitted to Baptisme I answer the thing to be proved was our Infants have the same priviledge with theirs and that it proves abundantly as for election wee are not to esteem all visible members whether Infants or grown men to bee elected God having declared the contrary this being true in all ages of the Church Many are called and but few chosen Notwithstanding when we speak of particulars wee have the same ground of charitable hope for one as for another As for your other expression That this proves not that they are to bee looked upon as visible members of the Church and to be admitted to outward Ordinances this is onely to deny the Conclusion whether this being proved that our Infants have the same right to bee reckoned to the Church of God as well as the Infants of the Jews be not a just ground and as good a foundation to prove that therefore they must bee admitted to that Ordinance which is the initiall seale shall in due time appeare when I have made good the next conclusion That Baptisme succeeds in the roome of circumcision to that use in the meane time let the Reader judge I further said of the Jews they shall by vertue of Gods Covenant bee taken in againe in the end of the world because the root is holy because Gods covenant with Abraham Isaac and Jacob extends yet to them and shall againe blossome and will take place when the Nations unbeleefe shall bee taken away and their present nationall condition I shadowed out in the comparison of Nebuchadnezzars dreame Dan. 4. 14. of a tree that was cut downe and the root bound with an iron chaine and yet afterward did grow again The thing it self you deny not nor go about to answer my argument drawn from the Jewes viz. we as they were taken in they and their children shall be at the last taken in againe as they were at the first and therefore we and they making up the same body are taken in upon the same ground our children with us as well as theirs with them this Argument I say you go not about to answer but in stead of answering you pick quarrels against my comparison taken from Nebuehadnezzars dreame Why Sir I never thought a Scholar would have expected a comparison should runne upon foure feet nor have wrested it beyond what was intended by it I never intended to make Nebuchadnezzars dreame an argument to prove but onely to illustrate that as that tree for a while was cut downe and the root bound with an Iron chaine was kept from growing yet in the end the chaine was removed and the tree grew againe so the nation of the Jewes was for a while cast off from being the people of God during the time of their blindnesse and unbeleefe but in the end the vaile should be removed and their nation taken into their former Church-standing yea and more gloriously and that by reason of
of generations that feare him and visit the sins of parents upon their children may wee not say truly when God cast out the nation of the Jewes from being his people that for their sins he gave the Bill of Divorce to them and to their children that they should no longer be his people in Covenant as they were in time past and yet his grace remain free I spake expressely of outward administration of the Covenant That when Parents are taken into Covenant their children also with them have a visible right and when God gives a bill of divorce from a visible Church standing for to true beleevers hee never gives any their children are cast out with them as appeares in the Jewes at this day is this to symbolise with Arminius or doth Doctor Twisse or Moulin or any other of our Orthodox writers gainesay this I appeale to every learned Reader to judge But é regione I desire you to shew how you will avoyd symholizing with the Arminians who indeavor to prove falling away from true grace and holinesse from this 11. of the Romans because the branches were broken off when you with them say the graffing into the Olive here is meant of true beleevers graffed into the invisible Church yet of the branches growing in or graffed into this Olive it is expresly said some were broken off and others will fare no better if they beleeve not Bert us in his relation of the conference at the Hague urges this very place to prove that it is possâ—ble for the Saints to fall away from grace because we are advised to take warning by the Jewes Example who were broken off for their unbeleefe I know that you thinke not that true beleevers may fall away but how you will avoid the Argument interpreting this place as you doe I professe I cannot tell And now I leave it to every judicious Reader whether you or I have darkned this Scripture whether you in saying this Text is meant of the invisible Church onely and the graffing in is by election and faith or I who say the rejecting is of the Jewes from being of the visible Church and ingraffing is meant of the taking in of the Churches of the Gentiles to bee the visible Church kingdome and people of God in their roomes whether in a word I who interpret it of such a growing in the Olive or ingraffing into it as may endure a breaking off and yet none fall from saving grace who once had it or you who make such a graffing in as that if any branches bee broken off it must necessarily follow that branches may bee rent off from the invisible Church and fall away from inward holinesse have interpreted this Text most agreeable to the Analogy of faith and the Apostles scope and to conclude let the Reader also judge whether this Text notwithstanding all your indeavors remaine not still in my hands as one of my strong holds to defend this conclusion That the obildron of beleevers new have the same right to the Covenant with their Parents as the children of the Jewes had with their Parents Now say you you are come to my principall hold 1 Cor. 7. 14. I perceive at first you thinke there is some strength in it for you have brought a huge army against it and drawne a long line about it raised abundance of batteries and in a very long discourse say something almost to every sentence of mine concerning this Scripture and after all your shot is spent you cry Io triumphus I have got your chiefe hold which you had best manned Truely Sir you speake like 〈…〉 qui diffâ—aviâ— omnes 〈◊〉 Gurgu 〈◊〉 But the best is all the ground is not yours that you walke over nor every man killed that you shoot at I have no feare that your great swelling words will give any satisfaction to your judicious Readers wee will come to what you have done and try what strength there is in this long Section and that I may make my answer to it as briefe as is possible I shall bring all the matter of your discourse to three heads First such things as wherein you and I doe agree and must necessarily agree Secondly such things as wherein whether wee agree or disagree it matters not much to the point in controversie these two I shall but touch upon Thirdly such things wherein wee differ and which really concerne the controversie betwixt us And these things God willing wee will try out hand to hand First wee agree that sanctified may have many senses and that of those many two onely are applicable in this place either the matrimoniall sanctification which you insist upon viz. Chastitie in the wife and husband or lawfull matrimony between them and legitimation of the children Or else Instrumentall sanctification in the husband and wife and federall holinesse in the children which I insist upon Wee agree also secondly that iâ— may signifie by as well as in Wee further agree thirdly that the seepe and meaning of the Text is that the Corinthians having writ for the Apostles resolution whether it were lawfull for them who were converted still to retaine their Infidell wives or husbands the Apostle here resolves that case upon the affirmative And I will further agree with you fourthly that these words else were your Children uncleane c. are a medium or argument whereby the Apostle proves the former sentence the unbeleeving husband is sanctified in the wife c. I yet further agree fiftly that all the places which you cite out of the learned Chamier are Orthodox and clearely prove that for which hee brings them viz. That sanctification cannot bee understood of the conversion of the unbeleever through the diligence of the beleever page 73. And that the Argument is not fetched from a contingent thing pag. 74. And that holinesse is not meant of ceremoniall holinesse which sense was ascribed to Augustine pag. 76. And that the holinesse of Children here is not that which they receive from their education pag. 75. And I am sure you must agree with mee sixtly that in all these testimonies you have cited out of Chamier there is not one word against my Interpretation or for the Justification of yours yea and I know also that you will agree with mee seventhly that the learned Chamier in a large dispute doth confute your interpretation and vindicate my interpretation as the onely true and proper meaning of this Text even in that very place where you quote him And therefore I know the Reader will agree with mee whether you doe or no that you doe but abuse your Author and Reader both in making a flourish with Chamiers name nothing to the purpose and thereby would make the Reader conceive Chamier to bee of your side when hee is point-blanke against you I yet further agree with you eighthly that some Interpreters both antient and moderne doe interpret this Text as you doe and I am
overlashing herein is not so much as you would have the world believe though my testimonies had pleaded for no higher time then 150 after Christ Neither have I overlashed so farre in this as God willing hereafter shall appeare as you have done more then once I said the Church was so long in possession of it and if you bee pleased to subtract 150 from 1645. I hope the remaining number will shew the mistake was not great as appeares in the margent If the Church was not all the while in possession of it it had been your part to have informed your Reader of the time wherein the Churches quiet possession was disturbed and by whom It is true I named Baltazzar Pacommitanus with his associates who to their own ruine started up to disturbe this possession but the claim of an unjust intruder to justle out the true owner will not carry the Title in any Court where equity takes place In pleading the Churches possession of this truth for so long time I said not so much as others have affirmed before me Learned Augustine though his judgement bee slighted by you affirmed as much in his time and yet I read not of any then that excepted against him for it The Church saith he ever had it ever held it they received this from the faith of their Ancestors and this will it with perseverance keep unto the end If he might say that the Church before his time ever had maintained it and if after his time it was more clearely hâ—ld out then I hope I did not overlash in saying the Church had bin 1500 years possessed of it And it were an easie task to produce abundance of testimonies giving evidence not onely for their own age but that it was the received custome in all ages even from the Apostles time that this evidence was true we may hence know saith Learned Vossius because the Pelagians never durst deny it when the Orthodox Divines used to presse it who certainly wanted neither Learning nor will to have gainsayed them if they could have found them abusing Antiquity nay they not onely not denyed this but concurred in it so saith Augustine lib. 2. contra Caelist Pelag. Caelistus saith he in a book which hee set forth at Rome grants That Infants were baptized for the remission os sins according to the rule of the universall Church and according to the sentence of the Gospell In the next place you tell me I know that booke from whence this testimony was taken was questioned whether it was Justine Martyrs or no. Truly I was not ignorant thereof therefore I said in a Treatise that goes under his name I did not confidently averre that he was the Author of it yet you plainly call it a bastard Treatise and never prove it but whosesoever it was it is well known to be ancient and both Protestants and Papists asserting Paedobaptisme cite it Thirdly I take notice that you answer nothing against the truth of the testimony it selfe onely you say that by it I may see that the reason of baptizing Infants was not the Covenant of grace made to beleevers and their seed which you make the ground of baptizing Infants at this day You cannot be ignorant that this testimony was not alledged by me to prove the ground why it was administred I onely made use of it to beare witnesse to the matter of fact that Infants were baptized in that age in which that booke was written which is plainely held out in the answer to the question you may also remember what I said of all the testimonies quoted by me that I did not relate them to prove the truth of the thing but onely the practice of it and so much it doth notwithstanding the answer which yet you have brought unto it what ground the Covenant of Grace made to beleevers and their seed gives to Baptisme shall bee manifested hereafter and whether the Ancients used not at least some of the Arguments which we doe Come we now to consider what you answer to Irenaeus his testimony here you speake 1. Of his Countrey 2. Of the age he lived in 3. You question his translation 4. And in the last place you speake a little against the testimony it self Before you fall upon the examination of the testimony you say Hee was a Greeke and wrote in Greeke but wee have his Works in Latine except some fragments this you conceive to be a reason why we cannot be so certain of his meaning as we should be if wee had his owne words in the language in which he wrote and may not this Objection lie against any Translation whatsoever and upon that ground you may slight it I cannot guesse why you adde this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that hee was a Greeke c. unlesse it were to intimate to your Reader that I could not discern whether he were to be numbred in the Catalogue of Greek or Latine Fathers yet you know that I mentioned him in the first rank of those Renowned Lights of the Church which wrote in the Greek tongue to which afterwards I added two other and when I came to speake of any of the Latine Fathers Cyprian was the first in whom this question did occurre But whether his words in the testimony alledged bee truly translated into Latine shall by and by be considered As for his age you acknowledge with me that hee lived in the same Century with Just Martyr the yeare in which he flourished is variously related by the Authors named by your selfe one sayes 180 the other 183 I may adde iâ— third who varies from them both and sayes 175 and may not others point at other times also For ought I know you needlesly trouble your selfe and your Reader in naming particular yearâ— in which these famous Lights of the Church lived which I thinke can hardly with exactnesse be done it is safe to say about such a time or in such a Century such and such lived which cannot bee prejudiciall to the Reader when wee know a Century includes many years neither can any man warrantably restrain it to any one year alone wherein such a man flourished as if he had flourished one year and no more But I proceed to what you say of the testimony it selfe it is extant Iren. 2. 39. Christus venit salvare 〈◊〉 c. Your exceptions against it are many First you question whether reâ—asuatur there signifies baptisme or no as Feuardemiur his glosse takeâ— it Secondly You say that neither Christ nor his Apostles call Baptisme a new birth Thirdly possibly this was not the word used by Irenaeus in his own Writing Fourthly that the Latine alters Irenaeus his minde as learned Rivet sayes Lastly that Irenaeus meant not Baptisme in this place you goe about to prove by his scope therein These are your exceptions which now wee come to examine To begin with the first of them when Irenaeus saith Christus
whether that signified Baptisme or no which by the usuall language of the Grecians I have made good against your exception and so I passe from your examen of this Author and follow you to the next In the third place you come to sift Origens testimony Where first you question the authority of the booke secondly you say if it be Origens yet hee calls Paedo-baptisme but an Apostolicall tradition and from thence you draw forth some conclusions In all which I hope to manifest your mistakings and so to discover the weaknesse of your premises that they shall not in any indifferent man his judgement be able to draw these conclusions after them First you question the authority of these passages cited out of Origen whether they are his or no and you call the Author of them supposed Origen It had been your part before you had so branded them first to have made it manifest by some undenyable evidence or other that they were not Origens you question but prove not and I am not the first that hath produced these testimonies to prove Infant-Baptisme many learned men handling this question have done the same before me You seek also to weaken the authority of these testimonies by the Censures of two judicious men Erasmus and Perkins the former of them who was vir emunctae naris in giving judgement of the writings of the Ancients saith that when a man reads his Homilies on Leviticus and on the Epistle to Romans translated by Ruffinus hee cannot be certaine whether he reads Ruffinus or Origen Yet Erasmus saith not that these Homilies set forth under his name were Ruffinus his Homilies and not Origens If Ruffinus had wronged Origen in that point now in question why should not that have been laid in his dish by some of the Antients discoursing on this question who no doubt would have been forward enough to have taken notice of it to Ruffinus his prejudice as well as other things which they object against him To this you adde Reverend Perkins his testimony who puts his commentary on the Romans amongst his counterfeit works as being not faithfully translated by Ruffinus It may be Origen might suffer by his Translators for Translations are various some affect in their Translations to follow their Author 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to trace the very footsteps of the words they translate other Translations are metaphrasticall or by way of paraphrase they expound as they translate thus severall men have their severall fancies though they adhere to the Author which they translate even when they keep not in all things to his words Hierom gives instance in the Septuagint Translators whose testimony I need not name to you Ruffinus acknowledges in translating Origens Homilies on Leviticus that hee added some things to what Origen said and what they were hee expresses ea quae ab Origene in auditorio Ecclesiae ex tempore non tam explanationis quam aedificationis intentione perorata sunt the things which were spoken by Origen to his auditory he translated them by way of explanation or did more fully lay them forth in a popular way and therein Ruffinus dealt candidly telling us what were the things hee added in this Erasmus acknowledges his faire dealing But as for his Commentary on the Romans Ruffinus confesseth se hoc opus totum ad dimidium traxisse there was no addition of Ruffinus Erasmus here blames him for cutting off what Origen delivered more at large but neither doth Ruffinus confesse nor Erasmus challenge him here for any addition to what Origen said I shall onely desire the Reader to take notice that none of the testimonies by me cited out of Origen are denyed by Erasmus to be Origens neither can they be conceived to bee any of the additions mentioned before by Ruffinus therefore your exception is not proved by Erasmus nor Perkins testimony You adde in the passages which I cite there are plaine expressions in them against Pelagians which makes you thinke they were put in after the Pelagian heresie was confuted by Hierome and Augustine though they make against the Pelagians yet who can necessarily inferre that all these Homilies in which these passages occurre were written after the Pelagian Heresie was broached Iust Martyr maintaines the Divinitie of Jesus Christ yet we know hee lived long before Arius the ring-leader of that cursed Sect which denied it can any man conclude that Iust Martyr did not beare witnesse to the divine Nature of Christ because hee lived before Arius started up Then you tell us Origen calls Infant-baptizing an Apostolicall tradition according to the observance of the Church This cavill I prevented when I quoted the testimony which seemes to have some weight in it for you grant what I said about Traditions which is warrant enough to me to adde no more to justifie it otherwise besides the testimony of Scripture which I named in 2 Thess 2. 15. many other out of Antiquitie may be added where Tradition is taken in that sense Epiphanius calls Baptisme and other mysteries observed in the Church which are brought forth out of the Gospell and setled by Apostolique authority 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 where by the way you may see that hee grounds the Baptisme then in use in the Church and even then Infants were Baptized on the Scriptures and authoritie of the Apostles as well as other mysteries of the Christian Religion But I follow you Because say you in neither of these places taken notice of by mee Origen cites any Scripture for baptizing Infants therefore it must bee understood of an unwritten Traedition had it appeared as a new notion not heard of in the Church before then had it been fit he should have confirmed what he said but it being a position which as he sayes the Church observed hee needed not to prove it Ignatius presses upon Hiero to attend to reading and exhortation and cals those things 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 traditions yet addes no Scripture to confirm what he sayes because they were things well known to the Church to bee consonant to the Scripture So Origen tells us Infant-Baptisme was generally observed by the Church and had any appeared to plead against the lawfulnesse of it he would no doubt by Scripture have maintained it as well as affirmed it to come from the Apostles which he did These are your premises which now being answered your conclusions infer'd from thence of themselves must fall to the ground for if Infant-baptisme came from the Apostles and was generally observed in the Church in Origens time then you have no reason to challenge it as a thing not known before his time nor delivered over to the Church in his time albeit he exprest it under the name of an Apostolicall Tradition The last Greek Author alledged by me was Gregory Nazianzen who cals Baptism signaculum vitae cursum ineuntibus against which testimony you have nothing to object onely whereas I
inferre they were not baptized But I answer when the Gospel went first abroad into the world such as being of age were first taught were then baptized Act. 2. 41. Act. 8. 13. 37. After that time such as were taught are said to be catechized for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Catechisme leads men to faith saith Clem. Alexandrinus When such were prepared and made fit to be baptized certain questions were propounded to them concerning their faith in Christ their resolution to forsake the Devil c. which are related by many of the Ancients when those of age afterwards brought their children to Baptisme these questions were likewise put to them though of themselves they were not able to make answer to them but how warrantably I will not goe about to prove yet that they were used at Infants Baptisme as well as at the baptisme of such as were of age it appeares by Balsamon in Can. 6. Conc. Neocaesar Aug. Ep. ad Januarium c. To all which questions at Childrens Baptisme such as undertooke their education made answer on their behalf Therefore you cannot by these questions infer that Children were not baptized seeing these Authors certifie that questions were put to them and also tell us who answered for them Thirdly you conceive because many children borne of Christian parents were not baptized when they were young Therefore it was not their custome to baptize Infants For the making good hereof you bring forth instances of Constantine the Great Greg. Nazianz. and Chrysostome Before I speak of these instances it will not be impertinent to speake somewhat of the practice of some among the Ancients in deferring Baptisme and here I finde that some Ancient Christians deferr'd their owne Baptisme many times as well as their Infants but upon no good ground as may appeare by many sharpe invectives against them for it which are extant in the Greek Fathers see Basil exhortat ad Baptismum Greg Nazienz orat 40. in Lanct Bapt. Chrysost Hom. 2. in Act. Apo. From these severall Authors and others may be gathered the grounds upon which they defer'd Baptisme Sometimes they would doe it in imitation of Christ who was not baptized till he was about thirty yeares of age they would put off their baptisme untill they came to the like age Greg. Naxianz disputes against these Constantine the Great put off his Baptisme untill hee should come to the River Jordan in which Christ was baptized though he never attained to that desired place for he dyed at Nicomedia Some againe deferred Baptisme untill they should have opportunity to be baptized by some speciall Bishop of some eminent place these Greg. Nazian reproves at large Some also put off their Baptisme upon another ground they conceived it did wash away all sin so thought Orig. Hom. 15. in Ihesh Hom. 5. in Ex. Cypr. lib. 3. ad Quirinum lib. 4. ep 7. Whereup-upon it was a common speech when they saw one to follow his sinfull courses sine illum faciat quod vult nondum baptizatus est to the same purpose Greg. Nyssenus in his exhortation to Baptisme brings in the very same speeches of them who put off their Baptisme upon this ground saying Sine carne abutar turpi libidine fruar in caeno voluptatum volutabor manus sanguine polluam aliena auseram dâ—lose ambulabo pejerabo mentiar baptismum tum demum suscipiam cum a vitiis iniquitatibus desistam Hee speakes much more to that purpose in that place to which I refer the Reader all which testifies what they thought of Baptisme that it washed away all their sins therefore they defer'd it for they would have none abridged of their sinfull delights untill they were baptized Epiphanius tells us that Marcion gave order to have Baptisme thrice administred first when a man had committed any great sinne after that in his judgement hee might bee baptized for the doing of it away Againe if after that Baptisme hee had renewed his sinne hee was the second time to bee baptized and so the third time if after the second he had renewed his sin again This opinion of the efficacy of Baptisme to doe away sinne might induce them to defer it untill they were ready to leave the world that by baptisme then administred to them in their opinion all their sinnes might bee done away But Naz. confutes such telling them all times were fit for Baptisme seeing no time was free from death So did Greg. Nyssenus also They were also led into this error by another some thought that baptized persons might live and not sin for if they did sinne after Baptisme in their conceit there remained no repentance for them misunderstanding that place of Heb. 6. 4. which place also was abused by the Novatians denying remission of sins to Christians â—inning after baptisme It is cleare upon these and the like grounds but how justly I leave it to you to judge many put off their owne baptisme Neither doe I see why that others also may not be thought even upon no better grounds to have deferred the baptisme of their Infants which yet doth no wayes prejudice the commonly received and constantly practiced ordinance of Infants-Baptisme no more then the above-named practise may bee brought to prove that it was not the received practise of the Church to baptize such as were converted from Paganisme to Christianity at their first conversion Yet here I cannot but adde further that sometimes it might fall out that Christians might not have the opportunity of bringing their Children to Baptisme because they dwelt among Infidels or Paynims where they could not enjoy the benefit of the Word and Sacraments for themselves or their children therefore in such a case they were necessitated to put off the baptizing of their Children Greg. Naz. sayes expressely that some may be hindered from Baptism by some violence or some unexpected accident 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that though they would they could not enjoy the Grace of baptisme whereof he is speaking if by such accidents they themselves might be hindered from Baptisme why might not the like accidents hinder them also from receiving Baptisme for their children Againe sometimes their lot might fall out to live among Heretiques which corrupted the Faith and therefore would not have their Children baptized by them might they not do herein as that pious man Moses who refused to receive imposition of hands from bloody Lucius that Arian Bishop Neither would Antiochus bee ordained by Jovinian who adhered sometimes to the Arians assuredly such as scrupled to bee ordained officers in the Church by such may upon the like grounds be thought rather to chuse to defer the baptizing of their children then to have them baptized by such Many questions were moved in the Church about Baptisme administred by such as were not sound in the Faith which were agitated so farre by Cyprian and other Asrieans that they held their Baptisme to
