cannot do but upon weighty considerations 2. The Soveraign in this case hath the same right in Adult subjects as in Infants seeing they are all Vassals to him as their Lord. And yet it is manifest in Scripture that God will have the personal consent of the Adult before they shall have any interest in his Covenant Because when their Soveraign Lord hath all the right that is possible he leaveth them the power of their own wills And so as they have still naturally a nearer right in themselves than he hath which they cannot alienate so it seems they have in their children 3. At least this is nothing to almost all the world where the Rulers claim no such absolute Dominion and Propriety 4. God in Scripture requireth Parents and not Rulers to circumcise their children and to educate them And Joshua would promise for no more but himself his houshould to serve the Lord and bids the people choose whom they would serve Yet I will not deny but that a Ruler may use some sharp means to procure the consent of Parents in some cases And I also confess that this Argument though least insisted on hath in my opinion much more plausible appearance of strength and better deserves a further consideration than the great and common Argument of the Parents Right by such a Profession as consisteth with Notorious Ungodliness upon which most build almost all tâ—eir Cause â—astly I conceive that as a Governors Right is in the Common-wealth and main body of the Nation enabling him to Rule them in the fear of God so I will not deny but that he may call together the chief part of them or a Representative body and urging and procuring their consent he may devote them by a National Covenant to Gâ—d and promise himself to rule them in his fear And I would this duty and the Scripture Patterns for it were better laid to heart But still this leaves the Parent that nearer Natural Interest in his Individual children on which God hath pleased rather to ground his Promises and Threatenings to Infants The second Argument is drawn from Mat. 28.19 20. Go and disciple me all Nations baptizing them From whence it is argued that the Infants of notorious ungodly Parents being Members of a Discipled Nation may therefore be baptized as such Members Answ. 1. If the nearer Interest of their Parents be not supposed necessary then this Argument makes as much for the Right of the child of any Jew or Heathen as of a Christian for they may be Members of that Nation which is Discipled 2. But they must be Members of it quà tales as discipled and that they are not till they are themselves Disciples The Apostles are first commanded to Disciple Nations and then to Baptize them on supposition that they be discipled therefore they must baptize none but those that are discipled They must endeavour the discipling of each Individual but if they prevail but with the greater and Ruling part it may be called a Discipled Nation and a Kingdom that is become the Kingdom of Christ but yet as it is but for the sake of the chief part that the whole is so denominated so it is only that part that is to be baptized seeing a bare denomination of the whole gives not right to any part that hath none of the ground of that denomination Nor did the antient Churches so understand this Text For when Constantine and Theodosius and other Christian Emperors had the Rule they did not judge that all their Subjects should be baptized The 3d. Argument is drawn from the Interest of the Church They say Those that are born within the Church though of unworthy Parents the Church may take them and present them to baptism Answ. How are those born within the Church whose Parents are no Members of the Church Of which more anon If the Parent be utterly unworthy and the child can have no Right upon his account then certainly he is not to be reckoned in the Church And if you mean that all those that are born among the members of the Church or where they have Civil Rule may by them be presented to Baptism then the argument must be the same with that before or so vain as to need no confutation Unless the Church will accept the Children as their Own according to the sense of the fourth fore-mentioned Title and then any one Member may better do it than the whole Church Having spoken to the five pretended Titles distinctly and shewed you how far they are any of them allowable and how far not I shall proceed to the second Question in the begining propounded viz. Whether that the Eventual Disposal of God by a Physical Act of Providence do give any Right to the children of notoriously ungodly Parents to be baptized And I need not say much to this 1. Because I know of none that plead this Right 2. Because it is but a non-injustum and I think scarcely so much as a Justum much less a Debitum that is here grounded 3. But especially because it is unquestionably evident that if this give any kind of Right it is but to a Possession ad libitum Donatoris after the reception and not at all to the first Reception And therefore it cannot with the least shew of Reason be pleaded before-hand to enable any mans claim to Baptism nor to enable a Minister to baptize any nor yet ex post facto to justifie the Act of the Baptizer or of the Baptized Yet how far it may prohibite any man to dispossess them of the state or priviledges of the baptized till God give them a clear warrant is worthy consideration 3. But it is the third Question concerning the third sort of Right that most of all concerneth us to discuss seeing as far as I can perceive it is this that our Brethren of the contrary judgement do intend to insist upon as discerning some inconvenience in affirming God to be any otherwise than conditionally engaged in Covenant with any Notorious ungodly men yea or any that are unregenerate To this therefore we must next speak The Question is Whether it be Gods command that Ministers should baptize Children of notoriously ungodly men Or Whether it be their duty Or Whether such Children be the Objects of our Just and Justifiable Action of Baptizing And I conclude the Question Negatively supposing that we speak both of Parents natural and civil and so that they come in upon no better account than the Title of such Parents as is before explained Here 1. I grant that if the natural Parents be ungodly we may baptize on the the Title of their civil Parents or Pro-parents I mean any that truly Own them as Theirs 2. Much more if any one of the Parents be godly though the other be ungodly 3. Also If there be a probable profession of Godliness though indeed there be not Sincerity it is our duty to baptize the children of such Because 1.
