to that ark in respect of that approaching ruine on the Jewes styled the kingdome of heaven v. 1. and that evidenced to be a bloody kingdome explicated by casting into the fire v. 10. And can we imagine the Jews that believed John and came to his baptisme did not bring their children with them to save them from the praedicted evils And then I professe not to see any reason to render it incredible that John Baptist should thus receive and baptize those infants though the Scripture affirming nothing of it and tradition as far as I know as little I shall neither affirm nor believe any thing in it This only is certain that among the Jewes of that time infant Children were known to be capable of entring into covenant with God after this manner and of being partakers of the benefit of the Covenant by that means And one thing more I may adde that Christ himself who was by his sinlesness as unqualified for the Repentance which John preacht as the infants were by their incapacities did yet come and was received to Johns baptisme v. 13. and then in câ—se infants were brought why might not they be received also Then 2. for as much as concerned the Apostles Mat. 10. First T is there evident that they were sent to the lost sheep indefinitely and sure that phrase comprehends the Lambs also the infant children being lost in Adam as well as the grown men by the addition of their actual to original sin And then why should we doubt but the Apostles mission extended to them also An 2. for their preaching it is just as Johns was to warn them to beware of the imminent destruction that vindicative act of Gods kingdome v. 7. that all that should give ear and heed to them might hasten to get out of that danger by reformation and new life and the ruine being impendent to the young as well as old even the whole nation why should not the infant children be rescued from that by their parents care in bringing them to baptisme and timely ingaging them to fly from the wrath to come as soon as they should come to understanding injoying in the mean time the benefit of others charity Thirdly After their preaching though there be no mention of baptizing and so it was not so fit to be produced to our present business yet other things there are appointed to be done wherein infants were concerned as well as others as healing of diseases c. and if being incapable of receiving benefit from preaching should be deemed an obstacle to their being baptized why should it not to their receiving of cures Nay I may adde How should the dead in that place who sure were as uncapable of hearing or understanding as the tenderest infant be capable of being raised by those Apostles which yet is there affirmed of them v. 8. And so much for that reason also and in like manner for the third which is but repeating the last branch of this second that the Apostles were to disciple all nations by the same way that they discipled the lost sheep of the house of Israel which was saith he by preaching and therefore supposed precedent instruction In what sense I have now shewed viz. by preaching to the nations and receiving all that came in to the discipleship whether on their own leggs or in others arms whole families at once the parents and upon their undertaking their infant children also His fourth proof is taken from the use and notation of the word which is so to teach as that they learn and so saith he is used Mat. 13.52 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is rendred instructed by our last translators and can be no otherwise rendred than made a disciple by teaching so Act. 14.21 it is said Having preached the Gospel to that city 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and having taught or made many disciples For the notation of the word we have formerly said sufficient that it signifies to receive ad discipulatum as into a school of Spiritual instruction 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to make a disciple and such he is made who by any motive or means either comes or is brought into the school this indeed in order to teaching in the Master and to learning in the scholar and the one so to teach as that the other learn but this subsequent to his being made a disciple the youth we know enters into the school is admitted into the College and Vniversity before he learns a word there the instruction or learning is still lookt upon as future at his entring into discipleship And this is all the importance of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Mat. 13.5 only some accidental differences may be observed 't is in the passive and in the Aorist in the preter tense 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 every Scribe which is or hath been entred as a disciple unto the kingdome of heaven who since his entrance hath been instructed and as real passives import received influence been really affected and changed by discipleship still no way supposing that he was instructed in the learning or mysteries of the kingdome of heaven before he was thus admitted a disciple to it After his admission there is no doubt but he doth or ought to learn nay being there 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Scribe discipled a grown man and learned among the Jews before he came to Christ I doubt not but some knowledge he had of it before he entred himself a disciple see baptizing of infants p. 199. but this not by force of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for still a disciple he may be before he learns and is therefore obliged to learn because he hath assumed and undertaken to do so either personally or by others susception by his coming or being brought to be a disciple So in the other place Act. 14.21 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies no more then having received or initiated i. e. I suppose by this rite of baptisme made and baptized many disciples which though it be there set down as a consequent of the Apostles preaching the Gospel in that City for otherwise it were not imaginable that they should receive any disciples there they must first proclaim admission to all that come before any can be expected either to come or be brought to them yet may it very reasonably be extended to more persons then those that understood their preaching viz. to the infant children of their proselytes brought to them by their parents and dedicated to Christ Thus invalid are his attempts from the notation of the word and by consequence his inference from thence which is set down as his fift proof that thereby it may appear how the Apostles understood the precept of Christ to preach the Gospel to persons and thereby make them disciples For although the practice of the Apostles be indeed the means by which we may discerne how they understood Christs precept and those two places cited by Mr. T. from
