being members of the church of God by an act of opinion grounded on probable hopes for the future But to make them actually members of the visible Church is to overthrow the definitions of the visible Church that Protestant writers give particularly the Church of England Art 19. who make the visible Church a number of Chrâ—stians by profession to make a member of the visible Church â—o whom the note of a member of the visible Church doth not agree to make them visible members that are only passive and do nothing by which they may be denominated visible Christians Yea it will follow that there may be a visible Church which consists only of Infants of believers for a number of visible members makes a visible Church It is also true that we are not to account Infants of believers to belong to God before God in respect of election from eternity or promise of grace in Christ or present estate of in being in Christ or future estate by any act of science or of faith without a particular revelation for there is no generall declaration of God that the Infants of present believers indefinitely all or some either are elected to life or are in the covenant of grace in Christ either in respect of present in being or future estate Mr. Cotton The Covenant of Gods free-grace p. 15. Fifthly it is ordered in regard of the persons to whom it is given Gal. 3.16 It was given to Christ and in Christ to every godly man Gen. 17.7 and in every godly man to his seed God will have some of the seed of every godly man to stand before him for ever Against this passage I except That when he saith that the covenant of grace is given in every godly man to his seed he exprâ—sseth himself in an unusuall phrase so obscurely that his meaning is not easily conceived For when he saith it is given in every godly man If he mean it as he said in the words next before in Christ to every godly man that every godly man should be to his seed as Christ to eveâ—y godly man this were to make every godly man a mediator to his seed as Christ is to eveâ—y godly man which would be blasphemy If he mean that every godly man is a root of the Covenant as Abraham it is most false sith this is proper to Abrahamâ—lone â—lone to be the father of the faithfull Rom. 4.11 And the root that beares the branches whether naturall or ingrafted Rom. 11.16 c. And when he saith it is given to his seed he speaks indefinitely which may be understood universally to all his seed which is most manifestly false or else particularly as the words following seem to import But neither is this true as shall be presently shewed Nor doth he tell us whether the covenant of grace be given to the godly mans seed absoluâ—ely as his seed which if he affiâ—m then he must affirm the covenant of grace is given to all the seed of evâ—ry godly man for Quatenus ipsum includes de omni That which is said of any thing as such agrees to all that are such Or whether it be given conditionally Now it is true that some promises do sâ—ppâ—se a condiâ—ion as justification presupposeth believing and if this be the meaning the Covenant of grace is given to every godly man and in every godly man to his seed if they do believe then it is no more then the Covenant of grace is given to every godly man and then it is but trifling to adde and in every godly man to his seed sith nothing more is expressed but what was said before nor any thing convayed from the godly man to his seed some promises have no condition as the promise of writing Gods Laws in our hearts for if any condition be put we shall fall into Pelagianisme that grace is given according to our merits 2. That which he saith he saith without any proofe at all yea contrary to the expresse words of the Apostle Rom. 4.11 l2 13. Rom. 9.6 7 8. Gal. 3.7 14 29. who limiteth this promise Gen. 17.7 to the seed of Abraham and the seed of Abraham he explains to be the elect and believers only whether of Jews or Gentiles and those of the Jews that are in that Covenant not to be in that Covenant because Abrahams naturall seed though God have more regard in his election and covenant of grace to Abrahams naturall seed then to any other godly mans naturall seed that hath been since but as his seed by calling And for that which he saith God will have some of the seed of every godly man to stand before him for ever meaning this as I conceive of election and covenant of grace or some state consequent upon these it is but a bold dictate without proofe imposing on Gods counsell and covenant especially sith God hath declared so expresly after the Covenant Gen. 17.7 That he will have mercy on whom he will have mercy Exod. 33.19 whence the Apostle infers Rom. 9.18 an unlimited freedome notwâ—thstanding his Covenant to Abraham to shew mercy on whom he will any other being passed by and therefore that promise wâ—s made good to Abraham in the calling of the Gentiles Rom. 9.24 Rom. 4 16 17. yea John Baptist saith That God could raise up children to Abraham out of stones Mat. 3.9 And for the thing it selfe it is not true That God will have some of the seed of every godly man to stand before him for ever For millions of godly persons die childlesse as Abel c. millions that have children yet their posterity are rooted up Were there not other godly persons from Seth to Noah besides thâ—se mentioned in the Genealogy Gen. 5. yet it is certain that none of their seed stood before God at the time of the Flood but Noah and some of his Is it not more likely that none of Elies children or Samuels stood before God in Mr. Cottons sense Besides if that which Mr. Cotton saith were true how is it that the Candlestick is removed quite from some people and the naturall branches broken off and the branches besides nature even of the wilde Olive graffed into the true Olive Then suppose a godly man have but one childe that childe must infalliby stand before God It is said indeed Jer. 35.19 and Mr. Cotton seems to allude to it Jonadab the son of Rechab shall not want a man to stand before me for ever But this standing before God is not meant of election to eternall life and the covenant of grace but of preservation in the destruction of Jerusalem and being after the Captivity of Babylon Scribes as Junius annot in Jerem. 35.19 gathers from 1 Chron. 2.55 and for ever is in many places meant of a temporall duration for some ages This digression will not be thought unnecâ—ssary by those that know how apt many are to swallow down such mens dictates without examination But I proceed Nor are we
Secondly the teachers of this opinion where ever they prevaile take their Proselites wholy off from the Ministery of the Word and Sacraments and all other acts of Christian Communion both publique and private from any but those that are of their owne opinion condemning them all as limbes of Antichrist worshippers and followers of the Beast This is indeed a wicked practise justly to be abhorred the making of sects upon difference of opinion reviling separating from their teachers and brethren otherwise faithfull because there is not the same opinion in disputable points or in cleare truths non-fundamentall is a thing too frequent in all sorts of Dogmatists and yet so contrary to common charity which teacheth us to beare all things to the rules of heathens who could say Non eadem sentire duos de rebus iisdem incolumi licuit semper amicitia It hath bin alwayes allowed that friends should differ in opinion about the same things yet continue fâ—iends much more against that neare concorporation of Christians that I looke upon it as one of the great plagues of Christianity you shal have me joyne with you in shewing my detestation of it Yet neverthelesse First It is to be considered that this is not the evill of Antipaedobaptisme you confesse some are otherwise minded and therefore must be charged on the persons not on the assertion it selfe and about this what they hold you may have now best satisfaction from the confession of faith in the name of seven Churches of them Art 33. and others following Secondly It is fit when such things happen that godly Ministers should looke upon it as their affliction take occasion excutere semetipsos to search themselves whether they have not by their harsh usage of their brethren unjust charging them misreporting their tenents stirring up hatred in Magistrates people against them â—nstead of instructing them unsatisfying handling of doubtfull quâ—stions and by other ways alienated them from them And I make bold to let you understand that among others you have beene one cause at my startling at this point of Paedobaptisme remembring a very moveing passage which is in your Sermon Preached and printed on 2 Chron. 15.2 Concerning the hedge that God hath set about the 2. Commandement that you admire that ever mortal man should dare in Gods worship to meddle any jot further then the Lord himselfâ— hath commanded I Come after you Thirdly this opinion puts all thâ— Infants of all believers into the self-same condition with the Infants of Turkes and Indians And so doth the opinion of Cyprian with his 66. Bishops that would have Gods grace denyed to none And so do the words of the grave confutation of the Brownists put forth by Mr. Rathband Part. 3. pag. 50. Children may be lawfully accounted within Gods Covenant if any of their Ancestors in any generations were faithfull Exod. 20.5 But it may be you do not so I pray you then tell me wherein you make their condition different Possibly if you open your selfe plainly there will be no difference between us I will deale freely with you herein 1. Concerning Gods Election I am not certaine any more concerning the election of a believers Infant then an unbelievers I rest upon Gods words I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy Rom. 9.15.2 For the Covenant or promise of grace that is righteousnesse and life in Christ though I acknowledge a peculiar promise to Abrahams naturall posterity mentioned Rom. 11 27. Yet I know not that God hath made such a covenant to any much lesse to all the naturall seed of any believing Gentile if you can shew me such a Character I shaâ—l count it a treasure but I dare not forge such grants 3. Yet I grant that the present estate of a believers Infants hath a more comfortable likelihood that they are in Gods election then the infants of Turks and Indians both because they have their parents prayers and the Churches for them they have some promises though generall indefinite and coÌ„ditional we find by experience God doth very frequeÌ„tly coÌ„tinue his Church in their posterity though it often happen that the childâ—eÌ„ of godly parents prove very wicked But this I dare not ground upon any promise of free grace made to the child of a believer as such for feare leâ—t I incurre blasphemy by challenging a promise which God doth not keep nor upon any pretended law of friendship lest that objection râ—flect on me Is there unrighteousnesse with God Rom. 9.14 which the Apostle thought best to answer by asserting to God the most absolute liberty v. 15.18 4. That the condition in respect of future hopes of a believers Infant is a thousand times better then of a Turk or Indian because it is born in the bosome of the Church of godly parents who by pâ—ayers instruction example will undoubtedly educate them in the true faith of Christ whereby they are not only as the Turks children in potentia Logica in a Logick possibility or in potentia remota in a remote possibility but in potentia prâ—quînqua in a near possibility to be believers and saved And surely this is a great and certain priviledge enough to satisfie us if we remember the distance between God and us Nor do I feare to be gored by any of the three horns of your Syllogisme of which one you say must unavoidably follow The first is That either all are damned who die in their infancy being without the Covenant of grace having no part in Christ. But this follows not there is no necessity from any thing said before of their condition that all of them should be damned or be without the Covenant of grace having no part in Christ God may choose them all or some take all or some into the covenant of Grace which is I will be thy God and the God of thy seed that is mine Elect Rom. 9.8.11 into communion with Christ who dyed for the Elect Rom. 8.33 34. notwithstanding any thing I have said of their condition The second is Or else all are saved as having no originall sin and consequently needing no Saviour which most of the Anabaptists in the world do owne and therewith bring in also all Pelagianisme universall grace free-will c. This I imagine is the error you conceive depends upon Anti-paedobaptisme I finde Mr. Blake stands much upon this in his Birth-right-priviledge pag. 17. where he saith The Anabaptists in this present age well see that all that joyn in this tenent saile between those rocks either to affirm that infants die in their pollution or perish in their birth-sin or else to deny this originall pollution or any birth-sin at all But for my part I see no reason of this unlesse it be granted that no infant can have sin forgiven unlesse it bâ— baptized May it not be said that some or all infants are saved notwithstanding their birth-sin by the grace of God electing them putting them into Christ uniting
