when they were young therefore it was not their custome to Baptise infants For the making good hereof you bring forth instances of Constantinâ— the Great Greg Nazianzen and Chrysostom Afore he speaks of these instances hee sets down some known reasons some imagined why some deferred among the Ancients their own Baptism and he thinks they might upon the like reasons defer their childrens Answ. 1. That they did defer their childrens Baptism confirms my opinion that it was not ordinary in the Greek Church to baptize infants 2. That if they did defer it upon the reasons imagined by him then they thought it not necessary to be done in infancy as Paedobaptists do now chiefly Mr. Baxter plain Script proof part 2. ch 8 who will have infants baptised immediately as soon as ever they are disciples which by his grounds is at the first instant of their birth or afore 3. That very reason why some deferred Baptism to old age to wit the doing away sin was indeed the very reason of their baptizing infants And Nazianzens confutation telling some that all times were fit for Baptism seeing no time was free from death shews how ill Mr M. chose that passage to put in the Title page of his Book unlesâ— he would have Readers to baptize upon that opinion as if thereby they could work out their salvation 4. All this discourse about the various reason of mens deferring their own Baptism is quite besides the point about parents deferring their infants Baptism which not to have been upon any of those imagined reasons but because they thought it not necessary nor did practise it but in case of apparent danger of imminent death to the infant will appear by weighing his answer to my instances â—o that of Constantines being not baptized in infancy though Helena his mother were a Christian it is said 1. That it appears not that Constantines parents were in his infancy become Christians 2. Himself was also an unbeliever many years To which I reply though it be not apparent that Constantius or Helena were Christians in the infancy of Christians yet those Historians that do conceive they were and yet it being agreed he was not then baptized oâ—acitely yeeld that it was not unusual for the children of Believers to be unbaptized till they came to age Dr. Homes tels me That I have ill urged Constantin a Latin for an instance that Baptism of infants was not ordinary in the Greek church But I think otherwise since Constantin lived and died in the Greek Church and therefore fitly mentioneâ— among them The next mentioned by me is Gregory Nazianzen the son of a Christian Bishop and brought up long by him was not baptized till hee came to be a youth To this saith Mr. M or his friend How do you prove he was the son of a Christian Bishop His father was once in the Hypâ—istarian errour whether he were converted before Gregory was boâ—niâ— is not exprest When hee was young he was bâ—ed at Aâ—â—ens under heathens to which it 's not likely his father would send him if a Christian and why he was not baptised as soon as he was converted to Christianity I conjecture the reason was that he might the better prepare himself to receive baptism Answ. I did little imagin that this Author would have so far gratified the Papists as to joyn with Baronius and other Romanists by shifts to avoid the evidence of this instance which Protestants urge to prove Bishops to have then married and begot children after marriage To his question I prove him to have been a Bishop by the same words of Gregory Nazianzen himself in the verse of his life by which Chamier paustrat Cath. tom 3. l. 16. c. 13. § 41. Dr. Hall honour of the married Clergy 2d Book Sect. 8. and others prove Gregory Nazianzen to have been begotten of his Father being a Bishop where he brings in his Father speaking to perswade him to help him in his charge in these words as Dr. Hall turns them into English out of Greek The years of thy age are not so many as of my Priesthood Which how to free from Baronius his devices of an byperbole and the inconsistency with the other passages of his fathers Baptism and his study at Athens and seeing Julian there the Reader may see in Chamier ubi suprà at large Where and in Dr. Hall he may find that his mother was also a pious Christian when hee was born and that she begged him of God And the Century Writers of Magd. say cent 4 c. 10. She was born of pious and holy progenitours And though he travailed abroad suppose at 12. years of age yet was he long brought up by his parents especially in that time in which he was to have been baptized if the Baptism of infants had been then ordinary yet was hee not baptized as this Author confesseth till he was of age after he returned to his Father who it is not likely did send him to be trained up under infidels however hee might light on their acquaintance and hear them As for the reason of deferring his baptism it is in vain to enquire into another cause then that which Gregory Nazianzen himself in his 40th Oration of holy Baptism gives when hee adviseth to baptize infants in case of apparent danger of imminent death but out of that case to defer it And this appears to have been the genuine reason and the practise accordingly in that as Gregorius Presbyter relates in his life when sailing to Athens a storm arose so that his life was in apparent danger he was afraid of dying unbaptised and resolved to be baptised The other reason assigned by Mr M or his friend is frivolous for though the better to prepare himself to receive baptism might be the reason of his deferring it so long as he did when he came to age yet it could not be a reason of his parents deferring it or of his in infancy So that notwithstanding these vain shifts of this Author wherein he joyns with the Papists who use the like devices to avoin this testimony urged by Protestants to prove the marriage of Bishops then and is refuted by them yet this one instance is an evident proof that in the Greek Church baptism of infants was not ordinary in the fourth Century but used perhaps extraordinarily in case of apparent danger of imminent death There is the less need of insisting on the instance of Chrysostome his birth of Christian parents and educated and baptised at age by Miletius sith that of Nazianzen 〈◊〉 pregnant 'T is true I did allege it as Grotius 〈◊〉 saying whom I found counted for a learned man by Spanheimius and many others and I might well make use of him as Protestants sometimes do of Papists that are corrupt in point of antiquity If Dr. Young were the Author of the first part of Mr. Ms. Defence and of the Latin Book of the Lords day published in the year 1639. under
conceive by the date of his Epistle however whether alive or dead a man very reverend and however he conceived of me one of the most learned and accurate writers specially in such things as this of his age and while he slights him discover so much folly and ignorance in Hebrew and Greek as an ordinary â—rammarian or student in the Bible would hardly have shewed certainly it 's unsuitable to his undertaking of a Schoolmaster The phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is word by word the son◠〈◊〉 hundred years for without of it would be non-sense it being the sigâ—◠〈◊〉 Genitive case nor is old substracted but included in that expression it being the Hebrew expression of old or aged as M. Gataker shews from Gen. 11.10 21.5 5.32 7. â— 12.4 16.16 17.1 25.20 26. 37.2 41.46 45.26 and elswhere and the same he might have learned from Ainsworth Annot. on Gen. 5 â—2 c. Hebr. son of 500. years that is going in his 500. year An usual speech in the Hebrew Scripture of mens age or of beasts Gen. 17.1 Exod 12.5 And for he and when how can they be said to be superadded when the very term shall die is all one with when he shall die which shews it is not for Mr. Crs. purpose for then it should have been shall be born as an hundred years old as well a churchmember as if he were but is agreeable to the Prophets meaning to express long life And therefore his jeer of excellent Arithmetick shews his folly in deriding that which was right And for his prattle it shews his excellent ignoranâ—e of the Hebrew and Greek of the â—ible Buâ—torf Thes Gram. Hebr. l. 2. c. 3. p. 360 in that piece which is termed by Amama c. admirandum opus 〈◊〉 nomen 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 filius periphrases Hebraismos facit insâ—gnes ut 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 filius areus Iob 41.19 id est sâ—gitta similes innumeri Sic Iâ—â—an 17.12 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Apud Latinos Horat. 1. carm od 14. Terrâ— filius should one scribble as Mr. Cr. doth here Here 's a new creation of a new generation son of the bow of perdition of the earth who evâ—r heard such a syntax did the son beget tâ—e bow perdition the earth or the bow perdition the earth the son or whether is elder Would not a Scholler say he played the fool For this I leave him to Mr. Vaugâ—ans correction But he seems to be more considâ—rate in what follows According to which interpretation the words must carry this sense There shall no more infants diâ— when they are young nor an old man till he 〈◊〉 filled his days for he that now is a child shall not die till he be an hundred years old I wonder in what age this was performed that no man died till he had compleated his century no mortal disease nor use of Physitians but every man might certainlâ— know the day of his death Answ. The words contain not such an absolute universal longaevity as Mr. Cr. would make to be the consequent of our interpretation but a length of days opposite to former troubles v. 16. in which so many died by war famine and pestilence which therefore comparatively is reckoned as universal as in like manner Ieremiah ch 50.20 speaking of the same times saith the iniquity of Israel shall be sought for there shall be none that is as formerly to provoke God to cut them off by gâ—ievous deaths as before the captivity And according to this iâ— that of Zech. 8.4 and I said without any vaunting Nebuchadnezzar like language as Mr. Cr. abusively chargeth me with Isa. 65.20 was rightly made by me answerable to Zech 8 4. which doth not intimate that the Text was made by me and not by the Holy Ghost but made answerable or correspondent which arrogates no more to me then if I had said made clear made manifest c. Nor is any experience or History contrary to this that the Iews after their return from Babylon 〈◊〉 prosperity increase and long life in Canaan a great while together and were honoured by divers Persian Kings Alexander the Great and some of the â—recian Kings and the Nations near them iuâ—ject to them The Contents of the Chapter were never by any Synod or Parliament interpretatively entitled to the Church of England nor are to be accounted any more valid then Mr. Gatakers notes who though a single man yet had his notes approved by other Annotators and in some sort by the Assembly at Westminster Yet the Contents of the Chapter being v. 17. The blessed estate of the new Ierusalem and in the Margin at v. 19. Revel 21.4 being put shew that Mr. Crs. conceit is no more favoured by them then mine And the speech being to be understood comparatively to the former times was true of the Jews after their return from the captivity at Babel V. 25. expâ—essing the Jews peace notwithstanding the Samaritan neighbours was true at the same time although both were accommodated to the Gospel times and the calling of the Jews yet to come Nor is it any strange thing in that Prophet to make thâ— restitution of the Jews from Captivity as answering to making new Heavens and Earth as Isa. 51.16 44.24 25 26. 45.12 13. Yet I deny not that 2 Pet 3.13 Revel 21.1 the words are rightly applied to some other great work of God resembled by this and to be yet accomplished That the Israelites 1 Cor. 10.2 were actually baptized or washed under the cloud it raining upon them and in the Red Sea the water touching their feet at least after the dividing of the waves in such a sudden passage and blowing upon them with thâ— sprinkling thereof is no where set down Exod 13. and 14. Nâ—r will such wetting be ever found in any Greek Authour to be termed Baptism formally and therefore it can be no other then similitudinary Baptism which is there meant as the eating Manna and drinking Water was a similitudinary partaking of the Lords Supper and Grotius did rightly expound 1 Cor. 10.2 were baptised by were as if they were baptisâ—d and yet Isa. 65 20. is not rightly so expounded shall die as an hundred years old there being no need of such an interpretation nor any thing leading to it in the Text but the expression is of long life nor if it were meant so iâ— it proved that infants must be Churchmembers and capable of some seal under the Gospel unless there were no other wâ—y then that in respect of which he might be as one an hundred years old Had Mr. Cr. sought the clearing of truth he had been willing to read out the whole that his dealing might not be taken for deceitfull By my refutation of Dr. Savage in Latin some years since Printed it may appear whâ—tâ—er Text Dr. Savage or the Dr. of the Chair did avoid my argument The rest of M. Crs. argumenâ—s are the same with what others have urged and have been answered in this and the former parts as this Review nor do I find that Mr. Cr. hath added any thing of moment to them to which I need make further reply As or his â—â—â—nts quips misrecitals or mistakes of my words mis-reports of my actions together with his own mistakes in Logick Grammer Divinity thâ—y are otherwise discernable then by a particular answer in Print to each part of his Book I presume the Christian and equal Reader will think it unnecessary to make any more reply to what iâ— written of infantâ— Baptism till some thing be found written which better defends it then those have done who are here answered If any other think it fiâ—â— I should answer him also in particulaâ— he may conceive that if I did pâ—rceive any thing that might not have an answer in that which is already written or had in it any difficulty I should have done it But being conscious to my felâ— that I have not declined the answering of any out of contempt of the person or sense of the difficulty of doing it but because it is thought that I have been too large already and that to answer every meer quirk of wit is unnecessary as knowing that however light witâ— that love to shew their skill in disputing be taken with them yet solid conscientious men will be led onely with good proofs out of Scripture which may shew the institution of Christ I do here supersede from this work and commend it to his blessing of whom and through whom and for whom are all things to whom be glory for ever AMEN FINIS Mr. Gatakers Annot. on Jer. 31.30 The former Covenant comprehended together with those spiritual promises which yet were the principal part of it many temporal blessings as the possession of the land of Canaan and multiplicity of issue and outward prosperity Gen. 15.5 7 18. 17.2 7 8. Psal. 105.8 Deut. 28.1 19. Whereas this later runneth wholly upon the Spiritual and Celestial blessings Rom. 3.24 25. 5.1 2. Eph. 1.3 Heb. 8.6 See Ainsworth Annotations on Gen. 21.12 Vide Gatâ—k Discept de vi effic inf baptism pag. 243.