t is manifest it must be understood of the infant uncapable children and none else T is true that Mr. T. also excepteth against the paraphrasing of holy by admitted to baptisme affirming this to be a sense of the word no where else found But this I hope I have cleared already both from the usage of the word among the Jewish and first Christian writers and might farther do it even by this Apostles dialect who in his inscriptions of most of his Epistles to the Churches calls all those to whom he writes i. e. the baptized Christians of those Churches 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 holy Rom. 1.17 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sanctified and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 holy 1 Cor. 1.2 and again 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 holy 2 Cor. 1.1 and Eph. 1.1 Phil. 1.1 Col. 1.1 among whom no doubt there were many who were no otherwise holy or sanctified then as all baptized Christians are capable of that style But I shall need adde no more of that to what hath been already so largely said And the parts of my interpretation being thus cleared that their children were their babes or infants and their being holy their being baptized t is sure I cannot be concerned in his conclusion that he never read or heard any exposition antient or modern so expounding as this Doctor or Dictator doth nor do I think he can shew any I hope now he will alter his mind and acknowledge that it was his own fault that this interpretation seemed so new and strange to him As for the one place of S. Augustine produced by him it should be l. 2. de Pecc Mer. remiss c. 26. to the seeming prejudice of this interpretation Ac per hoc illa sanctificatio cujuscunque modi sit quam in filiis fidelium esse dixit Apostolus ad istam de baptismo peccati origine vel remissione quaestionem omnino non pertinet it will easily be reconciled to it if we but mark what question it is that there he speaks of even that which he had then in hand viz. whether baptisme were necessary to remission of sinnes and entring the kingdome of heaven That this was the question in hand appeareth by the words immediately precedent which are these sanctificatio Catechumenâ— si non fuerit baptizatâ—â— non ei valet ad inâ—randum regnum coelorum aut ad peccatorum remissionem The sanctification of a Catechumenus what that is he had mentioned before Catechumenos secundum quendam modum suum per signum Christi orationem impositionis manuum puto sanctificari that some kind of sanctification which the unbaptized might have by prayer and imposition of hands of which we sometimes read in the antients as hath elsewhere been shewed profits him not for the entring the kingdome of heaven or obteining remission of sins unless he be baptized And therefore that sanctification of whatsoever kind it is viz. if it be without baptisme belongs not saith he to the question then in hand concerning baptisme and the original and pardon of sin Here then I suppose is Saint Augustines meaning The adversaries with whom he disputes the Pelagians to maintain the no necessity of baptizing infants for the remission of sinnes made use of that text and concluded from it the sanctitie of the Christian infant birth before and without baptisme To this he answers without any strict examination of the importance of that text that whatsoever sanctification it can be imagined to be that the Apostle speakes of except it be that of baptisme it cannot avail to the remission of sinnes c. Some improper kind of sanctification saith he he may confesse secundum quendam modum in him that is not yet baptized but that without baptisme non valet ad intrandum is not of force for entring into the kingdome of heaven and therefore whatsoever sanctification that is viz. Whatsoever without baptisme it belongs not to his question then before him and so the Apostles words can have no force against him This I suppose then to be in brief S. Augustines meaning in that place that t is not the holinesse of the Christian infants birth but of their baptisme which stands them in stead toward the kingdome of heaven And then that as it is no evidence on my side that he interpreted that place to the Cor. as I interpret it so it affirmes nothing to the contrary but leaves it in medio having his advantages other wayes against the disputers However for the substance his accord with us is evident and his conclusion firme both in that place and l. 3. de Pecc mer. Remiss c. 12. Illud sine dubitatione tenendum quaecunque illa sanctificatio sit non valere ad Christianos faciendos atque ad dimittenda peccata nisi Christiana atque Ecclesiasticâ institutione Sacramentis â—ffici 〈◊〉 fideleâ— It is to be held without doubting that whatsoever that sanctification be it availes not to the making them Christians and to the obteining remission of sins unlesse by Christian and Ecclesiastical institution and by the Sacraments they be made faithfull This is all that I can seasonably return for the vindicating of my paraphrase It would be too immoderate an excursion to take notice of all his pretended objections to the former part of it which concerns the cohabiting of the believer with the unbeliever which I assure Mr. T. were easy fully to answer and shew his mistakes in each particular if the matter of our present dispute did require or would well bear a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of that length or if I thought it in the least degree usefull to the reader that I should farther explain the grounds of my paraphrase then as they are already laid before him Sect. 31. c. Yet because the reasons which I there tendred for the paraphrase taken from the notations of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hath been sanctified and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not to but by the wife and by the plain consequents what knowest thou ô wife whether thou shalt save thy husband are by Mr. T. examined with an endeavour to confute them and so to overthrow the whole paraphrase it may perhaps be thought usefull that I should take a view of those his indeavors and therefore that I shall now proceed to do and shall there meet with by the way what was most material in his former exceptions against my paraphrase Sect. 2. The rendring 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hath been sanctified defended S. Hieromes testimonie Enallages must not be made use of without necessity No advantage from it here Feigned instances of Enallage 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 FIrst then to my first evidence taken from the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hath been sanctified referring to some past known examples and experiences of this kind of a wives converting the husband c. he hath a double answer 1. That as my paraphrase expresseth it it should signifie not onely that an