sed justificatis h. e. non infidelibus sed conversis Non igitur nisi conversione fide sumi debent secus sigilla justitiae esse cessant Quid enim non hathentibus fidem justitiam obsignarem Yet following Calvin he next sheweth that sometime Righteousness doth follow after and not precede instancing in Isaac which none denieth For Infants are baptized on the account of their Parents faith and not their own and the adult oft profess the faith which they have not Note also here besides Paraeus his express decision of the main controversie how he takes the converted justified and believers for the same and the unconverted unjustified and Infidels for the same Ragerus a little quarrels with Paraeus and as many Lutherans do would make Abrahams example no standing Rule that the Sacrament begets not the first Grace sed non sequitur in hoc subjecto Circumcisio non habuit virtutem operativam gratiae primitus conferendae ergò in nullo habuit imò vero aliis gratiae divinae adhuc destitutis medium esse potuit gratiae primitus conferendae so others of that way But as we distinguish between what God may do by Baptism and what he hath Instituted it to do so the very judgement of these Lutherans and many Papists who will have Sacraments to confer Grace where it is not is against the opinion that we now resist For it is not any lower effect only but saving Justification or Remission which these make to be the present effect of it Dr. Willet in loc saith Circumcision then did not confer upon him that Grace which he had not but did confirm and stablish him in the grace and faith received the Sacraments then non Instituta sunt justificandis sed justificatis are not Instituted for those which are to be justified but for them which are already justifyed Parae Peter Martyr is larger and makes these words of Paul to be the definition of a Sacrament to be a Seal of the Righteousness of faith Much out of them might be cited for the cause in hand but that I must avoid prolixity So much shall serve for that Argument Argum. 7. We must Baptize none but those that are first professed Disciples of Christ and their children who are also Disciples but none are professed Disciples of Christ that profess not saving faith in Christ therefore we may not Baptize any that profess not saving faith in Christ. The Major is proved from Matth 38.19 Go Disciple me all Nations batizing them As for those that say they are Discipled by baptizing and not before baptizing 1. They speak not the sense of that Text. 2. Nor that which is true or rational if they mean it absolutely as so spoken else why should one be baptized more then another 3. But if they mean that by heart-covenant or Gods Accepâ—ance and promise they are Disciples before but not so compleatly till the covenant be sealed and solemnized as a souldier is not so signally a souldier till he be listed nor a King till he be crowned so fully a King or a man or woman so fully married till it be solemnized in the Congregation in this sense they say the same that I am proving Men must be first Disciples by the professed consent before they are declared such by the Seals or publike sacramental solemnization And that only the professors of saving Faith and their Infants are Disciples may appear by a perusal of the Texts of Scripture that use this word and it wâ—ll not only be found that this which I maintain is the ordinary use of the Word which should make it so also with us but that no Text can be cited where any others are called the Disciples of Christ. For the Major and Minor both observe Piscators Definition of Baptism on Mat. 28.19 Baptismus est sacramentum novi Testamenti quo homines ad Ecclesiam pertinentes ex mandato Christi cultui veri Dei qui est Pater Filius Spiritus Sanctus per ministros verbi consecrantur in fide Remissionis peccatorum spe vitae aeternae confirmantur And he proveth this Description per partes 1. That its a Sacrament 2. That it belongeth to those that pertain to that Church and that they only must be baptized qui ecclesiam fuerint ingressi ac fidem evangelii professi which he proveth from Mark 16.16 he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved Vult Ergò saith he ut prius constet de alicuius fide quam baptizetur Vnde Acts 8. Philippus Evangelista non prius baptizare voluit Eunuchum illum Aethiopem quam is professus esset fidem Christi And by the proof from Mar. 16.16 It is apparent that he speaks of saving faith Then he proves the last part of his description Postremo per Baptismum homines in fide spe confirmari liquet ex verbis Qui crediderit baptizatus fuerit salvabitur sic Petrus Act 2.38 resipiscentes Judaeos jubet baptizari in remissionem peâ—catorum hoc est ad confirmandam fidem remissionie peccatorum Item Act. 22.16 Ananias dicit Paulo recens converso Baptizare ablue peccata tua hoc est Baptizare ad confirmandam fidem remissionis peccatorum quod abluta sint peccata tua sanguine Christi Calvin in loc saith Baptizari jubet Christus eos qui nomen evangelio dederint seque professi fuerint Discipulos pâ—rtim ut illis Baptismus