were yet under Gods Gospel call Answ. There 's neither tautology nor mystery in limiting the promise to the called of the Jew parents and children nor doth any thing make it seem strange but ignorance Tautology is not sith the Propositions are three distinct ones in words and sense it is not the same to say the promise is to you called the promise is to your children called the promise is to all that are afar off called you your children all that are afar off being different tearms Mystery is no more if it be added to the former part of the verse then to the latter The calling in the latter part of the verse can be understood of no other than effectual calling whether inward onely or both inward and outward for to none other of the Gentiles is the promise of remission of sins And for the same reason the limitation is necessary to be added to the former part of the verse nor can any good reason be given why the promise should be to the Jews and their children without calling by God and not to those afar off without it The Jews were then under call but were not then called nor doth Mr. Sidenham say they were and therefore Peter might aptly enough say to them The promise is to â—s many of you as the Lord our God shall call The manner of expression is usual to put after a distribution of persons the limitation in common There is the like Acts 3.24 where as many as have spoken limits the Prophets from Samuel and those that follow after Had Mr. Sidenham understanding in him of these things he had not charged my exposition with making the Holy Ghost faulter in common expression of his mind Such censures ill become such a smattering scribler But who so bold as blinde bayard It follows Lastly saith he the word children may and must he understood of little ones infants not of adult and grown persons for these reasons Answ. Boldly said like a young hotspur Belike then when persons are ten twelve or more years old they cease to be their parents children and seed But I am willing to hear reason 1. saith he the word here 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 properly signifies an off-spring any thing brought forth though it be but of a day of a moment old Thus when a woman is said to be in pain and to bring forth this word is used John 16.21 Luke 1.31 Matth. 1.16 Luke 1.57 Answ. How heedlesly did this Authour scribble when he said this word which can be no other then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used John 16.21 Luke 1.31 Matth. 1 26. Luke 1.57 when it is used in none of those places though the verb whence it comes is used in them But were it used there yet the reason is frivolous 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies a thing brought forth ergo 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 children Acts 2.39 may not must not be understood of adult and grown persons He might as well have said it must be understood but of those that are in this moment brought forth not of an infant of a day old and that the person brought forth is only the mothers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or child because she only brought him forth not the father I did think till I met with this new Master that the Holy Ghost spake properly when he called persons grown to ripe age their fathers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or children Ephes. 6.1 Col. 3.21 c. 2. Saith he It s an indefinite word and therefore may not be restrained to grown children except God had exprest it in a peculiar phrase Answ. Mr. Sidenham alters the conclusion he undertook to prove and concludes that which he findes not denied His reason is as well against his own conclusion It s an indefinite word and therefore may not be restrained to infant-children except God had exprest it in a peculiar phrase And indeed the reason is good only thus It s an indefinite word therefore it s to be restrained as the subject matter directs But Mr. Sidenham shifts as it may serve his turn His conclusion set down at first excluded adult children because he knew the promise had not then been to them without calling and so his project of drawing thence a priviledge for infants intituling them to baptisme had failed but here his proof coming short he alters the conclusion into that which might be granted him without detriment to the cause 3. Saith he It must needs be especially meant of little ones because they are distinguished from themselves who were men of years Now when we distinguish between men and children we suppose the one adult the other under age and not grown up and it is contrary to all ways of expression to think otherwise Answ. Belike then we must think that where it is said Matth. 10.21 the fathers shall deliver the children to death and the children shall rise up against the parents and Luke 1.17 to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children it must be especially meant of little ones because they are distinguished from themselves who were men of years and to think otherwise if the Dr. of New-Castle say true is contrary to all ways of expression which you may imagine he knew 4. Saith he It cannot be rationally conjectured otherwise because the Apostle doth join them with their parents in the same promise and not leave them to stand by themselves as grown persons must Answ. Belike then if any understand the promises to Abraham and his seed to David and his seed of any other then infants it is not rationally conjectured I have done with this Writer about this Text of which he vainly talks as he doth in the rest so that all things weighed this text of Scripture if there were no more holds forth not to be seen the sameness of the promise to believers of the Gospel both Jew and Gentile and their children as ever it was to Abraham and his natural seed SECT XXV Mr. Marshal's Reply to my Examen about his first Conclusion is reviewed and the Covenant Gen. 17. still maintained to be mixt and that Gentile self justiciaries though reputed Christians are not termed Abraham's seed nor Gal. 4.29 proves it and that the distinction of outward and inward Covenant is not right I Now reassume the Review of Mr. Ms. Reply to my Examen of his Sermon Next saith he come we to examine the truth of the Antecedent which I manifested in those five Conclusions opened in my Sermon But I supposed he had intended to prove by his five Conclusions not onely his Antecedent but also his Consequence If I apprehend him rightly there are none of his five Conclusions but the two first that are for proving of the Antecedent But let 's view what he writes The first whereof is this That the covenant of grace for substance hath always been one and the same both to Jews and Gentiles The first Conclusion you grant and therefore
he proves nor to shew how he proves out of the text he allegeth but leaves his reader to fish out his meaning as he can from scattered passages However I shall view his dictates He denies that the Jewes had only a Covenant of grace among them which was made to some choice ones among them And yet the Apostle directly teacheth that the promise I will be a God to thee and thy seed as a promise of saving grace was not made to all Israel but the elect only Rom. 9.6 7 8. And clear it is that the Covenant made with the body of the Israelites at mount Sinai was the Covenant of workes as is plain from Rom. 10.5 2 Cor. 3.6 7 9. Gal. 3.12 and 4.24 25. Heb. 8 9 10 11. c. and 12.18 19 21. It is false that he hath any where proved that the external Ecclesiastical right to circumcision came from the circumcised persons interest in the Covenant of grace invested with Church-covenant Neither did God appoint all them to receive the visible seal thereof meaning Circumcision for he did not appoint the females or males under eight dayes old to be circumcised though in the Covenant as well as the infant male of eight dayes old He bids us see Gen. 17.7 8 9 10 11 12 13. and 26.3 4 5. and 28.12 13 14. But I can see none of his dictates in those texts I find there that God made a covenant with Abraham after renewed it to Isaac and Jacob assuring to their inheriting posterity the inheritance of Canaan the multiplying of them c. that God injoyned circumcision to them for a memorial and assurance of that covenant This covenant as containing the promise of Canaan c. to the natural postority of Abraham Isaac and Jacob is expressed to be by reason of Abrahams obedience Gen. 26.5 circumcision is required Gen. 17. and Exod. 19. Levit. 26. obedience is required to the laws given by Moses They that term the Covenant Exo. 19. a covenant of works speak sutable to the Apostle Rom. 10.5 Gal. 3.12 yet I deny not but in Covert expressions Gen. 17. and elswere God promised Christ to the elect whether Jews or Gentiles and blessing that is righteousness and eternal life by faith in him Gal. 3.16 c. which Abraham and all the ancient Saints expressed by faith Iohn 8.56 and elswhere Now it is not true that those covenant Fathers Abraham Isaac and Iacob recieved the covenant Evaneglical in referrence to their natural children nor in respect of justification before God and external life had a contrary covenant of life and death grace and workes made with them For though the Jews succeding were under the whole law of Moses because of transgressions yet not so as to have life by it Gal. 3.17 18 19 21. noâ— is it any absurdity to say that the legal justitiaries who rested in the law were at one and the same time externally under the blessing of God in respect of their outward prosperity in Canaan and yet internally under the curse of God Gal. 3.10 as seeking righteousness before God by their observing the Law It is no where said that any other than Abraham is the root or first fruits to his seed Rom 11.16 nor they termed his seed lump branches any other way than either naturally or spiritually that is by natural generation or by following his faith by vertue of election Rom. 11 16. doth not say Abraham was the root as recieving the covenant for the branches but as propagating the branches Nor need we say that he either received a covenant oâ— works alone in referrence to them all elected or that he recieved the Covenant of grace with Ecclesiastical respect to them all The plain doctrine of the Scripture is set down above Mr. C's dictates are meer phantasms without Scripture The substance of the Covenanâ— is a novel expression and ambiguous I deny not the covenant Gen. 17. to be evangelical yet I concieve it not purely such but as I say in my Exercit. pag. 2. mixt that is containing political and Evangelical promises I deny not but it was the jews covenant-right to have the Tabernacle of God or their ordinances as their privilege yea and his presence therein until the Messiah came yet so as that when thay set up Idols the glory of God departed from them Ezek. 11.22 23. They had also Gods oracles with them deliverance from Egypt Christ to be with them in the wilderness nor do I deny these to have bin by vertue of Christs mediation yet so far as these were national mercies they were proper to the Jews What ever be meant by the Covenant the promise Rom 9 4. they do not agree to Gentile believers And though I say they were by vertue of Christs mediation yet I concieve the mediation of Christ was directly for the elect only for others only obliquely by consequent and by accident by reason of the Cohabitation of them on earth I deny not that filling the Temple with smoake Rev. 15.8 allusively to that which was 1 Kings 8.10 11. Isai. 6.1 2 3 4. might restifie the presence of God in the Churches after Christs ascension in a way of mercy to his people and for their sakes in a way of justice against his and their enemies I neither do nor need say that Canaan was all which God promised the Jews I grant it was promised to them as an everlasting possession Gen. 17.8 But the wrod 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which the Gr translate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 everlasting notes freequently but a duration of some age or ages as 2 Chron. 2.4 c. I deny not but the Patriarchs looked futher than Canaan Heb. 11.9 10. I deny not that the promise of Canaan was in some sense ratified in Christ and all other temporal blessings to the elect now 1 Cor. 3.21 22 23. that Christ is said to drive out their enemies Exod. 23.20 21. and that the land they possessed was called Immanuelâ— land Esâ—i 8.8 that sundry were excluded from thence for unbelief Heb. 3 laâ—â— compared with ch 4 2. though if it be not warily explained Moses and Aaron should be guilty of the Gospel sin of unbelief If God promised to be a God to them and as one branch thereof instanceth in giving them Canaan Gen. 17 7 8. then the promise of Canaan is a branch of the promise I wil be a God to them If the Proselyted strangers were to have Abrahams Covenant sealed to them and theirs by circumcision yet had no lots in Canâ—an then persons were to be circumcised to whom the promise belonged not I grant that Christ was mediator of the Covenant with Abraham so far as it contains evangelical promises but deny that it was held out to all the Jews by the sacrafices For though the typical sacrâ—fices in respect of purifâ—ing the flesh did purge the whole Congregation yet none were purâ—ed by Christs blood but the elect The high Preist bare the