but a derivative holines a holines derived to them froÌ„ their ancestors the first fruit is holy the lump holy the root holy the branches holy that is the fathers holy accepted in covenant with God the children beloved for their fathers sake and when the vail of unbelief shall be taken away the children and their posterity shal be taken in again because beloved for their fathers sakes Now then if our graffing in be answerable to theirs in all or any of these three particulars we and our children are graffed in together Your argument needs a swimmer of Delos to bring it out of the deep I will dive as deep as I can to fetch it up the thing it seems you would prove is that we and our children are grâ—ffed in together but the words are Metaphoricall and therefore obscure they may be true in a sense and yet not for your purpose The insition you speak of may be either into the visible or invsible church the graffing in may be either by faith or by profession of faith or by some outward ordinance Children may be either grown men or infants the graffing in may be either certain or probable certain either by reason of election covenant of grace made by them or naturall birth being children of believers probable as being likely either because frâ—quently or for the the most part it happens so though not necessary so not certain The thing that is to be proved is that all the infants of every believer are in the covenant of free grace in Christ by vertue thereof to be baptized into the communion of the vâ—sible church now it may be granted that infants of believers are frequently or for the most part under the election covenant of gracâ— whâ—ch whether it be so or not no meere man can tâ—l and so in the visible chuâ—ch yet it not follow that every infant of a believer in asmuch as he is tâ—e child of a beliâ—ver is under the covenant of grace therefore by baptisme is to be admitted into the visible church now let it be never so probâ—ble that God continues his election in the posterity of bâ—lievers accordingly hath promised to be thâ—ir God in his covenant of grace yet if this be the rule of baptizing children of beleivers no other infants are to bâ— baptized but such as are thus the practise must agree with the rulâ— so not all infants of believers are to be baptized but the elect in the covenant of grace If it be said but we are to judge all to be elected in the covenant of grace till the contrary appeares I answer that we are not to judge all to be â—lâ—cted or in the covenant of grace because we have Gods declaration of his mind to the contrary Rom. 9.6 7 8. and all experience proves the contrary to be truâ— nor is the administration of an outward ordinaÌ„ce instituted by God according to such a rule as is not possible to be known but according to that which is manifest to the ministers of it therefore sith God conceals his purpose of election and the covenant of grâ—ce which is congruous to it in respect of the persons elected it is certain God would not have this the rule according to which outward ordinances are to be administred because such persons are in the election and covenant of grace not others You say our graffing in is answerable to the Jews and their infants were graffed in by circuÌ„cision therefore ours are to be graffed in by baptism But in good sadnesse doe you thinke the Apostle here meanes by graffing in baptizing or circumcision or insition by an outward ordinance if that were the meâ—ning then breaking off must be meant of uncircumcising or unbâ—ptizing The whole context spâ—aks of election of some and rejection of others of the breaking off by uâ—beliefe and the standing by faith and your selfe seeme to understand the phrase so when you say pag. 43. to cut miserable man off from the wilde olive and graffe him into the true olive Tâ—e ingraffing to me is meant of the invisible church by election and faith which invisible church was first amongst the Jews and therefore called the olive out of Abraham the root who is therefore said to beare them And because Abraham had a double capacitie one of a naturall father and another of the father of the faithfull in respect of the former câ—pacitie some are called branches according to nature others wilde olives by nature yet graffed in by faith and when it is said that some of the naturall branches were broken off the meaning is not that some of the branches in the invisible church may be broken off but as when our Saviour Christ saith using the same similitude Joh. 15.2 Every branch in me not bearing fruit he taketh away The meaning is not that any branch truely in him câ—uld be fruitlesse or taken away but he calleth that a branch in him which was only so in appearance So the Apostle speaking of branches broken off meanes it not of such as were truely so but in appearance For similitudes doe not runne with four feet but vary in some things Now if this be the meaning of your words that the insition of the Gentiles is the same with the Jewes and the insition is meant of ingraffing by faith into the invâ—sible church it onely proves this that now beleâ—vâ—rs of Gentiles are by faith in the church of the elect as the Jewes but neither the beleeving Jewes Infants were in the covenant of grace becâ—use their children nor are our children But let us consider the three particulars you speake of that we may examine whether there be any shew of an argument for your purpose in this text You say as plaine it is out of the eleventh of Rom. 16 c. where the Apostles scope is to shew that we Gentiles have now the same graffing into the true olive which the Jews formerly had and our present graffing in is answerable to their present casting out and their taking in in the latter end of the world shal be the same graffing in though more gloriously as ours is now The Apostles scope in the whole chapter is plaine to answer that question v. 1. Hath God cast away his people which he doth 1. by shewing for the present in himselfe and others perhaps unknowne That God had then a remnant according to the election of grace 2. For the future from ver 11. to the end that he intends a calling of all Israel when the fulnesse of the Gentiles shall come in and ver 16. is one argument to prove it It is not the scope of the Apostle as you say To shew that the Gentiles have now the same graffing into the true Olive which the Jews formerly had but to prove that the Jews notwithstanding their presâ—nt defraction shall be graffed into their owne Olive But for the thing it selfe You say That the Gentiles havâ— now
you thus expresse ANother you shall finde Mat. 28. where our Saviour bids them goe and teach all Nations baptizing them in the Name of the Father of the Sonne and of the Holy Ghost Where you have two things first what they were to doe Secondly to whom they were to doe it they were to preach and teach all things which he had Commanded them that is they were to Preach the whole Gospel Mark 16.15 The whole Covenant of grace containing all the promises whereof this is one viz. That God will be the God of Believers and of their seed that the seed of Believers are taken into Covenant with their Parents this is a part of the Gospel preached to Abraham The Gospel which was preached to Abraham is delivered Galat. 3.8 9. And the Scripture foreseeing that God would justifie the heathen through faith preached before the Gospel to Abraham saying In thee shall all Nations be blessed so then they which be of faith are blessed with faithfull Abraham And Rom. 1.16 17. I am not ashamed of the Gospel of Christ for it is the power of God to salvation to every one that beleeveth to the Jew first and also to the Greeke For therein is the righteousnesse of God revealed from faith to faith as it is written the just shall live by faith The like may be proved out of Rom. 10. and elsewhere but it is no wrong to say it that it is a new Gospel to affirme that this is one of the Promises of the Covenant of grace that God will be the God of Believers and of their seed that the seed of Believers are taken into Covenant with their Parents I cannot derive it's pedegree higher then Zuinglius But you goe on And they were to baptize them that is to administer Baptisme as a seale of the Covenant to all who received the Covenant this is a dark Paraphrase you expresse it clearer pag. 35. Expresse Command is there that they should teach the heathen and the Jewes and make them Disciples and then baptize them If your meaning be the same in both places I am content you should Comment on your own words you goe on Secondly Wee have the persons to whom they were to do this all Nations whereas before the Church was tyed to one Nation one Nation onely were Disciples now their Commission was extended to make all Nations Disciples every Nation which should receive the faith should be to him now as the peculiar Nation of the Jewes had been in time past In a word Nations here are opposed to the one Nation before I grant that Nations are opposed to one Nation and that thâ— Commission was extended to all Nations which you expresse well pag. 44. Whereas before they were to goe to the lost sheepe of the house of Isâ—ael now they were to goe unto all the world But what sense those woâ—ds may carry Every Nation which should receive the faith should be to him now as the peculiar Nation of the Jewes had been in time past is doubtfull For either it may have this sense Every Nation that receives the faith that is Believers of every Nation shall be to mee a peculiar people as the Jewes were in the sense that Peter speaks 1 Pet. 2.9 and so the sense is good or thus When a Nation shall receive the faith that is a great or eminent part the Governours and chief Cities representative body shall receive the faith that Nation shall in like manner have all their little ones capable of Baptisme and counted visible members of the Church as the posteritie of the Jewes were in the time of that Church administration This I guesse is the businesse that is now upon the anvill by observing â—undry passages in latter Writers with whom your Sermon agrees as if it came out of the same forge Mr Blake pag. 20. hath these words In the same sense and latitude as Nation was taken in respect of the Covenant of God when the Covenant and Covenant-initiating-Sacrament was restrained to that one onely Nation where their Commission was first limited in the same sense it is to be taken unlesse the Text expresse the contrary now this Commission is enlarged This cannot be denied of any that will have the Apostles able to know Christs meaning by his words in this enlarged Commission But Nation then as is confessed did comprehend all in the Nation in respect of the Covenant and nothing is expressed in the Text to the contrary therefore it is to be taken in that latitude to comprehend Infants Mr Rutherfurd in his peaceable and temperate plea Ch. 12. Concl. 