was necessary the shewing the lawfulness being sufficient and the example of circumcision being competent for the disproving the pretensions of the Antipaedobaptist and so ex abundanti an act of Supererogatory probation in relation to Mr. T. The same is appliable in some degree to the other waies of probation which he supposeth to be relinquisht by me especially to that of Christ's behaviour to little children commanding to suffer them to come unto him who yet were no otherwise able to come then as they were brought and as now they come to the font for baptisme and embracing and laying on his hands and blessing them But this is competently set down and the force of it how far t is argumentative § 22. Onely I now adde that that other place of Mat. 18.6 where Jesus speaking of little children useth these words who so offendeth one of these little ones that believe in me it were good for him that a Milstone c. may tend much to give us the full importance and signification both of their coming to Christ and of his commanding not to forbid them such as will neerly concern every Antipaedobaptist to take notice of For as in other places of the New Testament the coming unto God and Christ is believing on him seeking to receive benefit from him as He that cometh to me shall never hunger and Come unto me all ye that are weary and If any man thirst let him come unto me and drink so it seems by this place that that coming of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 little Infants for so they are called in the Parallel place Luk. 9.47 which they were capable of by the help of their parents or friends is styled by Christ the childrens believing and so far imputed to them as that upon that account the sentence is very severe upon those that shall scandalize them repulse or discourage or any way hinder them in this their progress to Christ though it be but in the armes of other men How fitly this is applicable to the state of Infants in respect of the guilt of original sin under which they are born and for the remission of which and not onely for the entring into the Kingdome of Heaven the Fathers defined against the Pelagians that baptisme was necessary for them I shall not need here to inlarge having formerly spoken to that head Onely it may not be amiss here to advert that it was as reasonable for the children to be called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 believers who yet had no faith of their own but onely of their parents c. to bring them to Christ as for the same children to be accounted sinners as undoubtedly they are which yet never committed any act of sin which made S. Augustine De verb Apost Serm 4. say Absit ut ego dicam non credentes infantes God forbid that I should say that Infants are not believers Credit in altero qui peccavit in altero He believes by another who sinned by another dicitur Credit valet inter fideles baptizatos computatur the Susceptors say he believes and so he is reputed among the baptized believers And this reputative faith the more reasonably accepted by the Church it being moreover evident by the baptisme of Simon Magus and of all hypocrites that 't is the profession of faith and not the possession of it which is required as the qualification which authorizes the Church to admit them to baptisme and that being performed by the Infants proxies in his name the Church after the forementioned example of Christ may very lawfully accept it of those who can performe no other in lieu of a personal profession Meanwhile this passage of Christ concerning children though it be a certain evidence again against the Antipaedobaptist as hath been shewed and I need no more then this one proof if I were destitute of all others to refute his pretensions yet because it contains no relation of Christs or his Apostles baptizing infants therefore I put it in the rank of the more imperfect probations in comparison with that other way of probation which I conceive deduceth and concludeth the whole matter more intirely though as t is evident § 22. this was neither waved nor relinquisht by me To this if I shall now adde that it was my design in that resolution of the Quaere to insist more largely on that way of probation which I discerned to be lesse considered or insisted on by others and yet to have perfect evidence in it if it were duely explained and improved as it was capable and on the same account thought I might spare to multiply words where others had often inlarged and therefore said but little of those common arguments or heads of probation and yet sufficient to testifie my neither waving nor relinquishing them It will then abundantly appear how little I deserved Mr. T. his good words and how justly I renounce that title to ingenuity which he bestowes upon me being better pleased with his animadversions on my dotages as he after phraseth it then these his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 his liberalities to me by which he designed advantage to himself Sect. 2. The necessity of Paedobaptisme depending on the positive part of the probation The severall sorts of Anabaptists Testimonies the onely proof of Institutions BEfore I proceed I must desire the Reader to consider two things 1. That the Jewish baptisme is not by me set up as the competent proof but onely as the ground or foundation which taken by its self is always very imperfect in respect of the whole fabrick or building 2. That the perfect proof being set down to consist of two parts a negative and a positive the first onely shewing the no incongruity or unlawfulness of baptizing Infants and the second adding thereto duty and obligation these two must in all reason remain conjoyned in our discourse and not be so severed or considered asunder as if I thought the former way of negative probation sufficient to do the whole work without the assistance of the latter This I needed not have said in relation to Mr. T. For the bare negative consideration that there is nothing in the pattern whence Christs baptisme is copied out nothing in the copie it self as far as Christ's words in the Gospel or the Apostles practice extend c. is perfectly sufficient to refute an antipaedobaptist such as he professeth to be who undertakes to shew the baptizing of Infants to be unlawfull but cannot pretend to shew it by any other way but by producing some either law or practice of Christ or his Apostles to the contrary which he must be concluded unable to do if my Negative stand inviolate But I thus interpose and do it thus early because the positive part being indeed the principal especially when it is also added to the negative doth not onely demonstrate it lawfull but duty to offer and receive our Infants to baptisme the judgement and practice