sit vitae aeternae tessera coram Deo partim apud homines externum fidei signum Scimus enim Deum nobis testari Adoptionis suae gratiam hoc signo quia nos inserit in corpus filii sui ut nos in grege suo censeat Ideo spirituale nostrum lavacrum quo nos sibi reconciliat ut nova justitia illic representatur Sed quemadmodum gratiam suam Deus hoc sigillo nobis confirmat ita quicunque se ad Baptismum offerunt vicissim quasi data syngrapha obstringunt suam fidem And after verum quia docere prius jubet Christus quam baptizare tantum credentes ad Baptismum vult recipi videtur non ritè administrari baptismus nisi fides precesserit On this pretence he shews that the Anabaptists oppose Infant-Baptism To which he answers not by receding from what is said before but by shewing that eos qui fide in ecclesiam Dei ingressi sunt videmus cum sua sobole censeri in Christi membris in salutis haereditatem simul vocari Nec vero separatur hoc modo Baptismus à fide vel doctrina quia licèt pueri infantes nondam per aetatem side percipiant Dei gratiam Deus tamen eorum parentes compellans ipsus etiam complectitur So that it is Calvins judgement that this very Text which is the most notable Copy of the Apostolical commission for the Baptizing of the discipled Nations doth appoint that saving faith be professed before men be baptized and lie makes these to be
the Disciples with their Infants and that it is Reconciliation Adoption and the Inheritance of salvation that are sealed up to Parents and children by Baptism Paraeus in loc saith Cum Baptismus sit signum faederis testificans baptizatos recipi a Deo in gratiam haud dubiè Pater filius spiritus sanctus sunt unus verus Deus baptizatos in gratiam foedus recipiens And he expoundeth this from Mar. 16.16 shewing that as the order is credere baptizari so that this is a true saving faith lâ—st autem credere Evangelio non solum assentiri doctrinae quod vera sit sed fiducia certa sibi applicare promissionem gratiae nos recipi in gratiam nobis remissa esse peccata propter Christum Commendat vero nobis fidem baptismum duabus rationibus una ab utili salvabitur h. e. vitam aeternam consequetur For my own part I have before entered my dissent to such descriptions of justifying faith as make it to be a Believing that our sins are pardoned but yet I agree with him and the rest in the main that it must be an Act of the will embracing or accepting an offered Christ as well as of the understanding and that the Profession of it must go before Baptism But I shall further prove the Minor from some other Texts of Scripture viz. that they are not Christs Disciples that Profess not saving faith or are not the Infants of such Luke 14.26 27 33. If any man come to me and hate not his Father and Mother and Wife and Children and Brothers and Sisters yea and his own life also he cannot be my Disciple and whosoever doth not bear his Cross and come after me cannot be my Disciple whosoever he be of you that forsaketh not all that he hath cannot be my Disciple This is spoken of true Disciples in heart the first significatum by him that knew the heart From whence I argue thus If none are Christs Disciples in heart nor can be but those that value him above all and will forsake all for him if he require it then none can be his Disciples by external Profession but those that Profess to esteem him above all and to be willing to forsake all rather then forsake him But the former is proved by the Text The consequence is clear in that the world hath hitherto been acquainted but with two sorts of Christians or Disciples of Christ the one such sincerely in heart and the other such by Profession and the latter are so called because they profess to be what the other are indeed and what themselves are if they sincerely so profess And it is the same thing Professed which makes a man a Professed Christian which being found in the heart doth make a man a hearty Christian. Of these two sorts of Disciples people of God I spake as plain as I could speak pag. 4. of the Saints Rest But Mr. Blake never sticks when he meets with such passages to perswade the world that they are my self-contradictions and that they make for him as if it were all one to Profess a saving faith even the Acceptance of Christ and to Profess a faith short of saving But I perceive by this how he is like to use other Authors that cannot speak for themselves that would perswade men that I speak for him even where I expresly speak for the same cause which I now maintain against him John 13.35 By this shall all men know that ye are my Disciples if ye love one another Here Christ giveth a certain badg by which his true Disciples may be known If only those that love one another are true Disciples in heart then only those that Profess to love one another are Disciples by Profession But c. And that this Love is a special Grace and Inseparable concomitant of saving faith is manifest in that By this we know that we are translated from death to life because we love the Brethren 1 Joh. 3.14 Joh. 8.31 If ye continue in my word then are