God prâ—â—ise it as a new thing I confess if I should find by any new law or promise that it did begin but in Moses days I should think it some abatement of the strength of my cause though yet I think there would enough remain 2. There are yet higher two sorts of laws the one for the constitution of the Commonwealth it self the other for the administration or government of it when it is so constituted The former are called by some Fundamental Laws as laying the frame and form of the Commonwealth and the quality of the materials c. I think indeed that as constitutive of the form of the Commonwealth these are scarce preperly called Laws though as they look forward obliging to duty and prohibiting alteration they may But if they be not laws they are somewhat higher and lay the ground of all laws and obedience and so are laws eminenter viâ—â—ualiter though not actually and formally And in our case as this constitution did subject us to God making it our duty ever after to obey him so doth it oblige us to acknowledge that subjection And the very constitution of the Church is an act of high beneficence and performed by the fundamental grant or Covenant Now if this Covenant and constitution could not expresly be shewed in writing it were no diminution of the authority of it seeing among men Fundamentals are seldome written and when they are it is onely as laws obliging the subject to maintain and adhere to the first constitution As long therefore as we can prove that it is Gods will that successively infants should be Churchmembers it no whit invalidates the cause if we could not shew the original constitution in writing Yet somewhat we shall attempt 3. We have full proof of infants Churchmembership by laws and Covenants concerning it ever since the time that there was a written word of God and that is sufficient if we could fetch it no higher Having premised this I come nearer to the Question Answ. Had Mr. B. meant fairly and not either to prepossess the Reader with prejudice against me or weary him afore he should come to the point he had begun with this question In the entrance to which he tediously sets down some postulata which do shew that we are not to expect any plain Scripture proof of a Law or Ordinance of Infants visible Churchmembership unrepealed which he so cracks of as to intitle his Book as if he would bring such But I shall let pass his postulata and attend to his proofs The first institution saith Mr. B. of infants Churchmembership de jure upon supposition of their existence was in Gods first constitution of the Republick of the World when he became mans governour and determined of his subjects and members of the Commonwealth Which Republick being sacred and devoted to Gods worship and service was truly a Church of which God was head This was performed by the first Law and Covenant made either in or upon mans creation That such a Covenant or promise of felicity was made by God to innocent man almost all Divines agree But because it is rather implied then expressed in Moses brief History some few cavillers do therefore contradict us But 1. the threatning of death for sin seems to imply a promise of life if he sinned not 2. And the New Testament affordeth us divers passages that yet plainlier prove it which to you I need not recite But whether this promise of life were natural as the threatning of death was or onely positive and more arbitrary Divines are not agreed among themselves Those that say it was free and positive give this reason That God could not naturally be obliged to bless or felicitate the most innocent or perfect creature nor any creature merit of God Those that think it natural as the threatning was say It 's true that God could not be properly be obliged because he is under no law no more is he obliged to punish but onely man obliged to suffer if he inflict it And it 's true that man cannot strictly merit of God But yet say they as man may have a natural aptitude for such felicity so God hath a natural propensity to do good according to the capacity of the subject and his works do oblige him improperly in point of fidelity and immutability as well as his word So that their reasons are these following 1. Because God is as naturally prone to do good to the good as to do evil to the evil that is to reward as to punishment as his name proclaimed to Moses Exod. 34. shews 2. Because God making man capable of a higher felicity and principling him with inclinations thereto and giving him desires love and other affections for that blessed end even the everlasting fruition of God therefore they say God did in this frame of his nature give him ground to expect such a felicity if he sinned not For else all these inclinations and affections should have been in vain But God made not so noble a creature with vain inclinations and affections to act fallaciously and falsly Also Gods works would not be harmonical So that as Gods promise is but a sign of his will obliging him improperly in point of fidelity and immutability so say they the nature of man was a sign of Gods will so far engaging him So that as he could not let sin go unpunished without some breach in the harmony of his sapiential frame of administration no more could he deny to perfect man the object of those desires which he formed in him So that although he might have made man such a creature as should not necessary be punished for evil or rewarded for good that is he might have made him not a man yet having so made him it is necessary that he be governed as a man in regard of felicity as well as penalty 3. Our Philosophers and Divines do commonly prove the immortality of the soul from it's natural inclinations to God and eternal felicity And if the immortality may be so proved from itâ—s nature then also it 's felicity in case of righteousness I interpose not my self as a Judge in this controversie of Divines but I have mentioned it to the end which I shall now express 1. It is most certain whether the reward or promise be natural or positive that such a state of felicity man was either in or in the way to or in part and the way to more And iâ—'s most certain that man was made holy devoted to God and fit for his service and that in this estate according to the law of his creation he was to increase and multiply It 's most certain therefore that accor to the first law of nature infants should have been Churchmembers 2. But if their opinion hold that make the reward grounded on the law of nature and not on a meer positive law and you see the reasons are not contemptible then the argument would be
grant and yet Mr. Bs. law and ordinance not thereby proved For infants may be Churchmembers of the redeemed Church and yet not of the visible Church and the infant state may be not excluded from the visible Church and yet there may be no law or ordinance for the inclusion of them yea there may be a law or ordinance for inclusion of them and yet none for including them in the visible Church Christian. Nor is his proof of any validity For the conseâ—uence holds not Christ was by Gods promise Head of the Church in infancy therefore infants were by Gods will to be Churchmembers or the infant state is not excluded from the visible Church It must rest upon some such positions as these In what age God promised Christ to bee Head of the Church in that age his will was that persons should be visible Churchmembers the ordering of Christs age is an exemplar to the Church or rather rule for the being and accounting of visible Churchmembers Which are manifestly false 1. Because there is no such thing declared in Scripture and therefore it is to be taken as a meer fancy 2. Because if these positions were true 1. then an infant in the mothers womb should be a visible Churchmember because then Christ was head of the Church and as Mr B. saith The Lord Jesus is promised to do this work as the womans seed and so as conceived of her 2. Then an old man shoâ—ld not be a member of the visible Church because Christ in the days of his flesh was not an old man which are both absurd And for the antecedent of Mr. Bs. enthymeme though I deny not that Christ in infancy was Head of the Church nor that he was the Prophet of his Church in infancy understanding it of his being the Prophet habitually and by designation nor that he in some respect to wit of rule and protection the Head of the visible Church even of that part which is not elect Yet 1. I deny that in respect of that union which makes any members of his body in the Scripture acception which is by his spirit he is head of that part of the visible Church which is not elect nor can he be said in this respect and after the Scripture speech to be Head of the visible Church as visible but onely in respect of that part which is invisible to wit the true believers or elect pâ—rsons who alone are univocally members of Christ the Head as the Doctrine of Protestant writers a voweth Dr. Rainold thes 4. § 26. Mali nulla corporis Christi pars sunt Dr. Field of the Church book 1. ch 2. The wicked are neither parts nor members of the mystical body of Christ. Bellarmin himself de Eccl milit c. 9. makes them members not living nor true according to the essence of members but dead and as ill humours in the body and in respect of some outward use Christ makes of them 2. Nor do I well know how to make a construction of this speech of Mr. B. that the Lord Jesus is promised Gen 3.15 to do this work of bruising the Serpents head or conquering the Devil as the womans seed and so as conceived of her and born by her and so as an infant first before he comes to ripeness of age according to which it may be true For though I grant the man Christ Jesus who did this work to have been an infant first yet I do not think it true that he did it as the womans seed according to humane nature onely but also according to his Divine Heb 9.14 nor what he did was done in infancy but at ripe age For he bruised the Serpents head and conquered the Devil by his death Heb. 2.14 which was not in infancy but at ripe age 3. Nor do I understand how it is true that by Christs birth and infancy God doth sanctifie the humane birth and the infant state For though I grant children born and infants are sanctified by God through Christ who was born and an infant yet that the humane birth and the infant state should be sanctified thereby seems not true for then humane birth and infancy should be holy in any infants oâ— persons born and so the birth of a bastard should be holy and his infancy holy which I need not shew how absurd it is 4. Nor do I conceive any truth but gross falshood in that speech Had God excluded the infant state from the visible Church he would not have made the head first an infant For this doth suppose that either this was the onely end or chief end without which God had not made Christ an infant and consequently this was more in Gods eye then the saving of sinners for which Christ came into the world or the fulfilling of his promise that a child should be born a son should be given to us and would infer that they which hold infants not visible Churchmembers must deny Christ to have been an infant 5. Nor do I know that to be true that in things which Christ was capable of he did that first in his own body which he would after do in the bodies of his Church For he would and did innumerable things in the bodies of his Church as to marry beget children c. which he did not in his own body first though he was capable of them 6. I deny that Christ as man was in infancy the Prophet of his Church visibly and in actu exercito Let Mr. B. when he will assault it there will appear in his contradiction vileness and manifold falshood none in this opinion And for his inference if an infant may be the chief Prophet of the Church then no doubt but infants may be Disciples I grant both and yet deny that Christ was visibly audibly in actu exercito in his infancy in his humane nature the Prophet of his Church or that any infants are actually Disciples visibly till they hear the Gospel and profess the faith nor am I ashamed to aver that he is no Prophet that prophesieth not that they are no Disciples that learn not But Mr. B. proceeds 4. Saith he As the war is here proclaimed and the General or chief Commander constituted so next here is a natural enmity put into the whole seed of the woman or humane race against the whole seed of the serpent that then was or the Diabolical nature This is plain both in the text and in the experience of the fulfilling of it As in the instrumental serpent it is the whole serpentine nature that hath an enmity to the humane nature and the whole humane nature to the serpentine nature they being venemous to us and wee abhorring them as venemous and as such as our lives are in danger of so is it the whole humane nature that is at enmity to the Diabolical nature Vide Muscul. Calvin Luther in locum All men have naturally as great an abhorrence of the Devil as of a serpent they
deny the syllogism to be good as not having the whole medium in the minor which was in the major if it be understood in another sense which I count non-sense that the species of infants in the Jewish particular Church were members of the universal visible Church Christian the minor is to bee proved As for what Mr. B. saith the universal Church never ceaseth here if it be meant of the universal visible Church definite of that age in which alone infants visible members of a particular Church are members it is false if of an universal Church visible indefinite so as that the sense be some or other universal Church visible never ceaseth or an universal visible Church in some age or other ceaseth not infant members in the particular Church are not members in such an universal but in the definite of one age and the minor of Mr. Bs. argument in that sense is false Or if the sense bee as it seemeth by what followes That the nature of the universal visible Church ceaseth not â—heere I deny the consequence of the major in Mr. Bs. syllogism And say That it is non-sense to term the nature of the universal visible Church the universal visible Church as it is to term humanity or manhood a man or Peter humanity or the humane nature All know that understand the Metaphysicks that whatever the difference bee whether formal or modal or some other yet the one is not rightly predicated or said of the other no man saith the essence of a thing which is all one with the nature is the thing but that by which it is In like manner it is non-sense to say infants were members of the nature of the universal Church visible For membership hath relation to an integral whole not to an essential no man makes infants a part of the definition of the universal visible Church but of the compleatness of it But let 's view Mr. Bs. proof 1. Saith he That there is a universal visible Church Mr. Rutherford and others have largely proved They of New England indeed deny a univeâ—sal visible governing or political Church but not this that I speak of as you may see in Mr. Shepheard and Mr. Allens answer to Mr. Ball But lest any should deny it I wiâ—l bring one proof or rather many in one 1 Cor. 12 13. We are all baptised by one spiriâ— into one body whether Jews or Gentiles Here you see it is one and the same body that all are baptised into Now that this is the visible Church I prove thus 1. That one body that hath distinct visible members with variety of gifts is the visible body But this is such 2. That one body which is visible in suffering and rejoycing is the visible body But this is such v. 25 26. 3. That body which is capable of schism and must be admonished not to admit of it is the visible body But this is such v. 25. 4. That body which had the visible seals of Baptism and the Lords Supper was the visible body But this was such v. 13. 5. That one body which had visible universal officers was the visible universal Church or body But this was such Therefore c. Answ. I list not to interpose my judgement in the controversies between Mr. Ball and Mr. Rutherford and Mr. Hudson on the one side and Mr. Allen Mr. Shepheard and Mr. Hooker on the other side which rest much on the meaning of the term Church in such passages as these 1 Cor. 12 28. 10.32 Acts 8. â— Gal. 1.13 c. and some Logick notions of an universal and integral whole of a similar and dissimilar whole the distinction of a Church entitive and organical and the like Nevertheless because it concerns the present point that I should say somewhat in this thing I shall thus far express my conceits 1. I think by the word Church in none of the places alledged by Mr. Hudson vindic ch 2. a particular fixed congregation organized is meant except the last 3. Joh. 10. where I conceive the casting out could be onely out of that particular Church where Diotrephes did Lord it and where alone he did and could forbid those that would receive the brethren though perhaps the effect might extend further Nor do I think on the other side that in any one of them by the Church is meant the universal visible organical political Church collectively taken which Mr. Hudson asserts not Acts. 8.3 Gal. 1 1â— For Saul did not make havock persecuted or destroy the whole Church so taken nor only the particular Church of Jerusalem but the word Church there is taken without quantity anâ— so neither notes the universal nor particular all nor some but indefinitely in genere confuso the disciples of Christ or any of that way Acts 9.1 2. them that believed on Christ Acts 22.19 them that called on his name Acts 9.14 the Saints Acts 26.10 wheresoever hee could reach them And in the same sense it is taken Acts 2.47 1 Cor. 10.32 1 Tim. 3.15 and I think the sense is the same Eph. 3.10 whether by the Church be meant of what was done to or on the Church that is the believers called out of the Gentiles to whom hee gave his spirit manifestly as on Cornelius or by the teachers in the Church especially of the wonderful mysteries which were revealed in the exercise of gifts then given Matth 16.18 It is true is meant the visible Church but not the universal organical collectively taken nor any particular Congregation organized but the visible in respect of the part which is invisible against which the gates of the grave or death shall not prevail to keep them in but they shall be raised up again to everlasting life at the last day Nor is it said that the keyes should bee given to the Church but to Peter the use of which was to bee in the calling of the Church effectually The other text 1 Cor. 12.28 cannot be meant of the Church visible universal organical collective nor of a particular Congregation not this latter for reasons given by Mr. Hudson nor the former for the Apostles Prophets Teachers are distinct from the Church there taken but they are not so from the Church universal visible organical collective Ergo. Therefore I conceive Apostles c. are not said to be set in the Church collectively taken as a totum integrale organicum but in the Church distributively taken that is in the several Churches where they were imployed as Peter among those of the Circumcision Paul among the Gentiles To which the term 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hath set gives me occasion to encline which I conceive to bâ—e the same with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 gave Eph. 4.12 and it notes not a setting by way of law constituting such to be in the Church but a setting or disposing by way of providence in several Churches for their profit as he saw good 2. I conceive the term Catholike or universal