children of Women as come out from among Infidells being then converted when they are with childe for Balsamon sayes Such Women as were with childe and come from the Church or company of unbeleevers and what is this to our Question which is about children born in the Church of beleeving Parents Secondly Balsamon distinguishes of children some are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yet in the wombe and not brought forth into the world others are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 young but borne into the world for the first of these he sayes no man can undertake he meanes in Baptisme but as for children that are borne 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they affirme by such as undertake for them and they being actually Baptized are accounted worthy of divine illumination your inference by Balsamons testimony is directly contrary to Balsamons words for hee rotundis verbis affirmeth that children born do in Baptisme answer by such as undertake for them which words are mentioned neither by Grotius nor your selfe herein you wrong the truth and labour to deceive the Reader in the beginning you charged me with overlashing which yet was your haste and not my errour but here I may safely put you in mind of docking or Curtalling the Author cited by you Lastly in this Paragraph you tell us that Grotius addes that many of the Greeks in every age unto this day doe keepe the custome of deferring the Baptisme of little ones till they could themselves make confession of their saith you bragge much of the Greeke Church but I will not deale with the Greeke Churches as you deale with the Fathers I will not put the Latine Church Augustine and those Fathers and Councells which accord with him in one scale and the Greeke Church in the other such comparisons are odious But this I can and must say that when you have searched into the Greek Church to the utmost that you and all the Anabaptists in England cannot prove that the Greeke Church did for many hundred yeers reject the Baptisme of Infants which is the assertion which I said might well put the Anabaptists to the blush and now I adde your self also for justifying them in so saying To returne to Grotius his Annotations who sayes that many of the Greeks c. What some of the Greeks may doe at this day I know not but against his testimony of the Greeks in every age I will produce some testimonies gathered by a learned Grecian to whom the customes of the Greek Church were better knowne then to Grotius or the Anabaptists who relye on Grotius his relation whereby it is evident that baptizing Infants was held eeven necessary to be observed in the Greek Church Photius that learned Grecian gathering together the Greek Councells and laws for ordering of Church affaires and reconciling them one with another hath many things for Infant-Baptisme as first hee brings in an Imperiall Constitution wherein it was provided that all baptized Samaritans and Grecians should be punished who brought not their wives and children in their families to holy baptisme Here was a Law which required Grecians that were baptized to procure baptisme for their children otherwise they should be punished Again Tit. 4. ca. â— he brings forth another Imperiall Constitution concerning Samaritans such among them as are of age must not rashly bee baptized but requires they should bee trained up in good Doctrine and then admitted to Baptisme but their children though they know not the Doctrine are to bee baptized So for Grecians it 's required that all their little ones without delay be baptized Conc. in Trullo Can. 84. Whereupon it was appointed in that Councell when there were no sure Witnesses to be produced who were able to testifie little Children whose baptisme was doubted of were baptized neither for their tender age could testifie it themselves without any offence such should be baptized Balsamon in his glosse upon that Canon relates a story how Children comming from a Christian Countrey were taken by the Scythians and Agarens and bought by the Romans the question was whether the Children should bee baptized or no though some pleaded they came from a Countrey where Christians dwelt and therefore it is to be presumed that they were baptized 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in their Infancy Some pleaded it was the care of their Mothers to procure baptisme to them and others pleaded other Arguments for their Baptisme yet if they could produce no witnesse to make it good they were to bee baptized All which clearely testifies that Infant baptisme was then generally in use among Christians seeing they were so carefull to have it testified that they were baptized and did presume where Christians dwelt it was in use Now see what from these testimonies may bee held out for Paedo-baptisme among the Greeks if such among them as brought not their Children to Baptisme were punished if Imperiall Laws as well as Synodicall Canons required Infant-baptisme which they held so fit that if there were any Children of whose Baptisme it was doubted they required they should be baptized may not I from all this wonder why Grotius or you from him do affirme That in every age they deferr'd the baptisme of their children till they could make themselves a confession of their faith Whereas the former Constitutions about Infants Baptisme testifie that among them in those ages it was held an undoubted truth I might also adde to these one of the eight Canons concluded in Carthage against the Pelaegians wherein was affirmed That whosoever denyed Baptisme for the remission of sinne to a new borne Infant c. should be anathematized All which being duely weighed it will easily appeare Whether the Anabaptists need to blush in saying that the Ancients especially the Greeke Church rejected the Baptisme of Infants for many hundred yeares Let the severall testimonies of the Ancients in the Greeke Church alledged by mee speake whether the Greeks rejected that ordinance or no And so wee passe from the Greek Church here though afterwards you give me occasion to search further into the Grecians Come we now to examine whether the Writers of the Latine Church will be more propitions to you in opposing Paedo-baptisme then the Greeks have been here Cyprian is the first that comes under your Examen and calculating his age you tell us Vsher places him in anno 240 Perkins 250 I might tell you that others take notice of him in other yeares as Trithemius 249 Henr. Ocâ—us 245 so hard a thing it is to set down precâ—sely the particular year yet all as I said before agree in the Century in which he lived You acknowledge with me that he was one of the anciencest Writers among the Latine Fathers onely Tertullian you say was before him and who denies that here upon your Semi-Socinian Grotius his credit you say That nothing was determined in Tertull. his time concerning the age in which children were consecrated by their Parents to Christian Discipline
because hee disswadeth by so many Reasons in his Booke of Baptisme c. 18. the baptizing of Infants And you adde If he did allow it it was onely in case of necessity as may appeare by his words in his booke De Anima ca. 39. Though my task in this examination of your Examen bee onely to make good what I said before in my Sermon yet you shall have my answer to this place quoted by your self whereby it may appeare there are more witnesses to confirm the same truth which I avouched but onely by the testimonies of a few Tertullian indeed in the former of these places is perswading men to defer both the Baptism of children and others who are of age Yet I beseech you tell me doth he not therein intimate that it was the custome of the Church in his age to baptize the one as well as the other otherwise I see no reason why he should desire that they would defer the one as well as the other And what 's the reason of his delay such as did undertake or promise for children were in danger whilst they promised on their behalf that which by reason of their own mortality and increase of evill disposition in children afterwards might make them breake or destroy their promise his words are these Pro cujusque personae conditione de dispositione etiam aetate cunctatio Baptismi utilior est praecipue tamen circa parvulos Quid enim necesse est si non cam necesse sponsores etiam periculo ingeri qui et ipsi per mortalitatem destruere promissiones suas possunt proventu malae indolis falli Is it not evident by that place that Baptisme was administred in all ages even to little ones and that there were some who undertooke that they should perform the promises made by them on their behalf onely this custome of baptizing them did not very well please Tertullian wherefore he seeks to disswade from it but never pleads against it as an unlawfull thing or an abuse of Christs institution as you doe yet how displeasing a delay of that nature was to others famous in the Church hath been cleared by severall testimonies before here may you take notice of one even before Cyprian in the Latine Church that beares witnesse against you that in his time children were baptized This truth is so perspicuously laid down by him that you cannot deny it and therefore you come with an if and say If hee did allow it it was onely in case of necessity for this you refer me to his book de Anima c. 39. where having reckoned up the idolatry and superstitious fooleries of the heathen at the birth of their children he speaks of children one of whose Parents is holy and confesses both by the priviledge of their birth and profession they are designati sanctitatis ac per hoc etiam salutis not sancti till they be born of water and the Spirit but in that place is altum silentium of his allowing baptism to them in case of necessity as you say wherein if a man told you that you did overlash he should not wrong the truth But before wee part with Tertullian give mee leave to aske the question whether the disswasion which you cite out of Tertullians booke de Baptismo may not reasonably bee interpreted of the Infants of Infidells because in that Chapter Tertullian speakes of the baptisme of such as were not born of Christian Parents such as the Eunuch and St. Paul and therefore hee desires that the Baptisme of such Infants should bee deferred till they came to yeares and were able to make confession of their sinnes and profession of their faith their Parents being Infidels and their Sponsors mortall for what saith hee though these Infants may have some Sponsors to undertake for their Christian education yet their Sponsors may die before they are capable of instruction and then that promise is void and of none effect And I am very much inclined to beleeve that this is the true meaning of the place because it is cleare and evident by the 39. Chapter of his book de Anima that Tertullian did acknowledge that the children of beleevers had a kinde of priviledge which he calls prerogative by their birth besides that of their education and therefore in case the Sponsors who undertook for the education of the Infants of Pagans did live yea and give those Infants due education yet there was a great difference between them and the Infants of beleevers who had such a birth priviledge as gave them right to Baptisme and by Baptisme and the Spirit saith he they are made what they were by God designed to be holy indeed Because I will give you and the learned Readers light enough I will transcribe the passage at large and give you leave to judge for I hope you will make it appeare that you are pius Inimicus and passe judgement upon my side when you have received some new light if it bee new to you but truly I feare that you saw something in this 39 Chapter which made against you and therefore you doe barely cite the Chapter and not set down the words of the Author which was not so fairly done be pleased then to peruse the testimony in words at length and not in figures Hinâ— enim Apostolus ex sanctificato alterutro sexu sanctos procreari ait tam ex seminis praerogativa quam ex institutionis disciplina caeterum inquit immundi nascerentur quasi Designatos tamen sanctitatis ac per hoc etiam salutis intelligi volens fidelium filios ut hujus spei pignora matrimoniis quae retinenda censuerat patrocinarentur Alloquin meminerat Dominicae definitionis nisi quis nascatur ex aqua spiritu non introibit in regnum Dei id est non erit sanctus Sir are you not now convinced that Tertullian did conceive that the Infants of beleevers had such a sanctity as I called Covenant-holinesse by the prerogative and priviledge of their birth as gave them a right to baptisme I would not abuse Tertullian as you did Origen and other Reverend and Learned men and therefore have given you a faire interpretation out of his owne words I beleeve by this time you are sicke of Tertullian let us confer with Cyprian and his 66 Colleagues upon whom you have passed a Magisteriall censure Cyprian say you saith enough and more then enough except hee spake to better purpose if that which hee hath spoken be weighed in the ballance of your judgement his words though many will be found but light yet you say that Hierom and especially Augustine relyed upon that Epistle for the proving of baptizing Infants for my part I am more strengthened in my Opinion of the worth of Cyprian's words in that Epistle by this your confession for had there not been solidity and truth in what hee said learned Hierom and Reverend Augustine two eminent men in the Church though
you thinke great darkenesse was upon their spirits would not have relyed on that which hath no weight in it they were well able to ponder the weight of words before they would relye upon them or applaud them And what saith Augustine of that Epistle That Cyprian was not devising any new decree but followed the most sure faith of the Church doth he not therein testifie that Cyprian maintaining that Infants might bee baptized before the eighth day did devise no new decree but observed faithfully what the Church did before him whereby it seems though Augustine approved Cyprians judgement yet he relyed not upon his reasons to make good Infant-baptisme this to him is no new doctrine he had another eye upon the constant and sure faith of the Church which in that point hee followed faithfully You tell me I said Fidus denyed not Infants Baptisme but thought they ought not to be baptized before the eighth day to this you give no answer and may I not thereby thinke that it appeareth evidently to your selfe as well as to mee that Paedo-baptisme in that age was in use for this you deny not and indeed that this was the question wherein Fidus craved resolution of Cyprian sâ—il whether Infants were to be baptized before the eighth day it appears by the words of the Epistle Quantum ad causam pertines quos dixisti intra sâ—cundum vel tertium diem qu◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 constitutâ—s baptizari non opertere considerandam esse legem circumcisioniâ— antiquae ut intra oct avâ—m diem eum qui natus est baptizandum sanctifieandum non putares c. Fidus question therefore was as I said before this appeares also by August his testimony who ad Bonisacium lib. 4. contr â— Ep. Pelag. c. 18. sayes the same So farre then we agree but you say I might have gone further and observed Fidus his reasons one whereof was drawn from Circumcision which was done upon the eighth day after the birth of the childe The other is drawn from the childes uncleannesse in the first dayes of its birth which makes men abhorre to kisse it c. both which are related by Cyprian not as his owne judgement but as reasons of Fidus his scruples whereof hee sought resolution from him to both which he gives the judgment of the Councell assuring him that none of them agreed with him herein If Fidus did Judaize in both these or either of them what 's that to mee who say he denyed not Baptisme to bee administred to Infants if the ground hee went upon to tye it to the eighth day was unsound I seek not to justifie him in it Yet let me tel you that Fidus was not the onely man that reasoned from Circumcision to Baptisme though they doe not tye Baptisme to the eighth day as Fidus did Besides the testimonies brought out of Athanasius before take notice that hee calls Circumcision a type of Baptisme Greg. Nazianz. proves that Children are now to be baptized as under the law they were circumcised August also saith the same lib. 1. contra Grescon Grammaticum c. 30. de Bapt. contr Donatist lib. 4. c. 23. Where he sayes Baptisme is as profitable to children now as Circumcision was to children of old Chrysost also Hom. 40. in Genes calls our Circumcision Baptisme But none of all these holy men tyed Baptisme to a certain day as Circumcision was as Chrysostome speaketh in the same place How far these worthy men Judaized in that age in saying Baptism now comes in stead of Circumcision is not now to be considered by us therefore I leave it In the next place you say The resolution of this Councell is not to bee slighted because upon your search you finde it the spring-head of Infant-Baptisme It seemes when you cast your lead into the sea of Antiquity to finde out the depth of this ordinance your line was too short and your plummet too light that it could not reach beyond this Epistle are there not divers instances among the Ancients which make it manifest that before that time Infant-baptisme was in use as hath been manifested to you already therefore that was not the first time in which it sprung up in the world You say further I am mistaken about the proofes of their opinion which you call not reasons or proofes but answers to objections I will not wrangle with you about words call them what you please Arguments or Answers this is enough to me what I have produced is recorded in the Epistle and all of them doe justifie the lawfulnesse of baptizing Infants which was the thing which I went about to cleare neither doth any of them enforce Baptisme to be tyed up to the eighth day as Fidus thought From the words of that Epistle you alledge 3 things 1. They thought baptizing giving Gods grace denying it denying Gods grace 2. They thought the soules to bee lost which were not baptized 3. That all Infants not beleevers onely were to bee baptized The 2 first I grant are rightly collected from the words of the Epistle you might if you pleased have collected divers other things as that Baptisme comes in stead of Circumcision c. But suppose all their grounds which they plead be not to be justified yet they doe not darken the light which the place gives to our question If a man were to make good any assertion of a necessary truth and use severall arguments to make it out if one of these arguments be not good or be weake that may bee rejected and yet the truth stand firme seeing the other arguments are good and strong to evidence the truth It is true when the Ancients said that Children were to be baptized sometimes they stood peremptorily for the necessity of Baptisme as if without it no salvation were to be excepted yet they made it out by other Arguments then that why should then the truth justified and cleared up by them be rejected for this When they were to prove that men of yeares instructed in the truth should receive the Sacrament of the Lords Supper they made that good by several Reasons as sometimes from the necessity of the command which Jesus Christ laid upon all the Disciples of the Gospel that they might remember his death till his coming again At other times they urged it lest men should brand themselves with unthankfulnesse in not comming to the feast when they are invited Sometimes again they prest the same duty upon the people to come to that ordinance that they might have the inward Grace signified and exhibted in the Sacrament to bee sealed up and confirmed to them These three wayes did they use to presse their Hearers to the frequent receiving of the Sacrament yet at some other times also they pleaded the necessity of that Sacrament as if no man without the use thereof could be saved No man can deny the first three Arguments to be good though the last is not and notwithstanding
the weaknesse thereof this is a sure truth That the Sacrament of the Lords Supper is to be received So it is here divers Arguments are brought to prove that children are to bee baptized and amongst many this is one They conceived the want of it might bee prejudiciall to the salvation of Infants which I will not justifie yet I dare not reject the truth made out by other media reasons or arguments And it is to bee remembred that this Argument was most frequently used by the Ancients in the heate of disputation when they had to do with them that denyed the traduction of originall sin from Adam to Infants howsoever at some other times they confesse with Augustine that some doe receive rem Baptismi absque Sacramento a man may have the grace given in Baptisme and not be baptized As for the third inference made by you from his words that not onely Infants of beleevers but all Infants are to bee baptized though he layes it down in generall termes that none are to be hindered from comming to Christ yet what he says ought to bee understood of the Church because he speaks of such as God hath cleansed or purified who were common You construe some passages of the Epistle as answers to some objections which doe no wayes weaken but strengthen what I have said from thence Onely in the closure of this Section you would find fault with my gathering up of Cyprians mind as if hee had meant that Infants are to bee baptized because they are under Originall sinne and need pardon You say the Argument is rather that they have lesser sinnes then others and therefore there is lesser hinderance to them to come to this Grace remission of sinne and Baptisme Cyprian indeed sayes if Baptisme be not denied to men of yeares who hath committed more hainous sins then Infants why should Baptism be denyed to Infants who are onely guilty of Originall sin derived to them from Adam doth hee not there mention Originall sinne which he sayes is remitted to Children when they are baptized which in his judgement is lesse then the grievous actuall sins of men of years added to their Originall sin In the farewell of your censure of Cyprians judgement you call it naked and say you would have covered the nakednesse thereof but that the truth suffered so much thereby and so can at your pleasure put upon it the title of an absurd Epistle Sir for one man to slight the judgement of 66. men eminent in their generation doth not well become a modest disposition taught in the Gospel to thinke better of others then himself I am afraid that when Cyprians Epistle and your answer shall bee compared together the nakednesse of your answer will rather appeare yea remember what the Philosopher trampling upon Plato his neat Carpet said calco Platonis superbiam yet hee spying a hole in his slovenly cloake answered ego per rimam pallii tuam video superbiam c. I cannot but account it your nakednesse that if it be naked you have not in your answer laid open the nakednesse of it but though it be absurd in your eye yet in the judgment of men renowned for learning and piety it hath ever been accepted in the Church notwithstanding some mistakes in it Next to Cyprian comes Augustine under your Examen Whose authority was it as you say that carryed on Baptism of Infants in the following ages almost without controule For which you bring forth Walfridus Strabo and Petrus Cluniacensis testimonies which I here mean to passe over and take notice of them in another place I confesse learned Augustine his authority was great in the Church both whilst he lived and since and that worthily not onely for his defence of the truth which you now oppose but of other greater and more necessary truths also which hee solidly maintained against the adversaries who laboured either to suppresse or corrupt the same albeit you seeme not much to stand upon his judgement which with you is of no more value then his proofes and reasons can adde weight thereunto Thus you slight him though what he said is approved by divers Fathers and Councels named by your selfe and how far your bare single judgement and censure will out-weigh Augustine Prosper Fulgentius and the Councells which you mention in this Question let the Reader judge It hath been an ancient justifiable course in the Church in examining of controversies in Religion to look back upon the writings of famous men who flourished in the Church before was not Sisinnius his counsell to good purpose which he presented to Theodosius then studying how to put an end to the unhappy differences which troubled the Church in his time when hee perswaded him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and to demand of them who petitioned him whether they would not stand to the judgement of such as were Teachers in the Church before it was divided especially when their judgement dissented not from the Scriptures his counsell no doubt was good and wholsome yet I desire that herein I may not bee mistaken This I speake not as if I attributed more to Antiquity then to Verity I have long since resolved by Gods assistance with Hierom Antiqua legere probare singula â—etinere quae bona sunt a fide Catholicae Ecclesiae non recedere it were happy for the Church among us if in this unruly age many who not content with former truth are carryed on with an itching disposition after novelties would doe the like I return to judicious Augustine Here I expected your accurate Examen would have canvast the severall testimonies in the places quoted by me but I am deceived Whereby it seems you have nothing to say against them but that they evidence what was that Churches practice in his time about our question which was the true and onely end why I named any testimonies from Antiquity for if they did not I doubt not you would have said so much onely here you tell us what your account is of his proofes and reasons of his judgement in this controversie all which to you seeme to bee but light this you labour to prove in 6 following Sections which I will now view and see whether your weighty answers wil satisfie his light reasons in the judgement of any indifferent Reader Your first exception against his judgement is because he makes it an universall Tradition a shrewd fault or a dangerous position which wil not down with an Anti-paedo-baptisme And first you reason against it to this purpose If the Church had thought it necessary that all children of Christians by profession should bee baptized in their Infancy then none born within the pale of the Church should have miss't of it But so it is that many did Ergo c. Your Minor you prove Augustine himselfe Adeodatus his son and Alipius his friend were not so baptized and thus you labour