by their affirmations If he be I wonder why the uniforme consent of them that infants are to be baptized should not prevaile with him If he be not why doth he mention this as usefull in this matter But then 2dly It must be adverted that this one containing two quaestions in it 1. Whether this of initiating into the Covenant by baptisme were a Jewish custome 2. Whether from thence Christ derived this rite of baptizing of Christians The former of these was that which alone required proving the latter being of it self evident without farther probation supposing onely that the Fathers testified that to be Christ's institution of baptisme which we find to have been thus agreeable to the practice customary among the Jews As for example if it were made matter of doubt or question whether Christ derived the Censures of his Church from the Jews It will sure be a sufficient answer to the question if wee shall first find in the Jewish writers their customes of Excommunication and then from the Christian writers find the like records of the Christian custome from the institution of Christ and the practice of his Apostles 〈◊〉 down unto us For those two things being done what need we any Father's assistance or guidance to secure us that Christ derived and lightly changed this custome of Ecclesiasticall censures in his Church from what he found in the Jewish Sanhedrim In this matter 't is easy and obvious to object as M. T. here doth about baptisme that excommunication was a custome among other nations as well as the Jews the description of it among the Druids in Cesar's Commentaries being so famous and notorious to every man which yet will not sure prevaile with any reasonable man or make it necessary to produce the testimonies whether of Scriptures or Fathers that Christ took it not from the Druids but the Jewes The like might be instanced again in the institution of the Sacrament of the Lords Supper in the Jews postcoenium from which it is by light change deduced And so it is in this matter of baptisme the Jewish custome of baptizing not onely proselytes and their children but the Jewish natives I thought necessary to clear from the most competent witnesses of their customes the Talmud Gemara and Maimonides the soberest of their writers And so likewise in the second place the practice of the Christian Church as it is from Christ and his Apostles deduced and applied particularly to the Resolution of our Quaere to the baptizing of Infants I have cleared also from some footsteps of it in the Scripture it self and from the concordant testimony of the Fathers of the Church And having cleared these two particulars wherein all the difficulty consisted I need not sure inquire of the opinion of antiquity for the dependence betwixt these two or the derivation of one of them from the other the very lineaments and features acknowledging and owning this progenie to have come forth from that stock this stream to have been derived from that fountain without any testimonials to certifie it And yet 3dly After all this I demand whether Christ's words to Nicodemus Joh. 3. mentioned § 18. be not an evidence from Scripture it self of this very matter the derivation of the Christian from the Jewish baptisme when upon Christs discourse on that subject that except a man be regenerate of water and of the spirit he cannot enter into the kingdome of God and on occasion of Nicodemus's objection against this v. 9. Iesus answered Art thou a master in Israel and knowest not these things discernibly intimating that this his institution of baptisme was so agreeable to the Iewish customes of initiating and receiving into the Covenant by baptisme that a Rabbi among the Iews could not reasonably be imagined to be ignorant of it And if the baptisme of the Iews had as Mr. T. cites it out of Grotius its first original from the memorie of the deluge purging away the sins of the world then sure that place of S. Peter which affirms the Christian baptisme to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the antitype or transcript of Noah's deluge is an express testimony of it also And this I hope might be a competent account of this matter And yet after all this it is also clear that the Fathers in their discourses of baptisme do ordinarily lay the foundation of it in Moses or the baptisme of the Iews witness Gregory Nazianzen Or. 39. Seeing saith he it is the feast of Christ's baptisme let us philosophize discourse exactly of the difference of baptismes then after this preface entring on the discourse he thus begins 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Moses saith he baptized but in water and before this in the cloud and in the sea And then making that with S. Paul a type of the Christian baptisme he proceeds to Iohn's baptisme which saith he differed from the Mosaical in that it added Repentance to water 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Iohn also baptized but not Iudaically So before him Macarius Hom. 32. having mentioned the circumcision which was under the Law foresignifying the true circumcision of the heart annexes thereto 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the baptisme of the Law which saith he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is a figure of true things 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for there that washed the body but here the baptisme of the holy Ghost and of fire purgeth and washeth the polluted mind and so goes on to the parallel betwixt the legall Priest and Christ making the same accord betwixt the one and the other pair So Hom. 47. p. 509. speaking of things under the Law he first mentions the glory of Moses face a type of the true glory under the Gospel 2. Circumcision a type of that of the heart 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 among them there is baptisme cleansing or sanctifying the flesh but with us the baptisme of the holy Spirit and of fire that which John preached The same is intimated again but not so explicitely set down Hom. 26. p. 349. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Peter succeeded Moses having the New Church of Christ and the true Priesthood committed to him for now is the baptisme of fire and the Spirit and a kind of circumcision placed in the heart where it seems the Iewish baptisme was the figure of the Christian as the Jâ—wish priesthood of the Christian and the Jewish circumcision of the circumcision in the heart So in Athanasius's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 qu 103. numbring up seven sorts of Baptisme the first even now mentioned 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that of the flood for the cutting off of sin the second that of Moses in passing the Red sea which he calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 figurative the third is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the legall baptisme 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which the Hebrews had whereby every unclean person so is every one by nature 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was baptized in water had his