1. Arg. 7. hath these words Seeing God hath chosen the race and nation of the Gentiles and is become a God to us and to our seede the seede must be holy with holinesse of the chosen Nation and holinesse externall of the Covenant notwithstâ—â—â—ing the father and mother were as wicked as the Jewes who slew the Lord of glory And indeed those Paedobaptists are forced to say so who justifie the practise of baptizing foundlings infants of Papists excommunicate persons Apostates if they be borne within their Parish thereby directly crossing their own tenent That this is the priviledge of a believer from the Covenant of grace I will be the God of a believer and his seed And the Apostles words 1 Cor. 7.14 according to their own exposition which is that the children whereof one of the parents is not sanctified by the faith of the other are federally uncleane nor considering that this practise of baptizing all in the Parish arose not from any conceit of the federall holinesse of a Nation but from the conceit of Cyprian with his 66 Bishops that the grace of God is to be denied to none that are borne of men upon which ground and the necessitie of baptisme to save a childe from perishing as of old so still among the common people and officiating Priests children are baptized without any relation to Covenant-holinesse particular or nationall But I leave this to the Independents to agitate who have in this point the advantage and returne to the Text Mat. 28.19 Concerning which the question is what 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or them refers to in our Saviours words whether all Nations must be the substantive to it without any other circumscription or the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 men and women as the Author of infants baptizing proved lawfull by Scriptures or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Disciples included in the verbe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which may be translated make Disciples That Author denies not but that the verbe may signifie to make Disciples yet by the subject matter which it is here taken and used to expresse it must be taken for to teach and not to make Disciples because to mâ—ke Disciples was not in the power of the Apostles upon whom the command lay it being the peculiar of God to frame the heart to submit unto and embrace the Apostles teaching and to
2. 38 39. Luk 19.9 Annot. on the Bible edit 1645. on Acts 2.36 The promise is unto you Christ is promised both to Iewes and Gentiles but the Iewes had the first place §. 7. Of the text Rom. 11.16 So also the new Annot. on Rom. 11.16 Arminius l. 1. Antiperk p 3. Sect. 6. Infantes in parentibuâ— avis abavis atavis tritavis Evangelii gratiam repudiarunt quo actu meruerunt ut a Deo desererentur velim enim mihi c. Perpetua enim est foederis Dei ratio quod filii in parentibâ—â— comprehendantur censeantur Cui opponit Tuissus ibidem Nec us piam in sacris literis significatur Deum ejusmodi foedus cum homine lapso pepigisse ut si crederet adipisceretur gratiam sibi posteris contra si non crederet sibi posteris suis gratiam amitteret cujusmodifoedus sub conditione obedientiae cum Adamo initum fuisse omnes Theologi agnoscunt §. 8. Of the Text 1 Cor. 7.14 Tertul. lib. 2. ad uxorem cap. 3. Fideles Gentilium matrimonia subcuntes stupri reos esse constat arcendos ab omni communicatione fraternitatis ex literis Apostoli dicentis cum ejusmodi nâ—c cibum sumendum Grot. annot in Mat. 19 5. nulla autem arctior amiâ—itia quaÌ„ mariti uxoris quae communionem requirit affectuum corporis prolis vitae denique totius quam rem esse vere sacram id est non humaniâ—us sed divinitus repertam magno consensu gâ—ntes â—â—ed derunt Grâ—t annot in Maâ— 5.8 So ent pro eodem usurpari 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 §. 9. Of the succession of Baptisme into the place room and use of Circumcision §. 10 Of the notion under which the reasons for which persons were circumcised shewing that all persons that were circumcised were not in the covenant of Grace §. 11. Of the priviledges of Believers under the Gospel and whether the want of Infant-Baptisme be want of a priviledge of the covenant of Grace which the Jews had §. 12. That the command to circumcise male Infants is not virtually a command to baptize Infants §. 13. That Mat. 28. is not a Command to baptize Infants but contrary to it Master Balâ—y A diswasion from the error of the times ch 8. p. 175. argues from this very text in like manner to prove that only Ministers have power to preach the Word ordinarily §. 14. Of examples in Scripture of Infants Baptisme particularly of baptizing of housholds §. 15. Of an infants capacity of inward grace the Text Mat. 19.14 and of the inconsequence of Paedobaptisme thereon Grot. annot ad Mat. 9.18 notum erat Judaeis solere Deum Prophetis hunc exhibere honorem ut in alios dona sua conferret ad prophetarum preces quarum symbolum erat manuum impositio Ad Mat. 19.13 pro pueris etiam eo ritu preces concipi solitas manifestum est ex Gen. 48.14 15. Exinde Hebraeis semper observatum ut ad eos qui sanctimonia praestare caeteris crederentur pucros deserrent ipsorum precibus Deo commendandos 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 qui mos bodie apud ipsos manet Hunc autem morem Christus probans ostendit isti etiam aetati prâ—desse aliorum fidem ac preces §. 1. Of the first objectioÌ„ from institution Mat. 28.19 and the practise of John Baptist and the Apostles Cotton in his way of the Churches of Christ in New-England Chap 4. sect 6. And indeed the Commission which Christ gave his Apostles holdeth it forth that they were by preaching to make disciples before they baptized them and their children Mat. 28.19 Now a disciple is a Scholler in Christs schoole and therefore when the Apostles were directed to make disciples before they did baptize them they were not onely to coÌ„vert them to the faith but also to gather them as disciples or schollers into a schoole of Christ. Cotton The way of the Churches of Christ in New-England Chap. 1. sect 1. prop. 4. In the times of John the Baptist such as were received into baptisme they did first make confession of their sins and therewith of their repentance and of their faith also in him who was to come after him Mat. 3.13 Act. 19.4 5. And in the times of the Apostles Philip received â—he Eunuch unto baptisme not untill he had made professioÌ„ of his faith in Christ Jesus Act 8.37 Cham. Panstr Cath. tom 4. l. 5. c. 15. §. 19. Hiritus omnes professionis fidei c. ab ipsae baptismi institutione habuerunt originem nec debeÌ„t omitti tantum proaetatis ratione dispensari §. 2. Of the second objection and therein of the condition prerequisite to Baptisme Videatur Chamierus Panstr Cath. tom 4. li. 5. c. 15. Grot. annot on Mat. 28.19 §. 3. Of the third so called objection and therein of the knowledge requisite concerning the person to be baptized §. 4. Of the fourth Objection therein of the stipulation of Baptisme Cotton The way of the Churches of Christ in New-England ch 4. Sect. 5. The Word of God receiveth none to the fellowship of the seals of the covenant but such as professe their takâ—ng hold of the covenant §. 5. Of the fifth Objection and therein of the benefit that comes by Infant-Baptismâ— Dr. Twisse The doctrine of the Synod of Dort Arles c Part 2. § 3. p. 121. I willingly confesse that the Sacrament of Baptisme is the seale of the righteousnesse of faith unto us Christians as Circumcision was unâ—o the Jews Rom. 4. which is as much aâ— to say that it assures us of the remission of our sins as many as believe and I conceive it to be a visible signe of invisible grace and that not of justification only unto them that believe but of the grace of regeneration also but how not at that instant collatae but suo tempore conferendâ— to wit when God shall effectually call a man and it is very strange unto me that regeneration should go before vocation Sâ—e more to the same purpose in the same Author part 3. §. 6. §. 6. Of the sixth objection and therein of Infant-coÌ„munion by vertue of their being in the Covenant the Lords Supper succâ—eding the Passeover Cotton The way of the Churches of Christ in New-England Chap. 1. sect 2. To the Passeover all Jewes were admitted young and old unlesse defiled with some pollution §. 7. Of the first use and the Anabaptists supposed bloudy sentence §. 8. The Epilogue containing some expressions and motions of the Author Mr Stalhams Epistle before a Conference at Terling in Essex
he might sanctifie every age so that here Irenaeus speakes not of being borne againe by Baptisme for it is said who are borne againe by him that is by Christ. Not as if he had baptized infants but because he was an infant that by the example or vertue of his age he might sanctifie infants as the whole context will shew which is this Magister ergo existens Magistri quoque habebat aetatem non reprobans nec supergrediens hominem neque solvens suam legâ—m in se humani generis sed omnemâ—tatem sanctificans per illam quae ad ipsum erat similitudinem Omnes enim venit per seipsum salvare omnes inquam qui per eum renascuntur in Deum Infantes parvulos pueros juvenes seniores Ideo per omnem venit aetatem infantibus infans factus sanctificans infantes in parvuliâ— parvuluâ— sanctificans hanc ipsam habentes aetatem simul exemplum illis pietatis effectus justitiae subjectionis In Iuvenibus Iuvenis exemplum Iuvenibus fiens Sanctificans Domino sic et senior in senioribus ut sit perfectus Magister non solum secundum expositionem veritatis sed secundum aetatem sanctificans simul seniores exemplum ipsis quoque fiens deinde usque ad mortem pervenit ut sit primogenitus ex mortuis ipse primatum tenens in omnibus princeps vitae prior omnium et praecedens omnes Which he confirmes by the testimony of Iohn the Apostle from whom he saith those that conversed with him related that Christ lived about fifty yeares which all sorts of writers doe reckon among Irenaeus his blemishes and thereby shew how little credit is to be given to the too much entertained Apostolicall traditions THe next Greeke Author is Origen who you say lived in the beginning of the third Century Perkins and Vsher place him at the yeare 230. but for his works as of old they were counted full of errours and dangerous to be reade so as now they are we can hardly tell in some of them what is Origens What not for the originall being lost we have only the Latine translation which