to prove against Augustine that Infant-baptism was not universally received in that Church as he said which you thinke to evince by the induction of these instances First that it was universally used in the Church testimonies of good Witnesses recording the practise of the Church make it manifest and wee have heard of some of them before in their severall ages as Irenaus lib. 2. cap 39. notwithstanding the bar you put in against him hee tells us that Christ came to save all sorts of people whether young or old for they are regenerated by him in Baptisme Origen in severall places as in Luc. 14. lib. 5. in Ep. ad Rom. in Levit. Hom. 80. in which places he tells us it was the custome of the Church to give Baptisme to little ones and sayes not of this or that Church which by a constant course they had observed therefore in his time we find it universally practised in the Church otherwise he could not say that the Church observed it Cypr. Ep. 39. proves as we have heard that Baptisme is to be denyed to no age then hee addes quanto magis prohiberi non debet Infans c. this he sets down as no new Doctrine but faithfully adhearing to the order of the Church as we heard from Augustine before may wee not now from all these say it was in his time the universall custome of the Church to baptize Infants Shall I adde other Witnesses who lived in the same Century with him Chrysostome Hom. ad Neophytos Ambrose Ep. ad Demetriadem Virginem Hieron ad Laetam lib. 3. adv Pelag. all which I now passe over and are not all these Witnesses of the practise of the Church which being weighed who can deny that Augustine might well relate Paedo-baptism to bee universally practised having such a cloud of Witnesses to confirm it And to manifest it further this is somewhat to mee Epiphanius whose testimony you looked for in the end of his worke relating what was generally observed in the Church tells us The Baptisme administred in the Church in his time was performed according to the Tradition of the Gospel and the authority of the Apostles as well as other mysteries then in use And we know that in his time Baptisme was administred to Infants therefore in his judgement what the Church did therein they had authority for it from the Gospel and the Apostles to make that good he says afterwards That Baptisme came in stead of Circumcision which then was not in use Furthermore sometimes Historians relating particular customes in some things which were not in use in some Churches and Countreys upon which arose some debatâ—s in the Church doe not mention that of Infants Baptisme as one of these particular customes observed in some Churches and not in other See Socrates Hist lib. 5. 22. it's true he relates some diversities of severall Churches about persons that had power to baptize and about the time in which Baptisme was commonly administred but he mentions none that excluded Infants from Baptisme whilst others baptized them which no doubt he would have done if there had been any such custome then afoot in the Church Sozom. likewise setting down the severall customes of severall Churches though they were of the same Opinion among all which singular customes baptizing Infants is not named for one yet in use in that age therefore it is to be conceived as the generall practise of the Church Indeed there was a different custome especially in some after ages in the manner of baptizing both Infants and grown men in some places they dipt them thrice in some but once and of this very custome Gregory the great meanes when he saith In una side nil officit ecclesiae diversa consuetudo But in none of these Ancients doe I read any such diversity of customes that some Churches baptized Infants others baptized them not if you know any I pray you produce them in your next Now I come to speake to the particular instances by which you goe about to disprove this universall practise of the Church you tell me Augustine was not baptized till above 30 yeares though educated as a Christian by his Mother Monica First I might answer you with the Proverb una hirundo non facit ver or that one exception takes not away the generall rule if after ages come to read the stories of the Church after the Lord was pleased to begin the Reformation thereof in Luthers time and then find that even in that time Baltazzar Pacommitanus with some of his seduced brethren did withstand Paedo-Baptisme or if after generations among us shall find that when God begun so happily to advance that blessed work of Reformation beyond the pitch it was brought unto in our Ancestors dayes if they should meet with Mr. Tombes Examen of this question and therein see your Judgement against the constant and universall practlse of the Church at this day if such should from a few particular Examples infer that this was the Doctrine commonly received in the Reformed Churches that children should not be baptized Or deny that this was the common received Doctrine that children should be baptized assuredly a man that knows the Doctrine and present practise of the Church might with all reason deny the consequence because some among them did not stand for Infant-Baptisme therefore the generality of them denyed it So it may be here thought peradventure some though born of Christian Parents were not in that age baptized in their Infancy yet that is no way prejudiciall to the universall practise of the Church in which Paedo-baptisme was received But secondly I answer more particularly I grant Augustine was not baptized till hee was 30 years old And I will not take upon me to determine besides the generall observation of the reasons upon which Baptisme in those dayes was deferred by some which formerly have been hinted what the particular reason was of his not being baptized in his Infancy but I will hold forth unto the Reader so much as shall clearely shew that you have no cause from that example to say That children of Christians by profession in that age were not baptized in thâ—ir Infancy because you should first prove that Augustine his parents were Christians at his birth otherwise you speake not to the question before us What was the profession of his Parents when he was borne take it from Augustine himselfe who sayes though Possidonius in his life seemes to say otherwise when he was Putr a child grown hee fell extreame sick which put him in feare of death then hee and his mother also were both troubled that hee was not baptized he sayes of his Father at that time as yet he beleeved not in Christ When Augustine was about 16 yeares of age his father was but catechumenus Conf. lib. 2. ca. 6. In another place speaking of his mothers peaceable cohabitation with him though he was a man of a
have their Governours shew them the way but I forbeare In your second Section you except against Augustine his judgement because he held that Infants without baptisme must bee damned by reason of originall sinne which is not taken away but by baptisme I grant that Augustine and some others of the Ancients pressed baptizing of Infants upon that ground but not onely upon that ground and they did most presse that ground when they had to doe with Heretiques denying originall sinne to be conveighed from parents to their children yet they maintained Paedo-Baptisme upon other sound grounds as formerly I have proved therefore this exception is of no vilidity nor was this Augustines constant Doctrine yea it was a Doctrine which hee retracted as an errour as shall afterwards appeare Againe you say that you cannot finde among the Ancients the ground that I goe upon that the Covenant of grace belongs to beleevers and their seede What if you have not found it will you therefore say it is not to be found in their writings Bernardus non vidit omnia why may not some things in the vast monuments of Antiquity passe unseene by you though you have seene much and thinke that you have seene more truth then all the Ancients did and can censure what they say at your pleasure But if you did find this in the writings of the Antients it would make nothing for or against me who have not placed Infant-baptisme upon that ground because they placed it so I have asserted that ground from the Scripture as afterwards God willing shall bee made good But that they also even many of the ancients pressed Baptisme upon the sound grounds which wee doe I have made it appeare out of severall writings As for the judgement of Bellarmine Aquinas and others quoted by you I will not trouble my selfe in answering for them they were not alledged by me neither will I stand to their judgement In your third Section you bid mee consider of Augustine his judgement holding it necessary for Infants to receive the Lords Supper that opinion is nothing to our question in debate before us therefore you can expect no answer from mee to it for I never pleaded it But what is your Argument from hence Augustine held it fit to give Infants the Lords Supper Ergo What draw a conclusion to hurt me if you can our question being whether Infants were baptized in his dayes Fourthly you tell me that Augustine held a certainety of Regeneration by Baptisme and he makes no question of the Regeneration of Infants c. I confesse that sometimes hee sayes so yet at other times as I told you before hee sayes there are some qui rem baptismi absque Sacramento baptismi consequentur So also did Ambrose comforting Valentinian his sisters upon his death for hee died whilst Ambrose was on his journey comming to Baptize him where he said of him Quem in Evangelio geniturus eram amisi sed ille non amisit gratiam quam poposcit vita jam fruitur aeterna qui habuit speculum tuum Sancte pâ—ter quomodo non accepit gratiam tuam hee speakes confidently of his eternall estate though unbaptized yet Ambrose as well as Augustine at other times attributed too much to outward Baptisme Fiftly you scorne his judgement in defending questions put to Infants at their Baptisme and answerd by others That 's enough to me to prove that Infants were then baptized though I will not take upon me to justifie that custome of putting forth questions to them who by reason of their age were not able to returne an answer possibly I could tell you how and that many other customes crept into the Church but because it is not to our purpose I forbeare Lastly you say it is apparent out of that Epistle of Augustine That Infants whether borne of Beleevers or of such as had not received the Christian faith were baptized neither doe â—â— in that justifie him you may take notice that here againe you confesse the question that Infants were baptized But because you make such a great matter of it that it must needs follow that they rejected covenant-holinesse or the birth-priviledge of beleevers Infants because they baptized other Infants if brought unto them I reply that you cannot bee ignorant that many learned men deny this consequence because they conceive that not onely such as are borne of Christian parents might bee baptized but that other Infants also if any Christian would undertake to traine them up in Christs Schoole might bee admitted into it by Baptisme you know many of the reformed Divines thinke this lawfull who yet plead covenant-holinesse as further warrant why beleevers children not onely may but ought to be Baptized and Tertullian pleads both these grounds in the place I quoted at large both prerogative of birth and benefit of education Furthermore many of the Rabbines say that the children of Gentiles might bee circumcised if a Jew would bring him up in Religion yet they all hold a birth-priviledge of Jewes children for Circumcision I alledge all this to shew that you should not thus vilifie and scorne their practise and grounds without a more cleare refutation of them then yet you have made whether that which hath beene spoken out of Cyprians Epistle and Augustines approbation of it doe not advantage my cause whether they have not proved as much as I alledged them for I leave to the judicious and impartiall Reader To all the forenamed Authors I added Hierome and Ambrose his testimonies to prove the same here you confesse that they were of the same judgement with Augustine in our question therefore you conceive your answer to Augustine his testimony to be a sufficient answer to them also in like manner I referre you to my reply to your former answer Your last Section of this Chapter is a Recollection of what you have already alleadged both for the invalidating of the testimonies brought by me to prove the practise of Infant-baptisme as also of what you have brought to induce an opinion that there was no such thing practised in the first and best Antiquity You must give me leave to recollect what I have already answered to these exceptions and allegations as for your Vives and Strabo I shall give you my thoughts of them anon You confesse I brought these testimonies onely to prove the practise of Infant-Baptisme and that you cannot deny they prove onely you adde they rather prove the thing an errour then a truth because practised upon such erroneous grounds As the necessitie of Baptisme to salvation The certaintie of the Remission of originall sinne The denying of Baptisme unto none But are these the onely proofes by which the Ancients did assert the baptizing of Infants I have proved that notwithstanding some of them owned that corrupt ground and pleaded it especially in the heate of disputation yet they baptized them upon the same grounds which we doe Doe not Tertullian Cyprian c.
argue from Circumcision unto Baptisme as wee now doe and others of them from Covenant-holinesse but this and our other proofes you threaten to consider hereafter In the meane time this you adde you should have said repeate for you adde nothing to what you had spoken before That the Testimonies produced prove not that it was in practise but in case of supposed necessitie Let the Reader judge whether these Testimonies have not proved it an universall practise and so not onely in case of supposed necessitie and let Mr. Tombes but consult that Booke which I perceive hee hath made great use of in this Controversie an Arminian Book commonly known by the name of Censurae Censurae and that will tell him that Augustine may bee said to bee the first that grounded Infant-baptisme upon necessitie Cen. Cen. cap. 23. Secondly you say there was still in practise a constant course of baptizing the growne children of professed beleevers when they were at full age you have seene already how much you are mistaken in those instances you give of such a practise and how much this practise was disavowed by the Fathers of those times could you but finde as much in Antiquitie against the baptizing of Infants as there is against the deferring Baptisme how would you triumph Thirdly you say they did conceive a like necessitie of and accordingly did practise the giving of the Lords Supper to Infants But did all the Fathers fore-mentioned judge and practise so you cannot but know that all that plead for them doe not plead for the other nor can you show that all that practised the one practised the other I confesse some of the Africans did so Your fourth that they made no difference betweene the Infants of beleevers and unbeleevers brought unto them if it were true doth not disprove the practise of Baptizing Infants onely it proves an errour in that practise But if by unbeleevers you meane Pagans it is not proved to bee their generall practise I thinke it was practised by some of them upon the grounds above mentioned but not found in their constant and generall practise In your fifth you speake cautelously that the Ancientest of Testimonies for practise according to any Rule determined is Cyprian neere 300. yeers after Christ Here I must needs take notice of your overlashing who before calculating his age acknowledged him to live but 250. yeers and here you say hee lived almost 300. yeers I see that the Testimonies of Iustine Martyr Irenaeus Origen Tertullian who all lived neerer the times of Christ then Cyprian are made good against your exceptions you finde onely this evasion that their Testimonies doe not prove the practise of Infant-baptisme according to any Rule determined But Sir remember our controversie at present is concerning the practise not the Rule In the next place you undertake to prove that it was not so from the beginning and that by many evidences Now I cannot but conceive it likely that Augustines Ecclesia semper habuit semper tenuit should sway as much with the intelligent impartiall Reader as Mr. Tombes his Non semper habuit non semper tenuit especially considering that you bring not in all the Antiquitie you have produced one man that doth either deny the Baptizing of Infants to have beene the ordinary practise of the Church or that condemne it onely two you cite that doe advise the deferring of it as they doe also the Baptisme of growne men As first the propounding of questions unto Infants which as Strabo and Vives did so any reasonable man say you will thinke a manifest proofe that at first none were baptized but such as understood the saith of Christ This supposeth these questions to bee of as Antient use in the Church of God as Baptisme it selfe which certainly you can never prove from Scripture and how can any reasonable man thinke that a manifest proofe to whom Baptisme was or was not at first administred that was not in use in the first administration I have produced testimonies bearing witnesse to the baptizing of children which plead for it before you can bring any to witnesse that those formes of questions and answers had any being in the Church Secondly your examples of Greg. Naz. Chrysost August Constantine the Great have been already answered Your mistakes in their parents education reasons of their deferring Baptisme so made manifest as it is abundantly evident they are farre from proving the Baptizing of Infants of Christian parents not to have been the received and constant practise of the Church of Christ Thirdly Greg. Nazianzen and Tertullian whom you cite as disswading you have heard even in the places cited to you the one bearing witnesse to the practise of Infant-baptisme the other commanding it Fourthly the Testimony of the Councell of Neocaesaerea which you say is plaine against it of the testimony of this Councell let the Reader looke backe and judge but the glosse upon that Canon to which you referred us I am sure is a plaine Testimony for it Fiftly the silence which you impute to the chiefe writers Eusebius c. is your mistake not their fault for Eusebius what the reason of his silence is you have heard and for your c. if you meane Tertullian Athanasius Epiphanius whom before you charged with silence in this cause I hope you may now heare them speaking and witnessing for us Sixtly for the many passages in Austine and others that call it an Apostolicall Tradition in what sense they are to bee understood I have already shewed and am loath to detaine the Reader with Tautologies For your Triumviri that bring up your reere and shut up this first part of your Battalia Grotius Vives and Strabo to whom I wonder you did not adde Censura Censurae for you are more beholden to them for your Testimonies of Antiquity such as they bee then to all your other three and I dare say without disparagement to your reading whoever lookes in Grotius and them shall find almost all that you have spoken in this Controversie from Antiquity collected to your hand One of your three Champions I have encountred and I hope dispatched already and for the other two Vives and Strabo I see they are men of great account with you Vives you quote five or six times and adorne your Frontispice with a peece of his and Strabo you mention often But I beseech you Sir must wee take the bare word of Vives a man of yesterday or of a Strabo in matters of fact in things done so many hundred yeers before they were borne and that against the expresse witnesse of so many worthy and learned men who lived in those times what evidence doe either of them produce out of Antiquitie to make their assertion good You know well enough that learned Vossius did take notice of Strabo and Vives and proves out of Authors that lived many hundred yeers before Strabo for hee lived but about 850 that Infants were baptized in the
Church of old and wonders that Strabo should rely upon so weake an argument as hee doth and I as much wonder that you knowing all this should boast so much of such broken Reeds And so I leave you and your men and shall expect to see what reliefe you will bee able to give them for they can give none to you More Testimonies you say you could have added out of sundry Authors which I hardly beleeve seeing you are forced to rake up an old use continued in some Cities of Italy onely upon the hearesay of Vives But these you say are enough to you and you thinke to any that search into antiquity to prove that the custome of Baptizing of Infants was not from the beginning and therefore is but an innovation I verily beleeve upon your next search into Antiquitie you will be of another mind And for your confident assertion that the Doctrine that Baptisme is to beâ— given to Infants of Beleevers onely because of Covenant-holinesse is not elder then Zuinglius Zuinglius I confesse was a great Patron of this cause who in a publike dispute did so convince and stop the mouths of the Anabaptists that they appearing to the Magistrates unreasonably obstinate were banished the Citie But whereas you say hee is the first that you can finde that maintained the Baptisme of Infants upon this ground I shall be glad to helpe you peruse but what is before your eyes and you shall find Tertullian and Athanasius pleading the right of Infants to the Kingdome of heaven upon Covenant holinesse you may finde Epiphanius Cyprian Nazianzen Augustine Chrysostome and others pleading Baptisme to come in the roome of Circumcision and divers of them pleading Infants right to Baptisme from the Jewes Infants right to Circumcision which to mee is all one as to plead it from Covenant-holinesse you may also finde even the Pelagians acknowledging a Divine Institution for it secundum sententiam Evangelii And now I hope it will not offend you if I say I am sorry you discover so much either ignorance or negligence in the search of Antiquity as to say The Tenet and Practise of Infant-baptisme accordingly as wee hold and practise is not much above 100. yeers old so farre as you can find To conclude this part of my Treatise about the Antiquity of Infant-Baptisme give me leave to adde these few things First that I should not have judged it convenient to have made so much search into the practise of antiquity if you had not so confidently undertaken to shew that the ancients were of your mind and that I perceive your faire showes make many begin to thinke it was as you affirme and therefore taking my selfe bound to give the best account I could with truth I have not onely made what diligent search I could my self but have also which I willingly acknowledge that no man may thinke of my reading above what it is made use of my friend who is better versed in their writings then I am lest the truth in this matter of practise might suffer through my weaknesse who have but just leasure enough to looke into these Authors now and then and consult them upon occasion Yet had it been needfull I could have added many other testimonies out of the Antients to let you see that they approved Infant-Baptisme and affirmed that Baptisme came in the place of Circumcision as the Author of the Booke De Vocatione Gentium lib. 1. cap. 7 Cyrill Alexandrin in Levis lib. Isychius Presbyter in Levit. lib. 2. cap. 6. and many more Secondly in this search I find that the Ancients did not thinke that all who died unbaptized were damned as you usually charge them They conceived that Martyrs were baptized with their blood and therefore might bee saved though they were not baptized with water When great Basil discoursed of this point in his Homily of the 40. Martyrs he saith of one 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He was baptized not by another or the saith of another but by his owne faith not in water butin his owne blood Here Baptisme by water was denyed and yet salvation attained by a two fold Baptisme by faith and in blood Yea I also observe that they who were no Martyrs were in the judgement of the Ancients sufficiently baptized by the holy Ghost without blood or water and for proofe of this point I shall produce a testimony out of Augustine whom I cite the rather because upon second thoughts hee did retract his opinion and acknowledge that Baptisme was not Absolutely necessary to salvation Martyrdome might suffice without Baptisme nay faith and conversion of the heart might suffice without Martyrdome or Baptisme in case a man were cast into such straights that hee could not be made partaker of Baptisme Etiam atque etiam considerans invâ—nio saith hee non tantum passionem pro nomine Christi id quod ex Baptismo deerat posse supplere sed etiam fidem conversionemque cordis si forte ad celebrandum Mysterium Baptismi in angustiis temporum succurri non potest in his fift booke De Baptismo contra Donatistas observe that hee saith etiam atque etiam considerans c. and therefore I told you this was his judgement upon second thoughts and more mature deliberation And when this point came to be debated in after ages the Church tooke notice of this Retractation Bernard discourses upon this subject at large in his 77. Epistle and proves clearely out of Ambrose and Augustine that invisible sanctification was sufficient to salvation without a participation of the visible Sacrament Invisibilem sanctificationem quibusdam affuisse profuisse sine visibilibus Sacramentis Solam interdum fidem sufficere ad salutem et sine ipsâ sufficere nihil c. Faith alone saith hee that is faith without Martyrdome is sufficient to salvation and nothing but saith for though Martyrdome saith Bernard there may supply the defect of Baptisme wee must not conceive that the punishment or suffering prevailes but the faith of him that suffers Sufficiet spiritus solus saith Blesensis one that 's as ancient as Bernard more ancient then your Walafridus Strabo quia ipsius testimonium pondus habet It is also cleare and evident that after this opinion prevailed Infant-Baptisme was not rejected and therefore you are extreamely mistaken in this point Now if in the opinion of the ancients men of growne yeers might bee saved without Baptisme if they were either converts or Martyrs why may not elect Infants who are certainly sanctified bee made happy without Baptisme when they have been made holy by the spirit of holinesse could any of the ancients reasonably grant the one and deny the other Thirdly you may see that in pleading for this universall practise I speake no louder then other Reformed Divines for the antiquity of Infant-Baptisme Judicious Calvin who was well versed in Antiquitie in his instruction against the Anabaptists hath these words I affirme that this holy Ordinance of
Infant-Baptisme hath been perpetually observed in the Christian Church for there is no ancient Doctor that doth not acknowledge that Infant-Baptisme was constantly administred by the Apostles 4. That notwithstanding all this evidence I have brought from Antiquity yet I build as little upon Antiquitie as any other man I acknowledge what learned Rivet saith to be very true that Tradition is in most points uncertaine and therefore he that will build sure must build upon the Scripture Proinde necessario veniendum erat ad argumenta ex Scripturis quae si rem non evincant frustra traditionem advocabimus Animadv in Annot. Grotii in Cassandrum Art 9. Pag. 71. And I would have you and every Reader to remember that I doe not build my faith upon humane Traditions in this Argument nor did the ancients build upon humane traditions in this thing the very Pelagians themselves acknowledge it upon this ground Parvulos baptizandos esse concedunt saith Augustine of the Pelagians qui contra authoritatem universae Ecclesiae procul-dubio per Dominum et Apostolos traditam venire non possunt lib. 1. de peccat merit et Remiss cap. 26. Nay they were forced to their owne prejudice to acknowledge that Infants were baptized secundum regulam universalis Ecclesiae Evangelii sententiam lib. cont Caelest Pelag Now that which was pressed from the scope of the Gospell was not pressed as a Tradition and that which was acknowledged by the Pelagians to be the practise of the universall Church according to the rule of the Gospell was not built upon tradition I will therefore close up my testimonies produced out of the ancient writers with that savoury passage of learned Calvin in his Instructions against the Anabaptists Caeterum minime peto ut in eo probando nos Antiquitâ—s â—â—llo modo juvet c. I doe not desire saith hee to borrow any helpe from Antiquity for the proofe of this point any whit farther then the judgement of the Ancients shall be found to bee grounded on the Word of God for I know full well that as the custome of men doth not give authority to the Sacraments so the use of the Sacrament cannot hee said to be right and regular because regulated by custome PART II. HAving made good the practise of Antiquity for the Baptizing of Infants I follow you in that which you are pleased to make the second part of my Sermon which you call prejudices against Antipaedo-baptists from their noveltie and miscarriages Where first you blame me for seeking by prefacing and setting downe a briefe touch of the Anabaptists carriage in Germany to create prejudice in my Auditors To which I answer that I yet never learned that a briefe setting downe the Originall History and State of a Controversie or the weight and consequence of it thereby the more to ingage the Readers attention was against any Rule or Law of Art either divine or humane but in case it were a fault Quis tulerit Gracchos You who begin your booke with telling how nine moneths since you sent thus many Arguments in Latine drawne up in a Scholastique way c. and never yet received any Answer and in the end of your booke intimated that though you allowed me but a moneth yet I have kept your booke a whole yeere unanswered and throughout your whole Treatise strive to make an ostentation of reading and put abundance of scoffes and jeeres upon them who are of a contrary mind to you and seeke to loade the opinion you write against as if it carried all kind of mischiefes in the wombe of it All which things you know well enough are apt to take the people but have no weight with them who use onely to weigh Proofe with Proofe and Argument with Argument you I say of all other should pardon such a peccadillo and might very well have passed over what either my selfe or Dr. Featlies Frontispice or Mr. Edwards his expressions might seeme to bee lyable to of exception in this kind In your second Section you blame mee for two things first that I gave you no more light out of Augustine to know who they were that questioned Paedo-Baptisme in his dayes you have searched and cannot finde any the Pelagians you acknowledge opposed it not the custome was so universall and esteemed so sacred that they durst not oppose it All the further light I shall now give in a matter of no greater consequence is that if you cannot finde any in Augustines dayes who questioned it I am contented you shall beleeve there were none Secondly you blame me for making such a leape from Augustines time to Baltazzar Pacommitanus as if be were the first who opposed it where as you alledge many who opposed it 400. yeeres before his time To which I answer I sayd not hee was the first whose judgement was against it but the first that made an head against it or a division or Schisme in the Church about it It is possible men may hold a private opinion differing from the received doctrine and yet never make a rent or divide the Church into factions about it But let us examine your instances you alledge the famous Berengarius as one 2. The Albingenses 3. Out of Bernard you mention another namelesse Sect. 4. Petrus Cluniacensis charges the same upon the Petro-Brusians To all which I answer first in generall That these instances of yours having occasioned mee to make a more dilligent search into the doctrine and practise of those middletimes between the Fathers and the beginning of Reformation in Lâ—â—bers time I dare confidently think that you will have an hard taske to prove out of any impartiall Authors that there were any company of men before the Anabaptists in Germany who rejected the baptizing of Infants out of the confession of their faith possibly some private man might doe it but I shall desire you to shew that any company or Sect if you will so call them have ever denied the lawfulnesse of baptizing of Infants produce if you can any of their confessions alledge any Acts of any Councells where this doctrine was charged upon any and condemned in that Councell you know the generalitie of the visible Christian world was in those dayes divided into the followers of the Beast and the small number of those who followed the Lambe who bare witnesse to the truth of the Gospel in the times of that Antichristian Apostasie these were called by severall names Berengarians Waldenses poore men of Lyons Albingenses Catharists Petr-Brusians and severall other names as may bee seene in Bishop Vshers book of the Succession and State of the Christian Churches Now all grant that the Church of Rome even in those dayes owned the baptizing of Infants and so did all those persecuted Companies or Churches of the Christians for any thing I can find to the contrary Severall Catalogues of their confessions and opinions I finde in severall Authors and more