saith he notes one that is by birth an alien from the Commonwealth of Israel and comes to the Israelites to own their God and be part of their policie and not to be taught but enjoy priviledges with other Jewes whether Civil or Ecclesiastical But certainly this is no reason of difference for besides that I in that § 27. acknowledged this accidental difference that a proselyte denotes a coming from some other nation as a disciple doth not adding that this difference had no place in this matter where the disciples are specified to be received from all nations besides this I say it cannot be unknown to Mr. T. that I speak of proselytes in such a notion as is equally competible to all of what nation soever they are that enter into Covenant with God Thus do we find a proselyte defined Heb. 11.6 by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he that cometh to God thus doth a Jew when he enters into Covenant of obedience to him and thus did a Gentile when he undertook the whole law of the Jewes and was therefore 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a proselyte of their covenant and a proselyte of their righteousnesse and such is every one whether Jew or Gentile that cometh to Christ and as the two former of these were made partakers of priviledges by this means particularly allowed freely to enter into the congregation and infants as well as grown men were thus among them admitted into Covenant so it is not imaginable why it should not hold of the Christian proselytes also nor why the Christian infants thus received into Covenant by Christ after the same manner as Jewish and Gentile Infants were among the antient people of God i. e. by baptisme should not as properly be called proselytes of Christ though they neither come from any other nation nor ever associate themselves with Israelites according to the flesh And whereas he saith of the proselytes coming to the Israelites that they came not to be taught but to enjoy priviledges I cannot divine what motive he had to affirme it for sure the infant child that was baptized and so received into the congregation of Israel did come to learn the Jewish religion into which he was thus early initiated and that was one speciall priviledge the rest of the heathen having not knowledge of these lawes the immediate end of his proselytisme yet not excluding those other ends of injoying all other priviledges both Civil and Ecclesiastical thereby And when he addes but a disciple of Christ is one that ownes Christ for his teacher and Lord onely for spiritual benefits I might well acknowledge it and aske why then an infant who hath need of those spiritual benefits assoon as he is born should not be hastened to a participation of them But it is farther evident that spiritual benefits being first and principally designed other even secular advantages may very lawfully be respected and reaped by them that are thus early brought in whether as disciples or proselytes to Christ Two sage observations he here addeth 1. That there is no mention of the disciples of the priests but of the Pharisees and Sadduces and I can very well grant it who speak not of any lower kinde of disciples but either of God among the Jews or of Christ among us Christians those being the only discipleships to which they were admitted by the ceremony of baptisme the disciples of the Pharisees and Sadduces being but a subdivision and notification of several sects among Jews as there are different denominations of Christians the more the pity which divide unity but use not new baptismes to discriminate them I am sure contradict the Apostle if they doe His 2d observation is that the holy Ghost doth not at any time call Christians Christs proselytes but his disciples that saith he we might not confound the notions of these terms But I answer 1. that those texts that expresse the Christians entring into discipleship by coming unto him of which there are good store do in effect call them proselytes for a proselyte is a Greek noun derived immediatly from the verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to come unto And 2dly that if this word whether in it self or in the verb from whence it comes had never been used in the New Testament yet would it not thence follow that we might not confound the notions of proselytes and disciples The word Jehovah is never used by the Holy Ghost in the New Testament yet may we not thence conclude that the notion of Jehovah and God are divers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the known style of the Nicene Fathers is never found used by the writers of the Bible yet sure it no way follows thence that the notion of that word and of this phrase I and my Father are one are different and may not be confounded T is pity to lose time on such fictions of scruple and difficulty as these What now is further said by him in this chapter both concerning little ones coming unto Christ and of their entring into covenant Deut. 29.10 is on both sides but a bare denyal of that which is competently proved in that 28 § For t is there evident that infant children are and always were accounted capable of proselytisme and so of being entred disciples and particularly of being entred into covenant with God and so of being baptized and there is no reason imaginable why the infants which were capable of coming to Christ were blessed by him were affirmed by him to be qualified for the kingdome of heaven should be denyed water to be baptized The holy Ghost being fallen on the Gentiles that came with Cornelius Peter durst not deny them baptisme And with what equity can the Christian Church do it to those who are qualified for the receiving pardon of sin for being blest by Christ for being received into Covenant with him and may afterward be instructed in all things which are needful to be learnt For that still they are unqualified till by hearing they own Christ as their Master this is a begging of the question without any the least tender of proof As for entring into covenant when by the force of Deut. 29.10 he is forced to yield it competible to infants yet he will do his best to escape the conviction which it offers him 1. by modifying the sense then by invalidating my inference from it First though he yield that they may enter into Covenant yet this saith he but in some sense by their fathers act ingaging them under a curse or oath to own God as theirs in which sense the posterity then unborn did enter into covenant Deut. 29.15 But if we examine the place it will be most clear 1. that the Covenant is entred into by the infants just as by the rest of them the wives and the strangers or proselytes On their part Ye stand this day all of you before the Lord that thou shouldst enter into Covenant with the