being performed in many of his works and particularly the Homilies on Leviticus and the Epistle to the Romanes by Ruffinus it appeares by his owne confâ—ssion that he added many things of his own insomuch that Erasmus in his censure of the Homilies on Leviticus saith that a man cannot be certaine whether he reades Ruffinus or Origen and Perkins puts among Origens Counterfeit works his Comentary on the Epistle to the Romans as being not faithfully translated by Ruffinus the like is the judgement of Rivet and others and I suppose did you reade the passages themselves you cite and consider how they are brought in and how plaine the expressions are against the Pelagians you would quickly conceive that those passages were put in after the Pelagien heresie was confuted by Hierom and Augustine who often tells us that the Fathers afore that controversie arose did not speake plainly against the Pelagiens and of all others Origen is most taxed as Pelagianizing Wherefore Vossius in the place aforenamed though he cite him for company yet addes sed de Origene minus laborabimus quia quae citabamus Graece non extant But what saith the supposed Origen In one place that the Church received this tradition of baptizing infants from the Apostles in another according to the observance of the Church baptisme is granted to infants you adde as foreseeing that this passage would prove that then it was held but a tradition that then the greatest points of faith were ordinarily called traditions received from the Apostles and you cite 2 Thes. 2.15 To which I reply true it is that they did call the greatest points of faith though written traditions Apostolicall as conceiving they might best learne what to hold in points of faith from the Bishops of those Churches where the Apostles preached and therefore in prescriptions against Heretickes Tertullian Irenaeus and others direct persons to go to the Churches where the Apostles sate specially the Romane Church which seemes to have beene the seed of Appeals to Rome and the ground of the conceit which was had of the Popes unerring Chaire But it is tâ—ue also they called Apostolicall traditions any thing though unwriâ—ten which was reported to have come from the Apostles as the time of keeping Easter and many more which was the fountaine of all corruptions in discipline and worship And that in those places you cite is meant an unwritten tradition not only the not citing any Scripture for Baptizing of Infants but also the very Phrases Pro hoc et Ecclesia ab Apostolis traditionem suscepit Secundum Ecclesiae observantiam are sufficient proofe to them who are acquainted with the Ancients writings of those times So that yet you have not proved that the baptisme of Infants was time out of minde that it had beene received in the Church or was delivered over to the Church in Origens time and was of ancient use in the Church afore his time But these passages prove that in the time when the framer of those passages wrote it was accounted but an Apostolicall tradition according to the observance of the Church Like speeches to which are found in Pseudo-Dyonisius in the end of his Hierachy and Augustin lib. 10. de Genesi ad literam c. 23. and elsewhere which argue that it was held as an Ecclesiasticall tradition in those times THe fourth and last of the Greeke Church you name is Gregory Nazianzen who is by Perkins placed at the yeare 380. by Vsher 370. much short of 1500 yeares and upwards you say that Orat. 40. in Baptismum he calls baptisme signaculum vita cursum in euntibus and commands Children to be baptized though afterwards he seemed to restraine it to the case of necessity But doth he seeme onely to restraine it to the case of necessity the words are plaine that he gives the reason why Infants in danger of death should be baptized 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that they might not misse of the common grace but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he gives his opinion of others that they should stay longer that they might be instructed and so their minds and bodyes might be Sanctified and these are all you bring of the Greek Church By the examination of which you may perceive how well you have proved that it is manifest out of most of the Records that we have of antiquitie both in the Greeke and Latine Church that the Christian Church hath beene in possession of the priviledge of baptizing the infants of beleivers for the space of 1500. yeares and upwards Whereas the highest is but a bastard Treatise and yet comes not so high if it were genuine the next without a glosse which agrees not with the text speakes nothing to the purpose the third is of very doubtfull credit the fourth which was
Italy and all Europe and it seemes he denyed not the baptizing of growne persons in Asia still whence I collect that even in the Latine Church after Augustines dayes in sundry ages the baptizing of persons of growne age did continue as well as baptizing of infants till the great darknes that over-spred the Wâ—sterne Churches spoiled by Barbarâ—us Nations destitute of learned men and â—uled by ambitious and unlearnâ—d Popes when there were none to Catechizâ— and therefore they baptized whole Countries upon the baptisme of the King of that Country though both Prince and people knew little or nothing of Christianity but were in respect of manners and knowledge Pagans still which hath beene the great cause of the upholding of Papacie and corrupting of Christian Churches I mean this great corruption of baptizing making Christians giving Christendome as it is called afore ever persons were taught what Christianity was or if they were taught any thing it was only the ceremonies and rites of the Church as they called them 2. You may conceive how light Augustine's juâ—gement was by considering the ground upon which Augustine held and urged the baptisme of Infants so vehemently which was as all know that read his works the opinion he had that without baptisme Infants must be damned by reason of originall sinne which is not taken away but by Baptisme yea though he wanted baptisme out of necessity urging those places Joh. 3.5 Rom. 5.12 continually in his disputes against the Pelagianâ— particularly tom 7. de natura gratia c. 8. And tom 2. ep 28. he saith Item quisquis dixerit quod in Christo vivificabuntur etiam parvuli qui sine Sacramenti ejus participatione de vita exeunt hic profecto contra Apostolicam praedicationem venit totam condemnat ecclesiam And in the close of the Epistle calls it robustissimam fundatissimam fidem qua Christi ecclesia nec parvulos homines recentissime natos a damnatione credit nisi per gratiam domini Christi quam in suis Sacramentis commendavit posse liberari And this Perkins in his Probleme proves was the opinion of Ambrose and many more And hence as Aquinas so Bellarmine proves baptisme of Infants froâ— Joh. 3 5. And this hath been still the principall ground The ground that you go on that the covenant of grace belongs to believers and their seed I cannot find amongst the Ancients Yea as you may perceive out of Perkins in the place alleadged although Ambrose and Augustine in his 4. book de Baptismo contra Donatistas c. 22. yielded that either Martyrdome or the desire of Baptisme might supply the defect of Baptisme and some of the School-men Biel Cajetan Gerson do allow the desire and prayer of parents for children in the wombe in stead of baptisme Yet we finde no remedy allowed by them but actuall baptisme for children born into the world So strictly did Augustine and the Ancients urge the necessity of Baptisme for Infants born 3. You may consider that Augustine held a like necessity of Infants receiving the Lords supper from the words Joh. 6.53 as is plainly expressed by him lib. 1. de peccat merit remis c. 20. And accordingly as in Cyprians time the Communion was given to Infants as appears by the story which he relates of himself giving the Communion to an Infant in his book de lapsis mentioned by August epist. 23. So it is confested by Maldonat on Joh. 6. that Innocentius the first Bishop of Rome held it necessary for Infants and that this opinion and practise continued about 600 yeares in the Church though it be now rejâ—cted by the Romane Church in the Councel of Trent 4. You may consider that Augustine held such a certainty of obtaining regeneration by Baptisme that not only he puts usually regeneration for Baptisme but also he makes no question of the regeneration of Infants though they that brought them did not bring them with that faith that they might be regenerated by spirituall grace to eternall life but because by Baptisme they thought to procure health to their bodies as is plain by his words epist. 23. ad Bonifacium Nec illud te moveat quod quidam non ea fide ad Baptismum percipiendum parvulos ferunt ut gratia spiritali ad vitam regenerentur aeternam sed quod eos putant hoc remedio temporalem retinere aut recipere sanitatem non enim propterea illi non regenerantur quia non ab illis hac intentione offeruntur celebrantur enim per eos necessaria ministeria By which last words you may perceive how corrupt Augustine was in this matter so as to excuse if not to justifie their fact who made use of Baptisme in so profane a manner as to cure diseases by it which is no marvaile if it be be true which is related of the approbation that was given of the Baptisme used by Athanasius in play amongst boyes 5. You may consider that in the same Epistle when Bonifacius pressed Augustine to shew how Sureties could be excused from lying who being asked of the Childs faith answered He doth believe for even in Baptisme of Infants they thought in all ages it necessary that a profession of faith go before He defends that act in this absurd manner Respondetur credere propter fidâ—i Sacramentum And thence is he called a believer because he hath the Sacrament of faith Which as it is a ridiculous playing with words in so serious a matter before God so it is a senslesse answer sith the interrogation was of the Childs faith before it was baptized and the answer was given before and therefore it cannot be understood of believing by receiving the sacrament of faith which came after 6. It is apparent out of the same Epistle that Infants were then admitted to baptisme whether they were the children of believers or not it was no matter with what intention they brought them nor whose children were brought yea it was counted a work of charity to bring any children to baptisme and in this case the faith of the whole Church was counted a sufficient supplement of the defect of the parents or bringers faith So that whereas the present defenders of Infant-baptisme pretend Covenant-holinesse a priviledge of Believers it was no such matter in the time of the Ancients but they baptized any Infants even of Infidels upon this opinion That Baptisme did certainly give grace to them and if they dyed without baptismâ— they did perish And thus I grant that it is true the Epistle of Cyprian is cited and approved by Augustine but neither is Augustine to be approved for approving it nor doth it advantage your tenet that you have cited his citation of it NExt to Augustine you place Hierom and it is true that he cites and approves Cyprians Epistle in the end of his third book of his Dialogues against the Pelagians and he cites and approves and commends Augustine's books de peccat merito