Church between which Mr. Bl. Coven sealed pag. 155. saith Divines distinguish is sometimes taken in contradistinction to the Jewish National Church sometimes as comprehending both the believers before and since the incarnation of Christ and in both senses I conceive it notes the invisible Church or the Church of the first born which are written in heaven Heb. 12.23 who are fellow heirs of the same body and partakers together of the promise of Christ through the Gospel Ephes 3.6 and this is the Catholike Church in the Apostles Creed which we believe though we see it not 3. I acknowledge a Catholike visible Church both before and after Christs incarnation entitive though I think not organical since Christs ascension and the Apostles decease and that this Catholike visible Church consists of all the visible Church-members and Churches particular visible in all the world and that this is visible onely in the several parts which exist and because these parts are in flux as a City Army Commonwealth there are sometimes more sometimes fewer sometimes the same persons may be visible Church-members and sometimes not some parts may be formed after one manner some after another the same sort of persons may be as infants in a Church vâ—sible of one constitution and not in another he may bee a member as Cornelius in one Church that is not in another So that the Church universal visible which I acknowledge is not uniform and is onely as in numbring a total sum of many particulars cast up 4. I conceive the text Mr. B. alledgeth serveth not his purpose For though I think it is meant of the Church visible yet not in respect of all the parts of the Church visible but those that are so visible as that they are also of the invisible Church to wit true believers 1. Because it is said that thâ—y are by one spirit baptised into one body and made to drink into one spirit now this must be understood of that unity of spirit which unites to Christ not barely in respect of common gifts to the sanctified and unsanctified But this cannot bee said of all the viâ—ble members of the visible Church therefore it is not meant of them 2. Because the many members termed one body are termed Christ v. 12. which can bee meant of Christ mystical onely for those that are onely Christ by profession are not termed Christ but those who are spiritually uniâ—ed to him now those are one spirit 1 Cor. 6.17 new creatures 2 Cor. 5.17 to whom there is no condemnation Rom. 8.1 of his flesh and of his bones Ephes. 5.30 31 32. And to his reasons I answer that though they prove the body meant 1 Cor 12.13 was visible yet they prove not that all parts of the visible Church are comprehended in that body but onely such as were also of the invisible 2. Saith Mr. B. That the Jews infants were members of this universal visible Church I prove thus There is but one visible universal Church or body therefore they must needs be of this one or be unchurched See Gal. 3.16 Ephes. 4 4 1 Cor. 1â— 12 Answ. The unity there ascribed is not visible but invisible to wit by the union of the same spirit and the body though visible in respect of some parts yet is not said to bee one in respâ—ct of any but those who are invisibly also joyned to that body or for their sake as Mr. B. pag. 340 If Christ Gal. 3.16 bee not meant of Christ personal it is certain it is meant of no more then Christ mystical or the Church invisible and so 1 Cor. 12.12 the like is to be said And that it is so Ephes. 4. â— appears from the words where these are joyned one body and one spirit Therefore I deny that those texts are meant of the universal visible Church as visible but onely of that part of the universal visible Church of that time which was also of the invisible which is one by unity of the same spirit As for the universal visible Church it cannot bee said to bee one in several ages numerically for it is but the total of all the members then existent for if they bee not existent among the living they are not visible and they are sometimes the same sometimes others hee that is now of the visible Church may cease by death or apostasie to be so to morrow sometimes more sometime fewer but they are one in respect of profession of the same faith or in some other visible appearance to be of Gods people Now the infants of the Jews might be members of the visible Church universal of a former age but were not of the universal visible Church of that age which was not one numerically with the universal visible Church of a former age nor meant to be so 1 Cor. 12.13 2. Saith he Every one that is a mamber of the particular must needs be a member of the universal else one might be a part of the part and yet not a part of the whole Answ. It is true of the universal made up of those parts but he may be a member of the particular Church of uncircumcised as Cornelius who is not a member of the particular Church of the circumcised and he may be a member of the universal visible of one time who is not a member of the universal visible of another time A Jew before the offer of Christ might be a member of the Jewish Church national as the Pharisees to whom John Baptist Châ—ist and his Apostles preached yet were not members of the universal Church visible when they rejected the offer of Christ. Infants were members of the visible universal Jewish Church who were not so of the universal visible Christian in another â—ge Mr. Bs mistake is I conceive in this that he thinks the universal visible Church is one and the same in every age which is a gross mistake But he saith This is all beyond dispute and Mr. T. denied none of it when I urged it on him he confesseth 1. There is a universal Church visible 2. That the Jews Church was not the whole universal 3. That every one that is a member of a particular Church is also a member of the universal 4. And that the Jews infants were members of the universal 5. And this universal Church is not dissolved Answ. I have made some search whether ever I confessed that this universal Church visible of which the Jews infants were members is not dissolved and do not remember or find that ever I did so if I sholud I do revoke it as being most false and I rather think if I did yeeld any thing that seemed like it that what I confessed was that the nature or essentials of the Church are not dissolved in stead of which as I ghess by what follows Mr. B. put this as my confession He adds What then remains to be denied Why this is all that he saith to the whole that their membership in
Church who are not of the visible yet we may judge some infants at least are so though nonâ— be of the visible Church Again saith Mr. B. it appears that infants generally were of Satans kingdome visibly till Christ fetcheth them out Therefore those that are not fetcht out are in it still And no man can say they are fetcht out except by some means or other it be visible or discernable Heb. 2 14· Christ destroyed by death him that had the power of death that is the Devil Satan had this power of death visibly over infants as well as others Therfore seeing Mr. T. buildeth so much on this Apol. p. 66. That infants are neither in the kingdom of Christ nor Satan visibly till profession either be must prove that God hath left it wholly in the dark and not revealed that any infants are of Satans vâ—sible kingdom or of Christs the contrary whereof is abundantly proved or he must find out some 3d. kingdom or society and so find out some 3d. King bâ—sides the King of the Church and the Prince of this world and it 's like he wil bee put to finde out a third place for them hereafter besides heaven and hell Answ. It is a weariness to the flesh to write books it is much more when a man is to answer such scriblings as this of Mr. B. which being so magnified as it hath been and written with so much confidence and insolent provocations is a monument of the boldness and shallowness of readers and writers in this age What frivolous arguing are here Christ destroyed him that had the power of death Satan had this power of death visibly over infants as well as others Ergo they were of Satans kingdom as it is contradistinct to Christs visible Church till Christ by death fetcht them out If Satans power of death visibly over infants shew them to be in Satans visible kingdome as contradistinct to the visible Church doth not the same prove all the infants of believers to be in Satans visible kingdome as well as the infants of unbelievers yea doth it not prove the visible Church to be in Satans visible kingdome For over them Satan had this power of death as visibly as over the infants of unbelievers Yea wherein doth the power of death visibly shew a persons being in the visible kingdome of Satan more then Jobs smiting in his body by Satan or the womans who was a daughter of Abraham and bound by Satan 18. years shewed them to have been then in the visible kingdome of the Devil as contradistinct to the visible Churth Besides those that Christ is said to have fetcht out or delivered are those who through fear of death were all their life-time subâ—ect to bondage Heb. 2 â—4 Doth Mr. B. interpret this of infants Besides if it appear that infants generally were of Satans kingdome visibly till Christ fetcheth them out therefore those that are not fetcht out are in still And no man can say they are fetcht out except by some means or other it be visible or discernable How can Mr. B. say any infants of believers are fetcht out oâ— Satans kingdome visibly By what means is it visible or discernable that a believers infant is fetcht out of Satans visible kingdome and 〈◊〉 an unbelievers Christs death was visible it's true but that either Christs death did destroy visibly Satan or visibly delivered those who were subject to bondage or that by it is visible or discernable that a believers infant and not an unbelievers is fetcht out of Satan's visible kingdom is unknown to me The ordinary meanes whereby it is visible that a person is fetcht out of Satans visible kingdom is in that he hears obeys and professeth the Gospel Surely by this means or any other it is not visible or discernable that any infant of the most sincere believer is fetcht out of Satans visible kingdome therefore by Mr. Bs. own suppositions hee cannot say that any believers infant is fetcht out of the visible kingdome of the Devil and so his argument is retorted on him That doctrine which leaveth all infants in the visible kingdome of the Devil is false But such is Mr. Bs. according to his own suppositions Ergo. As for what hee would impose on mee it is false that God hath left it in the dark it is clear as light at noon that infants are neither in Christs nor Satans visible kingdome and yet they have Christ or Satan for their â—ing and are to bee in heaven or hell as they are elect or reprobate And therefore his talk of what I must finde out is but his prattle and of what hee hath abundantly proved is but his idle vapouring of himself 3. Saith hee Sure the Apostle calls the world them that are without as distinct from the Church visible who are within Col. 4.5 1 Thes. 4.12 And hee speaks it as the dreadfull misery of them those that are without God judgeth 1 Cor. 5.12 13. Now infants are either within or without and to bee without is to bee of the world which the Devil is by Christ said to be Prince of Answ. To bee without Mark 4.11 is to bee without not within Gods election to bee without Revel 22.15 is to bee without the gates of the city the new Hierusalem which I take to bee all one as to be cast into outer darkness as Christ terms it Either of these ways all infants are within or without but those without in the places cited by Mr. B. cannot bee said of infants for they are not persons towards whom wee are to walk in wisedome Col. 4.5 or honesty 1 Thes. 4.12 this beeing required that our example may not harden them but it were ridiculous to require this in respect of infants The Apostle doth not speak it as the dreadfull misery of them that are without that God judgeth them 1 Cor. 5.12 but onely mentions it as an intimation why they belonged not to his judgement nor doth hee in any of the places term them the world who are without the visible Church or Christ say that Satan is Prince of all that are not visible Churchmembers but of the world of reprobates and such as are contrary to Christ and in whom he rules nor is the term those that are without in any of those places taken for them that are without privatively for want of capacity to understand profess and act for Christ but for those who are positively without by the acts of their own will not receiving Christ nor embracing the profession of him such as were unbelievers fornicators idolaters c. 1 Cor. 5.10 11 12. Such as could observe and did stumble at the evil practises of the Christians Col. 4.5 1 Thes. 4.12 in which sense it is not true that infants are without though they be privatively or negatively without the visible Church SECT LXXIII Mr. Bs. 22. arg Ch. 27. that my doctrine leaves no ground of hope of salvation of infants dying is answered CH.