further Reformation is to begin with this your darling the casting out this point of Infant-Baptisme a point which you conceive to bee a mother corruption which carries in her wombe most of those abuses in discipline and manners and some of the errors in doctrine which defile the reformed Churches without which all after Cathechizing Censures separaton Church-Covenant c. are altogether insufficient to supply the want of it Secondly that Baptisme therefore hath not that influence into the comfort and obligations of Consciences as it had of old And thirdly that the Assemblies not beginning with this point is one great cause why Gods blessing doth no more accompany them whilst they waste much time about things inconsiderable in comparison of this and either hastily passe over or exclude from examination this which deserves most to bee examined Ah Sir How deare and lovely are our owne children in our eyes did ever any before you conceive so many and great evills to follow upon the baptizing the children of beleevers that such Monsters should be bred in the wombe of it or conceive that the removing of this would bee the healing of all I verily thinke should another have spoke such things of farre greater points you would have called them dictates Chimaraes bold assertions and what not Whether your Examen of my Sermon and your twelve Arguments in your exercitation will prove it to bee a corruption of Christs institution whether the reasons for Paedo-Baptisme be far fetched whether there be a cleare institution of Christ against it as here you affirme wee shall have leisure God willing to examine in their due place but for the present suppose mee to grant your postulâ—tum that it is an applying of an institution to a wrong subject yet I would faine learne of you how all these odious consequences will bee made good how these abuses in doctrine discipline and manners which you mention would be taken away if Paedo-Baptisme were removed nay would not the selfe same things still bee found as grounds or occasions of the same differences while some professe they would baptize any whether Turkes or Heathens who onely would make a profession of their faith in Jesus Christ and then admit them to all other Ordinances and not have them Excommunicated è sacris but onely a private consortio though their lives should prove scandalous and I am misinformed by good friends who know and love you very well if your selfe incline not this way others would take the same course before Baptisme which now they doe before admitting men to the Sacrament of the Lords Supper and would proceed to excommunication à Sacris as well as privately withdraw from such as prove scandalous and obstinate yea and take themselves bound to separate from mixt communions with them as much as they doe now notwithstanding their admission by Baptisme in your way And in this various manner of admitting men to Baptisme and dealing with men in other censures every Church or Eldership proceeding according to the largenesse or strictnesse of their owne principles I can see nothing but that the same abuses in discipline and manners which are now found among Christian people the same controversies about such as should be admitted to the Lords Supper the same divisions and separations would be sound in the Church which now alas take too much place amongst us This I say supposing your Postulatum were a truth But on the contrary supposing it not to be a truth what a Deformation instead of a Reformation should wee bring in in casting the children of Beleevers out of the visible Church reputing them no better then Turkes and Indians and especially doing it upon such grounds as are pleaded by you and others which even alter the state of the Covenant of grace As for your second I know not what influence of comfort or obligation upon conscience Baptisme had of old which is not now to bee found among them who are truely baptized who injoy not onely the putting away the filth of the flesh but the answer of a good conscience towards God by the resurrection of Jesus Christ And lastly for what you speake of the Assembly I impute it to your prejudice and extreame doting upon your owne opinion that you thinke this Point most worthy of their examination and to your misinformation to speake no worse that they waste much time about things inconsiderable in comparison or that they exclude this from Examination or seeke to stop it from any Tryall or that they hastily passe it over This is a very bold charge which you give upon the Assembly in the face of the world What evidence have you for this unlesse your Compassionate Samaritan bee Authentick with you The Apostle commands Timothy not to receive an accusation against an Elder unlesse it bee under two or three witnesses But for one man to cast thus much filth in the face of an Assembly of Ministers is very high and savours little of that modesty or meeknesse to which you did sometimes pretend How farre the blessing of God who hath not hitherto altogether left us notwithstanding our unworthines doth and will accompany the endeavours of the Assembly it is fit to leave to himselfe who gives increase to Pauls planting and Apollo's watering according to his good pleasure But as for their shutting out the due examination of this Point you are wholly mistaken though they have returned no answer to your paper It is true as I told you in the beginning that wee are shut up by Ordinance of Parliament from answering any private mens Papers or Bookes without leave from the Houses but I dare speake it in the name of the whole Assembly that they would bee glad you were admitted to dispute all your grounds among them In your next Paragraph which containes a comparison betweeve the evidences held out in the New Testament for the Religious observation of the Lords day and this of Infant-Baptisme you first make your selfe merry with my expressions that all who reject the baptizing of Infants because there is not an expresse Institution or Command in the New-Testament doe and must upon the same grounds reject the observation of the Lords-day But I am no whit ashamed of those words They doe and they must upon the same Principles if they be true to their Principles reject the one as well as the other And though I want the skill which some others have to plead for the Lord-day yet I suppose you shall find I have skill enough to make this good That there is no more expresse Institution or Command in the New-Testament for the Lords day then there is for Infant-Baptisme And whereas you alledge that some of the reformed Churches reject the Lords day and yet entertaine Infant-Baptisme and thence inferre that these two must not necessari'y stand and fall bee received and rejected together I answer Those Churches which doe so conceive that there is an institution for the
Baptizing of Infants but none for the observation of the â—ords day although herein I humbly conceive they are mistaken I doubt not but it doth and will appeare to impartiall and unprejudiced Readers that there is sufficient evidence of an Institution for both of them though not in such expresse Texts of Scripture in the New-Testament as the Anabaptists require and I shall now examine whether you bring any better evidence for the one then is to be found for the other First you say they meane it of positive worship consisting in outward rites and not of worship which is naturall or morall Answ But this but a blind morall and naturall are not to be confounded whatever worship is naturall may bee indeed acknowledged to be morall but not whatever is morall is to be esteemed naturall I know you cannot bee ignorant of the received distinction of Morale Naturale and Morale positivum and I beseech you though a Sabbath be grantâ—d to be Naturall yea if I should adde that one day in the revolution of seaven should bee so yet that this or that seventh day in the revolution of a weeke should bee observed all grant this depends upon an Institution and hath no more moralitie in it then what can bee made out from an Institution and consequently that the first day of the weeke should be the Christian Sabbath or that this one day of seven which God hath separated to himself and had once expresly fixed upon the seventh or last day of the week should be translated from the last day to the first day of the weeke must depend wholly upon an Institution and consequently they who reject that which depends upon positive Institution unlesse its Institution can bee expresly found in the New-Testament are as much at a losse for the Lords day as for the baptizing of Infants Nay give me leave to adde that in this point in question the advantage lies more on this hand I meane for Infant-Baptisme because there is more necessitie of clearing the Institution for the Lords day then for baptizing of Infants because in the one the ordinance it selfe and its institution is questioned but in this of Infant-Baptisme the question is not of the Institution of the Ordinance it selfe but onely of the subject to whom the Ordinance is to be applyed If the question bee betwixt Baptisme and the Lords day all grant that we have clearer Institution for the Sacrament of Baptisme then for the Lords day Baptisme is clearly instituted in the New-Testament to bee the Sacrament of our admission into the Covenant of grace and to succeed in the roome of Circumcision as your selfe grant Now the onely question is whether taking this for granted that baptism succeeds in the roome of Circumcicision and to bee applyed unto all persons by the will of God who are in Covenant with him whether the same persons may partake of this Sacrament as might partake of the other unlesse those persons bee expresly set downe in the New-Tement I hope in the judgement of all indifferent men a question about the persons to whom an ordinance is to bee applyed is a question of a farre inferiour nature to that question whether such a thing pretended to be an Ordinance have any Institution at all or not It 's one thing to invent a new Ordinance of worship another and that of inferiour rank to mistake in some of the persons to whom an Ordinance is to be applyed In some of the ancient times the Lords Supper was given to Infants and carried to sick persons when absent to testifie their communion with the Church I take them both for errours but yet not for errors of the like nature with inventing a new Sacrament I say againe there is a great difference betweene bringing in a new Ordinance and applying it to these or these persons especially when the question is not of the persons in generall who are the subject matter as whether men or Angels men or beasts but whether men of such an age or of such a Sex Sir to my best understanding these two questions are not parallell a just parallell question to this of Infant-Baptisme would be such a one as was once disputed betwixt Mr. Bifield and Mr. Brerewood viz. Taking it for granted that by a cleare Institution the Lords day succeeds in the roome of the old Sabbath whether yet the same persons are tied to keepe the Lords day who of old were tied to keepe the Sabbath unlesse those parties were mentioned in the New-Testament as whether servants as well as their masters the same holds here All this I speake not as any whit doubting that there is as cleare evidence for Baptizing of Infants as there is for the religious observation of the Christian Sabbath notwithstanding the latter seemes to require fuller evidence then this doth Your second explication gives you as little advantage you say that Apostolicall example which hath not a meâ—re temporary reason is enough to prove an Institution from God to which that practise doth relate especially when such examples come to bee backed with the constant practise of all Churches in all ages And then you bring in Pauls preaching at Troaâ— the collections upon the first day of the weeks in the first of the Corinthians and the sixteenth the mentioning of the Lords day Revel 1. Sir I except against none of all this to bee a part of that good evidence which wee have for the religious observation of the Lords day but I dare confidently speake it that out of these you can never evince more laying all things together to prove the Institution of the Lords day then I have done for the lawfulnesse of baptizing of Infants and I appeale to all learned Readers whether the many bookes written of late against the Institution of the Lords day give not as specious and plausible answers to these places alledged by you concerning the Christian Sabbath as yours are against Infant-baptisme although they have received sufficient cleare and solid answers yea and tread under their feet all arguments taken from these examples with as much confidence and scorne as your selfe doe that which I and others have named for Paedo-Baptisme And as for the supplement which you bring out of the constant practise of the Churches for the religious observation of the Lords day in stead of the old Sabbath I earnestly desire you in your next to produce as many of the ancients to beare witnesse to that truth as I have done in this point for Paedo-Baptisme and I promise you you shall receive my hearty thanks among the rest of your Readers in the meane time the Reader shall judge whether I have not brought a moity of that for the Baptizing of Infants which you have done for the Lords day Further whether you have not abused your reader in so confident averring that there are no footsteps in Antiquity for Paedo-Baptisme till the erroneous conceit of giving Gods grace by it the
necessity of it to save an Infant from perishing some hundreds of yeers after Christs Incarnation is easily to bee seene by what I have at large produced in the former part of this treatise Lastly your tedious discourse of that dangerous principle of framing additions to Gods worship by Analogies of our ownâ— making without warrant from Gods Word I desire you to apply it to them who do so I no further make use of it then I find Gods Word to goe along with me Whether beleevers Infants are confederates with their parents in the Covenant of Grace comes afterwards to be examined the rest of this Section being carping at a phrase or expression which your selfe grant being taken cum grano salis may passe with a candid Reader I passe over as worthy of no further answer onely I adde this one word that though it bee not safe to reason barely from events of things yet it well becomes us thankfully to take notice of Gods blessing upon his owne Ordinance and the more earnestly to contend for that which God is pleased so mercifully to accompany with his grace In your ninth Section you concurre with mee in condemning it as a wicked practise to separate from ministry and communion in Ordinances by reason of this difference in opinion and that the making of Sects upon these grounds is contrary unto Christian Charitie and I as willingly concurre with you in what you say in the latter part of this Section that godly Ministers and other Christians should not by harsh usage of their brethren in stirring up hatred in Magistrates and people against them cast strumbling blocks in their way thereby to alienate dissenting brethren from them but for what you say in the middle of this Section that this is not the evill of Anti-paedo-baptisme I answer I conceive it flowes from the principles which most of the Anti-paedo-baptists do conceive though possibly all and your selfe for one have not wholly embraced them for if you please to take and to compare these three principles of theirs together First members are added to the Church by Baptisme and not otherwise Secondly that such as are not baptized according to Christs Institution their Baptisme is a nullitie Thirdly that because the Baptisme of Infants is not clearely held out in the New Testament it is therefore not warranted by Christs Institution but contrary to it and then tell mee what followes lesse then this that none so baptized are Church-members consequently can performe no acts of Church-members and that therefore our Churches are no true Churches our Ministry can bee no true Ministry and therefore a necessitie of separation from us What you add in the end of this Section that a passage in one of my Sermons about the hedge which God hath set about the second Commandement hath been one cause of your startling at this point of Paedo-Baptisme I answer onely this had you not bin startled before there is nothing in that speech could have moved you and when once you have manifested that Baptizing of Infants doth breake downe the hedge which God hath made about the second Commandement I shall bee startled with you and not till then In your tenth and last Section wherein you undertake to answer that passage in my Sermon that the opinion of the Anabaptists puts all the Infants of beleevers into the selfesame condition with Turkes and Infidells you answer severall things wherein I plainely perceive you cannot deny what I affirme and yet you are loath to grant it you say first Cyprian with his 66. Bishops doth the same which I have forinerly shewed will not follow out of the words of of that Epistle secondly you say Mr. Rathband pleading that such Children whose Ancestors in any generation were faithfull may lawfully bee accounted within Gods Covenant grants the same also But this no wayes followes without extreame wracking those words in any Generation I suppose your selfe doth not thinke those words Exod. 20. 5. were intended to intimate that all the children in the world who came from Adam or Noah were included in the Covenant of grace nor doe I conceive you beleeved Mr. Rathband to thinke so For your owne opinion you declare it thus 1. You know no warrant to thinke election to reach beleevers children more then unbeleevers children 2. You know no more promise for them then for the children of unbeleevers 3. All the likelihood there is that they belong to Gods election rather then Turkes and Infidels to be because they have their parents and the Churches prayers some generall and conditionall promises and enjoy the benefit of good instruction and example which puts them into a nearer possibility to bee beleevers and saved and experience shewes God frequently continues his Church in their posterity But this you dare not ground upon any promise made unto beleevers as such for store you should incurre blasphemy by challenging a promise which God doth not keepe in that many of the posteritie of godly parents prove very wicked To all which I answer first in generall that to my understanding you here clearely yeeld the Infants of beleevers to bee in the same condition in reference to the Covenant of grace which the Infants of Turkes and Indians are in no more promise for the one then for the other which so oft as you consider mee thinkes your fatherly bowels to your owne children should bee moved within you Secondly I answer first to that of election your owne speech that experience shewing that God frequently continues his Church among beleevers posteritie should be one argument to make you thinke Gods election lies more among them then among others though wee can bee certaine of no one of them in particular Secondly what promises are made to beleevers children more then to Turkes and whether Abrahams promise reach them shall God willing bee scand in its proper place Thirdly as to that which you say that the children of beleevers are in a more hopefull way because of their parents prayers instructions examples c. and some generall and conditionall promises which puts them in a more possibilitie I answer this is nothing to the children which die in their Infancy nor secondly any more then children of Pagans enjoy whose lot may fall to be educated by Christians but no more promise by your doctrine for the one then the other Thirdly whereas you affirme that Generall Indefinite and Conditionall promises doe prove that there is a more comfortable likelihood that the children of beleevers are elected by God rather then the children of Turkes I reply 1. You doe not expresse what those promises are 2. I wonder that you should inferre election from conditionall promises Did God ever say that if you will performe these and these conditions then I will regenerate you give you a new heart and put my spirit within you 3. If the promise of regeneration bee not conditionall then you must say that there is some comfortable likelihood
as they were types of spirituall things it may then passe â—um granâ— salis but if by primarily be intended principally that Circumcision did chiefly seale earthly blessings the opinion is too unsavory to be received and whereas he and you with him say that Circumcision did thus primarily seale the earthly part of the Covenant I desire to know of you what Scripture ever made Circumcision a Seale of Canaan wee have expresse Scripture that it sealed the righteousnesse of faith whereby he was justified but I no where read that iâ— sealed the Land of Canaan Whereas you say though the promises were types of spirituall and heavenly things yet the things promised were but carnall and earthly as the sacrifices were but carnall things though shadowes of spirituall I reply all this is true but this belongs to the administration of the Covenant as was said before but makes it never a whit the more a mixt Covenant for the substance of it the Covenant then was more administred by carnall things then it is now and yet the administration of the Covenant even now also hath some carnall promises and priviledges as well as then as the externall ordinances of the Gospell Baptisme and the Lords Supper and wee as well as they have in the Covenant of grace the promise of this life and of that which is to come and so you may if you will call ours also a mixt Covenant consisting both of temporall and spirituall blessings and as among them some who were in Covenant did partake onely of the temporall part and never were partakers of the spirituall others of them were partakers of the spirituall part also even so now some partake of the externall and carnall part onely whilst others partake of both this you must grant to be true unlesse you will maintaine that none are now members of the visible Church but onely Elect and true beleevers Secondly you except against mee that when I said the manner of administration of this Covenant was first by types shadowes and sacrifices c. it had beene convenient to have named Circumcision that it might not be conceived to belong to the substance of the Covenant I reply first this is a very small quarrell I added c. which supplies both Circumcision and other things Secondly you know the Covenant of grace was administred by sacrifices and other types before Circumcision was instituted Thirdly whereas I said there were some Proselytes in the Jewish Church who were but selfe-justiciaries carnall and formall professors who are yet in the Scripture called Abrahams seed you answer I call them so without the warrant of Scripture as you conceive to which I reply my words were that there was another sort of Abrahams seed who were onely circumcised in the flesh and not in the heart who though they were borne of Abrahams seed or professed Abrahams faith and so were Iewes facti though not nati yet they never made Abrahams God their portion but rested in somewhat which was not Christ c. and so were to perish with the uncircumcised This you doe not here deny to bee true onely you would have me shew where the Proselytes were called Abrahams seed I reply had I mentioned no proselytes at all but onely said there were some in the Church of the Iewes who were visible members and partakers of outward Church-priviledges and yet were not inwardly godly nor partakers of the spirituall part and that these were called Abrahams seed as well as others it had been enough for my purpose I named not Proselytes to adde any strength to the argument and because they are called Gods people I feared not to call them Abrahams children by profession and never expected to have met with a quarrell for calling them who joyned to the Church of Israel by that common name whereby the Church members were called viz. the seede of Abraham or the children of Israel and could no place of Scripture be produced where proselytes are expresly called by this name the matter were not tanti But if it were a thing of any moment it would be no hard matter to produce evidence sufficient to prove that proselytes were called Israelites and the seed of Abraham as Acts 2. 10. and 22. compared Act. 13. 26. compared with Verse 43. but I forbeare You go on and accuse me that herein I joyne with Arminius who saith there is a seed of Abraham mentioned Rom. 4. 9. 10. Gal. 3. Gal. 4. who seeke justification and salvation by the workes of the Law and that hee makes this the ground of wresting that Scripture and that Mr. Bayne upon Ephes 1. sayes that the seed of Abraham without any adjoyned is never so taken I reply you give an high charge but a weake proofe I said there was a sort of proselytes who were the seed of Abraham by profession onely or outward cleaving to the Covenant who though they professed Abrahams faith yet did not place their happinesse in Christ or make choyce of Abrahams God for their all-sufficient portion Sir is this to joyne with Arminius in his interpretation of the ninth to the Romans 1. How doe you prove that Arminius meanes the words which you cite of Jewish Proselytes Nulli filii carnis censentur in semine saith Arminius doth hee meane that no proselytes were the seed of Abraham according to the flesh if so I beleeve acute Mr. Bayne would have been more wary then to have opposed him in that point Nay Mr. Bayne in the very selfe same page which you quote having set downe Arminius his two conclusions 1. The children of the promise are reckoned for the seed 2. The children of the flesh are not reckoned for the seed passes his judgement upon them in these words Page 140. The Conclusions are true but not pertinent to this sense for the children of the flesh here are those onely who in course of nature came from Abraham But you very wisely mention neither of these Conclusions of Arminius you thought it more for your advantage to fasten upon some other proposition laid downe by Arminius and as you set it downe it runs thus There is a seed of Abraham qui per opera legis justitiam salutem consequuntur I was much amused at the words I know Arminius saith Deus ex promisse ac debito dat vitam aeternam operanti but he meanes it not of the workes of the Law and therefore I wondered to see opera legis in your proposition but the word which puzled me most was consequuntur Sir let me intreat you to correct your booke there is no such word as consequuntur in Arminius his exposition and it doth not agree with your own exposition for consequuntur justitiam is by you translated Follow after righteousnesse I have perused Arminius with whom you say I joyn and Mr. Bayne from whom you say I say I differ and I shall give an account of both to the reader First for Arminius his words