father into his covenant he takes the children in with him If he reject the parents out of covenant the children are cast out with them If you mean this taking in and casting out in respect of election and reprobation it is not true neither if you mean it of the Covenant of grace for that is congruous to election and reprobation Nor is it true in respect of outward Ordinances the father may be baptized heare the Word and not the child and on the contrary the father may be deprived and the child may enjoy them Nor is it true in respect of Ecclesiasticall censures the father may be excommunicated and the sonne in the Church and on the contrary And about that which you say there is no certainty in the Paedobaptists determination Rutherford The due right of Presbyterie p. 259. saith The children of Papists and excommunicate Protestants which are borne within our visible Church are baptized if their forefathers have been sound in the faith But others will deny it But it is true as well of Paedobaptists as of Anabaptists that like waves of the Sea they beat one agninst another You tell us That it was without question in the time of the Iews Gen. 17.9 And when any of any other Nation though a Canaanite or Hittite acknowledged Abrahams God to be their God they and their children came into covenant together That when Parents were circumcised the Children were to be circumcised is without questioâ— Gods command is manifest Whether this make any thing for baptizing Infants is to be considered in its place But that which you say It was in the time of the Iews if God did reject the parents out of the covenant the children were cast out with them is not true Parents might be Idolaters Apostates from Judaisme draw up the fore-skin again and yet the children were to be circumcised But in all this there is no Argument THe first Text you dwell upon is that Act. 2.38 39. and thus you speak And so it continues still though the Anabaptists boldly deny it Acts 2.38.39 When Peter exhorted his hearers who were pricked in their hearts to repent and to be baptized for the remission of sins he useth an argument to perswade them taken from the benefit which should come to their posterity For the promise saith he is to you and to your children and to all that are afar off even as many as the Lord our God shall call if once they obey the call of God as Abraham did the promise was made to them and their children VVhether they who obey this call were the present Jews to whom he spake or were afar off whether by afar off you will mean the Gentiles who as yet worshipped afar off or the Jews or any who were yet unborn and so were afar off in time or whether they dwelt in the remotest parts of the world and so were afar off in place The argument holds good to the end of the world Repent and be baptized for the remission of sins and ye shall receive the Holy Ghost for the promise is made to you and your children they shall be made free of Gods city according to Abrahams copy I will be thy God and the God of thy seed It is a very irksome thing to Readers and especially to Answerers when they that handle a controversie give a text for their assertion and make a paraphrase of it but shew not how they conclude from it by which meanes the enemy is more hardly found then vanquished I wish if ever you write any more in this kind you would distinctly expound and then frame your arguments out of the text you produce for the present I shall devorare taedium swallow downe the tediousnes of this defect as well as I can You do not distinctly tell us what that promise was onely I gather it is that which you after expresse calling it Abrahams copy I will be thy God and the God of thy seed But then you do not distinctly tell us under which part you comprehend the promise to them whether under the first part I will be thy God or under the second I will be the God of thy seed It may seem you thus parallel'd them I will be thy God with the promise is unto you and the God of thy seed with that the promise is to your children But I must see better proofe then yet I have seen afore I assent to this construction I wil be thy God that is of every believer though the Author or infants bâ—pâ—izing proved lawfull by scriptures page 4. sâ—ith It is plaine and manifest by the Gramaticall construction of this promise I professe that I neither know rule in Grammar Logicke or Divinity for that interpretation and yet I thinke all the strength of your proofe lies in this imagined parallelisme Nor doe you tell us of what thing this promise was which you parallel with Abrahams copy I will be thy God and the God of thy seed whether it was a promise of saving graces or outward priviledges Onely that which you bring in of Zaccheus to interpret it let him professe the faith of Christ and the covenant of salvation comes to his house seemes to import that you conceive the meaning thus if you once obey the call of God as Abraham did the promise of salvation is to you and your children and sith you answer the second objection which you call a shift by rejecting the limiting of to you and your children with those words as many as the Lord shall call the sense must be this The promise of salvation is to you and your children whether the Lord our God call them or not But this proposition I know you will not stand to though as you handle the matter this is made the Apostles assertion But it may be you mean otherwise thus If you once obey the call of God as Abraham did the promise of outward church-priviledges that is to be members of the visible Church partakers of Baptism c. is to you and your children Now what an uncouth reason is by this made in the Apostles speech that if they did repent and were baptized the promise should be made good to them and to their children I use your own words expressing what you conceive the strength of the argument lies in that you they shal be members of the visible church partakers of baptism c. So that the Apostle is made to say thus If you will repent and be baptized the promise is to you and your children that you they shal be baptized What I conceive is the meaning I will shew afterwards in the mean time because though on the by you alleage that Text which Mr. Tho. Goodwin also at Bow in Cheapside urged and insisted on for this purpose I shall by the way examine what you say You say Let Zaccheus the Publican once receive Christ himself be he a Gentile as some think he was be he
would have him viz. you and your children hâ—ve hitherto been an holy seed but now if you beleeve in Châ—ist your selves your children shall be in no better condition then the rest of the Pagan world strangers from the Covenant of God but if afterward any of them or any of the heathen shall for their parts beleeve and be baptized their particular persons shall be taken into covenant but their children still left out had this thinke you been a comfortable argument to perswade them to come in in relation to the good of their children after them You suppose here that the Apostle used this argument onely in relation to the good of their children whereas the maine matter was concerning themselves to erect them who being told that they had crucified Iesus who was both Lord and Christ verse 36. and had said Matth. 27.25 His blood be upon us and our children were pricked in their hearts and said to Peter and the rest of the Apostles Men and brethren what shall we doe and was it not a comfortable argument for men in that case to be told that notwithstanding all this the promise of Christ and remission of sinnes by him was yet to them and their children on whom they had wished Christs blood to be and to all the Jewes that dwelt afarre off in the diâ—persion as many as the Lord should call and a great incitement to repent and be baptized in the Name of the Lord Jesus for the remission of sinnes However you conceive now sure if your soule had been in their soules stead you would have conceived it a very comfortable speech in this sensâ— that I now give As for that witlesse descant you put on your adversaries I know not whether it be their meaning or not sure I am no such thing follows on the applying the restriction in the end of the verse to them their children and all that are afarre off And that which you would burden your adversaries tenent with as if they put beleivers infants out of the covenant into the condition of Pagans children it is a coccysme answered before and therefore I may well let it passe in this place You adde The plaine strength of the argument is God hath now remembred his Covenant to Abraham in sending that blessed seed in whom he promised to be the God of him and his seed doe not you by your unbeliefe deprive your selves and your posteritie of so excellent a gift In this passage I thinke you hit the marke it is the very interpretation I gave in the reasons of my doubts before mentioned in answering the arguâ—ent from this text onely the alleâ—dging the promise Gen. 17.7 〈◊〉 that expression do not you by your unbeliefe deprive your posteritie of so excellent a gift have a little relish of your interpretation of the promise concerning the naturall seed of beleevers But letting that passe in the maine you expound it rightly The promise is to you and your children that is God hath now remembred his Covenant to Abâ—aham in sending that blessed seed in whom hee promâ—sed to be the God of Abraham and his seed and the sense is plaine Tâ—e promise which is made to Abraham is now fulfilled in sending Christ to you and your children and to all that are afarre off as many as the Lord our God shall call that they might bee turned from their iniquity â—nd baptized in his name for the remission of their sinnes And this agrees with the Apostles exhortation to the same purpose Acts 3.25.26 Ye are the children of the Prophets and of the covenant which God made with our fathers saying unto Abraham and in thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed unto you first God having raised up his Sonne Jesus sent him to blesse you in turning away every one of you from his iniquities And Acts 13.32 33. And we declare unto you glad tidings how that the promise which was made unto the fathers God hath fulfilled the same unto us their châ—ldren in thâ—t he hath raised up Jesus againe You adde And except in relation to the covenant there was no occasion to name thâ—ir children it had been sufficient to have said a promise is made to as many as the Lord shall call Though I deny not their children are mentioned in relation to the covenant in the sense I have given or rather in allusion to the forme of expressions in the covenant and predictions of the Prophets yet there was other occasion to wit their imprecation Matth. 27.25 and especially because Christ was as it is Acts 3.26 first sent to the Jews and their children and to be offered first to them as it is Acts 13.46 But it was not to intimate that which you would gather that the promise is such to them if they did beleeve that their children even their infants upon their fathers faith whether the children were called or not were taken into the covenant either of saving graces or visible church-membership which you should have proved but never will prove out of this Scripture But taking your Hypothesis that these to whom Peter speakes were within the covenant made to Abraham and cirumcised rightly and yet the Apostle requires these to repent afore they are to be baptized the Antipaedobaptists have hence a good argument against baptizing infants because Peter required of such as were in the covenant repentance afore Baptism I passe on to the next proof you bring for your Conclusion YOu say as plain it is out of the 11. Rom. 16 c. where the apostles scope is to shew that we Gentiles have now the same graffing into the true olive which the Jews formerly had and our present graffing in is answerable to their present casting out their taking in in the latter end of the world shall be the same graffing in though more gloriously as ours is now Now all know that wheÌ„ they were taken in they and their children were taken in when they were broken off they and their children were broken off when they shall be taken in in the latter end of the world they and their children shall be taken in and that because the root is holy that is Gods covenant with Abraham Isaac and Jacob extends yet unto them when their unbelief shall be taken away The root being like Nebuchadnezars tree the tree hewen down and the root bound with a hand of iron until seven times were passed over it and then the bands should be broken the root should spring and the tree should grow again So their present nation like this tree is cut down and this holy root the covenant made with their forefathers is suspended bound with an iron bar of unbelief blindnesse being come upon them untill the fulnes of the Gentiles were come in and then all Israel shall be saved And mark that in all this discourse the holines of the branches there spoken of is not meant of a personall inherent holines