Lord and on Gods part that he may establish thee this day for a people 2dly Here is in the text no mention of any act of the fathers ingaging them under a curse or oath but only of Gods oath which he maketh to them v. 12. 3dly If they had thus adjured or laid oath or curse upon their children yet would this make no difference betwixt their and our entring into Covenant we by the oath of baptisme which is laid on the childe by him to be performed when he comes to ability unlesse he will forfeit all the benefits of his baptisme do in like manner adjure our infants though whilest they remain such they hear it as little as the Jewish infants did 4thly Whereas from v. 15. he cites that the posterity then unborn thus entred into Covenant there is no such word in the text no mention of posterity or of unborn but of them only who were not that day with them i. e. I suppose were at that time of assmbling absent from the Congregation I wonder why Mr. T. should attempt thus to impose upon the reader As for our inference which is this that by parity of reason infants may be entred into discipleship and accordingly baptized as well as they then might be entred into the covenant of God he simply rejects it without any farther notice of his reason again save onely this that in baptisme such a discipleship is injoyn'd as is by preaching the Gospel and they onely are disciples that are believers and the onely are appointed to be baptized who in their own persons do enter into Covenant and ingage themselves to be Christs followers and this is again but a pitifull petitio principii a denying our conclusion when the premises cannot be denyed and so invincibly inferre the conclusion viz. that those may be brought to and received into discipleship covenant baptisme which in their own persons are not yet able to come to Christ as those Criples may be born by others to Christ who wanted strength to addresse themselves and be as really partakers of his healing miracles as those who came to him on their own legges And so much also for the 25th Chapter CHAP. III. Of the Apostolical practice in this matter Sect. 1. The interpretation of 1 Cor. 7.12 vindicated 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sanctification used to denote baptisme the use of it in the Fathers and Scripture Tertullians testimonie designati Sanctitatis Origen Author Quaest ad Antiochum Cyprian Chrysostome 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there infant children 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Epistles S. Augustines words examined IN his last Chapter he proceeds to the view of those §§ which set down the positive part of our basis evidencing the opinion and sense which the Apostles had of Christ's institution and of his intention to include and not to exclude infants from baptisme The Apostles sense must be judged by their own usage and practice and that is testified to us two waies 1. by one considerable remain and indication of it in S. Paul 2. By the practice of the first and purest ages of the Church receiving infants to baptisme and so testifying the Apostolical usage and farther affirming that they received it by tradition from the Apostles The remain and indication in S. Paul is in the known place of 1 Cor. 7.12 where speaking of the believers children he saith v. 14 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but now are they holy i. e. it is the present practice of the Church that Apostolical Church in S. Paul's time to admit to baptisme the infant chldren of parents of whom one is Christian though not of others That this is the meaning of holy is there made evident as by other arguments so by this that the antient Fathers who knew the sacred dialect call baptisme Sanctification Eum qui natus est baptizandum sanctificandum in Cyprian and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be sanctifyed when they have no feeling of it and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 let him be sanctified from the infancie i. e. baptized then in Gregorie Nazianzen To which testimonies and the rest which is there produced out of the agreement of the Jewish style 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sanctifications for baptismes to which agrees Maecarius's saying of the Jewish baptisme 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it sanctifies the flesh Hom. 47. p. 509. because the main difficulty of the interpretation consists herein I shâ—ll now adde more one very antient before any of these within less then an 100. years after the death of S. John Tertullian de Animâ c. 39. where speaking of infants and saying ex sanctificato alterutro sexu sanctos procreari that when either the father or mother is sanctified i. e. received as a believer by baptisme into the Church the children are holy c. clear evidences of the notion of the word this he there proves by these very words of this Apostle Caeterum inquit immundi nascuntur else so caeterum in Tertullian's style is known to be put for alioqui or the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 were your children unclean adding in stead of these other words but now are they holy quasi designatos tamen sanctitatis per hoc etiam salutis intelligi volens fidelium filios hereby willing that we should understand that the children of believers are the designed or the sealed of holyness in the sense I conceive wherein they that are baptized are by the antients frequently said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be sealed and thereby of salvation also And all this saith he thus urged by the Apostle ut hujus spei pignora matrimoniis quae retinenda censuerat patrocinarentur that this hope might be a pledge to ingage the believing wife or husband not to part from the unbeliever And he yet farther addes still to the confirming of this interpretation Alioqui meminerat Dominicae definitionis Nisi quis nascatur ex aquâ spiritu non introibit in regnum Dei i. e. non erit Sanctus Otherwise or if this argument of the Apostle had not been sufficient he would have mentioned the definition of Christ that unless one be born of water and the Spirit i. e. baptized he shall not enter into the kingdome of God i. e. shall not be holy shewing still of what holyness he understands the Apostles speech that which the child of the believer is made partaker of by baptisme concluding Ita omnis anima usque eo in Adam censetur donec in Christo recenseatur tamdiu immunda quamdiu recenseatur Every soul is so long inrolled in Adam till it be inrolled anew in Christ and is so long unclean till it be thus anew inrolled which as it supposes every child of Adam to be impure till he be thus by baptisme made a child of Gods a member of Christ so it gives a full account of that uncleanesse and that holyness of which the Apostle speaks the former the state of a child of Adam unbaptized the