right a visible prâ—fessor hath to bee received and reputed to belong to the visible Church quâ— visible professoâ— that right hath his child so to bee esteemed now all know the spirituall part and priviledges of the Covenant of grace belongs not to visible professors as visible but onely to such among them who are inwardly such as their externall profession holds out but yet there are outward Church-priviledges which belong to them as they are visible professors as to be reputed the sonnes of God Gen. 6. 1. the sonnes of God saw the daughters of men Deut. 14. 1. ye are the children of the Lord your God and Paul writing to a visible Church Gal. 3. 26. saith yea are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus yet I suppose you doe not thinke that all the Galatians were inwardly so so likewise to bee reputed children of the kingdome Matth. 8. 12. the children of the kingdome shall bee cast out the children of the Covenant Act. 3. 25. yee are the children of the Covenant which God made unto our fathers and many other of their priviledges which belong to them who are Israeliteâ— in this sense viz. being by such a separation and vocation the professed people of God though they were not all heires of the spirituall part of the Covenant Saint Paul reckons up in severall places as Rom. 9. 4. to them pertaineth the adoption even to the body of that people not a spirituall adoption but the honour of being separated and reputed to bee the children of God Deut. 14. 1. and the glory and the covenants and the giving of the Law and the service of God and the promises yet of these Paul saith they were not all children of Abraham when he speaks of the spirituall seed So likewise Rom. 3. 1. afteâ— Paul had shewed Rom. â— that nothing but faith and inward holinesse gave right to the spirituall part of the Covenant and that all the externall priviledges of the Jewes who were onely Jewes in propatulo Jewes outwardly were nothing to justification before God hee then propounds this question Cap. 3. 1. What advantage then both the Jew or what profit is there of Circumcision what priviledge or gaine is it to bee a visible professor a visible member of the Jewish Church hee answers the advantage is great many wayes and instances in this one particular that the Oracles of God were deposited to them the custody and dispensation of his Ordinances which they might use as their owne treasure and thereby learne to know and feare him therefore it is called their Law John 8. 17. It is also written in your Law when the rest of the nations all that while were without God in the world and received the rule of their life from the Oracles of the Devill according to that of the Psalmist Psal 147. 10 20 He shewed his word to Iacob his statutes and his judgments to Israel hee hath not dealt so with any nation and as for his judgements they have not knowne them So Deut. 33. 4. The Law is called the inheritance of the Congregation of Iacob And although it bee true that these visible and externall priviledges will end with the greater condemnation of them who live and die in the abuse of them while they rest in Cortice in the outward thing it selfe and labour not after the spirituall part yet the priviledges themselves are very great It is no small mercy to have a membership or visible standing in that societie where salvation is ordinary this our blessed Saviour told the woman of Samaria Iohn 4. 22. Salvation is of the Iewes this was the priviledge which the Church of the Jewes had above the Samaritans that salvation was to bee found in their way and God in his wisedome hath so ordained it to have his visible Church made up of such I meane so as to have some of them inwardly holy and others of them by externall profession onely for this reason among many others that there might bee some who should from time to time bee converted by the Ordinances dispensed in his Church as well as others who should be built up that the Pastors which hee sets up to feed his flocke should not onely bee nursing fathers to build up but also fathers to beget sonnes and daughters to him and though all are bound de jure to bee inwardly holy who joyne to the Church yet would hee have his Church admit those who professe their willingnesse to bee his that hee by his discipline might make them inwardly such as they externally professe themselves and as yet are not in truth as into a Schoole are admitted not onely such as are actually learned but such as are dedicated to be learned not onely quia docti sed ut sint docti and who ever will deny this that there are some rightly admitted by the Church to visible membership who onely partake of the visible priviledges must deny that any are visible members who are not inwardly converted which I thinke you will doe but lest you or any other should I shall at the present back it onely with that speech of the Apostle Rom. 11. where Paul speakes of some branches grassed into the Olive and afterwards broken off not onely the Iewes whom hee calleth the naturall branches were broken off but the Gentiles also the Gentile Churches who were graffed in in their roome and were made partakers of the roote and fatnesse of the Olive even they also may bee broken off if they beleeve not and God will no more spare these branches then hee did the other now this cannot bee meant of any breaking off from the invisible Church from partaking of the spirituall roote and fatnesse of the Olive from this neither Jew nor Gentile are ever broken off it were Arminianisme to the purpose to affirme the contrary it must therefore bee meant onely of a visible standing and externall participation of Church-priviledges and if you thinke otherwayes that none of old were nor now are visible members of the Church or had right to externall Church priviledges unlesse they were inwardly sanctified I beseech you in your next to cleare this and open our eyes with your evidence that wee may see it with you and in stead of leading your Reader into a maâ—e by framing multitudes of senses the like produce some solid arguments to shew and prove that no other but true beleevers may in fore visibiâ—â—â— Ecclâ—siae bee reckoned to belong to the Church and people of God But I suppose in this particular you will hardly deny a lawfulnesse of admitting men into a visible communion upon a visible profession and that rightly even by a judgement of faith though their inward holinesse be unknown to us for so much you grant pag. 159. and if by a judgement of faith a Minister as Gods Steward may dispence the seale of the Covenant of grace and not stay from applying the seale
the visible Professors of any Church are to be accounted to belong to God either in respect of election from eternity or promise of grace or present state of in-being in Christ c. without a particular revelation because there is no declaration of God that the present visible Professors are indefinitely all or some either elected to life or are in the Covenant of grace in Christ either in respect of present in-being or future estate look by what distinction you will answer this for visible Professors who are growne men the same will serve for the Infants of beleevers In the next place you make a digression against an expression of Mr. Cottons which you thinke necessary to do because you fâ—â—de many are apt to swallow the dictates of such men as Mr. Cotton is without examination he affirmed the Covenant of grace is 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 you except many things and according to your usuall course you frame many senses of the Covenants being given to every godly man and his seed some whereof are so absurd as no charitable man can imagine ever came in Mr. Cottons thoughts That every godly man should be to his seed as Christ to every godly man which in truth as you say would be little lesse then blasphemy But I shall give you this short Reply that I take Mr. Cottons meaning to be that looke as Abraham Isaac and Jacob and other godly Jewes were to their seed in respect of the Covenant that is every godly man to his seed now except onely in such things wherein those Patriarchs were types of Christ in all other things wherâ—in God promised to be the God of them and their seed godly parents may plead it as much for their seed 〈◊〉 as they could then and whatever inconvenience or absurdity you seem to fasten upon Mr. Cotton will equally reach to them also as for example suppose an Israelite should plead this promise for his seed you 'll demand if â—ee plead it to his seed universally that 's false and so of the rest of your inferences look what satisfying answer an Israelite would give you the same would Mr. Cotton give and at satisfyingly As for what you say concerning Abraham that by the seed of Abraham are meant onely elect and beleevers I have sufficiently answered to it before and shall have occasion to meet with it again in its due place therefore I now say no more of it but the chief thing you grate upon against M. Cotton is that expression in the close That God will have some of every godly mans seed stand before him for ever You aggravate this to the utmost as a bold dictate imposing on Gods counsel and Covenant the absurdity and falsity wherof you indeavour to manifest at large to which I answer in two or three words that supposing his meaning to be as you set it downe That it is in reference to election and everlasting life that every godly man shall have some of his seed infallibly saved I confesse the expression is not to be justified nor doe I thinke that that sense ever came into the mind of so learned and judicious a man as Mr. Cotton is for my part I think he onely alluded to that promise made to Jonadâ—â—s children Jer. 35. thaâ— God would alwayes beare a mercifull respect unto the posterity of his servants according to that promise Exod. 20. 5. I will shew mercy to thousands of them that love mee and keepe my commandements And that being his scope as I thinke it was you need not have kept such a stirre about it After your digression to meet with Mr. Cotton in stead of returning to my Sermon you wander further out of your way for after a short discourse of judging children to bee within the Covenant by opinion according to a rule of prudence or charity senses which I meddle not with and therfore need not stay the Reader in descanting upon them My rule of judging their condition being limited to the Rule of Gods revealed will in his word you then proceed in an indeavour wherein you doe but lose time and waste paper for many pages together endeavouring to confute what was never asserted by me viz. That the Covenant of saving grace is made to beleevers and their naturall seed that the Infants of beleevers are so within the Covenant of grace as to be elected and to have all the spirituall priviledges of the Covenant belonging to them this you would needs have to be my meaning and I almost suspect you would fasten this sense upon mee against your owne light for pag. 142. you doe as good as cleare mee of it where you say You suppose that I doe not hold that the Infants of beleevers indifferently have actually the thing signified by baptisme union with Christ adoption pardon of sinne regeneration c. So that in all this discourse you doe but luctari cum larvis according to your owne expression pag. 45. my plain meaning was as is before expressed nor doe any of the expressions used by mee and here brought by you as Arguments to prove this to be my meaning hold forth any such thing as they are within the Covenant of grace belonging to Christs body kingdome houshold therefore are to partake of the seale True as visible professors are quà visible Againe they are to bee accounted to belong to him as well as their parents True as well as their parents doe by a visible profession Againe they are made free according to Abrahams copy True according to the promise made to Abraham I will bee a God to thee and thy seed that looke as Abraham and his seed the Proselytes and their seed upon their visible owning of God and his Covenant had this visible priviledge for their posterity that they should be accounted to belong to Gods kingdom and houshold with their parents so it is here One Argument more you bring beside laying of my words together to prove that this must needs bee my sense because you doubt not but my meaning is agreeable to the Directory which holds forth That the promises are made to beleevers and their seed and directs Ministers to pray That God would make Baptisme to the Infant a seale of adoption regeneration and eternall life And you conclude that if there be not a promise of these saving graces to Infants in vaine are they baptized and the seale is put to a blank To which I reply my meaning is indeed according to the sense of the Directory and according to that direction I doe pray that God would make baptisme to bee a seale to the Infant of adoption and the rest of the saving graces of the Covenant yet I utterly deny you consequence that unlesse there bee absolute promises of
with in our visible Church are baptized if their forefathers have been found in the faith but others will deny it and you cite Mr. Cotton in the Margin whâ— sayes that if hath the nearest parents bee excommunicated the child is not to bee baptized because the parents are to us as heathenâ— and thâ—â— say you Paedobaptists as well as Anabaptists like wates of the Sea beat one against another To which I answer This peculiar controversie betwixt some Paedobaptists by 〈◊〉 right the children are to bee baptized whether by right of their nearest parents only or by the right of their remoter forefathers who have been sound in the faith is very little helpefull to your cause nor is it any very great controversie betwixt those parties whom you mention for Mr. Cotton in the very words cited doth almost if not altogether reconcile it while hee saith when the nearest parents are excommunicate it may bee considered whether the child may not bee baptized either if the Grandfather or Grandmother make profession or in the right of the Houshold Governour who promises to educate the child in the faith 〈◊〉 by proportion of the Law may bee gathered from Gen. 17. 12 13. Here is little or no beating of one wave against another but both of them beating Anabaptists and I wish that your answer did no more beace against the very reason of the holy Ghost Gen. 17. 7. who makes this his Argument why hee would have the male children circumcised and thereby reckoned to bee in Covenant with him because their parents are in Covenant with him this in mee you call a carnall imagination take heed you dash not against the Lord Jehovah himselfe Lastly whereas I adde thus iâ— wâ—â— in the time of the Iewes both Jewes and Proselytes they and their children came thiâ— Covenant together and when God rejected the parents out of the Covenant the children were cast out with them To this you answer indeed when parâ—nts were taken into Covenant their children were circumcised with them but whether this make any thing for baptizing of Infants you shall conâ—ider in duâ— place and there God willing I shall meet with you But for the second thing that when the parents were cast out of Covenant the Children were cast out with them this say you is not true parents might bee Idolaters Apostates c. yet their children were to bee circumcised I answer first Is it not evident in the Jewes at this day that they and their children are cast out together and I adde if you would shew the falsitie of it you should have given some instance not of parents who remaine Gods people in externall profession not having received a Bill of divorcement though their lives might possibly bee very wicked but of some who were cast off from being visible professors and yet their Infants remaine in the visible societie of the Church or of some who were visibly thus taken in and their Infants left out but instead of this you still goe on in your wonted equivocation of the word Covenant of grace taking it onely of the Covenant of saving grace not including the externall way of administration with it Now God willing I shall try what strength there is in your exceptions against those Texts I brought to prove that Infants of Beleevers do belong to the Covenant now as well as the Infants of Jewes did under the former administration The first whereof was taken out of Acts 2. 38. 39. where Peter exhorting his hearers to beleeve and bee baptized used this as an Argument taken from the benefit which should come to their posteritie The promise is made to you and to your children c. The first branch of your answer is according to your usuall method to throw dirt in the face of an Argument which pinches you sleighting and scorning that which you know not how to answer and then to frame severall senses and raise a dust about it You complaine how irkesome it is to Readers and Answerers to finde them who alleadge â— Text to paraphrase upon it but show not how they conclude from it It is harder for you to finde your enemy then to vanquish him and you wish that I would first distinctly expound and then frame my arguments out of the Text. I answer I hardly can tell whether it were best to smile at or pity this grievous trouble you are put to that your patience should bee thus compelled deverare taedium it seemes you expected I should make syllogismes in moode and figure in a Sermon ad populum if you did not I wonder why you should bee thus troubled since as plainely as I could I expressed the meaning of the Text I first shewed where the strength of the Argument lay viz. That not onely themselves upon their faith and Baptisme should receive such an Invaluable benefit but their children should also as under the former administration they were bee taken into a better administration the Covenant being now exhibited in the best and fullest manner and all they whether neere or farre off who would owne this should themselves and their children with them bee under this best Covenant as formerly they were when the Covenant was more darke And in the progresse of my discourse I both proved this to bee the meaning and answered the exceptions to the contrary Next follows your severall senses You doubt whether I fetch children in under the first part I will be thy God or whether under the second I will be the God of thy seed Or whether I meane is of saving graces or Church-priviledges One while you doubt whether my sense be that God will be the God of their children if they obey his call then you rather guesse it That if the Parents obey his call bee will be the God of them and their children though the children doe not obey his call Yea further because here are not yet senses enough you proceed and say If by the promise to them and their children be meant of outward Church-priviledges then the sense must bee If you will beleeve repent and be baptized then you and your children shall be baptized Yet another sense you make out of that which I spake at the by of Zacheus Luke 19. that salvation came to his house upon his beleeving that thence may be gathered That the meaning is a mans whole houshold may be saved barely by his beleeving and not content with all these senses you step out of your way to bring in Mr. Goodwins interpretation of Zacheus that he meant it of the whole houshold and that thence he collected that an household was Ecclesia prima which you confute and then you set down your own sense of salvation comming to Zacheus his house that by Zacheus his house is meanâ— onely Zacheus himself What multiplicity of imaginary senses and consequences of senses are here poured out on an heape could the â—arest Chymick have extracted any more The Reader
before you bring in Chamier nothing to the purpose I answer it is not from a future event but from a positive reall truth if Pauls reason bee framed thus the children which beleevers beget upon their Infidell yoke-fellowes are a holy seed therefore beleevers have a sanctifyed use of their Infidell husbands or wives had this been a reasoning from a future contingent As for what you here cite out of Chamier I answer onely this I perswade my selfe you are by this time ashamed of your impertinent quotation I assure my selfe if you bee not your friends are Thirdly say you sanctification is here not ascribed to God aâ— selecting some from others to such an use but is common to all unbeleeving husbands in respect of their wives and comes from that common relation not speciall designation I answer this Argument is a plaine setting downe the question in controversie as an Argument to prove it selfe and I have already proved the contrary that it is a priviledge not common to all who are married but peculiar to beleevers Fourthly say you according to this exposition the words following could not be true else were your children uncleane but now they are holy because in this forme of reasoning this proposition is included their children could not bee holy without that sanctification which say you is false because children may bee in Covenant and bee regenerated though their parents had never been thus sanctified the one to the other the children of Infidel parents may bee sanctified I reply not while they are Infants they are not by any birth priviledge to bee accompted as belonging to the Church of Christ which is the onely thing about which wee are disputing no man ever went about to prove out of this Text that none can ever bee converted whose parents are not sanctified the one unto the other Next after another impertinent bringing in of Chamier you reason thus take it in my sense and it is no satisfactory reason you may live together for you may beget a holy seed I answer this is the same with your second Argument answered before and wherein I pray you lies the weakenesse of it you may live together and have a holy use of your unbeleeving yoke-fellowes for God esteemes the seed of such to bee an holy seed as truely as if both were beleevers is this a slight or unsatisfying answer nay I adde further had the Apostle gone about to prove that a beleeving wife and a beleeving husband have not onely a lawfull enjoyment one of another as heathens have but a sanctified as they have of other creatures because else their children were uncleane but now they are holy all your exceptions would lie as strong against this last as against the former for you might have said this reaches onely those that are of ageâ— secondly this depends upon a future contingent thirdly this depends upon their common relation fourthly and children may be holy that is afterward regenerate though this be denyed let the Reader consider of it You goe on and say that in your sense the reason is plaine and satisfactory let them live together though one bee a beleever the other an unbeleever for notwithstanding their difference in Religion they are husband and wife marriage being honorable among all and the bed undefiled I reply but this had been no satisfaction to their scruple their doubt was not whether their marriage were lawfull while they were heathens but whether now their conscience would not bee defiled in remaining joyned to Idolaters and the Apostles resolution must remove that which your sense doth not you granted they doubted not the legitimation of their children and therefore your sense could not have removed the scruple as is above shewed And whereas you adde the like resolution hee gives verse the 17. concerning circumcised and uncircumcised servants they might still continue with their master their Christian calling did not dissolve those relations I answer in one word this like hath no likenesse at all in it there is no parallel betwixt these two cases hee speakes not one word about beleeving servants continuing with unbeleeving masters but of servants in generall whether their masters were beleevers or unbeleevers hee tells them that they might continue servants though they were Christs free men yet if they can fairely obtaine their freedome let them choose that rather One Argument more you bring against this interpretation if the sanctification were meant of matrimoniall sanctification and the uncleannesse of federall uncleannesse so as to exclude them out of the Covenant whether of saving graces or Church-priviledges then the proposition was most fâ—lse because children of parents not matrimonially sanctified one to the other were within the Covenant as Pharez Jepha and others I answer first I desire the reader to take notice that you take the Covenant here in this place as I doe for Church-priviledges Secondly indeed if sanctification bee taken for matrimoniall sanctification or lawfulnesse of wedlock and uncleannesse of federall sanctification the proposition may bee granted to bee false and let them who so take it undertake the defence of it if they can but let it bee meant of that other sanctification which I have justified the proposition is most true I say againe all the children of those parents the one whereof is an unbeleever are uncleane that is federally uncleane excluded out of the Covenant in regard of Church priviledges at least if not of saving graces which is a secret left to God unlesse the one bee sanctified in the other this Argument I answered in my Sermon and framed it thus that holinesse is here meant which could not bee unlesse one of the Parents were sanctified to the other but federall holinesse of Children may bee where Parents are not sanctified one in or to the other as in Bastardy Davids child by Bathsheba c. in which case the children were federally holy and yet the barlot not sanctified in or to the Adulterer or fornicator though a beleever my answer was that the Apostles scope in this Argument is to shew that the children borne of an unbeleever would not bee holy unlesse the other Parent could remove that barre but hath no force of an Argument where both the Parents are beleevers which was the case of the Jewes the case of Hagar Bathsheba c. All the reply you make to it page the 80. is to bestow a few scoffes upon it that my answer is to deny the conclusion that I shew no fault either in the matter or the forme of the Argument that the scope which I mention is but a meere figment that I doe as good as say that the objector can make no Argument out of it and that therefore I need make no answer And that in one place I grant the minor then the major and thus you most gallantly vapour upon me I reply were it not that some Readers are prone to