the same graffing into the true Olive which the Jews formerly had But you must remember your own distinction pag. 10. of the substance of the Covenant and the administration of it It is certain that in respect of the substance of the Covenant we have the same graffing into the Olive the Church of the faithfull of which Abraham is the root that the Jews had We by faith are partakers of the root and fatnesse of the Olive tree ver 17. or in plainer termes as the Apostle â—lâ—gantly Ephes. 3.6 that the Gentiles should be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Fellow-heirs and of the same body and partakers of his promise in Christ through the Gospel In respect of which all believing Gentiles are Abrahams seed the Israel of God one in Christ Jesus But if you mean it of the outward administration of this ingraffing by Circumcision Baptisme c. nothing is more false For indeed the outward administration is utteâ—ly taken away as separating the Jews from the Gentiles of very purpose that the enmity betwixt Jews and Gentiles may be removed and they made one in Christ by his death Eph. 2.14 15 16. and if you mean this when you say we have the same graffing in with the Jews which your whole arguing tends to and your expression in those words for these outward â—ispensations import you mean it you evacuate the blood of Châ—ist in this particular You say Our present graffing in is answerable to their present casting out It is true our present graffing in is anâ—wâ—rable to their or rather for their casting out that is God would supply in his Olive tree the Church the casting away of the Jews by the calling of the Gentiles so much the Apostle saith v. 17. Thou being a wilde Olive 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is in ramorum defrâ—ctorum locum into the place of the branches broken off as rightly Beza if you mean it in this sense I grant it You adde And their taking in though more gloriously as ours is now It is true their taking in will be by faith as ours is now concerning other particulars as I doubt not but it will be more gloriously as you say so for the manner I must confesse I am at a stand I look upon it as a mystery as the Apostle cals it Rom. 11.25 You go on Now all know that when they were taken in they and their children were taken in when they were broken off they and their children were broken off when they shall be takâ—n in in the latter end of the world they and their children shall be taken in I grant it they were taken in and broken off togethâ—r in respect of Gods election and reprobation and when they shall be taken in in the latter end of the world they and their children shall be taken in Yea I thinke that as at the calling of the Gentiles there was a fuller taking in of the children of the Gentiles then ever was of the children of the Jewes afore Châ—ists comming according to thâ—t Heb. 8.11 So at the calling of the Jâ—ws there shall be a more full taking in of the children of the Jâ—ws then is now of the Gentiles according to that Rom. 11.26 and so all Israel shall be saved But all this proves not that God would have either all Infants of believers counted his as elect persons or in the Covenant of grace in Christ or in the face of the visible Church admitted to baptisme which was to be proved by you You go on And that because the root is holy that is Gods Covenant with Abraham Isaac and Jacob extends yet unto them when their unbeliefe shall be taken away and then after an illustration from Nebuchadnezzars dreame Dan. 4.14 15. you say of the Jews their present Nation like this tree is cut down and this holy root the Covenant made with their forefathers is suspended bound with an Iron barre of unbeliefe blindnesse being come upon them till the fulnesse of the Gentiles be come in and then all Israel shall be saved In this passage you somewhat alter the Apostles resemblance who doth not make the Jewish Nation to answer the tree but the branches nor doth he say the tree is cut down but the branches broken off and here you make the Covenant the root but a little after your words import when you say a holinesse derived from their ancestors c. that by the root you mean their Ancestors And you say The Covenant made with their forefathers is suspended which in some sense may be true that is thus the effects of Gods love to Israel are for the present suspended from those generations and so in our apprehension the Covenant is suspended but in exact speech it cannot be true sith Gods Covenant according to his intention and meaning cannot be suspended or stayed but doth alwayes take effect irresistibly In that wherein you alter the resemblance of the Apostle by putting in the cutting down of the tree instead of breaking off thâ— branches you much pervert the Apostles meaning who makes the tree that is the Church of believers still standing and some branches broken off and others graffed in And for that of the root it is true it is variously conceived by Interpreters some understanding with you the Covenant some Christ some Abraham Isaac and Jacob and some Abraham only which last I conceive to be genuine for the expressions of some branches 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to nature and others 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 besides nature Some naturall some ingraffed our not bearing the root but the root bearing us are plain evidences to me that by the root Abraham is meant Nor know I how to make the resemblance right but by this Exposition Now to say the root that is Abraham is bound with an Iron band of unbeliefe cannot have any handsome construction But you tell us And marke that in all this discourse the holinesse of the branches there spoken of is not meant of a personall inherent holinesse Then Master Thomas Goodwin is answered who in urging 1 Cor. 7.14 for Paedobaptisme saith in the New Testament there is no other holinesse spoken of but personall or reall by regeneration about the which he challenged all the world to shew the contrary whereas here is according to you a holinesse which is not personall or as Mr. Blake speakes qualitative and inherent But to go on You say But a derivative holinesse a holinesse derived to them from their Ancestors the first fruit is holy the lump holy the root holy the branches holy that is the Fathers holy accepted in Covenant with God the children beloved for their Fathers sake and when the vail of unbeliefe shall be taken away the children their posterity shall be taken in again bâ—cause beloved for their fathers sake Now then if our graffing in be answerable to theirs in any or all of these three particulars we and our children are graffed in together Object
But here is no mention of our Infants graffing in Answ. We must not teach the Lord to speake but with reverence search out his meaning there is no mention made of the casting out of the Jewish Infants neither here nor elsewhere when he speakes of taking away the Kingdome of God from them and giving it to the Gentiles who would bring forth fruit no mention of the Infants of the one or of the other but the one and the other for these outward dispensations are comprehended in their parents as the branches in the root the infants of the godly in their parents according to the tenor of his mercy the infants of the wicked in their parents according to the tenor of his justice There are sundry things in this passage you would have to be marked that deserve indeed to be marked but with an Obeliske not with an Asteriske as 1. That you oppose personall inherent holinesse to derivative as inconsistent The truth is the holinesse the Apostle speaks of is first in respect of Gods Election holinesse personall and inherent in Gods intention He hath chosen us that we should be holy Ephes. 1.4 Secondly it is also holinesse derivative or descending not from any Ancestors but from Abraham not barely as a naturall father but as a spirituall father or Father of the faithfull and so derived from the Covenant of grace which passed in his name to him and his seed And lastly it shall be inherent actually being communicated by the Spirit of God when they shall be actually called But this is such a kinde of holinesse as is more then you mean to wit not only an adherent or relative holinesse which they have by enjoying outward Ordinances but also inherent by faith whereby they aâ—e holy as the root that is Abraham the father of the faithfull 2. Whereas you make it the case of any believers to be a holy root to their posterity especially in the following words when you say The infants both of the Jews and Gentiles for these outward dispensations are comprehended in their parents as the branch in the root the infants of the godly in their parents according to the tenor of his mercy the infants of the wicked in their parents according to the tenor of his justice Master Blake pag. 8. more plainly The branches of Ancestors are roots of posterity being made a holy branch in reference to their issue they now become a holy root This is not true for in the Apostles resemblance Abraham only is a holy root or at most Abraham Isaac and Iacob in whose names the Covenant runs No other man though a believer is the father of the faithfull but Abraham And the body of believers is compared to the Olive and each believer to a branch that partakes of the root and fatness of the Olive tree not in outward dispensations only as you speak but also in saving graces which is mainly here intended I remember Master Thomas Goodwin who hath handled this matter of Paeâ—obaptisme by spinning out similitudes and conjectures fit indeed for the common people that are more taken with resemblances then Syllogismes rather then with close arguments indeavoured to infer a kinde of promise of deriving holinesse from believers to their posterity out of the similitude of an Olive and its branches compared with Psal. 128.3 c. but it is dangerous to strain similitudes beyond that likenesse the Holy Ghost makes It is a tedious thing to Auditors that look for arguments to be deluded with similitudes and conjectures 3. Whereas you alluding to the words of the Apostle v. 28. that the Jews were