of the antient Christian writers no nor any of those the Doctor cites ever derives it from the Jewish practice But certainly this is of no force for 1. So long as none of all these deny it to be so derived and when the matter it self speaks it and the agreement between what we find in the Christian Church with what we find among the Jewes there is no want either of truth or sobriety in my assertion that Christs institution of baptisme was founded in the Jewish practice of baptizing their natives and their proselytes and that their custome being to baptize infant children Christs institution also being by the Apostles understood to belong to the infant childrens baptisme was in that respect also conformable to the Jewish copy and so still the Jewish practice the foundation of the Christian What he addes from several antient testimonies shortly pointed at that they shew that the Fathers took the baptisme of infants not to have foundation in the Jewish practice but in the conceit they had that baptisme did regenerate give grace and save and was necessary for them to enter into the kingdome hath nothing of weight in it For 1. Their conceiting that baptisme had this force from Christs institution no way prejudges Christs founding his institution in the foregoing Jewish practice T is as if he should thus argue the Fathers conceived the Sacrament of the Lords Supper to be usefull for the confirming of our faith therefore they took that Sacrament not to be sounded in the postcoenium of the Jewes They conceived imposition of hands to conferre a Character on those that were thus ordained to holy orders therefore this was not founded in the Jewish custome of receiving Doctors into the Sanhedrim by laying on of hands The foundation of the institution is one thing and the benefits of it being instituted is another and yet both these are found to belong to the same thing 2dly Their very opinion that baptisme did regenerate and was necessary to enter into the kingdome as it is taken by the Fathers from the words of Christ to Nicodemus Joh. 3. Except a man be born again v. 3. and that of water v. 5. by baptisme he cannot enter into the kingdome of God so was that speech of Christ taken from the customary doctrine of the Jewes among whom baptisme was said to regenerate and to enter into the Church as that was the portal to the kingdome of God and accordingly when Nicodemus seems not to understand it Christ appeals to the Jewish doctrine or tradition Art thou a Ruler a Master in Israel and knowest not these things and therefore again those perswasions of the Fathers are far from unreconcileable with that which I have affirmed of the founding the Christian in the Jewish baptisme Nay 4. That the Fathers in their discourses of baptisme do ordinarily lay the foundation of it in Moses or the baptisme of the Jewes and so might as well found the baptisme of Christian infants there the Jewes baptisme as hath appeared belonging to such hath formerly been evidenced from Gregorie Nazianzen Orat. 39. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and so from others also What he now addes of womens baptizing among Papists and the allowance thereof formerly among us of private baptisme of the use of propounding questions to the infant which he is pleased to style ridiculous of the sureties answering in the childs behalf and expressing their desire to be baptized into the faith recited of the custome of baptizing onely at Easter and Whitsontide of sprinkling or powring water on the face of a confession in the Pract. Cat. that all men were instructed antiently before they were baptized is all amast together if it might be to make up one accumulative argument but is utterly insufficient to do so All that he concludes from the mention of all these is but his own resolution not to answer the testimonies which I had alledged from the Fathers to prove that Infant baptisme was an Apostolical tradition His words are these upon the mentioning of those particulars And therefore for the present I shall put by the answering of the stale and rotten allegations out of the Fathers for infant baptisme brought by the Doctor because having said so much Here indeed by his therefore I am told the reason why he was willing to mention those other particulars so causelesly and unseasonably viz. by way of diversion as dextrous persons are wont to do for the removing of difficulties to put by the answering of the allegations out of the Fathers But I must not thus farre complie with Mr. T. The main issue of the whole dispute must divolve to this the doctrine of the antient Church in this matter For. 1. baptisme being instituted by Christ long before his crucifixion and 2. The forme wherein he instituted it being not set down in the Gospels and so 3. The Apostles practice being our onely guide for the resolving such difficulties as these whether infants were admittable or no to baptisme the foundation thereof among the Jewes visibly belonging to infants but it being still possible that this might be changed in Christs institution it is not now imaginable what way should be open to us of this age 1600 years after those times to discern Christs institution in this matter but by the words or actions of or some kind of intimation from the Apostles how they understood Christs institution Of this one place we have 1 Cor. 7. which comes in incidentally speaking to another matter and notifies the Apostles sense by their practice visibly enough and defines for the baptizing of infants in those dayes But to them that will not acknowledge this sense of those words how fair and easy soever there is but one possible method remaining in this as in all other questions of fact as evidently this is whether in the Apostles times and by their appointment children were received to baptisme or no viz. to appeal to those that could not be ignorant of this matter who by succession and tradition the one from the other had the Apostles practice the interpreter of their sense of Christs institution conveyed and handed down unto them and are to us their late posterity the only competent witnesses of this matter of fact and so are in all reason to decide the controversie and give a final conclusion to the debate between us This therefore being the last part of my method in the positive part of the Resolution of that Quaere I professe to have laid the most weight upon it according to the grounds set down in the first Quare concerning the deciding of such controversies and consequently must still insist upon it and not be put off by Mr. T. his dexteritie and that in this matter I may not fail of giving the Reader some evidence I shall again resume it and give him a competent series of testimonies some formerly mentioned and now put more into forme of evidence and others added to them so