faith of Elders keep to the end which are most fitlâ— appliâ—d to doctrine make more probâ—ble as I noted in my Apology § 16. pag. 83. 2. Were the meaning of Austin about infant baptism yet there were no cause to rest on this testimony as credible 1. because it is but a speech in a popular Sermon in which men speak not exactly as in other writings 2. The words hoc Ecclesia usque in finem perseveranter custodit could be known onely by guess and conjectural presage it being of a contingent matter not by Divine revelation fore-told and therefore the other speeches as likewise other speeches as that tom 7. de pecc mer. remiss l. 1. c. 24. shew was his wont are to bee conceived as spoken not out of any good records but from that which he found observed in his time where he had been 3 Because serm 14. de verbis Apost he saith that Cyprian Epist. 59. ad Fidum quid semper Ecclesia sensit monstraverit though he onely set down what waâ— determined in that Council of Carthage which was in the third Century 4. There are so many speeches of the ancients false uncertain contradicting each other concerning Apostolical traditions universal observations that many Protestants have discredited them of which some testimonies are set down by me in my Pâ—aecursor sect 3. Salmasius appar ad libr. de primatu pâ—pae menâ—ions some other as pag. 134. All the Fathers with one accord make Paul and Peter founders of the Roman Church and yet were deceived Hierome saith it was in all the world decreed that one should be a Bishop over others and yet the Preface of Selden before Twisdens Collection of ancient British Histories shews it waâ— otherwiâ—e in Scotland of old And for Austin Epist. 118. ad Janu. c. 1 6. hee makes the anniversary solemnities of Easter c. of eating the Lords Supper fasting as always universally observed in which he was mistaken Mr. Cr. doth abuse me in making my argument as if I had said Easter was always held my words were If Austins rule were true then Easter should be from the Apostles not because I thought it true but because Austin thought so and so by his rule Easter must bee counted to come from the Apostles and his testimony is as good for it as for the universal observation of inâ—ant Baptism 5. Not onely Protestants but Papists also do now reject things observed by the Ancients as amply as infant Baptism Jewel Sermon at Pauls Cross p. 48. Usher answer to the Jesuits challenge p. 23. It was the use of the ancient Church to minister the Communion to infants which is yet also practised by the Christians in Egypt and Ethiopia The Church of Rome upon better consideration hath thought fit to do otherwise The putting milk and honey into the mouth of thâ—â—aptized the standing at prayer on Lords days between Easter and Whitsontide the baptizing at Easter persons catechised in Lent with many more are now left though Bellarmin l 2. de bonis operibus in particulari c. 17. tels us Abolitam esse consuetudinem baptizandi catechumenos absolvendi pâ—nitentes in paschaâ—e verum est apud Lutheranos caeterùm apud Catholicos ac praesertim in urbe Romana nullus est annus quo non multi Catichumeni in paschate baptizentur which I mention to shew that there arâ— some foot-steps yet remaining of the old baptizing â—p Jewel Deâ—ense of the Apology of the Church of England part 2. ch 16. div 1. saith there have been errours and great errours from the beginning hee mentions there and in the Sermon at Pauls cross baptizing for and of the dead giving the Communion to the dead body and therefore there and in his reply to Dr. Cole he rejects customs of the ancient Church and condemnes carrying home to the absent the Communion mixing water with the wine and many more things and still requires the Lords Supper and Baptism to bee administred according to the institution of Christ which if Mr. Cr. or any other can ever shew to have been of infant Baptism I will say as Bp. Jewel did concerning the 27. Articles propounded at Pauls Cross I am content to yeild and â—o subscribe otherwise Mr. Cr. and other Paedobaptistâ— by accusing mee as opposing the universal Church in Austins sense though I deny it to be true do but conâ—emn themselves who with Papists dâ— reject things counted by the writers of the 〈◊〉 aâ—es Apostolical and of universal observation near the Apostles timâ—s Nor is the 〈◊〉 prâ—pâ—sition of Mr. Cr. p. 67. true That the whole Church 〈◊〉 the â—postles in all ages collectively considered cannot err either in doâ—â—rine or disciplâ—ne For if the whâ—le Church might err so in one age it may also in all â—ges câ—llectively considered the promises being no more 〈◊〉 the Church in all ages colleâ—â—ively considered then in each age distriâ—utively considered nor anâ— means given to them after the Apostles colleâ—â—ively considered to keep from errour then to each distributively yea the Churches nearer the Apostles had more meanes to keep them from errour then other ages yet they erred in doctrine and discipâ—ine as many writers shew about Easter the Millenary opinion anâ— many other As for the promise Matth. 16 18. it is not true of the whole Church visible the gates of hell have and do prevail against them but of the invisible and yet the promise is not to the invisible that they shall not err but that they shall not erre finally to damnation which if they did then indeed the gates of hell or of death should prevail against them that is as Cameron rightly in his prâ—lection they should not rise to life eternal Nor is there a promise Joh 16.13 to the whâ—le Church but to the Apostles the promise being as well to shew them things to come as to lead them into all truth And yet the promise iâ— not so maâ—e to the Apostles but that they might err as Peter did Gal. 2. though when they taught the Church by writing or preaching they were so guided as that they should noâ— err But of this point of the militant Churches erring I need say no more but refer Mr. Cr. to his own Author Dr. Rainold thesi 3. 6. Were it granted that antiquity did universally pâ—actise infant Baptism yet neiâ—her were the present doctrine or practise justified by it but condemned and Mr. Cr. as truly may be said to pâ—eaâ— against the universal Church as my self For it is manifest from the places whâ—re there iâ— mention of it in the Ancients that they â—aught it and praâ—â—iâ—ed it onely upon the opinion of the necessity of iâ— to save an infant from perishing and because the very baptism did give grace remission of original sin made believers heirs of the â—ingdome of heaven and accordingly they practiseâ— it onely in case of danger of death very seldome and this they did to unbelievers children as well as believers 〈◊〉 a
Scripture to prove it Austin affirms lib. 10. c. 23. de Genes that the custome of our mother the Church in baptising of little ones iâ— in no wise to be despised nor to be thought superfluous nor at all to be believed unless it were an Apostolick tradition and yet proves the necessity of it from Joh. 3.5 unless one be born again of water and the spirit c. Answ. It was granted in my Examen that the greatest points of faith though written were by the Ancients called Apostolical traditions but in this point that the words ascribed to Origen meant an unwritten tradition I alledged 1. that the phraieâ— pro hoc ecclesia ab Apostolis traditionem suscepit and secundum Ecclesiae observantiam are sufficient proof to them who are acquainted with the Ancients writings of those times To this is nothing replied by Mr. Ms. friend Dr. Homes or M. Cr. to shew that these phrases are applied to any other then unwritten traditions when they are used of riâ—es for the use or institution of which they alledge no text of Scripture 2. That there is no text of Scripture cited for the use or instiâ—â—â—ion of infant Baptism To this it is replied that Origen layes the ground on the Scriptures But those Scriptures are brought for the proof of origiâ—al sin and the necessitâ— of infant Baptism which were reasons of the Churches observance not proofs of the use and institution of it And that the Scriptures do not give any proof of the use or â—nstitution of infant Baptism but onely grounds of the reasonableness and why the Church took it up is shewed to have been the judgement of many learned Papistâ— and Protestants of later and elder time in my Praecursor sect 20 which may bee easily observed because they alledge nothing out of Scripture about â—nstiâ—uâ—ion or practise of it but of neceâ—â—â—ty to save thâ— infant which being a mistake it appears â—he tradition waâ— not from the Apostles Besides as Augustin alledged Joh. 3.5 for infâ—nt Baptism so he also alledged Joh 6 53 for infant Communioâ— which hee and the Ancients observed aâ— an Apostolick tradition 〈◊〉 many Churches observe even to this day yet we conclude it is but an unwritten tradition and so judged by the Ancients All the places of the Fathers which cite Scripture for infant Baptism infant Communion Easter Lentâ—â—ast and many other things which the Ancients observed shewing rather the reason of their observation then the institution as Mr. Cawdrey speaks in another case Sabb. rediv. part 4. chap. 1. § 24. To the 20th section of my Praecursor Mr. Baxter in his Praefestinantis morator saith The Ancients took infant Baptism as you say for an Apostolical tradition but not unwritten The warrant they supposed written but not the history de facto Answ. The ancients must needs take infant Baptism for an unwritten tradition when they supposed the History neither de facto noâ— of the institution to be written though they â—ook the custome of the Church as Austin tom 3. l. 10. de Genes ad litteram c 23 terms iâ— having suâ—h reason from the necessity of it to save them perishing upon the mistake of Joh. 3.5 for their warrant But how poor a matâ—â—r was taken by the Church for a reason to coâ—tinue a custome may â—ppear even by those words of Austin in that place which shew also it was taken onely for a custome of the Church taken up by them and not appâ—inted by thâ— Apostles For having spoken as doubtfull and uncertain what to say about the question before agitated by him concerning the creation of the souls of the children from the parents becâ—usâ— of thâ— objection fro◠〈◊〉 Baptism of little ones he â—hen adds Yet the custome of ouâ— mother the Church in Baptising little oneâ— is not to be dâ—spâ—sed nor by any meanâ— to be accounted superfluous nor aâ— all to be believed unless it were an Apostolical tradition For that little age hath great weight of testimony which first meâ—ited to shed bloud for Christ. Whereby it may appear 1. That Austinâ—ook â—ook iâ— for a custome of the Church without example or institution written 2. That he took such a frivolouâ— pâ—â—â—ence as the death of the children of Bethlehem slain bâ— Herod Matth. 2. to have great weight of testimony for the believing of infant bapâ—ism to have been an Apostolical tradition It would be counted arrogance in me to censure the Fathers yet when I find such silly reasons as Austin here and elsewhere and Cyprian Epist. 59 ad Fidâ—m gâ—ve aâ— warrant for infant Bapâ—ism so slightly passed over by Mr. B. and otâ—ers aâ—d theiâ— testimonies still urged for the credit of infant Bapâ—ism which do wiâ—h any that is willing to see the weâ—kness of them discredit it I cannot but for the truths sake say that as in many other things so in this of infaâ—t Baptism the Fathers speeches are so vain as thâ—t there is more need to bewail the errour they have led peâ—ple into then to the continuance of thâ— deceiving of people by them to alledge them for proofs or to magnifie justifie or excuse them Mr. B. adds You might have spared all the 86. page where you prove that Papists take it for an unwritten tradition We know they are desirous of any pretence to set tradition above Scripture Yet you know Bellarmin and others commonly prove it by Scripture The words of Becanâ—s not § 24. as you say but § 12. yeeld the 〈◊〉 rightly interpreâ—ed to prove infant Baptism and that 's all that I desire I had thought that Chamiers answer to this might have satisfied you If you have forgot it peruse it again tom 7. lib. 9. c. 10. § 40 c. and tom 4. l. 5. c. 9. § 32. Answ. I could not well have spared any part of that page Not onely later Papists engaged in the modern controversies but also elder and disingaged Papists and others were alledged by me of whom it is not meet to suspect that they did acknowledge that infant Baptism is an unwritten tradition out of a deâ—re to set tradition above Scripâ—uâ—e but out of cleer evidence of the tâ—uâ—h of what they say Nor do I think Mr. B. can shew one Author until Luthers day who made infant Baptism any other then an unwritten tradition although they produce many of them Scriptures for the necessity reasonableness and lawfulness of the Church to use it to whose authority they ascribed too much in the appointing such rites and interpreting â—criptures to that end I do not finde that the engaged Papists cited by me did set tradition above Scripture bâ—t that they make it equall I grant I know Bellarmin tom 3. l. 1. de sacram bapt c. 8. brings three arguments from Scripâ—ure for infant Baptism and c. 9. saith deducitur evidenter ex Scripturis uâ— diâ—imus but how he means it hee 〈◊〉 us thus in the same chapter that though the argument of the Anabaptists from defect