beloved for their fathers sake carry it as if this were true of any believing parents the Apostle meanes it of those fathers only in whose names the Covenant was made especially Abraham called the friend of God Jam. 2.23 and the father of the faithfull Rom. 4.11 and in reference to the promises made to them they are beloved and therefore it is added ver 29. For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance Lastly you say That the infants of the wicked for these outward dispensations are comprehended in their parents according to the tenor of Gods justice I intreat you to consider whether this speech do not symbolize with the tenet of Arminius in his Antiperkins on the fourth Crimination and in the end of his Treatise where he maketh the cause why the posterity of some people have not the Gospel to be their forefathers fault in refusing it Against which you may see what Doctor Twisse opposeth in both places and Moulin in his Anatomy of Arminianisme cap. 9. And thus it may appeare that you have very much darkened this illustrious Scripture by applying that holinesse and insition to outward dispensations only in the visible Church which is meant of saving graces into the invisible by faith and made every believer a like root to his posterity with Abraham to his seed I Am now come to your principall hold you say And yet plainer if plainer may be is the speech of the Apostle in 1. Cor. 7.14 The unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband else were your children uncleane but now they are holy By the way Because you acknowledge in the Margin page 24. that signifies to as well as in and you conceive it may be here read in or to as well as by and though our translators following the vulgar read by yet Beza dislikes that reading it might have done well in the citing of this text by you to have given some hint of that varietie But to follow you You say the plain scope and meaning thereof is this The believing Corinthians amongst other cases of Conscience which they had sent to the Apostle for his resolution of had written this for one whether it were lawfull for them who were converted still to retaine their Infidell wives or husbands You doe rightly here expresse the scope of the Apostle but you make another scope page 25. when you say We must attend the Apostles scope which is to shew that the children would be unholy if the faith or believership of one of the parents could not remove the barre which lies in the other being an unbeliever against the producing a holy seed which I shall shew in its place not to be the scope of the place but only this which you first give You then say their doubt seemes to arise from the Law of God which was in force to the Nation of the Jews God had not only forbidden such marriages to his people but in Ezra's time they put away not onely their wives but all the children that were borne of them as not belonging to the Common-wealth of Israel and it was done according to the Law and that Law was not a particular Edict which they did agree upon but according to the standing Law of Moses which that word there used signifieth and in
baptize into the name of the Father Son and Holy Spirit that is with invocation of the name of the Lord as Acts 22.16 Paul is bid arise and be baptized and wash away his sinnes calling on the name of the Lord. Which infants cannot doe with devoting themselves to the service and adherence of the Father Son and holy Spirit which may be gathered from this that Paul said 1 Cor. 13.15 he had baptized none into his name that is he had not caused them in their baptisme to devote or addict themselves to him as their Master but infants cannot so devote themselves to Christ therefore they are not to be baptized according to this institution 4. Christ bids the Apostles presently after baptisme teach them to observe what â—ver he commanded them but infants cannot doe this therefore they are not to be baptized Likewise baptizing infants doth not agree with the primitive practise of John Baptist and the Apostles who required expressions of repentance and faith afore Baptisme Mat. 3.6 Mark 1.5 Luk. 3.10 Acts 2.38 8.12 13.37 9.18 10.47 11.17 18. 16.15.31 32 33. 18.8 19.5.8.22.16 in which places profession of repentance and faith is still made the antecedent to Baptisme but this doth not agree to infants therefore they are not to be baptized Of these arguments you answer onely to the two first from institution and to the last from example to the first from institution you answered before and there I examined your answer part 3. sect 12 13. To the second from institution and to the last from example you make some answer here not denying that the order appointed by Christ is first to teach and then to baptize for that is so manifest that your selfe page 35. doe so paraphrase the words when you say expresse command there is that they should teach the heathen and the Jewes and make them disciples and then baptize them nor by denying that John Baptist and the Apostles required expressions of faith and repentance afore Baptisme nor by denying that the institution of Christ and the Apostles example are our rule in the administring the Sacraments so as that we cannot vary from them without will-worship and prophaning the worship of God by our inventions for that is so confessed a truth that there hath been a great while scarce a Sermon before the Parliament but hath asserted that rule and pressed it on the Parliament and our solemne Covenant supposeth it the Churches of Scotland New-England c. The Sermons in the Citie continually a vow it and urge it and upon this ground former and later reformations are urged But you have two miserable evasions You say I answer First that of Mat. 28. is not the institution of baptisme it was instituted long before to be the seale of the Covenant it 's only an inlargement of their commission whereas before they were onely to goe to the lost sheepe of the house of Israel now they are to goe unto all the world Whereunto I reply 1. If this be not the first institution of baptisme yet it is an institution and the institution of baptisme to us Gentiles and therefore the rule by which Ministers are to baptize there being no other institution that I know of to regulate our practise by but such as is gathered from John Baptist the Apostles practise and sayings 2. If institution or appointment of God must warrant our practise in Gods worship which you once held in the Sermon cited before part 2. sect 9. then you must shew another institution else you cannot acquit paedobaptisme from will-worship and your selfe from breaking the hedge God hath set about the second Commandement But you adde further And beside it is no where said that none were baptized but such as were first taught and what reason wee have to believe the contrary you have before seene Your selfe say presently in the next words It is said indeed that they taught and baptized and no expresse mention of any other then of the baptisme of persons taught and you assigne a reason of it And page 35. your selfe paraphrase the institution Mat. 28.19 Expresse command there is that they should teach the heathen and the Jewes and make them disciples and then baptize them and consequently there is no expresse command for any other and for the reason you have to beleeve that others are to be baptized which are not taught it hath been examined in the weighing your virtuall consequence which is grounded upon such a principle as in time you may see to be a dangerous precipice how ever for the present the great consent of Doctors in the reformed Churches dazzles your eyes for my part I cannot yet discerne but that your grounds for paedobaptisme are worse then the Papists and Ancients who build it on Joh. 3.5 Rom. 5.12 But you yet adde Secondly it is said indeed that they taught and baptized and no expresse mention made of any other but the reason is plaine there was a new Church to be constituted all the Jewes who should receive Christ were to come under another administration You say right therefore none other were to be baptized but taught persons because though the invisible Church of the Gentiles were joyned to the invisible of the Jewes Rom. 11.17 Ephes. 2.14 15 16. by faith of the Gospel as Ephes. 3.6 it is expounded yet the outward estate of the Church is new and as you say even the Jewes who should receive Christ were to come under a new administration even those who were Jewes by nature and not proselytes were to be baptized as uncleane persons contrary to their former administration in which they were onely circumcised and this is a plaine evidence that the administration of Circumcision is not the administration under which wee are now but that it did belong to that administration which is now abolished which is enough to overthrow all your virtuall consequence from circumcision to baptisme and consequently all the former dispute of your first argument in which circumcision of infants is indeed the alone prop of baptizing infants As for that which you adde And their infants were to come in onely in their right This overthrows your second argument for that is grounded upon this that infants of believers and particularly infants of believing Jewes such as those are supposed to be Mark 10.14 were partakers of the inward grace of baptisme and if so they came in by their own right But that one mans right to baptisme should give another right to baptisme is a position that the Scripture doth not deliver and inwraps sundry errors which I now omit because it comes in onely upon the by But you goe on And the heathen nations who were to be converted to Christ were yet without the covenant of grace and their children could have no right untill themselves were brought in and therefore no marvaile though both John and Christs disciples and Apostles did teach before they baptized