as to inferre an uniforme concordant tradition of all the ages of the Church of Christ even since the Apostles times unto this day for the receiving infants to baptisme and that shall be the last part of this Replie to Mr. T. and the Antipadobaptist whose pretensions are the contrary that infants must not be thus admitted Sect. 2. A Catalogue of Testimonies of the first ages for Infant baptisme and the Apostolicalness thereof FIrst then I begin with the words of the Apostle so long insisted on and vindicated from Mr. T. his exceptions and by so antient a writer as Tertullian c. applyed to this matter And that first Epistle to the Corinthians being written at the end of his three years stay in Asia Act. 20.31 i. e. An. Chr. 54. I shall there place my first testimonie In the middle of the first Centurie S. Paul delivered these words Now are your children holy i. e. your children new-born as appears by the context and Tertullian are sanctified as that signifies baptized in the style of the New Testament and the antient Church 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they are vouchsafed the good things that come by baptisme saith the Author of the Respons ad Orthod whether that were Justine the Martyr who suffered Anno 163. or another very antient writer under that name And this of that Apostle is an evidence of the practice of the first or Apostolical age soon after Christ and is not contradicted by any that wrote in that age In the next age after the Apostles flourished S. Irenaeus said to be martyred at Lyons the seate of his Bishoprick the 5 t of Severus An. Chr. 197. he had been an auditor of Polycarpe Bishop of Smyrna styled by that Church an Apostolical and Prophetical Doctor and is by S. Hierome lookt on as a man of the Apostolical times and by Tertullian as a most accurate searcher of all doctrines and so is a most competent witnesse of the Apostolical doctrine and practice and thus he speaks l. 2. advers har c. 38. Omnes venit Christus per semet ipsum salvare omnes inquam qui per eum renascuntur in Deum Infantes parvulos pueros juvenes seniores Christ came to save all by himself all I say who are born again unto God by him Infants and little ones and children and young men and older men where it is evidently his affirmation that infants expressely are by Christ regenerate unto God and that must be in baptisme that laver of regeneration and so they are not in his opinion excluded from baptisme And so this is a testimonie of the second Century not found or praetended to be contradicted by any other of that age Immediately after Irenaeus followed Tertullian in the end of the 2d and beginning of the 3d Century a man of great learning and a diligent observer and recorder of the customes and practices of the most antient Church And he lib. de Animâ c. 39. affirmes it from the Apostle ex sanctificato alterutro sexu sanctos procreari that when either parent is sanctified or believer i. e. baptized the children that are born from them are holy and this tam ex seminis praerogativâ quà m ex institutionis disciplinâ both by praerogative of their seed and by the discipline of the institution i. e. as hath been shewed by baptisme adding from the same Apostle that delivered those words 1 Cor. 7.4 that his meaning was that the children of believers should be understood to be designati sanctitatis ac per hoc salutis and evidencing what he means thereby by the following words of Christ's definition Joh. 3. Vnlesse a man be born of water and of the Spirit he shall not enter into the kingdome of God i. e. non erit sanctus shall not be holy where baptisme is manifestly the thing by which these children are said to attain that sanctity and more he addes in the beginning of the next chapter to the same purpose And so he is a competent witnesse for the beginning of that third age and is not found contradicted by any other passage in his works or by any of his time But on the contrary Origen who died at Tyre An. Chr. 254. hath three most irrefragable testimonies for it first on Luke Hom. 14. Parvuli baptizantur in remissionem peccatorum little ones are baptized into the remission of sins and quomodo potest ulla lavacri in parvulis ratio subsistere nisi juxta illum sensum de quo paulò autè diximus Nullus mundus à sorde c. How can the account of baptizing little ones bold but according to that which before was said none is clean from pollution no not if he be but a day old and per baptismi sacramentum nativitatis sordes deponuntur propterea baptizantur parvuli by the sacrament of baptisme the pollutions of our birth are put off and therefore little ones are baptized Secondly on Leviticus Hom. 8. Requiratur quid causae est cum baptisma Ecclesiae in remissionem peccatorum detur secundum Ecclesiae observantiam etiam parvulis baptismum dari Let it be considered what the cause is when the baptisme of the Church is given for the remission of sins that baptisme should according to the observation or custome of the Church be given to little ones Thirdly on the Epistle to the Romans l. 5. Ecclesia ab Apostolis traditionem suscepit etiam parvulis baptismum dare the Church hath received tradition from the Apostles to give baptisme to little ones also such little ones still as by the former words appears as those of a day old and the like And so here is a full concord of testimonies both for the practice of the Church and tradition received from the Apostles for baptizing of infants and so is a farther evidence of the doctrine of the third age not contradicted by any of that time About the same time or without question soon after wrote the Author under the name of Dionysius Areopagita de Eccl. Hierarch For as by Photius it appears Theodorus Presbyter about the year 420. debated the question whether that writer were Dionysius mentioned in the Acts or no. And of this no doubt hath been made but that he was a very antient and learned Author He therefore in his 7. chap of Eccles Hierarch proposeth the question as that which may seem to profane persons i. e. heathens ridiculous why 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 children which cannot yet understand divine things are made partakers of the sacred birth from God i. e. evidently of baptisme 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 concerning the baptizing of infants saith Maximus his Scholiast adding to the same head also that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 others in their stead pronounce the abrenunoiations and divine confessions And his answer is 1. that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 many things which are unknown by us why they are done have yet causes worthy of God