much as the doctrine and practise of the Prelates 〈…〉 to the Scripture language is non sense the Church beiâ—g the number of persons taught and on whom bapâ—izing 〈…〉 not the personâ— teaching or practising who are stilâ—d â—he Elders of the 〈◊〉 in Sâ—â—ipâ—ure 2. That the Elders of any Church 〈…〉 Nâ—â—â—ianzen taugâ—â— that infant children indefinitely considered might be baptised and if dâ—â—ger â—pproached must how young soever they wâ—â—e 〈…〉 not pretended of any besides the Coâ—ncel mentionâ—â— in Cypâ—ian Epist. 5◠〈…〉 whicâ— it is true determined in opposition t◠〈◊〉 his scrâ—ple the lawfulness of baptizing any day but not of any infants who were likely â—o live without apparent shew of danger of death but â—aâ—her â—he contrary is manifest from their reason wâ—y they would hâ—ve them baptâ—zed any day afore thâ— 8th bâ—cause the son of man â—am to save mâ—ns souls as much as in us lies if it may be no soul is to be loâ—â— and therefore to be baptized any day afore the 8th Nâ—w this 〈◊〉 that 〈…〉 onely of those infants who being in apparent danger of dâ—ath would be lost if not baptized Nâ—w it is true 〈…〉 and it is as contrary to the 〈◊〉 of 〈…〉 position of the Papists thaâ— baâ—tism confers 〈…〉 that infants dying unbaptised peâ—â—sh and if 〈…〉 this doctrine and practise of the Church yet it doth prejudice the doctrine and practise of Protestant Paedobaptists who contrary to Nazianzens mind would not have infants baptized in that case onely or for his reason but would have infants baptized out of the case of imminent and apparent danger of death and not deferred upon a pretence of a Covenant right and visible Churchmembership as their priviledge not as necessary to avoid the danger of perishing 2dly saith Dr. Hammond that it is but his private opinion pretending not so much as to any part of the Church of that or former ages to authorize it Answ. 1. That Tertullian did in like manner determine as Nazianzen did that infants were not to be baptized but in case of imminent and apparent danger of death will appear in the examining of his testimony among the Latine Doctors 2. I know no reason why the counsel and opinion of these two should not as well be counted the doctrine and practise of the Church and to be of equal authority as Cyprians and his Councels Augustines and Hieroms 3dly Saith Dr. Hammond that the state of children being so weak and uncertain that 't is hard to affirm of any that they are not for the first three years in any danger his councel for deferring will hardly be ever practical to any Answ. The counsel of Nazianzen to baptize in case of danger was not of infants that are in any danger but of urgent or pressing danger as the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 press urge or impel shews And thus it is practical as the use of private baptism in those places where it is used doth sufficiently shew Fourthly saith he that the deferring of which Nazianzen speaks is most probably to bee understood of those whose â—arents are newly converted and themselves doubt whether they shall be yet baptised or no for to such he speaks in that place from p. 654. A. Answ. The reasons being general this restriction appears groundless not is the Drs. conceit of any validity that because four pages before â—e speaks to them therefore that counsel of his concerns their children onely Lastly saith he that the deferring till three years old if it were allowed would no way satiisfie the Antipaedobaptists pretensions and so still the former passages ought be of force with all and no heed given to the whispers of Mr â— and others as if that holy Father disswaded Baptism in any age unless in case of danger when he clearly saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Let him in the tenderest age be Baptised and consecrated to the spirit Answ 1. Why hee should call my words or writings whispers any more then his own sith they are audible enough were it not that I speak to deaf men who will not hear I do not deprehend I imagine they are louder then the Doctour would have them 2. Thaâ— men should not give heed to my words as well as the Doctours if they seek the truth impartially I know not sith where truth is sought both sides are to bee heard 3. It is true the deferring Baptism till three years old will not satisfie us as sufficient to rectifie the abuse of infant baptism is granted no nor till thirty except the person become a disciple and believer in Christ But it satisfies us in this that Nazianzens judgement was that little ones should not be baptized till they come to some understanding of the thing signified by baptism unless in case of imminent and apparent danâ—er of death though we conceive he allowed too short a time to instruct theâ— 4. If the word consecrated be meant of baptism and from the nayles signifie tender age yet it is not likely he meant this tender age of infancy sith hee made persons uncapable of baptisme by reason of infancy judged it better to have them first instructed If he did he would have it to onely in case of danger of death imminent But saith Dr. Homes p. 142. 1. If Greg. Nazianzen doth give reason why infants should bee baptised in case they are not likely to live to be of ripe years it is so much the better for us â—nsw I suppose the Doctour doth not think with Nazianzen that the danger of deaâ—h is a sufficient reason for the baptiâ—zing an infant for that ariseth from the Popish conceits of regenoration by Baptism ex opere operato and the necessity of it to save an infant from perishing And therefore Nazianzens reason must bee the worse for him sith it thwarteth his opiâ—ion of baptizing upon an imagined priviledge of Covenant holineâ—s and his practise of doing iâ— ordinarily to infants of Churchmembers out of that case And it would bee considered that where the ground of a practise is disclaimed the alleging of the practise correspondent to that ground and no further is impertinent for confirmation of the practise of the same thing in a different manner and upon a different ground as the Protestant Divines tell the Papists that their alleging the ancients commemoratiâ—n of the dead proves not the Popish prayiâ—g for the dead to be ancient as Dr â—sher at large in his answer to the Jesuits challenge sith the Popish praying is upon the opinion of Purgatory and for them that are there the Ancients for the Apostles Martyrs c. who are past Purgatory and for their resurrection in like manner concerning the allegations of the Ancients Monkery which either was necessary onely by reason of the incessant persecutions of those times or if voluntary yet with labour of their hands and so different from the Popish Moâ—kery which is idle besides Gods appointment volâ—nâ—â—râ— superstitious upon an imagined perfection in that
wâ—ich is indeed sinful And so for confirmation by laying on of hand anointing wiâ—h oyl use of the signe of the cross setting up lights and many more it is frâ—quentâ—y shewed that they countenance no the Pâ—â—ish confirmation extream unction use of the signe of the cross lighting candles at noon day in their â—â—mples c. because they were in different mâ—nner and for different reasons and purposes then they are now used by them And indeed the discovery of the different reasons manner and end of rites used bâ— the Ancients from that they are now used is of greatest moment to shew the novelty of the Popish Prelatical Paedobaptists usages who have not onely quite departed from the Scripture but also from antiquity even in those things which the Ancients practised indeed but not as they do Secondly saith Dr. Homes he doth give another reason beside that of partaking of common grace namely 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For it is better that they should be sanctified without a feeling of it then to depart without the seal So he thinks they are sanctified too in infancy as well as at riper years 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A reason also of this to us is Circumcision that was wont to be done on the 8th day c. Answ. 1 The first of these is no other then the partaking of common grace for to partake of the common grace is all one as to be sanctified onely with a little enlargement 2. The 2d is indeed rather a preventing of an objection that they could not be parâ—akers of the common grace without perceiving it rather then a further reason of baptizing them And the answer is from two examples one of curcumcision which was given to infants without the use of reason the other of the anoining or sprinkling the door posts whiâ—h were things insensitive bringing salvation to the first born which is such a woodden reason as Dr. Homes thought fit to let pass in this place Thirdly saith Dr. Homes Wee answer that all three reasons stand in force as well for all believers infants God putting them under the promise Gen. â—7 a for the infants that are in danger of death Answ. Whâ—tever force there is in the reasons which in my apprehension are frivolous to prove Dr Homes his opinion or practise yet sure in Nazianzens intent they are onely for the colouring over of the practise of infant baptism of any whether believers or unbelievers children onely in case of apparent danger of imminent death and not at all for countenancing baptizing of believers infants onely at all times as federally holy Fourthly saith Dr. Homes that Nazianzen urgeth divers divine reasons to him evincing for the baptism of infants in danger of death but for the delaying of others not in danger of deaâ—h he saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I give my opinion â—he calls it his opinion And what is it That 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 such children should stay till three or four years old more or less And what is to be expected from children of that age more then from infants toward baptism For Nazianzen himself confesseth that though they may hear and answer some spiritual things yet they understand imperfectly But doth Nazianzen give us there any Scripture for this differing None Doth he give any reason Even in effect the same as for baptizing of infants in danger of death to wit that they may be sanctified in mind and body Answ. 1. T is true Nazianzen gives one reason for baptizing infants in case of danger of death which is the sanctifying them by it not divers reasons the examples of Circumcision and anointing the door pâ—sts being answers to an objection as I said before Now that reason is so far from being Divine that it is from a meer superstitious conceit as if the meer outward Baptism did sanctifie Nor is it the same reason in effect for differing baptism three or four years with that which hee gives for infant baptism in case of danger of death For though he supposeth in both Baptism sanctifies yet he takes infant Baptism to sanctifie onely the body the other to sanctifie body and mind He supposeth they may learn some spiritual thing though imperfectly and so the baptism may be a sign to them though obscure and there may be some memory of what is done though confused which though it be not as it should be yet it is better and more agreeable to Scripture then the infant Baptism where there is no signification to the baptized nor remembrance of it 2. Be it granted that Nazianzen expresseth but his opinion and that it betters not the thing much and his reasons not so right as they should have been there is in this passage this evident that infant Baptism was no tthen common as now nor upon such reasons as now nor approved of as now it is but out of the case of danger of death imminent apparently disswaded and consequently the present common infant baptism an innovation from what was in that age Dr. Hammond adds That Chrysostome in his Homily to the Neophyti hath these words For this cause i. e. because there be so many benefits of baptism there recited ten in number we baptise children though they have not sins and that he flourished in the beginning of the fift Age. Answ. Though finde in two Homilies one in the fifth the other in the sixth tome of Chrysostomes works of Eton print some speeches unto the newly inlightned or planted yet I finde not these words there nor any where else in any of his homilies Yet I deny not them to bee Chrysostomes finding them in Augustin tom 7. l. 1. against Julian the Pelegian ch 2. But perhaps if the words before were viewed it might be discerned whether the Baptism of little ones then used were onely in case of danger of death apparently imminent or without that case It is likely hee meant that infants or little children were baptized onely in case of danger of death imminent sith many of his Homilies express even that where these words cited were exhortations to the newly baptized and the relation of his life testifies that when hee was persecuted by the Empress and was about to baptize on the solemn festival in which Baptism was used the persons men and women that were to be baptized by him fled away naked being ready to be baptized upon his apprehension which shews they then baptized persons naked And the occasion of the speech as sâ—t down by Austin shews it was done upon the conceit of giving them grace which is manifest by the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for this cause And the particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 also in the Greek shews there was mention of baptizing others then little children And in the same place Austin saith â—ohn Chrysostome held believed and taught this not onely that little children were not onely to be baptized but also to have the Eucharist or Lords Supper for without