wee may not baptize any of them but waite to see when and in whom God will worke the thing signified and then apply the signe to them This that you here put among the objections is rather an exception to your second argument grounded on Act. 10.47 11.17 In answer to which it is granted that those who have the inward grace meaning it actually are not to be debarred of baptisme for then they are believers and disciples But then it is rightly added that this can make no ordinary rule for baptizing the infants of believers indifferently sith there is no certainty that any one infant of a believer now existent hath the inward grace of baptisme and it is certain that all have not and experience sheweth very many have not when they come to age nor can it be known who have and who have not but by extraordinary revelation which if given would be sufficient authoritie to baptize those infants though the ordinary rule be not to baptize infants of believers indifferently As the extraordinary spirit of Elijah and Phinehas and Peter in killing Ananias and Sapphira were sufficient authoritie to them to doe those things which agree not with ordinary rule And this I grant to Mr Blake that those that are thus intituled through want of an institution are not to be excluded for according to this supposition in this case the institution is cleare for them for they are sanctified persons and so believers and disciples of Christ and besides the extraordinary revelation for that end would be an institution of that particular act But the thing that he and you would infer from this concession is that we may then make it an ordinary rule to baptize infants But that can never be for extraordinarium non facit regulam communem That which is extraordinary makes not a common rule If it did James and John might call for fire from heaven as Elijah did a man in his zeale might kill a wicked man without a legall triall as did Phinehas But let us heare what reply you make to this concession you say thus Our knowledge that God hath effectually wrought the thing signified is not the condition upon which we are to apply the signe God no where required that wee should know that they are inwardly and certainly converted whom we admit to the Sacrament of Baptisme the Apostles themselves were not required to know this of those whom they baptized if they were they sinned in baptizing Simon Magus Alexander Hymeneus Ananias and Sapphira with others wee are indeed to know that they have in them the condition which must warrant us to administer the signe not that which makes them possest of the thing signified fallible conjectures are not to be our rule in adminisâ—ring Sacraments either to infants or growne men but a knowne rule of the Word out of which rule wee must be able to make up such a judgement that our administration may be of faith as well as out of charity In baptizing of grown men the Apostles and Ministers of Christ administred the signe not because they conjectured that the parties were inwardly sanctified but because they made that profession of faith and holinesse of which they were sure that whoever had the thing in truth were received by Christ into inward communion with himself and that whoever thus made it that Christ would have them received into the communion of his Church though possibly for want of the inward work they were never received into the inward communion with Jesus Christ. Indeed when such a confession was made Christian charity which alwayes hopeth the best and thinketh no evill bound them to receive them and think of them and converse with them as with men in whom the inward work was wrought untill they gave signes to the contrary But this their charity or charitable conjecture was not the ground of admitting them to the Ordinance but the profession and confession of the party made according to the Word which they were bound to rest in yea I greatly question whether in case Peter or Paul could by the Spirit of revelation have known that Ananias or Alexander would have proved no better then hypocrites whether they either would or ought to have refused them from Baptisme whilest they made that publique profession and confession upon which others were admitted who in the event proved no better then those were so that I conclude not our knowledge of their inward sanctification is requisite to the admitting of any to Baptisme but our knowledge of the will of Christ that such who are in such and such a condition should by us be received into the communion of the Church To the assertion here delivered I assent that not our knowledge that the person to be baptized hath inward grace is necessary but our knowledge of the will of Christ and the person to be baptized his having the condition which is the profession of faith and holiness is sufficient warrant to baptize him And I agree that a judgement of charity is not that a Minister is to proceed by in this case but a judgement of faith as you speak and of ministeriall prudence For a Minister in this case is to act as a Steward who is to deal according to his Lords will not his own minde otherwise his own understanding or affection which are but a Lesbian rule should be his rule which would be intolerable Thus far I agree with you only whereas in the case by you framed your resolution inclines to the negative I rather incline to the affirmative and conceive they would have refused them and that they ought because I conceive the end of such an extraordinary revelation would be to warne them not to admit such persons and so equivalent to a prohibition and in that case the baptizing them would be a plain prophaning the Ordinance which is not to be given to Dogs and Swine And I conceive that which Chamier tom 4. panstra Cath. lib. 5. c. 15. Sect. 13. speaks in justification of the scrutiny heretofore made in examining the competentes so strictly confirms this resolution But to keep to the present businesse that which is granted doth neither prove that upon extraordinary revelation of the present inward sanctification of an Infant that Infant may not be baptized without staying for its profession For though it be true that we are not to stay from baptizing them that professe the faith because we have not a spirit of discerning to know them to be reall Believers yet we may having a spirit of discerning that an Infant that cannot professe the faith yet hath true faith or is inwardly sanctified baptize that Infant without staying for his profession partly because of the principle used by Peter Acts 10.47 and partly because the revelation of the faith of that Infant to that end doth authorize that act Nor doth this concession advantage you to prove baptizing of Infants by ordinary rule which is the thing
est tale Scriptuâ— esse â—jus Authoris 〈◊〉 nomen prefâ—rt Rivet tractâ—t de Patrum Authâ—rit cap 14. Consuetudo tamen Man is Ecâ—lesia in baptizandis parvulis nequaquam sperâ—enda est neque ullo modo superflua deputanda nec omnino credenda nisi Apostolica esset traditio Augustin lib. 10. cap. 23. de Genesi § 6. Of the Testimonies of Gregory Nazianzen and the Greeke Church Lib. 2. heresi 47 vel 67. §. 7. Of the testimony of Cyprian §. 8. Of the testimony of Augustine August tâ—m 1. Confess lib. 1. c. 11 Sigâ—abar signo Cruâ—is ejus conâ—iâ—bâ—r ejus saâ—e jam inde ab uteâ—o matris mâ—ae quae multum speravit in te And then followes how being young and falling sick he desired and his mother thought to have him baptized but upon his recovery it was differred Rivet tract de Patrum authoritate c. 9. Augustinus aeternis flammis adjudicat Infantes fine baptismo morientes· §. 9. Of the testimonies of Hierom and Ambrose §. 10. Oâ— the valiâ—ity of proof by these testimonies and of the evidences that Infant-baptism is an innovation Chamier panstr Cathol to 4. l. 5. c. 15. §. 19. Denique hunc morem quis non videt ejus temporis â—sse cum vix milâ—esimus quisque baptâ—zabatur non adultus in Catechumenis diligenter exercitus H. Hamond A practicall Catech l. 1. §. 3. pag. 23. And those other fundamentals of faith which all men were instructed in anciently before they were permitted to be baptized §. 1. Of the fitnes of placing the Narration of miscarriages of opposers of Paedobaptisâ—e §. 2. Of the opposers of Infant-baptisme afore Baltazar § 3. Of Baltazar Pacimontanâ—◠§. 4. Of rebaptizing § 5. Of the Anabaptists in Germanie and the Antiprelatists in England §. 6. Of Anabaptists opposing Magistracy §. 7. Of the hindering of refoâ—mation by Anabaptisme §. 8. The Antipaedobaptists principle overthrows not the Lords day the Paedobaptists principle reduceth Judaisme and Popish Ceremonies and addes to the Gospell Vid. Rainold Confer with Hart c. 8. §. 4. §. 9. Of the evill of separating from the Ministry and Communion of Christians by reason of this opinion §. 10. Of the condition into which the opinion of Anti-paedobaptisme puts the infants of believers of originall sin salvation out of the Church and Covenant of grace §. 1. Of the connexion between the covenant and the seale §. 2. Of the first conclusion concerning the identity of the Covenant of grace fâ—r substâ—nce to Jews and Gâ—ntiles §. 3. Of the meaning of the second Conclusion The answer of the Assembly of Divines to the reasons of the 7 dissenting brâ—thren p. 48 praecog 1. The whole Churâ—h of Christ is but one made up of the collection and aggregation of all who are called out of the world by the preaching of the Word to professe the faith of Christ §. 4. That the Covenant of grace is not made to believers and their seed Twisse vind Grat. cont Armin. lib. 1. pa. 1. digr 7. Hujus autem promissionis Gen. 17.7 8. fides confestim apparet in discrimen adâ—uci ex rejectione Judaeorum exclusione eorundem ex foedâ—re Dei cum fint ex Abrahamo sâ—cundum carnem prosminati sic inquit apparet primas rerum facies intuentibus Walae cont Corvin cap. 15. pag. 377. Apostolus ostendit ideo verbum foederis divinarum promissionum Israelitis factarum non excidere aut irritum fieri licet magna Judaeorum pars esset incredula quia promissiones illae foedâ—ris factae sunt a Deo non iis proprie qui ex semine Abrahami secundum carnem erant orituri sed iis qui secundum electionâ—m gratuitam Abrahami familiae ex vi diâ—ina promissionis erant inserendi The new Annotations on the Bible Annot. on Rom. 9.8 The children of the flesh c Not all they who are carnally born of Abraham by the course of nature are the children of God to whom the promise of grace was made but the childâ—en of promise that is those who were born by vertue of the promise those who by Gods speciall grace were adopted as Isaac by a speciall and singular promise was begot by Abraham they only are accounted for thaâ— seed mentioned in the Covenant I will be thy God and the God of thy seed Estius annot ad Gen. 17.7 Colligit hinc Calvinus â—o ipso quo quis est semen Abrahae ad cum pertinere prâ—missionem Abrahae factam sed responsio manifesta prâ—missionem illam de benedictione spirituali intellectam non ad carnale semen Abrahaemi pertinere sed ad spirituale quemadmodum eam ipse Apostolus interpretatâ—â— est Rom. 4 9. Si enim carnale semen intelligas jam ad neminem ex gentibus illa promissio pertinebit sed ad solos ex Abraham Isaac secundum carnem genitos Paraeus Comment in Mat. 3.9 Docet quoque promissiones Dei non alligatas esse carnali origini sed pertinere tantum ad posteros fideles spirituales Non enim sunt filii Abrahae qui secundum carnem sunt ex Abraham sed qui secundum spiritum Ainsworth ann on Gâ—n 12.7 Thy seed That is to all the children of promise the elect who only are couâ—ted Abrahams seed Rom. 9.7 8. and in Christ are heirs by promise as well the Gentiles as the Jews Gal. 3.26.28.29 Ames Coron art 5. cap. 2. Seminis etiam inculcatio solos electos efficaciter vocatos notari docet Apostolo sic hunc titulum interprâ—tante Rom. 9.8 Gal. 3.16 4.28 §. 5. It is not in Gods church like other kingdomes Cotton Way of the Churches of Christ in N.E. c. 4. §. 6. Infants cannot claim right unto baptisme but in the right of one of their parents or both Where neither of the parents can claim right to the â—ords supper there thâ—ir Infants cannâ—t claim right to Baptisme Aâ— therefore we do not receive an heâ—â—hen to the fellowship of the supper nor their seed to Baptism so neither dare we receive an excommunicate person who is to us an heathen to the Lords supper or his children to Baptisme But after â— 7 §. 2. Or where either of the parents have made such profession Or it may be consiâ—ered alâ—o whether the children may not be baptized where either the grand-father or grand-mother have made suâ—h profâ—ssion and are still living to undertake for the Christian education of the child For it may be coâ—ceived where there is a stipulation of the Covenant on Gods part anâ— a restipulation on maâ—s part there may be an obligation of the Covenant on both parts Gen. 17.7 Or if these saile what hindereth but that if the parâ—nts will deâ—â—gne their infant to be educated in the house of any goâ—ly member of the Church the child may be lawfully baptized in the right of its household governour according to the proportion of the Law Gen 17.12 13. §. 6. Of the Texts which are Act.