of the sanctuary and the Priests lips must preserve knowledge so our Ministers must be of holy life fit to teach c. And all this wee may plead by good warrant and whereas I added in my Sermon that our Lord taught us this by his owne example miz that Circumcision initiated into that administration and Baptisme into this who was Circumcised as a professed member of the Jewes Church and when hee set up the Christian Church hee would bee initiated into it by the Sacrament of Baptisme hereupon you runne into divers things as why Christ wouâ—d bee Circumcised why Baptized and in what sense Christ when he was to be baptized said that hee would be baptized that hee might fulfill all righteousnesse but you thinke it not probable that it was any part of his meaning to be initiated into the Christian Church by baptisme the Christian Church was not yet set up with worship discipline distinct from the Iewish and because his Baptisme was of a higher nature then our Baptisme I reply that the Christian Church was not fully set up and compleated with all Ordinances of worship government officers till afterwards is readily granted but that it was not in fieri in erecting and framing and that Baptisme was administred in reference to the Christian Church and that by Baptisme men were initiated into this new administration or best edition of the Church I thinke no sound Divine did ever question I grant Christs Baptisme was a transcendent one and differs from ours in many things and so was his Circumcision also a transcendent one and differed from the Jewes in many things can you thence frame an Argument that hee intended not by his conformity to our Ordinances to expresse the same favour to us as he did to the Jewes in conforming to their Ordinances but that you should hence fetch an Argument that because Christ was not baptized till hee was thirtie yeers old which was within lesse then thirtie weekes after Baptisme was made a Sacrament is I confesse a most transcendent straine of wit yet you boast of it as if by it you had broke one of the strings I have to my bow And proceed to try whether you cannot crack the other also the evidence which Colos 2 8. 9. c. gives to prove Baptisme to succeed in the roome of Circumcision but before you come to the examination of this place you make enquiry in what sense Baptisme succeeds in the roome of Circumcision and you first observe that in speaking exactly Baptisme was a concomitant of Circumcision if not ancienter that it was in use among the Jewes for many yeers together with Circumcision though not as a Sacrament and for this you cite the learned Gentleman Mr. Selden and Mr. Ainsworth on Gen. 17. and Mr. Lightfootes Elias Redivivus I confesse you are in the right Baptisme was a knowne rite in the Jewish Church long before it was made a Sacrament and therefore when Iohn came baptizing none of the Jewes were ignorant of the use of Baptisme they never asked him what he meant by baptizing they knew well enough that it was a rite used in admitting of Proselytes or new Converts into the Church they onely wondred why hee did Baptize if hee were not the Messiah But Sir this exception of yours is so farre from being any argument against mee that it affords me a good argument for Infant-Baptisme because the same authors which mention this as an Ecclesiasticall rite in admission of Proselytes doe testifie that the Infants of Proselytes were baptized as well as circumcised and wheresoever Circumcision was applyed Baptisme went along with it so that the use of Baptisme was the same before viz. to bee a rite of admitting growne men and Infants into the Church onely it begun to bee a Sacrament of divine institution when Iohn was sent to Baptize into the name of Christ and it is in this Sacrament as in the other Sacrament of the Lords Supper the panis benedictus and the cup were used before in the Sacrament of the Passeover as an Ecclesiasticall rite but our Lord at the last Passeover instituted the bread and wine to bee Sacramentall Elements which before were only an Ecclesiasticall rite now seeing that Baptisme which was in use before was onely turned into a Sacramentall use to succeed Circumcision with whom before it was a concomitant and alwayes applyed to the same persons Have you not helped us to a good Argument that Baptisme belongs to Infants as well as grown men especially since there is not the least hint given in the Word that when it was thus advanced to bee a Sacrament it should not bee applyed to those persons to whom before it was viz. Infants as well as growne men the truth of this that it was so may appeare partly by Mr. Selden who testifies that the Infants of the Gentiles were made proselytes by this rite among others both the male children and the female so likewise Maimonides Issurei biah Cap. 13. tells us by three things Israel entred into Covenant by Circumcision by Baptisme and offering and that Baptisme was in the Wildernesse before the giving of the Law as it is said And thou shalt sanctifie them to day and to morrow and let â—hem wash their garments and in another place when a Gentile will enter into the Covenant and gather himselfe under the wings of the Divine majesty hee must be Circumcised Baptized and bring an offering if it bee a female baptisme and offering and againe a Proselyte that is circumcised and not baptized or baptized and not circumcised is not a Proselyte untill hee bee both circumcised and baptized and againe a little Proselyte they baptize by the appointment of the Consessus There are also speciall testimonies in the Talmud which declare that Infants both of Iewes and Gentiles were thus admitted the male children by circumcision and baptisme the females by baptisme c. Many testimonies of this nature to shew that Infants as well as growne men were baptized among the Jewes are to be seene in Mr. Ainsworth upon Gen. 17. vers 12 13. I was willing to give this little taste that the Reader may see that baptisme ever since it was in use was applyable to children as well as growne men You adde even the Sacrament of Baptisme was before circumcision ceased and you instance with Iohns Baptisme which was a concomitant Sacrament with the Sacrament of circumcision I answer as before Iohns Baptisme and Ministery was a Prâ—ludium to Christ and was wholly in reference to the Christian Church which then begun to bee moulded and though there was not a new distinct Church of Christianitie set up yet all this was preparing the materialls of it and Iohn did not admit them by Baptisme as members to the Jewish Padagogy which was then ready to bee taken away but into that new administration which was then in preparing but this is no argument
have them baptized to have Baptisme succeed in the stead of Circumeision that it is a benefit to want it God not having appointed it I answer then belike our priviledges of the Covenant of grace are so farre from being inlarged by enjoying the Sacrament of Baptisme that it had been our priviledge to have wanted Baptisme if God had not appointed it and by as good a reason at least you might have said that Circumcision was so farre from being a priviledge to the Jews and their children that it had been a benefit for them to have wanted it if God had not commanded it sure that is a strange kinde of priviledge of which I may truly say that it had been a greater benefit to them who have it to have wanted it if the Donor had not commanded it Next you come more particularly to examine the proofs of my Conclusion and say you the thing I should prove is one of these two either that circumcision did belong to the substance of the Covenant of grace or that the want of circumcision or some Ordinance in the place and use of it is a losse of priviledge of the Covenant of grace to us and our children Sir the thing I was to prove was this 5 Conclusion viz. That our priviledges are inlarged not extenuated and as for these two particulars I have already proved that Circumcision though a part of their administration did yet belong to the substance belong to it I say not as a part of it but as a meanes of applying it And I have also proved that though it be a priviledge to have nothing succeed circumcision as it bound to that manner of administration yet it is a priviledge to have somewhat succeed it as a seale of the Covenant in as much as a Covenant with a seale is a greater benefit then a Covenant without a seale More particularly I said our enlargement of priviledges appeares partly in that wee have freedome in what was burthensome to them in their manner of administration partly because our Covenant is established upon better promises Heb. 8. 6. Whereupon you enter upon a Discourse of that Covenant there mentioned and you positively assert That it was the Covenant of workes Alasse Sir why doe you run into this needlesse and erroneous digression I said indeed in my Sermon that the morall Law was added foure hundred and thirty yeares after the Covenant was made with Abraham not as a part of that Covenant but as a Schoolemaster to whip them to Christ that they finding the impossibility of keeping the Law might more earnestly long after Christ exhibited in those shadows of Rites and Sacrifices c. but to say that this Covenant mentioned in the eight of the Hebrews was the Covenant of works is a most erroneous doctrine look into the Text and you shall find that the Covenant which is there mentioned which God finds fault with and calls the first Covenant in opposition to this bâ—tter Covenant had Ordinances of divine Worship had a Sanctuary a Tabernacle Priests and High Priests Sacrifices and other Rites belonging to the administration of it Sir was this the Covenant of works I hope you will not own it in your next Next you say That place 2 Cor. 3. 10. the glory of theirs bad no glory in respect of ours This is not meant of the Covenant of grace but of the Covenant in Mount Sinai therefore impertinently alledged by me Sir I wonder at your confidence in it the Reader will easily discorne that the whole scope of that Chapter clearly holds forth the preheminence of the Ministery of the Gospel above the Ministery of Moses his vailed Ceremonies belike then with you Moses Ceremonies were the Covenant of works Next I shewed in my Sermon that as our priviledges are better then theirs in being free'd from their burthens so we as well as they enjoy the honour of being called a holy Nation a peculiar people a chosen generation c. Vpon this you discourse at large especially against Mr. Blake and you undertake to prove that all these things are meant of the invisible Church I answer very briefly none of us ever doubted but that the spirituall part belongs onely to the invisible Church and did so in the time of the Jews as well as now but yet we as well as the Jews partake of that priviledge and our visible standing gives us the honor to be so reputed as wel as theirs gave it unto them and were all the Jews who had the honour to bee called a holy Nation really such were they all inwardly holy or effectually called the like answer serves to your discourse upon Rom. 9. the Apostle speakes there of adoption as a priviledge of the body of that Nation their whole Nation had the Honour to bee called the children of God according to Deut. 14. 1. Ye are the children of the Lord your God yet they were not all the spirituall children of God the Reader may see more of this in the vindication of my second Conclusion and you shall doe well in your next solidly to prove that these were not priviledges which the visible Church of the Jewes enjoyed though many among them had the kernell without the shell rather then thus to triumph in these feeble exceptions I added Wee have all these things with advantage not onely in the clearnesse of the administration but in some sense in greater extent to persons with us there is neither male nor female Why I adde this of male or female you say you know not except I meane to insinuate that in the Jewish Church there was male and female because Circumcision was onely of the males c. I reply I acknowledge that though it bee true that among true beleevers among the Jews there was neither male nor female all equally did partake of the spirituall part of the Covenant as well as now with us yet for the comfortable manner of administration of it even this distinction of male and female is a priviledge enlaâ—ged under this last and best administration and the Apostle in that place Gal. 3. 28. doth plainly intimate the enlargement of this priviledge in this respect and so I think the words plainly hold out As many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ there is neither Iew nor Greeke bond nor free made nor female for ye are all one in Christ Jesus and if ye be Christs then are ye Abrahams seed and heires according to promise To me the Apostle here doth plainly hold out that now under the New Testament baptisme is the visible pledge of our being Abrahams seed as circumcision was the pledge of it under the Old Testament that here is the enlargement of our priviledge in the New Testament that whereas Circumcision of old was applyed to one Nation and not to others now out of all Nations such are called in as are made Abrahams seed whether Jew or Greek
And whereas of old the seale was applyed onely to the males in this respect the differences of sexes is now taken away And although it be true that the spirituall part of all this be made good onely to true beleevers who likewise alone have the inward baptisme yet visible professors enjoy the visible priviledge Next you proceed to reply to an Objection which I propounded in my Sermon and answered viz. In some thing 's the Jews had greater priviledges then we have as that Abraham had the priviledge to bee called the Father of the faithfull that Christ should be born of his flesh the Virgin Mary had the priviledge to be the Mother of Christ the whole Nation of the Jews had this priviledge that God will call in their seed againe after they had been cast off for unbelief many hundred years which priviledges none of the Gentiles have or can have And my answer was That our question is about such priviledges as belong to all who have a standing under the Covenant which every one who is in covenant with God might expect by vertue of the covenant whether hee were a Jew or a Proselyte not for any peculiar or personall priviledge to any one man or woman or family or Tribe That it no ways derogates from us that some particular person or Tribe should enjoy some peculiar priviledges but if any of the common priviledges which they all enjoyed by vertue of their Church standing should be abridged then the priviledges of the New Testament would bee more restrained then those of the Old this said I is against the word of God Your answer is That this Argument hath no weight but onely amongst Vulgar and nonsyllogising capacities and therefore in your Latine Paper you mention these instances of the Virgin Mary c. And thence would shew That the Iews might have more priviledges in some respect in some things then we and yet our condition better then theirs by reason of some other priviledges we have above them which recompence the defect of those priviledges and therefore no good Argument can be drawne That because God gave such a priviledge to the Jews therefore we must have such a priviledge too yea it would bee an Argument of arrogant presumption to say the Iews had such a priviledge therefore we must have it They had a priviledge to circumcise Iufants therfore we mast baptise Infants I Answer I thinke indeed it would take with no sober Christian thus to argue The Jewes had it therefore wee must have it But Sir to argue thus God gave such a priviledge to the whole Church of the Jews that their Infants should be reputed to belong to his Church and have the initiall seale Therefore if hee have not granted to Christians that their Infants shall also bee reputed to belong to his Church and partake of the initiall seale then his grace to beleevers under the New Testament is straitned as to their posterity This Argument appeares so cleare to mee that I must confesse my selfe one of those Dull ones who know not how to deny the consequence In the meane time I observe that though you would make your Reader believe that these personall priviledges of Abraeham to have Christ born of his flesh the Virgin Mary to be the mother of Christ c. doe presse my Conclusion yet you spake not one word to vindicate them from my answer And therefore I collect that by this time you see that now under this administration some personal priviledges which a few of the Jews had over and above what belonged to the rest may be denyed us and yet they make nothing against this Argument That if the common priviledges which every one of them had were denyed us our priviledges were straitned Your other exception which you make concerning Melchisedeck Lot and Job have been often answered before That which you adde concerning one kinde of Proselytes among the Iews who were called Proselytes of the gate who though they were not circumcised were yet reckoned among the Worshippers of God such at were Cornelius and others and were also within the Covenant of grace I know not what you intend to gather from it unlesse you would intimate that they were Church-members among the Jewes although they were not circumcised but had you said so that the priviledges and Church-membership of these Proselytes of the Gate were as honourable as those of the Proselytes of the Covenant your learned Readers would have smiled at you sure there would have been no need for God to have instructed Peter by a Vision from heaven that he should not call them to whom he was to be sent uncleane nor had Peter been ever put to have made his apologie for going in to Cornelius and his company if these uncircumcised Proselytes of the Gate had been reputed Church-members among the Jews Next you grant The Iews indeed had that priviledge to have their children reckoned in the outward administration as branches of the O live by their birth which the Gentiles have not But if we Gentiles have it not then are not wee I pray you straitned in that particular And I demand further when we are graffed in and so naturalized with them doe we not partake of all the fatnesse or priviledges of the Olive with them what Scripture ever denyed it I demand yet further did the many ten thousands of Jews who were baptized in the Apostles dayes by their comming under this best administration of the Covenant and thereby kept their former growing in the Olive with advantage did they thereby deprive their Children of that which you say was their naturall priviledge if you thinke so produce your evidence to prove it if they were not then it seemes the Jewes who beleeved in Christ and kept their station had a greater priviledge for their children then the Gentiles who grow together with them have for their children I added Let any man shew out of the Scripture where our priviledges under the Gospel are cut short in any of these things and in particular for the case in hand concerning our Infants right to the Covenant and seale of it once we are sure the Infant-children of all Covenanters were within the Covenant and the sedle also belonged to them and by vertue of the Covenant which is still the same 〈◊〉 plâ—ad their interest in it let any shew when and where this was taken away You answer it is unreasonable to require this at your hands to shew what you doe not avouch you goe not about to expunge Infants of beleevers out of the Covenant of Grace and you see no cause to beleeve me who affirme that once they were within the Covenant c. I reply but doe not you avouch That the Infants of the Jewes had this peculiar privilâ—dge and birth-right to be under the administration of the Covenant which ours have not which you know is the onely thing controverted betwixt us may not I boldly say That
the Sabbath thou shalt rest the seventh day that is thou shalt rest the seventh day from the Creation while the Lord continues that day to be his Sabbath and thou shalt rest the first day of the week when the Lord chooses that to be his Sabbath in like manner I say of the Sacrament of Baptisme To this you answer You referre your selfe to what you have before declared Part 2. Sect. 8. And thither also I referre the Reader where I have vindicated this answer from you I further adde you neither there nor here deny this Argument from a consequence to be sufficient for practise of some things in the Worship of God which are not expresly laid downe in the New Testament onely you adde here I forget the marke at which I shoot the Sabbath or Lords day being not to be reckoned among the Iews Sacraments I reply first I might as well reckon the seventh day from the Creation among the Jews Sacraments as you may say the Jewes had as many Sacraments as Ceremonies Secondly I never numbred the Sabbath amongst Sacraments but because the Sabbath belongs to the instituted Worship of God as well as the Sacrament and requires its institution to bee at least as cleare as this about Infant-Baptisme which touches but a circumstance of age this Argument from the one to the other will appeare to the impartiall Reader to bee too strong for you to answer Next follows the blow which will tumble downe all if your selfe may be believed Mark Reader how heavie a one it is I said when God made the Covenant with Abraham and promised for his part to be the God of him and his seed what God promised to Abraham we claime our part in it as the children of Abraham and what God required on Abrahams part for the substance of obedience wee stand charged with as well as Abraham to beleeve to love the Lord with all our heart to walke before God in uprightnesse to instruct and bring up our Children for God not for our selves nor for the Devill to teach them to worship God according to his revealed will to traine them up under Ordinances and Institutions of Gods owne appointment All these things God commanded Abraham and wee by vertue of that Covenant being Covenanters with Abraham stand bound to all these duties though there were no expresse reviving these Commandements in any part of the New Testament and therefore consequently that command of God to Abraham which bound his seed of the Jews to traine up their children in that manner of Worship which was then in force binds beleevers now to traine up their children in conformity to such Ordinances as are now in force To all this you answer supposing I meane the spirituall part of the Covenant to be that which God promised to Abraham and the persons claiming to bee beleevers this passage you grant to bee true beâ—ause these are morâ—ll duties Well then the deadly blow is not yet given I meane this which you suppose and I meane more then this I meane that what Abraham might claime as an invisible beleever we may claime as invisible beleevers what he might claime as a visible beleever or Professor wee claime the same as visible Professors and so what he stood obliged unto as a visible beleever or professor the same are wee obliged to I meane all this and you say nothing against it but the next passage is that which kills all I said and the same command which enjoyned Abraham to seal his children with the seal of the Covenant enjoyns us to seal ours with the seale of the Covenant and that command of God which expresly bound Abraham to seal his with the sign of circumcision which was the Sacrament then in force pro tempore for the time doth vertually bind us to seale ours with the sign of Baptisme which is the Sacrament now in force and succeeds into the room of the other by his owne appointment Your answer is This Consequence is inferred from a Judaizing principle without Scripture proving either principle or Conclusion whereas you have brought ten Arguments out of the Scripture against it and that the meaning of the Concluclusion must be that we are still bound to circumcise that our males must be circumcised at the eighth day that by no rule of Divinity Logick Grammar or Rhetorique any man can construe this Command Cut off the foreskin of the males upon the eighth day that is let a Preacher of the Gospel baptize young Infants male or female by as good Consequence I might say thou art Peter and upon this rock Ergo the Pope is Monarch of the Church or arise Peter kill and eate Ergo the Pope may deprive Princes So then the dinâ— of your mortall blow lyes in this that you magisterially call it a Judaizing principle that you have brought ten Arguments to prove that Moses Ceremonies Rites do not bind Christian men but that they are all abrogated substance and circumstance whole and part that this vertuall consequence from the command of Circumcision to baptism cannot be made good either by Divinity or Logick but sure if this be all you can say against it the Consequent and Conclusion will easily recover of this wound When I said but just now That Gods Command to Abraham and the Jews to traine up their children in that manner of Worship which was then in force binds us now to traine up our children in conformity to such Ordinances as are now in force You granted this rule was true if meant of beleevers I pray what difference is there betwixt this consequence and that especially it being cleare in the Scripture that Baptisme succeeds Circumcision as the initiall seale of the Covenant and our children have the same right with theirs to bee reckoned to the Covenant if it be a good consequent That because Abraham was bound to traine up his Children in conformity to those institutions which were then in force because their children had right to be so trained up therefore we are bound to traine up our children in conformity to the present institutions because our children have right to be so trained up is not this other consequence I say as good That because God commanded Abraham to administer to his children the seale of admission into Covenant because his children were to be accounted to belong to that administration we are to doe the like to our children now because they belong to this administration I say further because Abraham and the Jews were to traine up their children to celebrate the seventh day of the week to be Gods Sabbath we therefore are bound by vertue of that Commandment to traine up ours to keep the first day of the weeke as Gods Sabbath which consequence your self grant to be good though the thing be a part of instituted Worship and no expresse command or example of it in the new Testament I appeale to al Divinity Logick whether this consequence
Seale of admission neither male nor female Whereas you adde had they done it they would have left some president of such a practise whether by good consequence they have not left us some evidence of it is the question wee are now debating I added in every nation the children make a great part of that nation and are alwayes included under every administration to the nation whether promises or threatnings priviledges or burthens mercies or judgements unlesse they bee excepted whereof I gave divers instances in my Sermon you answer the Lord hath plainely given a caution in Scripture for the leaving out Infants in this administration according to ordinary rule in that hee directs them to baptize Disciples upon preaching hee excludes Infants c. and when Christ and John baptized onely such this practise excludes others I answer by what rule then durst you baptize an Infant knowne to you to bee regenerate since they cannot bee Disciples upon preaching if you say you cannot doe it by ordinary rule shew us I pray your extraordinary if you answer they are Disciples therefore they may bee baptized I answer the Infants of beleevers are visible Disciples they visibly belong to the kingdome family schoole of Christ as I have abundantly proved already any manifestation of Gods that persons belong to his Covenant is to your selfe a sufficient ground of accounting them such either a promise or powring out the extraordinary gifts of the holy Ghost though they are no infallible signes of inward sanctification or confession of faith or of repentance are warrant sufficient for us to baptize them now the promise of God to beleeving parents to bee the God of them and of their seed and his owning them as persons belonging to his Church is as reall a manifestation of it as the other signes of receiving extraordinary gifts externall profession c. either are or can be And whereas you adde that Christs and Johns Baptizing such and no other as made a visible profession is exclusive to all others I answer first it is no where said they baptized no others secondly I deny that consequence this is not an exclusive rule the practise and example of Christ and John is sufficient to make an affirmative or positive rule they baptized such therefore wee may baptize such but it 's not exclusive that therefore wee may baptize no other and the reason is plaine they possibly might not meet with all persons and occasioons and so their practise is a good rule not a full rule I shall give one instance wee read not before the tenth of the Acts that either Christs Apostles or Iohn the Baptist baptized any proselytes of the gate or that they baptized any as you say untill they made actuall confession of their faith and repentance or that there was any rule given that the receiving the extraordinary gifts of the holy Ghost should without any other confession bee a sufficient warrant to Baptize any yet Peter upon the very powring out of those gifts without requiring any further confession either of faith or repentance baptized Cornelius and all his company in one word any word or act of God declaring that such and such belong to his visible Church is a sufficient warrant without any danger of wil-worship and this wee have abundantly for the Infants of beleeving parents wee have therefore here nothing to doe with a mixture of wine and water salt and creame and spittle they are impertinent to our businesse and you bring them in to no purpose all your discourse of wil-worship which you thus often repeate reaches not the point in hand in the least tittle the Sacrament of Baptisme is an ordinance of his owne appointment and by his appointment may bee applyed to all such as himselfe doth manifest to bee in the number of those who belong to his visible Church what course soever himselfe pleases to take to manifest it whiles wee keep within these bounds we are therein out of the danger of will-worship I added it behooved the Lord to give them a caution for the leaving out of Infants in this new administration that they might know his mind if hee had intended to leave them out which that ever hee did in word or dâ—ed cannot be found in the Scripture to this you answer it behooved the Lord to give a precept to put them in into this new administration if hee intended to have them in which that ever he did you cannot find I reply but I have abundantly proved that they alwayes had a right to bee accounted as belonging to his Church to bee reputed visible members and therefore need no new putting in if God once bestow upon a people a Sabbath to bee a signe between him and them they may lay claime to that Sabbath upon what day of the week soever he please to appoint it the like is to bee said here while the Lord will own any to be visible members of his Church they have right to the administration bee it new or old if they bee capable of it and no barre put in against them by himselfe That which followes in your booke page 133. about Childrens being taken in with their parents and included unlesse excepted and of being under the former administration and so under this by paritie of reason hath been abundantly spoke already I added our Infants are capable of being Disciples as well as the Infants of Jewes and Proselytes you grant it to bee true and I aske no more for ours then they had for theirs and though they bee not capable of receiving actuall instruction from men yet they are capable of Gods owne teaching even in their Infancy as much as the Jewes Children were which is sufficient for my purpose I added in Christs dialect to belong to Christ and to bee a Disciple iâ— all one and cleared it by some Text in the Margent you answer onely this that though Mr. Blakeprâ—â—â—ph in this nâ—tion yet it is a triumph beford victory and that the Text cited by me spake not of little ones in respect of age and some of them mention not little ones at all but what 's this to the purpose when the intent was onely to prove this notion or expression that to bee a Disciple and belong to Christ is all one Lastly I argued from Act. 15. 10. to shew that Children may bee called Disciples because they upon whose necks those false teachers would have put the yoake of Circumcision are called Disciples and to bee called Disciples and it is apparent that they would have put it upon the Infants of beleevers as well as upon the beleevers themselves because they would have imposed it after the manner of Moses Law and prest that Law still to bee in force you answer you see no necessitie from this to call Infants Disciples and you first deny the major that all are to bee called Disciples upon whose necks they would have put that yoake To which I answer