his flesh and bloud they could not have life As for the other place Dr. Hammond ciâ—es in Chrysostoms 40th Homily on Genesis that Baptism is lawfull in the first age I yeeld that Chrysostome did in that age allow infant Baptism but I think the Dr. cannot shew that he held it was to bee done out of the case of apparent danger of imminent death or that the practise of baptizing them out of that case was ordinary It is most evident by many proofs that both then and some agâ—s after the ordinary usual baptizing was of chatechized persons at the solemn feasts when most in the Empire were by profession Christians SECT LXXXX The arguments to prove Infant Baptism an innovation Exam. pag. 9. are made good against Mr. Marshal and Dr. Homes WHereas Mr. M. had said in his Sermon pag. 3 that it is manifest out of most of the Records that wee have of â—â—iquity both in the Greek and Latin Church that the Christian Church hath been in possession of the priviledge of baptising the infants of believers for the space of 1500. years and upwards I said in my Examen p. 9. But it is wonder to mee that if it were so manifest as you speak you should finde nothing in Eusebius for it nor in Ignatius nor in Clemens Alexandrinus nor in Athanasius nor in Epiphanius that I mention not othâ—rs To this Mr. M. or his fâ—iend replies that I add three arguments to shew that Infant Baptism was not known in the Greek Church but therein he abuseth me for I addâ—d them not to that end but to shew that it was not so manifest as Mr. M. said that it was not universally known To my mention of the silence of Eusebius c. he saith 1. The question was not started then as the Fathers spake not clearly of the traduction of original sin before it was denied by the Pelagians 2 That it is enough to him that none of the â—uthors named by me spake against it Answ 1. The question of the Hieracites was raised in Epipâ—anius his time which did lead to speak of infants Baptism and yeâ— Epiphanius allegeth not inâ—ants Baptism against them though it had been for his purpose 2. Sure Eusebius that writes the Ecâ—lesiastical story and such as wrote the history of the Church had occasion to mention it is â—hey do the Bâ—ptism of persons of age he use of the Loâ—ds Supper the meetings of Christians the orders of the Church the ordinations oâ— Bishops and other things and would it iâ— were so manâ—fâ—st as Mr. M. said it was â—3 It may be they spake not against it because there was â—o question about it Buâ— it is lâ—kely there was no question about it because there was in the first ages no practise of it or very obscure For as soon as it began Tertullian put in some excâ—ptions against it and after him Nazianzen 4. If the Fathers afore Poâ—â—gius arose did not speak clearly of original sin then it is likely the paâ—â—ages in Origen on Levit. Rom. Luk. were nor his sith they speak clearly of the traduction of original sin and that speech of Vâ—ssius Hist Pel. l 2 â—artâ— th 6. p. 153. is right For who can at this day discern what passages were the brats of Origen or his paraphrasts Hee adds 1. If any thing were brought out of Ignatius you would tell mee that you did not know Ignatius when you see him Answ. 1. Though Ignatius Epistles be very doubtfull yet I incline to think some of them to be his which we have and that genuine passages may be discerned from spurious 2. If any pâ—ssage though spurious were to be found in him for infant Baptism Paedobaptists would not stick to produce it who make no conscience to allege the words falsly ascribed to Justin Martyr in the book of questions and answers to the Orthodox and stick not to maintain the allegation of it as his thâ—ugh it mention Origen whom Dr. Homes imagins Justin Martyr might hear of though he died by his confession anno 169. and Origen waâ— not born till about 156. as the passages in his Animado on my Exercit. p 111 112 127. compared do shew Besides the allegation of the Book of Ecclesiastical Hierarchy as Dionysius the Areopogites the questions ad â—ntiochum as Athanaâ—â—us his shew that neither this Authour nor other Paeâ—obaptists are ashamed to allege bastard writings which say any thing for infant Baptism Concerning Clemens Alexandrinus he tels me Defence p. 19. You desire to know what Clemens Alexandrinus saith which is not true why sure he had none but greâ—t infants to be his Schollers I conceive he means pâ—ofessed Pagan infidels But I tâ—ink this not true sith in his writings he directs Christians and opposeth heretiques if you who pretend to bee acquainted familiarly which is very false with the secrets of antiquity be acquainted with him you 'l know what I mean He desired as it is likely more Greek Fathers who were converted from Paganism did to set forth religion in such a way as might move other Pagans to come and confess the Christian saith that so they might bee added to the Church by Baptism in such a way as was proper to the baptising of grown men Which is true and confirms my presumption that when he speaks of Baptism as he doth lib. 1. paedag c 6. and elsewhere he would have mentioned infant Baptism and its benefit to the same end if it had been in his time in use as Mr. M. in his sermon said Concerning Athanasâ—us he speaks thus What say you to that passage in Athanasius Where he is shewing how wee are buried with Christ in â—aptism and rise again he 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 Athan. dicta interpretatio script q 94. is not that testimony plain Answ. It is But whâ—se is it Is not that Book one of those suppositiâ—ious writing in the 2d tome of Athanasius works of which Scultetus Medul patrum part 2. l. 1 c. 42. saith qu dam nullo judicio videntur con cripta quae se satis produn Among which also are the quaestions to Antiochus out of which Mr. M. or â—is friend pag. 20 21. cite two testimonies onâ— out of quaest 2 and another quaest 114 and saith the woâ—ds are safe and sound builâ— on a â—osâ—el ground owned by all the reformed Churches which make infants of believers baptised to enter into the Kingdome of heaven excluding the unbaptized which hitherto hath bâ—â—n termed Popery Nor is hee excused â—rom abusing Readers with these bastard writings by saying the words following may be erroneous and yet written by Athanasiuâ— when the words following are part of the answer which is erroneous and they are so connex that they must bee the same Authors As for the words How do you prove what you allege out of Tertullian and
iâ— his also but still baptism or to remove all pâ—â—sible mistake baptizing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Matth. 28.19 is an act of the Baptizer onely and so the Ceremony of receiving into Discipleship whomsoever they thus duely baptize I hope I need say no more of this Answ. I said not baptizing but Baptism the Ceremony not â—s the Dr. misâ—recites my words oâ— receivers into Discipleship but of receiving into discipleship is as truely the aâ—â— of the baptized thereby pâ—ofessing or avouching hâ—s discipleship as of the Baptizer and therefore the baptized is not meerly passive in it nor an infant doth undeâ—go it And I prove it thus 1. Baptism is a duty of the baptizâ—d as well as of the baptizer as may bee proved from Acts 2.38 where the Apostle exhorts them to repent and bee baptized every one of them in the Name of Christ Jesus for the remission of sins Now that which a man is exhorted to as his duty is his own act Ergo. Iâ— any say it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the passive voice hee may understand that Luk. 11.38 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 though it bee the same sense and voice yet notes the action of the baptized 2. It is manifest also from the command to Paul Acts. 22.16 that baptism is the act of the baptized For first it is a thing commanded to bee done by him 2. It is in the middle voice 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which though I deny not to have a passive signification yet here 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cannot have any other then active signification because of the accusative cause following so neither can the other both being injoyned as duties and the washing away sins being not meant of forgiveness of them but turning from them baptism being the signe of his repentance and both being to be joyned together Acts 2.38 and therefore Baptism being called Markâ— 4 Acts 19.4 3. Baptiâ—ing into the Name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost notes the aâ—â— of tâ—e baptized as well as the baptizer and thiâ— is fully taught by Dr. Hammond himself practic cat lib. 6. sect 2. where he saith â— â— baptize thee into the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost â— being prâ—scribed by Christ to his Disciples must indispensably be used and the meaning of them is double 1. On the Ministers part that what he doth hee doth noâ— of himselâ— but in the Name or power of or by Commission from the blessed Trinity which by the way I am sure none can 〈…〉 â—pparent 〈…〉 when they baptize infants much less when â—hey onely sprinkle them 2. And more especially in respect of the peâ—son baptized 1. That he acknowledges these three aâ—d by desiring baptism makes profession of that acknowledgment which is in effect the sum of the whole â—reed 2. That as he acknowledges these three so he delivers himself to them as to the three principles or authors of faith or Christian religion and acknowledges no other as such as to be baptised in the name of Paul signifieâ— to say I am of Paul i. e. toâ—â—â—has â—â—â—has and all other to receive for infallible truth whatsoever is taught by any of these and noâ—hing else 3. That he delivers himself up to be ruled as an obedient servant by the directions of this great master a willing Disciple of this blessed Trinity and so the Greek phrase â— into the name doth import and these thâ—ee acts of the baptised together make up his part by way of condition required of him to make him caâ—able of that grace which the Minister from God thus conveys upon and ensures unto him Besides which it notes the calling on the Name of the Father by the Son through the hâ—ly Spirit as Acts 22 1â— shews where Paul is bid to be baptized or baptize himself calling on the name of the Lord when baptized and this I have proved to be meant 〈◊〉 Luk. 3.21 and other 〈◊〉 Review part 2. sect 5. p. 8â— â—0 9â— So that baptism 〈◊〉 as well or rather more the ceâ—emony of thâ— baptized 〈◊〉 â—â— the baptizer Which might be proved from thoâ—e texts which speak 〈◊〉 the use of it as Rom. 6.3 4. Col. 2 1â— Gal. 3 26 27. 1 Cor. 12. â—3 in all which and sundry more the act of the baâ—tâ—zed is noted who dâ—th thereby signifie his baptism into â—hrists death being 〈◊〉 by baâ—tism into death and his rising to newness of life putting on Christ â—oyning into one body c. which I have cleered more fully in the same pâ—ace pag 6 97 8 â—9 And this the Dr saith 〈…〉 iâ— more especially meant by baâ—tising into the Name of the Father Son and Holy spirit 〈…〉 their act as wâ—ll as the administrators 4. Iâ— baptism were not as truely the act of the baptized as the baptizer tâ—en it should be tâ—uâ— baptism if the baptizer did dâ—p withâ—ut an concuâ—â—◠〈◊〉 of the bapâ—ized yea â—hough he weâ—e forced to it and against his will put undeâ— water and this were warrantably done by the baptizer For he should do what â—s prescribed But this is absurd neither School men nor any other allow such baptism vide Th. Aquin. sum part 3. qu. 68. art 7 10. The Spaniards driving the Indians into the water forcibly for baptism and their going in thus under water is excepted against as neither rightly done nor true baptism Therefore certainly baptizing prescribed Mat. 28.19 doth comprehend not onely the act of the administratour but also the act of the baptized in yeilding to it and concurring with it When Peter Acts 10.48 commanded Cornelius and those with him to be baptised in the name of the Lord there were three acts concurrent 1. The Apostles command by way of authority appointing it to be done 2. Oâ— the administratour by way of Ministry 3. Of the baptized by way of submission and putting himself under water Yet hee is noâ— thereby a meer Sebaptist as iâ— is reported some heretofore have been but is partly passive in consent and sâ—bmission to what the baptizer doth and partly aâ—tive in concurring with him So that my speech is cleered from being gross as â—â— Dr. would Dr. H. adds His second branch of exception is to those words of mine Wherein I say thaâ— the making or receiving Disciples supposeth not any precedent instruâ—tion but looks wholly on it as subsequent Against this I gave reasons of dissent thus 1. That which is exprest in Matthew by Go ye therefore and make Disciples all Nations is in Mark Go ye into all the world and preach the Gospel â—o every living creature which sâ—ews how they should disciple all nations now they who are made Disciples by preaching the Gospel are made disciples by precedent instruction Ergo the making or receiving disciples Matth. 28.19 supposeth precedent instruction But to this saith the Dr. I answer 1. That the words in Mark are no otherwise parallel to those in Matthew then as an Epitome is