inquire which is the second grace But all this is but seeking a knot in a rush I am perswaded all other Readers understood me to meane by the first grace all that grace which is requifite to the being of a Christian union with Christ forgivenesse of sin the indwelling of the holy Ghost as a principle of a new life and your selfe say more then once that baptisme is the sacrament of our Initiation and that which exhibits us members both of Christ and of his Church and therefore thus needlesly to quarrell about things wherein your self concurre with mee is too too vain Lastly you have somewhat to say to that of our being meerly passive in our first conversion and you tel your reader what the Divines of great Britaine said in the Synods of Dort of some preparations going before conversion and what Mr. Rutherford Dr. Twisse and Dr. Preston have delivered about this point And after a needlesse shewing that you have read these Authors you grant as much as I contend for That the taking away the be art of stone and insusing of a principle of new life is only Gods work and that a new heart faith c. are the effects of converting grace and that in these things wee are passive in summe you are of my judgement in this point that Infants are capable of new life and some of them partakers of it and I likewise consent with you and those above mentioned Reverend Divines that in Gods usuall way of working upon grown men there are some preparations for conversion before conversion it selfe in which preparations men are not meerely passive but in the receiving of the principle of new life all men are meerely passive I know you will owne that expression of Augustine Qnid agit liberum arbitrium sanâ—tur I conclude this argument of baptizing Infants with a speech of Bellarmine there is saith he no impediment why Infants may not bee baptized nec ex parte prohibitionis alicujus divinae c. neither from any divine prohibition nor on the part of the Sacrament administred nor on the part of the Minister administring nor on the Infants part to whom it is to bee administred nor on the Churches part in which it is administred Paedo-baptisme therefore is rightly continued in the Christian Church PART IV. I Proceed now briefly to examine what you have said against that which you are pleased to make the fourth Part of my Sermon though I know no reason of this your Analysis Had I indeed made this an answer of all the objections which I undertooke to answer you might have called it so but you know well enough that I intended here onely to satisfie these Objections which lye most properly against this second argument as before I answered what was most properly objected against the first argument however I shall take it as I finde it and examine what strength you have added to these Objections The first Objection I undertooke to answer was to this purpose Though Infants are capable of these things and that they are wrought by Christ in many Infants yet wee may not baptize them because according to Scripture pattern both of Christs command Matth. 28. in his institution of baptisme and John the Baptist Christs Disciples and Apostles they alwayes taught and made them disciples by teaching before they baptized any And to make this argument the more plausible you adde It is a sin of prophaning that Sacrament when the institution is altered by subtraction or addition and that it was pleaded by the Non-conformists that it is Will-worship to administer the Sacraments by addition of any thing to them but circumstances which are alike requisite to civill actions now the persons to be baptized cannot be conceived a meere circumstance but belongs necessarily to the administration of worship as well as the person baptizing or the persons receiving the Lords Supper I answer I intend not needlesly to multiply words and therefore doe grant that to apply Sacraments to persons to whom they belong not by the Lords appointment is a prophanation of them Now that it is so in this case you goe about to prove out of this 28. Mat. Because the institution appoints onely disciples of all Nations to be baptized and Infants are not such This you have made good as you say Sect. 13. Part 3. You adde Christs order thus appoints it which must be kept in this point as well as in examination before the Lords Supper 1 Cor. 11. 28. c. and that by the institution they are to bee baptized into the name of the Father Son and holy Ghost that is with invocation of the name of the Lord which Infants cannot doe with devoting themselves to the service and adverence of God which Infants cannot doe that presently after baptisme the baptized are to be taught to observe whatsoever Christ commandâ—d them which Infants are not capable of that John Baptist and the Apostles alwayes made profession of repentance and faith an antecedent to Baptism which Infants cannot make To all this I answer First this of Matth. 28. is not the institution of Baptisme it was instituted long before to be the seale of the Covenant it is onely an enlargement of their Commission whereas before they were onely to goe to the lost sheepe of the house of Israel now they were to goe into all the World You reply If it be not the first institution of Baptism yet it is an institution of Baptisme to us Gentiles and therefore the rule by which Ministers are to baptize or if not wee must shew another institution else we cannot acquit it from Will-worship I answer all this is abundantly answered before Sect. 13. Part 3. And I add this inlargement of their Commission is very unfitly called by you an institution of baptism unto us their Commission at the same time was inlarged to preach to the Gentiles will you call that an institution of Preaching and that the method of preaching to us Gentiles must bee fetch'd out of this place I know you will not For the rest of your petty reasons above alledged they resolve severall of them into one and the same Christs order is say you teaching should goe before baptizing is not that the same with this That men must be made disciples by preaching before they be baptized the answer to the one doth fully satisfie the other But your third reason is a strange one They must bee baptized into the name of the Father the Son and the holy Ghost that is say you with invocation of the Name of the Lord then it seems if the party baptized call upon the name of the Lord by prayer that 's all that is intended bâ— baptizing into the name of the Father Son and holy Ghost that the name of God should be invocated at the administration of Baptisme and of Circumcision and of every Sacrament is most true but that baptizing into the name of the Father Son
other were capable of baptisme in this say you I grant many things which doe yeeld the cause Sir I shall not recall any one of them make your best of your advantage 1. Hence you collect it followes that baptizing of Infants is not according to Iohns and Christs Disciples and the Apostles practise I answer it no wayes followes if you take but that in which immediatly followes that their Infants came in in their parents right 2. Hence I grant say you that no other were capable of Baptisme but wherein I beseech you have I granted the cause in saying their Infants were not capable of it till their Parents came in and when they 〈◊〉 in their children came in also by vertue of the Covenant What need you keepe such a coyle in asking whether beleevers had then no children or whether the Apostles had no commission or whether wee have a Commission if they had not you goe on and say I thinke to salve it thus when once themselves were instructed and baptized then their children were capable of it by vertue of the Covenant I doe so and what have you to say against it why then say you they were capable in Iohns time and the Apostles time and this destroyes that which I said before that then none but taught persons were capable of Baptisme but where did I say so I said there was no expresse mention made of any other I said also Infants were not capable till their Parents came in because their Parents were to come under this new administration but I never said when their Parents were come in in Johns time and Christs time that their children then were not capable of it Yea I have shewed good grounds by consequence that the practise was otherwise Further you say it seemes I couâ—d produce no Institution in the new administration but the Institution of Circumcision because I say the children were capable by vertue of the Covenant and the validitie of arguing from Circumcision hath been considered before and you further adde that the Covenant being the same at all times as my first conclusion holds the children of belâ—evers were as capable in Johns time as after and thus you say my words doe plainely interfere I answer I have abundantly proved that this ground from the Covenants being the same and our Infants right the same with theirs to the Covenant and our Baptisme succeeding in the roome and place of Circumcision is a sufficient ground for this practise though there be no expresse mention of them in this new administration nor did I ever say that Infants of beleevers were not capable of it by vertue of the Covenant in Johns time so that this triumph of yours is not the fruit of my interfering but of your owne blindnesse or stumbling Whereas in the close of this Section I said if any in the Jewish Church had received Commission to goe and make other Cities Proselytes to them their Commission must have runne thus goe teach and circumcise and yet it would not thence have followed that none might bee circumcised but 〈◊〉 as were first taught you answer the Commission must have had reference in the execution of it either to the old institution of Circumcision Gen. 17. or to a new Institution and then it would have been told plainely what and whom they were to circumcise I reply supposing it had gone according to the institution Gen. 17. which as you say was to circumcise males at eight dayes old not taught I hope you will not say they might circumcise the males of any at eight dayes old although their Parents were not taught which is the case that I put you cannot I perceive deny this case to bee parallell onely this arguing from Circumcision to Baptism you cannot away with but Sir this reasoning is justified to be good rumpuntur ut ilia The second objection I thus expressed it is expresly said that he that beleeves and is baptized shall bee saved faith in Christ is the condition upon which men may bee baptized and no other unbeleevers may not be baptized children are unbeleevers therefore they may not bee baptized they say the negative is included under the affirmative beleeving is the affirmative unbeleeving is the negative therefore where beleevers are commanded to be baptized unbeleevers are forbidden to be baptized This Argument I said the Anabaptists doe very much glory in my answer to it was to this effect that if this Argument have any strength at all against the baptizing it hath much more strength against the salvation of Infants because it is expresly said both affirmatively and negatively hee that beleeveth shall bee saved but bee that beleeves not shall bee damned whereas though it bee said affirmatively hee that beleeveth and is baptized shall bee saved it is not said hee that is not baptized shall not bee saved looke by what distinction they will maintaine the salvation of Infants against this Argument by the same will I more clearely justifie the baptisme of Infants against this argument I adde now further if they take beleevers in a contradistinction to Infidells then I say Infants of beleevers are beleevers as well as the children of Infidells are Infidells if they take beleevers in a more restrained sense for positive and actuall faith then I deny that this is a necessary condition required to bee found and manifested in every one who is to bee baptized as I have at large proved before and your selfe cannot deny To this Argument your answer is onely this that you owne not the Argument onely thus farre you owne it viz. that a profession of faith is a pre-requisite to Baptisme and so it was accounted in the dayes of Justin Martyr Tertullian Cyprian and Augustine c. But I reply though you dare not owne this Argument yet it stands upon the same ground that the rest of your arguments doe and upon the same grounds that many of your expressions doe such as this That men are not to bee baptized because they may have grace but because they have it But now you will not stick to this That to have true faith is a pre-requisite to Baptism you are contented with an outward confession of it onely and that a visible profession gives right to a visible membership and consequently that a visible membership gives a right to Baptisme which is the thing I have been contending for all this while As for what you adde That in the dayes of Iustin Martyr Tertullian Cyprian and so forward this confession before baptisme was continued it is true it was continued for those that had been Pagans and Infidels that they should make such a confession before Baptisme and it is as true that in their days Infants of Christians were baptized 3. I said it was objected That though Infants are capable oâ— the inward grace and that God doth effectually worke in some of them yet that is no sufficient warrant for us to baptize all of
them if we knew in what Infants the Lord did so worke wee might baptize those Infants but that we cannot know by any ordinary way of knowledge therefore we may not baptize any of them but wait to see when and in whom God will worke the thing signified and then apply the signe to them You answer this is granted that if by revelation it could bee knowne such as have this inward grace might be baptized and that those who are thus intituled are not through want of an institution to be excluded To my understanding this over throws all which you have hitherto contended for for then if wee can prove that Infants are such as to whom this Sacrament belongs by your owne grant they are not to be excluded for want of an institution now I have proved that Infants of beleevers are such as to whom the Sacrament doth belong yea and your selfe grant that true faith is not a needfull pre-requisite to the administration of Baptisme Besides I desire before I leavâ— this passage to know of you how you will reconcile this with that which you spake pag. 162. That there is a plaine Text requiring confession before Baptisme though not before Circumcision I hope you doe not think a regenerate babâ— can make a confession of its faith surely these two things doe much differ Gods inward revealing that he hath sanctified a child and the childs own profession or confession God revealed that Saul was hid behind the stuffe but this was not Sauls owne confession God revealed to the Prophet Ahijah that the disguised woman was Jeroboams wife but that was not her owne confession My answer to this objection was That our knowledge that God hath effectually wrought the thing signified is not the condition upon which we are to apply the seale he never required that we should know that they are certainly converted whom we admit to Baptisme we are indeed to know that they have in them the condition which must warrant us to administer the signe not that which makes them possessed of the thing signified fallible conjectures are not to be our rule in admistring Sacraments either to Infants or growne men but a knowne rule of the Word out of which we must be able to make up such a judgement that our administration may be of faith as well as out of charity To all this you assent and consâ—quently that there is nothing needfull according to the Word but a visible right and then what is become of all your pleading That because we cannot know that all infants of beleevers have the inward grace we may not therefore baptize them this hold you have now quitted and when once you have proved that they have not a visible right to bee reckoned and accounted to belong to the visible Church I promise you to quit all mine Whereas I added That I doubted whether in case Peter or Paul could by the Spirit of revelation have known that Ananias or Alexander would have proved no better then hypocrites whâ—ther they either would or ought to have refused them from baptisme whiles they made that publick profession upon which others were admitted who in the event proved no better then those were You think they would and ought because the end of such an extraordinary revelation would be to warn them not to admit such persons I answer the cause depends not upon it whether your conjecture or mine be rightest in this particular and I confesse should such an extraordinary revelation be made purposely to warne them not to admit such persons that would be equivalent to a prohibition but might not such a thing be revealed for other ends Christ knew that Judas would prove a devill yet he admitted him not onely to baptisme but Apostleship and since your selfe doe grant that we have a warrant de fide out of faith and not out of charity onely to admit men into visible communion by baptisme upon an externall confession onely I cannot understand why my private knowledge upon a particular revelation of a mans inward condition should be a sufficient barre against proceeding according to the ordinary rule if I were infallibly assured that some glorious professor were no better then an hypocrite were that sufficient warrant to deny the Sacrament of the Lords Supper to him so long as his life was unblamable before the Church Lastly I added That in this the rule to direct our knowledge is as plaine for Infants as for growne men the rule having beene alwayes this that grown men who were strangers from the Covenant of God Pagans or Heathens should upon their being instructed and upon profession of their faith and promise to walke according to the rule of the Gospel bee received and added to the Church and made partakers of the Sacrament of admission and their Infants to come in with them both sorts upon their admission to be charitably hoped of untill they give signes to the contrary charity being bound from thinking evill of them not bound to concludâ— certainly of any of them Your onely exception against this is wondering that I dare say the rule to direct our knowledge is as plaine for Infants as for growne men I answer truly Sir by as plaine I intended onely the truth of the rule that it may be as truly known as the other though possibly not so clâ—arely I deny not but I had spoken more fitly in saying the rule is plaine for Infants as well as for growne men and that I have proved abundantly My fourth Objection was That all who enter into Covenant must stipulate for their parts as well as God doth for his they must indent with God to performe the beleevers part of the Covevenant as well as God doth to performe his part My answer was The Infants of Jews were as much tyed as the Infants of beleevers under the Gospel every one who was circumcisâ—d was bound to keep the Law yet they knew not what it meant nor could have the same use of it with their Parents and others of discretion You own not this Objection nor say any thing against my answer onely you except That through my whole booke I suppose there is the same reason of the mixt Covenant made with Abraham and that it is the same with the pure Covenant of the Gospel and of every beleever as of Abraham and of Baptisms as of Circumcision I doe so and have justified these thing to bee true against your exceptions You adde also God commanded the one but no where commanded the other which whether he have or no by good consequence I leave the Reader to judge by what is already spoken I added in my Sermon God seales to them presently i. e. conditionally as I have before shewed and when they come to years of discretion they stand obliged to the performance of it in their owne persons in the meane time Jesus Christ who is the surety of the Covenant and the surety of all the
comfort cannot bee so much as others your selfe doe grant that this which I plead for is a comfortable condition if it could be made out page 82. Whereas I added they need not make any doubt of their childrens welfare if they die in their Infancy c. You answer I speake like one who holds that Baptisme doth conferre grace ex opere operato But why so when I ground it upon the Covenant upon their capacitie both of the Seale and the inward grace and yet leave all to bee done by God who hath mercy upon whom hee will have mercy I said not that they may de fide bee assured of their salvation but that they need not have any doubt the same which may bee said of growne visible professors I added here is also much priviledge and benefit to children when as beside what inward secres worke God is pleased to worke 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 here first you desire to know what I mean by a secret work which God is pleased to worke in them whether any thing ex opere operato or baptismall regeneration I answer I meant onely this that God is at liberty and may when her pleases let his grace accompany his ordinance as for their being members of the visible Church you deny they are so and I have proved them to bee so Lastly I added it is no small priviledge to have that Seale bestowed on them in their Infancy which they may afterward plead when they are growne and came to fulfill the condition you answer when where and how Baptisme should bee pleaded you doe not well conceive it is not Baptisme that will yeeld a plea of any force either in the Court of earth or the Court of heaven but the promise of God and the condition of faith in Christ and you never knew any Saint that pleaded his Infant Baptisme in such cases as the Apostles plea lies for Rom. 8. 31 32. I answer as it is a plea for visible professors all their dayes so it is a plea for Infants when they grow up upon the same condition and though the promise and faith in Christ bee our best plea yet Baptisme the Seale is no meane one and you who say that of old the influence of comfort from baptisme was very great I hope did not intend to limit it to the present time of its receiving but extended it to all cases which may fall within the compasse of those things for which Baptisme was appointed to bee a Seale and as long as it remaines a Seale and why you should speake against the pleading of Infant Baptisme when they come to fulfill the condition and to have the answer of a good conscience toward God in which case the Apostle said Baptisme saves us I cannot tell unlesse you think with the Anabaptists that Infant Baptisme is a nullitie which if you doe I pray you let us know it in your next The last objection was to this purpose If Infants being capable of the spirituall part will intitle them to the outward sigâ—â— why then doe wee 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 the rather because the Infants of the Jewes did eate the Passeover as well as they were circumcised My answer was to this effect Infants in their infant-age are capable of the grace of Baptisme that we are sure of not sure that they are capable of the grace signed and sealed in the Lords Supper wee know they may bee initiated into the Church while they are Babes not that they receive nourishment and augmentation And I further adde there was expresse order that Infants should bee admitted to the initiall signe not that they should bee admitted to the other To this you answer This Argument is good ad homines against them who argue that to whom the Covenant belongs to them the Seale belongs and you say this argument is confirmed by the practise and opinion of the ancients who gave the Lords Supper to Infants for 600. yeers as well as baptisme I reply my Argument runs thus To whom belongs the Covenant to them belongs the initiall Seale of the Covenant not every Seale of the Covenant and though the Lords supper bee a Seale of the Covenant and succeed the Passeover as a Seale of that Covenant yet neither the Passeover nor the Lords Supper were appointed to bee initiall Seales and though Baptisme which is the initiall Seale serves to confirme the rest of the benefits of the Covenant as the baptized grow capable of them or are made partakers of them yet the prime and maine use of it is to bee a Seale of initiation and reception into Covenant As for what you adde of the ancients giving the Lords Supper to Infants for 600. yeeres I have before answered to it that it cannot bee proved to bee so generall a practise as the baptizing of Infants was among them nor was it pleaded by any such Arguments as they pleaded for Infant Baptisme Indeed in the African Churches about Cyprians and Augustines time the Lords Supper was given to Infants but I can finde no such generall practise of it as you would insinuate Howbeit I am glad that upon this occasion you acknowledge that for the first 600. yeers Infants were baptized among the ancients though I know not how this will agree with that which you have so fidently asserted before that it was hardly knowne in the Church for the first 300. yeers Whereas I added that though baptisme and the Lords Supper are both of them Seales of the new Covenant yet it is with some difference the first is for birth and entrance the other is for food and growth you answer this is a paradox to you because if I make the entrance at the remission of sinnes justification c. the Lords Supper which seales Christs death seales the entrance into the Covenant and Baptisme seales as well the pardon of other sinnes as of originall sinne and therefore this difference which I put of the one being a Seale for entrance the other for growth is a difference which the Scripture makes not I reply if this bee a paradox your selfe have very often owned this paradox in calling both Circumcision and Baptisme the Seales of our admission and that by Baptisme wee are exhibited to bee members of Christ and his Church which you yet never said the Sacrament of the Lords Supper was appointed to bee And as for what you now adde that the Lords Supper sealing the death of Christ doth therefore seale our entrance I answer it followes not it seales indeed the whole Covenant in its due place and
you see there are already two or three other bookes extant already against you and I am informed two peeces at least come out of New-England upon the same subject your selfe being therein concerned for even thither have some sent your writings and sufficiently in them shewed your scorne of Mr. Thomas Goodwin Mr. Vines and my selfe as our friends doe from thence write unto us you may take us all together and then wee may goe for a pretty Army and when you have done all you can I doubt not but some will be found who will have leasure as well as ability to cope with you I onely desire you in your next not to goe on in this way of making wrangling exceptions and seeking to slurre and blind what is written by your Antagonist but by solid and cleare arguments see if you can refute that which is asserted and let your Reader also know as well what you would have as what you would not have and open your judgement to the full in this controversie and shew whether you take Infant-baptism to be valid or a nullity and if you think it not a nullity shew your grounds for it why all this should be true which you have thus far contended for That Infants are no more to be accounted belonging to the Church of Christ then Pagans and yet their baptisme should be valid whether if any man should baptize a Turk or a Iew when he should be asleep or by violence or any wayes against his own consent this baptisme were not a nullity and I know not what difference you make between the one and the other If on the other side you doe thinke it a nullity then manifest how any at all can now be baptized unlesse you will thinke that they may baptize others who are unbaptized themselves for my own part I seriously professe that supposing Infant-baptisme a nullity I cannot understand how any in the world should this day be lawfully baptized unlesse it can be made good that a person unbaptized himselfe may be a lawfull Minister of baptisme to others for certainly untill the Anabaptists arose in Germany all the baptized world were baptized while they were Infants and consequently the first Anabaptist was baptized by an unbaptized person and so in conclusion we must all turn Seekers and be content without baptisme till Christ give some extraordinary Commission from Heaven unto some men to be Apostles in this businesse Fifthly you expresse the straights you are like to be brought into by the losse of your small stipend as a consequent of this your Opinion Sir I am perswaded this is made up abundantly in that Honourable Society where now you exercise your Ministery and I beseech the Lord so to informe you in his truth in this particular and to guide your Spirit that you may no longer be a stumbling-block to others nor others prove stumbling-blocks to you that those good parts which God hath bestowed upon you may for the time to come be employed in the most serviceable way that both your worke and wages may bee with and from the Lord. Sixthly and lastly you declare your willingnesse either to have conference with me to consult about a way of a brotherly debating of this point or to receive other answer within the space of a month What past betwixt your selfe and me in Conference I have given the Reader an account of in the beginning of my Booke and in truth I verily thought you would quietly have kept your Opinion as private to your self which was the true reason why I medled with your Book no sooner as soon as it was published I took my self bound in conscience to take it into Examination and give this publike account of it since which time God hath been pleased to visit mee with sicknesse and infirmity of body so that for a moneth or six weeks I could very little attend upon this task and many other employments have compelled me to go through it horis successivis not being able to attend it many whole days without much interruption Such as it is you now have it with you and I make bold to say again I am verily perswaded it is Gods truth which I maintain against you and I fear not my account of this Work in the great day save onely I must ever acknowledge and bewaile those frailties and infirmities which cleave to whatever I put my hand unto A Brief EXAMINATION OF Mr. TOMBES his Exercitation about INFANT-BAPTISM YOur Exercitation might very well have been spared in this place for any great advantage it is like to bring to your cause but I am very glad it is extant because all Learned men will by it plainly discern how mean and poor your Arguments are when you come positively to assert they will now finde that true which I said in the beginning that your faculty is farre better in darkening slurring and plundering the Arguments of your Adversary then in making good your owne You have here impanelled a whole Jury and would faine perswade a verdict of twelve men to stand upon record on your side as having found Infant-Baptisme guilty of the crimes which you have laid to its charge I shall very briefly examine what every one of them have said and only run them over partly because there are lately extant two learned Treatises against it written by Doctor Homes and Master Geree the first of them was published when my Book was almost half Printed the other since but chiefly because almost every sentence in this your Exercitation which hath any strength is by yourselfe brought into your other Treatise which you call the Examen of my Sermon and there is already fully answered Of your twelve Arguments the first is not properly to be called an Argument against Infant-Baptisme but is rather an answer to severall Arguments pretended to bee brought for Infant-Baptisme and upon this you bestow at least two third parts of your Exercitation twice as much I nke and Paper upon the foreman of the Jury as you doe upon the other eleven Vnder the head of this first Argument you have brought in no lesse then fourteen Arguments as you call them for the lawfulnesse of Infant-Baptisme and then you undertake to answer them your self say truly of many of them they make a number without strength and therefore as you have made a conquest of them doe with your prisoners what you please for I count them not worth the redeeming onely this I say we have six or seven of your twelve which I think all the world and your selfe also will grant to be taken Prisoners by us if you please we will exchange them for the other and then in the exchange we shall lose nothing being assured yours are as weake and simple as it is possible for those to be which you have taken and for the rest of the arguments brought for Paedo-Baptisme you have propounded them for your owne advantage so set them downe as to make
of imitation of Jewish circumcision Thirdly without universall practice Fourthly together with the error of giving Infants the Lords Supper and with many other humane inventions under the name of Apostolicall Traditions that is deservâ—dly doubtfull But such was Infant-Baptisme in those ages Ergo c. I answer first by denying your Major the observation of the Lords day hath beene by some accounted a Tradition others have said it is Jewish to keep any Sabbath at all because Sabbath dayes were a shadow of things to come but the body is Christ what will you thence conclude against our Christian Sabbath And for what you say about the practice of it that it was not universall I desire you to remember that argumentum ductum a non facto ad non jus est absurdissimum may wee plead thus such and such a thing was not generally observed Ergo it was not a duty the boyes in the Schooles would stamp and hisse at such an inference from the dayes of Iosoua to the dayes of Nehemiab the children of Israel had not kept the feast of Tabernacles in Booths or Tents which was about a thousand yeares was it therefore not their duty to have done it Dr. Hoylin in his History of the Sabbath urgeth this very argument against the Lords day in such and such Fathers days many did not observe the Lords day many did tipple and dance upon the Lords day ergo the Lords day was not generally observed and if it were not generally observed in those days Ergo we are not bound to observe it This kind of arguing is almost as wilde as that which the Schools call a baculo ad angulum my staffe stands in the corner Ergo it will rain tomorrow morning Your last Exception under this fourth argument is yet more strange There were many other things went under the name of Traditions which were meer humane inventions Ergo Infant-baptism which went under the name of a Tradition is also a humane invention Shall I shew the naturall face of this argument in a glasse such and such men who went under the name of honest men were knaves Ergo all that goe â—nder the name of honest men are knaves It is true many things went in those dayes under the name of Traditions which were but humane inventions and it is as true that many points of faith and other divine institutions went in the same ages under the name of Traditions as I have made apparent Part 1. Sect. 2. You see what a poore argument this would prove although your minor were true though the things were as you set them downe but I have abundantly proved the contrary I have shewed the Ancients received it as a Divine Institution and upon such arguments as we doe though some of them prest some corrupt grounds which we reject and as for the universality of the practice of it both in the Greek and Latin Churches I have abundantly cleared it from all Objections you make against it and you out of all your reading have not been able to produce one of the ancients who either beld it unlawfull or denyed that it was in use from the Apostles dayes One or two indeed you bring who advised the deferring Infant-Baptism as they did also the baptisme of grown men and some examples you produce of the children of Christians not baptized as you think in their Infancy to all which I have spoken at large Part. 1. sect 2. And as for what you alledge of their giving the Lords Supper unto Infants I have denyed and shall doe still till you bring some evidence for it that there was any such universall practise indeed in the African Churches that errour did obtain in the days of Cyprian and Austin but I finde no such generall practice of it however the Argument follows not That it was their error to give Infants the Lords Supper Ergo it was their error to baptize Infants Your sixth Argument runs thus that which hath occasioned many humane inventions partly by which Infant-Baptisme it selfe may bee underpropt partly the defect in the pâ—licy of the Church supplyed that is deservedly douhtfull But the matter iâ— so in the businesse of Infant-Baptisme and here you bring in witnesses in Baptisme Episcopall confirmation the reformed union by examination confession before receiving the Lords Supper Church-Covenant before the admission of Church-members into Church-fellowship c. I answer briefly if by occasioned you meane that Infant-Baptisme hath exnaturâ rei given occasion to these things I deny your minor Infant-Baptisme is no more an occasion of these things in the Christian Church then circumcising of Infants was an occasion of the like in the Jewish Church Infant-Baptisme may very well stand and doth very well stand in many reformed Churches without such witnesses without confirmation or any other examination confession c. before the Lords Supper or other Church-discipline then such as might bee in use to men though they were not baptized in their Infancy but if by occasioned you meane not 〈◊〉 daâ—a but 〈◊〉 temerâ— aâ—â—â—pta that the corrupt mind of man hath thence tooke occasion for other errors and mistakes if you meane that which hath thus â—â—casioned many humane inventions is doubtfull then I deny your major there is scarse any common place in the body of Divinity but hath occasioned humane inventions the Lords Supper hath occasioned kneeling at the Sacrament and that hath occasioned suspension excommunication separation what will you thence conclude against the Lords Supper Ergo the Lords Supper is a humane invention Your seventh eighth and ninth Arguments are but so many branches or rather so many repetitions of your sixth Argument possibly you have thus divided them that you might make up a whole Jury And the selfe same answer serves them as was given to the other I will conclude as strongly against you out of your owne premisses thus Antipaedobaptisme hath occasioned many errours many abuses and faults in discipline divine worship and conversation of men together with many unnecessary disputes fostering contention onely Ergo Antipaedobaptisme is what you please to all Infant-baptisme I leave out that passage onely in the major of your ninth Argument viz. which cannot bee determined by any certaine rule because therein you doe very heartily beg the question Your tenth argument is framed thus That in the midst of the darknesse of Popery the same men who opposed invocation of Saints Prayer for the dead adoration of the crosse and such like opposed also the baptizing of Infants and here you bring in Bernard his 66 Sermon upon the Canticles and his 140. Epistla against Henry the Heretick as you call him and Cluniacinsis against Peter de Bruis and Henry also a passage out of Ostander accusing the Albingenses â—s consenting with the Anabaptistâ— To which I answer first I deny the consequence because they opposed invocation of Saints prayer for the dead c. and also opposed Infant-Baptisme
dicta interpretatio Script qu. 94. Athanasiuâ— gives testimony to Infant Baptism 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. qu. ad Antioch 114. P. 4. Athan. ad Antioch qu. 114. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ephiphan contr Cerinthianos Epiphanius owned the argument from Circumcision to Baptisme The questions put to the Baptizes disprove not Insant-Baptisme Paedag. Of old some defer'd their owne Baptisme as well as their Infants Vbi prius Euseb de vit Const lib 4. Vbi prius Aug. Confes 1. 11. Orat. 40. Sozom. 4. 38. Theod. 4. 14. Gen. 17. Constantines Bap. no Argument that Infants were not then baptized Nor Gregory Nazianzen 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Socr. 4. 21. Soz. 6. 16. Greg. vita Orat. 40. Nor Chrysost Socr. hist 5. 2. Siz 8. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Orat. ad viduam juniorem Grotius not to be relâ—ed upon in this point Rivet Apol. provera pace Ecclesia contr votum Grotii Rivet exam animad Grotii Grotii votum pro pace Eccles ad articulum 9. P. 9. 10. The Councell of Neocaes not against baptism of Infants 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Con. 6. Con. Neocaesariensis Proles baptizari non solereâ— nisi propria vo untate et professiâ—ne P. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Pag. 10. The Greeke Church misreported by Grotius in this point Phot. patriarch Covel anno as some 845. as others 849. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Tib. 1. de fide ca. 10. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Conc. Carth. ca. 14. Tert. de Bapt. c. 18. In Tertullians dayes Infants were baptized â—ert de Anima c. 13. Cyprians testimony vindicated P. 10. Cyprianus non novum aliquod decretum condens sed Ecclesiae fidem firmissimam servans c. Aug. Ep. 28. ad Hier. Vestigium infantis in primis parus sui diel us constituti mundum non dixisse Ath. de Sab. Circumcis Orat. 40. P. 11. Lib. 4. c. 22. contr Donat P. 12. P. 12. Augustine vindicated Soz. 7. 12. P. 14. Other ancient testimonies for Infant baptism Soz. 7. 19. Soz. 1. 17. P. 1 â— Augustines baptism no argument that Infants were not then baptized Aug. Câ—nf l. 1. c. 11. ille nondum erediderat Confess 9. 9. Possâ—d de vita Aug c. 1. Conf 4 3. Conf. 1. 11. Nor his sonne Adeodaâ—us Conf. 9. 6. Conf. 6 7. Conf. 7. 19. Nor Alipius Pag. 14. Fulgent de fide ad Petrum ca. 30. Pag. 15. Pag. 16. Chapter 23. Reply to Sect. 1. Answ Reply to Sect. 2. Answ Answ That the middle times between the Fathers and Luther were for Baptizing Infants Answ Vsher de successione cap. 6. Sect. 1â— 17. Cap. 8. Sect. 34. Cap. 10. Magdeburgâ—enâ— 12. Cap. 8 col 1â—06 Baltazzar Lidius Tom. 2. Pag. 285. c. History of the Waldenses lib. 1. cap. 3. p. 10. Lib. 1. cap 4. pag. 15. Lib. cap. 6. pag. 43. Tom. 3. Tit. 5. cap. 53. Vsher de Success cap. 7. Sect. 37. Berengarius cleared from Anabaptisme Waldenses Albigenses c. cleared from Anabaptisme Vsh ubi supr ca. 8. Sect. 34. Jos Vicecom Obser Eccl. Vol. Lib. 2. cap. 1. p. 103. To Sect. 3. To Sect. 4. Answ Vide Vossii Theses de Anabaptist Râ—asons against rebaptization of such as are rightly baptized Answ Act. 19. 5 6. vindicated from favoring rebaptiztion Vid. Vossii Theses de Baptismo Johan pag 402. c. To Sect. 5. Answ The old Nonconformists in Qu. Elizabeths days pleading against Episcopacy and Ceremonies il compared with the Anabaptists in Germany To Sect. 6. Answ To 1 2 Mr. Vines vindicated Almost all the Errors of the Germane Anabaptists lately drunke in in England Mr. Dury To 3. 4. 6. 7. To Sect. 7. Answ 2. Answ Sect. 8. To Sect. 9. To Sect. 10. Defence of the third part of Sermon Reply to Sect 1. Of the connexion betweene the Covenant and Seale The consequence of the argument made good Reply The consequence proved by Mr. Tombes owne principle Answ to Melchisedeck Job and â—et And to Infants under eight dayes old Women not capable of Circumcision Women circumcised in the men vindicated Circumcised not put for the major or nobler part Gal. 2. 8. Reply No warrant for women to eate the Passeover unlesse they were to bee esteemed circumcised Reply to Sect. 2. The Covenant of grace always one and the same The Covenant with Abraham no more mixt for substance then the Covenant with us Circumcision seaâ—ed the spirituall part of the Covenant Proselytes were Abrahams seed This is not to joyn with Arminius Mr. Bayne of of my judgement That civill justiciaties were called Abrahams seed Bayne in Ephes p. 138. cap. 1. 5. Mr. Tombes joynes with Servetus Mr. Blake vindicated Phil. 3. interpreted What meant by seed of the flesh Reply to Sect. 3. Infants taken into Covenant with their parents Reply The sence of this second proposition cleared Men may bee under the Covenant severall wayes some spiritually and some under the administration onely Great priviviledges belong to them who are under the externall Covenant Gen. 6. 1. Deut. 14. 1. Gal. 3. 26. Rom. 9 4. Rom. 3. 1. John 8. 17. Deut. 33. 4. Psal 147. 20. John 4. 22. An externall right to the Covenant proved Rom. 11. This proved from Mr. Tombes owne principles Mr. Tombes leaves all Infants of beleevers to be under the visible kingdom of the Devil actually Mr. Cotton viâ—dicated Tombesâ—â—deavours â—â—deavours to 〈◊〉 a sense upon this Proposition never intended by 〈◊〉 not owned by mee What the Sacrament seales absolutely and what conditionally How Christianity may bee called a birth-right Rom. 2. 〈◊〉 To Sect. 5. Comparison betweene Christs kingdom and other kingdoms vindicated Mr. Rutherford and Mr. Cotton reconciled Io Sect. 6. Vindicating Act. 2. 38. 39. as a proofe of Infants of beleevers to belong to the the Covenant of grace Mr. Tombes his method of answering Mr. Tombes his art in multiplying senses The pâ—ame sense scope of this argument opened and vindicated The promise given I will be thy God and the God of thy seed not peculiar to Abraham Isaac and Jacob proved by three Arguments Deut. 30. 6. Esa 44. 2 3. Esa 59. 21. These places vindicated Mr. Tombes his exceptions against this argument answered 1 Exception Answer 2 Exception Answ 3. Exception Answ To Sect. 7. Rom. 11. 6. c. vindicated Joh. 15. 2. proves the interpretation to be true Derivative and inherent holinesse not opsed Beleeving parents are roots to their children Mr. Goodwin Vindicated Children follow the Covenant condition of their parents Mr Tombes symbolizing with Arminius his expounding Rom. 11. To Sect. 8. 1 Cor. 7. vindicated Chamier often cited to no purpose And against his owne judgment Cham. Panstrat Cathol Tom. 4. lib. 3. ca. 10. Beza cited by Mr. Tombes contrary to his owne judgement Tertullian and Athanasius expound this Text for sederall holinesse Mr. Tombes his interpretation of this Text overthrowne by eight Arguments 1 Argument vindicated Deut. 23. 2. vindicated 1. Thess 4.
vindicated Beza not interprets this Text as Mr. Tombes would seem to make him Hen. Steph. misrecited 1 Cor. 7. 34. mis-interpreted by Mr. Tombes 1 Tim. 4 5. vindicated 2 Arg. vindicated Argument 3. vindicated Argumenâ— 4 5 Arg. against Mr. Tombes interpretation 6 Argument 7 Argument Mal. 2. 15. expounded and vindicated â— Argument The true interpretation vindicated from Mr Tombes exceptions 1. Exception 2. Exception Answ 3. Exception Answ 4. Exception Answ 5. Exception Answ 6. Exâ—â—ption Answ 7. Exception Answ 8. Exception Answ Conclusion 3. Baptisme succeeds Circumcision Wherein Baptism and Circumcision are parallel by God himself Exerc. p. 30. Mr. Tombes exceptions answered Vnbaptized persons may not eate the Sacrament of the Lords Supper Compatison of Priests and Ministers brought in by Mr. Tombes To no purpose Why Christ was Circumcised and baptized Col. 2. 8 9 10 11. Vindicated to prove Baptisme to succeed Circumcision Baptisme in use in the Church of the Jewes and applied to Infants as well as growne men Proved from Mr. Selden Maimonides 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Talmud Johns Baptisme initiated into the Christian Church Mr. Tombes Exceptions Answ 1 Exception deserves no Answer 2 Exception answered before 3 Exception answered 4 Exception answered 5 Exception answered 6 Excep Answ 7 Excep Answ 1 Pâ—â— 3. 21. â— Excep Answ Mr. Tombes exception against Colos 2. answered Aretius alledged by Mr Tombes as if for him who is expressely against him Ancient Authors cited by Aretius to prove that Baptism succeeds Circumcision Just in Martyr contra Tryph. Athan. in Luc. â—â—nia mihi tradita Epiphan contr Iipâ—cureos Idem contra Ceâ—â—nthuâ—n Aug in Epist 1â—8 In Epist ad Dardanun Vide Riveâ— in Gen. 17. Chrysostome cited by Mr. Tombes is against him Mr. Tombes his reason why baptism is there named confirmes my interpretation The descant of Mr. Tomber upon this Text at the end of his book briefly examined 4 Conclus vindicated Why Infants of Jewes were circumcised Mr. Tombes grants what is in controversie How the Jeweâ— received circumcision Mr. Tombes by consequence denies circumcision to be a Seale of any thing 5 Conclusion vindicated our priviledges nor straitned but inlarged Our spirituall priviledges how inlarged Mr. Tombes makes it a priviledge not to have Infants baptized Mr Tombes makes the Covenant Heb. 8 to bee the Covenant of Works erroneously 2 Cor. 3. 10. mis-interpreted by Mr. Tombes Gal. 3. 27 28. opened Distinction of Proselyres of the Gate and of the Covenant helps not Mr. Tombes A great a bridgment of our priviledges to have our children left out of the Covenant Sect. 12. Ans to the maine Objection The command of Circumcision reacheth us by analogy Chamier de Sacramentis Vet. Tâ—st cap. 1. Ames Bellar. Eneâ—vâ—de Sacrament in genere 1 Cor. 10. 3 4. explained Ephes 6 1 2. explained The same Argument which is good by consequence for our Sabbath is good for Infant-Baptisme The rest of Gods commands to Abraham teach us Sect. 13. Mat. 28. A command for Infant Baptisme by consequence Esay 19. 24. explained What it is to make disciples Acts 15. 10. explained and vindicated Sect. 14. Acts 2. 39. holds forth a command for Infant Baptism by good consequence Examples of Infant Baptism by good consequence Sect. 15. Argu. 2. Infants are capable of he grace whereof Baptisme is a Seals Mark 10. vindicated from Mr. Tombes exceptions Bellaâ— lib. 1. de Baptismo cap. 8 Sect. 1. Answers â—o Objections against Infant-Baptisme Object 1. From Mat. 28. Answers to othe petty Arguments of Mr. Tombes out of Mat. 28. Sect. 2. Object 1. Infants are unbeleevers ergo not to be baptized Answ Sect. 3. Object 3. We know not what Infants have grace ergo we may not baptize any Answ Sect. 4. Object 4. Infants cannot Covenant or promise for themselves Answ Sect. 5. Object 5. No benefit comes of Infant-Baptisme Object 6. Then also Infants may receive the Lords Supper Sect. 7. Of the comparison between Hazaels crueltie to Infants and the principles of Anabaptists Sect. 8. Answer to the Epilogue Arg. 1. Answ Arg. 2. Answ Arg. 3. Answ Arg. 4. Answ Arg. 5. Nehem. 8. 17. Arg. 6. Answ Arg. 7 8 9. Answ Arg. 10. Answ Arg. 11. Answ Arg. 12.
made thee an Orphan and mee a widow and this fell out when Chrysostome 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was young and could not speake as shee sayes there shee puts him in minde of her care of his education and of the charge she had been at to improve it but not a word of his Religion I confesse it appeares from Chrysostome that about the 20 yeare of his age his mother was a Christian but whether his Father or his mother was so at his birth it appeares not His education in his younger time was under Libanius who was an enemy to Christianity and a scoffer at it untill he was about 20 years of age then changing his former studies habit and profession he came to Meletius by whom being instructed in divine knowledge within 3 yeares afterwards he was baptized of him After his mothers death he betook himselfe to a Monasticall life in which time hee was much furthered in his holy studies by Carterius and Diodorus to whom he often repaired These things considered which Chrysostome his own words make out you can hardly perswade your Reader that there is any strength in what you bring forth from his example to plead against Paedo-baptisme for you neither prove his Parents were Christians at his birth neither was he educated under Meetius yet both these you have affirmed but without ground of evidence To all the forenamed instances you adde somewhat more out of Grotius which before I doe examine I have something to say to you concerning Grotius whom I see you follow in severall passages of your Examen I cannot but wonder why you who pretend to bee familiarly acquainted with the secrets of Antiquity should have so much correspondency with them who are not likely to help you with any certain intelligence Hugo Grotius is the strongest stake to support your tottering hedge and sure I am Grotius was a friend to the Socinians and it is well known what they thinke of Baptisme I have learned from Reverend Doctor Rivet that Grotius was perverted by Cardinall Peron who pleaded the cause of the Anabaptists in his answer to King James Quae tum protulerat congessit saith Doctor Rivet of the Cardinall in suam responsionem ad Regem M. Britan. Anabaptistarum causam egit quantum potuit strenue Video eum satisfecisse D. Grotio qui in talibus satis est liberalis Doctor Rivet told Grotius that learned Vossius had set forth 8 Arguments in Print to prove the lawfull use of Infant-Baptisme and desired him to answer them first and then Doctor Rivet promised to vindicate Vossius but Grotius made a poor excuse in his Votum pro pace Ecclesiastica and returned no answer at all Grotius that hee might comply with the Papists grants that Infant-baptisme ought to be received upon the authority of the Church of Rome and to please the Socinians also for it seemes hee intended to gratifie both he puts forth this question An Christus ab Joanne baptizatus suit in nomen Patris Filii S. sancti If any man desire a full character of Grotius let him read his Piety such as it is in that subtle peece entituled Hugonis Grotii Pietas or his Annotations upon Cassander and his defence of those Annotations and his Votum pro Pace and he will acknowledge that Grotius was no fit man to bee trusted nor likely to deliver the true sense of the Ancients in this or any other point I will not stand to tell you what Laurentius and Maresius say of him but sure they prove enough against him and therefore I will put an end to this discourse with that censure which learned Rivet hath passed upon Grotius in Grotius own words Judicat prout amat aut odit amat odit prout libet In his verbis exactissime descripsit ingenium suum saith D. Rivet Apologet. pro vera pace Eccles Sir I shall desire you may have a more sure friend to relye upon then Grotius how far he hath deceived you and you following him hath wronged the truth and both of you your Reader I will now God willing open You say Grotius in Annot in Matth. 19. 14. addes That the Canon of the Synod of Neocaesare a determines That a Woman with Childe might bee baptized because the baptisme reached not to the fruit of her wombe because in the confession made in Baptisme each one 's own free election is shewed from which Caâ—on you say Balsamon and Zonaras doe inferre That an Infant cannot be baptized beâ—ause it hath no power to choose the confession of divine Baptisme Your inference from the Canon gives me just occasion to thinke that you never read Balsamon whom you name for if you had you would not assert what you doe That this may appeare I will set downe the words of the Canon the occasion of it and what the Glossator mentioned by you sayes of the same The words of the Canon are these Of her that is with Child that shee may bee baptized when shee will for shee that bringeth forth in this doth not communicate with the birth that is brought forth because every one manifests his own free choice in confession The occasion of this Canon was this as both your Glossators observe it was propounded to the Fathers in that Councell to know whether a Woman when shee is with child might be baptized or no some opposed it because as they thought in her Baptisme the childe in her wombe was also baptized and this they held could not bee because there is required of him that would professe himselfe a follower of Christ as Zonaras expounds the last words of the Canon a free election or as Balsamon hath it there is required of every one in Baptisme his own promise which an Infant in its mothers wombe cannot doe at length it is determined in the Canon the woman in that condition might bee baptized when shee would c. from whence your friend Grotius infers That the childe useth not to bee baptized but of its owne proper will and profession and to back this assertion hee addes some words from Balsamon and Zonaras as if Balsamon had denyed that any were to be baptized but such as were able of themselves to make confession of their faith in Christ To vindicate the truth here from Grotius false inference and yours also in concurring with him therein I desire the Reader to take into his consideration these two things 1. Of what kinde of Women the Canon speakes of 2. What the Glossator mentioned by you speakes in the same glosse of Infants baptized in their Infancy The first will let us see that what you would infer from the Canon is nothing to the question before us The second will let all men see that you deale not fairely with your Reader Remember our Question is Whether Infants of beleevers are to bee baptized with Christs Baptisme c. but this Canon speakes of