from these words that in the Churches of Cyprus the rite of Confession was usual afore Baptism where he also saith that Basil. exhort ad bapt writes that no other then catechized persons were baptized who were called together at Easter Although I deny not that there was sometimes infant Baptism yet by all the instances of the rite of Baptism gathered by those Historians in that place it appears to have been very rare and onely in the case of apparent peril of immanent death And this is very probable to have been the reason why Socrates hist. l. 5.22 relating diversities of several Churches about persons that had power to baptize and the time in which Baptism was commonly administred and Sozom. 7 19. several customes of several Churches neither exclude nor mention infant â—aptism because it was so rare a thing to baptize an infant and done so obscurely that no instance is apparent of it in any history in that or the foreâ—going â—ges And Dr. Homes p. 171. wrongs me in saying Mr. T. himself chargeth Augustin and Cyprian that they thought too many infants were to be baptized namely all that had Christian parents or undertakers for these latter words are not mine though I yeeld the former to be true To my instance of Augustins latâ— Baptism it is said by Mr. M. defence p. 46. One swallow makes not a spring peradventure some though born of Christian parents were not in that age baptized in infancy yet that is no way prejudicial to the universal practise of the Church in which Paedobaptism was received But by his leave it is a great evidence and seemed so to Strabo nearer to those times then we are that infant Baptism was not so univerâ—al as Mr. M. makes it when so â—minent a person of so eminently goâ—ly a mother did not take care to have him baptized in infancy But besides wee have the words of Optatus Mâ—lâ—vitanus about the same tiâ—e in his 4th bâ—ok against â—armenian the Donatist thuâ— No man is ignorant that every man who is born though he be born of Christian parents can be without the spirit of the world which it is necessary should be excluded and separated from the man before the saving Baptism This Exorsim does by which the unclean â—â—irit is driven out and made to flye into desert â—laces The â—ouse is made empty in the breast of the believer the house is made clean God enters and dwels as the â—postle saith ye are the Temple of God and God dwelâ— in you Whence it is apparent that even those who were born of Christian parents were believers afore they were baptized though I deny not that it was not the common doctrine that infants should be baptized nor do I make that inference which Mr M. intimaâ—es I do from that example of Augustin that children of Christians by profession in that age were not baptized in their infancy but that they were seldome so nor except in case of appaâ—ent danger of imminent deaâ—h Which is manifest by the instance of Augustin Mr. M. and Dr. Homes impute the delay of Augustins Baâ—â—ism either to his Fathers hindering who was not then a Christian or to friends permission of him to have his own will or to persecution But all these are but mere shifts his own words conâ—es l 1. c. 11. declaring the true state of the thing whicâ— are thus I had heard being a boy of eternal life promised us by the humility of our Lord God descending to our pâ—ide and I was already signed with the signe of his cross and was sâ—asoned with his salt already even from the womb of my mother who much hoped in thee Whence it is apparent that she was then a Christian when she bare him in her womb and dedicated him to Christianity but did not baptize him After he goes on and saith Thou sawest Lord when I was yet a boy and on a certain day pressed with a pain of the stomack I was suddenly sick almost about to dye thou sawest my God because thou wast my keeper already with what motion of minde and with what faith I asked from the piety of my mother and thy Church the moâ—her of us all the Baptism of thy Christ my God and Lord. And the mâ—ther of my flesh was troubled because also she did bring forth my everlasting salvation with a chast heart in thy faith now being very hasty did take care that I might be initiated and washed with saving Sacraments confessing thee O Lord Jesus unless I had been presently recreated Therefore my cleansing was delayed as if it should bee necessary that I should be defiled if I did live because to wit after that washing greater and more dangerous guilt of sins in filthiness would be So I did already believe and she and all the house except my Father alone who yet did not overcome in me the right of my mothers piety that I should not believe in Christ as he had not yet believed Whence it may be easily perceived 1. That the childe of a godly affectionate Christian who devoted him to Christ and educated him for Christ yet was not baptized then in infancy nor by the Church reâ—uired to be bapâ—ized 2. That when he was sick and like to die when hee was but a boy he earnestly required from his mother and the Church baptism 3. That it was not to have been done without his confession of Christ. 4. That his recovery afore it could be done put it off and no other reason was thereof but that living he was likely to be more guilty of sin if baptized so young 5. That baptism was counted cleansing and a greater and more dangerous guilt apprehended if he did sin after baptism 6. That even then he did believe and his mother and all the house excepâ— his Father and yet it hindred not his Christianity not is it lâ—kely could or would hinder his bapâ—ism in infancy if his mother and the Church had thought it meet or it had been the use out of the case of apparent danger of imminent death As for Adeodâ—tus it is apparent his Father believed before he begate him and he was brâ—d up by him in Gods discipline as he saith l. 9. confes c. 6. and though the Father was not baptized yet the Grandmother was and yet Adeodatus was not baptized till 15 years old and for Alipius it is somewhat pâ—obable hee was born of Christian parentage and bred up so but not baptized till of age However that were the case of Augustin is full to prove what I concâ—ived For a further declaration of the practise of infant Baptism I alledged Grotius his words who conceived the baptism of infants more frequent in Africa then in Asia or other parts of the world and he gave his reason of it because of the mention of it in the African Council at Carthage not in like manner in other Councils to which Mr. M. saith the Councils might not mention it because none did
scruple it But it is more likely none did scruple iâ— because there was no occasion to do so there being little or no practise of it which is made very probable from the 6th Canon of the Council of Neocaesarea anno 315. and the words of Nazianzen before mentioned As for the constitutions of Clement in one whereof they are bid baptize their little ones Mr. M. doth well to confess they are not Clements and if the compiler of them did relate the ancient customes of the Greek Church hee did relate later customes also among which that of baptizing infants is to bee conceived one for the reasons given Grotius annot in Matth. 19.14 saith And many of the Greeks from every age unto this day keep the use of deferring the baptism of little ones till they could make confession of their own faith But of this before sect 89.90 I said that I did not find in Affrica infants baptized but in case of danger of death or for health of body Dr. Homes saith he hath shewed the contrary out of several antiquities and particularly out of Cyprian But neither in Cyprian nor any where else do I find it but the the contrary in Tertullian And as for Augustine it was not as he â—aith that Augustines sickness whiles young was some occasion of deferring his baptism for that time but his sickness occasioned the hastning and his recovery ere it was done put it off for that time Nor doth mâ— saying that they baptized infants for health of body which is manifest from Augustines 23d Epist. to Bonifacius clash with that which I said of Augustines asserting the necessity of infant baptism to take away original sin and ascribing salvation to it for he both might and did conceive it to be done for both ends My mention of the continued use of catechizing in Augustines time and long after and the mention of baptizing whole Countries upon the baptizing of their Kings was very pertinent though not to shew no infants were baptized then yet to shew how and by what means the ancient custome of baptizing ordinary believers upon profession of faith after catechizing was so strangely changed that whereas the preface in the common prayer book before the administration of baptism saith it appeareth by ancient writers that the sacrament of baptism in the old time was not commonly administered but at two times in the year at Easter and Whitsontide At which times it was openly ministered in the preâ—ence of all the congregation the persons to be baptized having been before catechized now it is quite otherwise so that in most Protestant and popish Countries baptism is ordinary even of infâ—nts at all times in obscure manner and except of late in these nations in which God hath begun to restore the right use of baptism and what Bellarmin in his 2d book de bonis operibus in particularâ— C. 17. saith that in the City of Rome there is no year in which there are not many baptized at Easter who were catechised the baptizing of believers is almost unheard of and counted a hainous thing and punished in some parts as a crime deserving death or banishment So great is the enormity of Paedobaptism and so great the wickedness of Paedobaptists The 2d and main exception I took against Augustines judgement which might move us to examine his reasons was the ground upon which Augustine Ambrose and generally the Popish paedobaptists held and urged infant baptism to wit the damning of the infant if dying unbaptized which made Augustine to be termed the hard Father of infants and affrighted so people in after ages and doth to this day that they will have their children by all means as they count it baptized it 's no matter by whom it be done nor how so somewhat be done else they count them lost To this which is of so great moment to shew the abuse of Paedobaptism it is said that Augustine pressed it upon other grounds but that doth not appear he urged it it is true from circumcision but upon the same ground that the uncircumcised male should be cut off from Gods people nor did â—e so retract his errour but that he still held infants should be damned although with the mildest damnation of all How the schoolmen and others do follow Augustine Mr. Perkins shews in his probleme and many elsewhere and the Common Prayer both in allowing at first Baptism by Midwives and in their Preface in the administration of Publique Baptism do plainly shew it was the mind of the composers of that book at first noâ— is there any thing therein or any of the Ancients oâ— Baptism as belonging to infantâ— of believers as federally holy Which is a strong evidence that Augustines judgement was very corrupt in this point and that the Baptism of infants was introduced and grew to such an excess upon that errour and for that reason both Augustines judgement and it are to be suspected as evil and to be rejected A 3d. Exception against Augustines judgement to shew that he and Cyprian were in these points of Sacraments not to be restâ—d on was That Augustine Epist. 23. relates the story in Cyprian de lapsis about the giving the Wine to a girl with credit to it and some use of it without dislike of the custome yea l. 1. de pâ—cc mer remis c 20 he makes giving infants the Eucharist necessary to salvation alledging Joâ— 6.53 for it and ch 2. he makes it an ancient and Apostolick tradition to give the Communion to infants besides what he saith Epis. 106. â—07 to the like pâ—rpose and he ascribes to John Chrysostome l. 1. adv Juâ— c. 2 the like and Eâ—is 93. Innocentius Bishop of Rome held the like and this not onely Maldonat on Joh. 6. acknowledged to continue 600. years in the Church from Cyprians time to Charls the Greats time as â— remember the account is but also Erasmus Resp ad Archâ—ep Hisp. Chamier paus cath tom 4. l. 1. c. 13. § 5. Gataker de Bapt. infant vi p. 269. say the use of infant Communion was ancient and to the objection that this was not defined Dr. John Rainold Apolog thes § 10. answers nor doth Mr. M. or Dr. Homes deny it but Mr. M. asks What is your argument hence I answer There is no reason to rely on Auguâ—tines judgement concerning the antiquity and necessity of infant Baptism or to press it on others who did so fouly mistake about the antiquiâ—y and necessity of giving the Communion to infants nor to adhere to the Ancients determinations and use about infant Baptism who did erre so much about infant Communion For as Mr. Gataker de Bapt. in s vi p. 200. saith about Augustins authority conceâ—ning infant Baptism it will not seem equal to press the adverse party concerning the other authority of those whose judgement in the other thy self declinest But how Augustine doted about infant Communion is manifest therefore it is not reason to urge