ye that is you will approve your selves my Disciples indeed If only those are Christs Disciples indeed as to the heart that have the Resolution of perseverance and those only his Practical conquering Disciples who actually persevere then only those are his Professed Disciples that Profess a Resolution to persevere But c. Ergo c. All this that I have said is no more then we have ever practised when in Baptism we renounced the World Flesh and Devil and promised to fight under Christs Banner to our lives end Saith Piscator on John 13.35 Si pro Christianis id est Christs discipulis haberi volumus oportet ut nos mutuò quà m ardentissimè diligamus c. Object Joh. 6. â—0 61 66. Those are called his Disciples that were offended at his word and went back Answ. 1. That 's none of our question whether Professed Disciples may not forsake Christ we easily acknowledge it But let it be proved that these did not before Profess a saving faith 2. This makes as much against the Opponent as me for it was the very want of a Dogmatical faith that they here manifested being offended that Christ should tell them that they must eat his flesh Object Act. 19.1 They are called Disciples that had not heard whether there be a Holy Ghost or not Answ. If they had not heard then it was not an article of necessity to their Justification They had been baptized and professed that faith which was saving when John baptized 2. This is spoken only of that extraordinary gift of the Holy Ghost Obj. Any one is a Disciple that is willing to learn of Christ. Answ. No such matter In an improper sence you may so call them but not in Scripture sense where 1. A Disciple and a Christian are all one Acts 11.26 But every one that is willing to learn of Christ is not a Christian therefore not a disciple 2. A Disciple of Christ is one that will take him for the great Prophet of the Church which whosoever heareth not shall be cut off from Gods people and will learn of him as of the Christ. But so wil not all that will learn of him for a man that taketh Christ but for a common wise man as Socrates or Plato may be willing to learn of him and so may be his Disciple in another sense but not in the Christian sense as a Christian. 3. He that is sincerely a Disciple of Christ in heart doth take him for one that by redemption also hath Propitiated the offended Majesty and as King hath authority to rule him and submitteth to him in his whole office as he is the Christ For he cannot be truly a Christian that taketh not Christ as Christ and believeth not in him in all that is essential to his office and so to the object of our faith As he that believeth that Christ is God only or Man only is no Christian so he
ought not to be baptized nor any on their account The Major is proved 1 In that it is part of Christianity And to be baptized into his name is to take him as our Prophet 2. Such should be cut off Acts 3.23 Mr. Gilespie and others expound Moses cutting off of Excommunication therefore not admitted in such a condition Argu. 20. If notoriously ungodly baptized Parents are notoriously uncapable of presenting and dedicating their children to Christ covenanting with him on their behalf then are they Notoriously uncapable of Interesting their children in the Covenant or Baptism Or Then may we not baptize them on their account But the Antecedent is true as I prove thus 1. A man that notoriously refuseth to accept of Christ himself and to take him as he is offered to covenant truly with him is Notoriously uncapable of doing the same on the behalf of another For he that hath no true faith for himself cannot have it for his child though perhaps he may be content that his child let go some sins for Christ which he cannot spare himself but c. Ergo. 2. He that is Notoriously a perfidious Breaker of his own verbal covenant is while such uncapable of covenanting with Christ for another For such a mans word is not to be taken he hath forfeited his credit till he repent and return to his fidelity But such are all the notorious Ungodly Ergo. c. The Consequence of the main Argument is clearly good because he that brings any child to be baptized must covenant for it with Christ for it is a mutual Covenant that must be entered in Baptism The child cannot consent or covenant by it self therefore it must do it by others and that must be those that present it as having Right on their Account And he that is not Willing for himself cannot Consent for another Argu. 21. From the second Commandment with all those other Texts that express Gods differencing the seed of the wicked and godly If it be Gods will that there shall be visible notes of his displeasure on the children of the Notoriously ungodly as theirs in comparison of the children of the godly then we ought not to baptize them But the Antecedent is true Therefore so is the Consequent Here note 1. That we speak not of any children of ungodly men who at age renounce their Parents waies and themselves fear God of whom Ezek. 18. speaks but only of them while Infants and as theirs 2. In the Antecedent I mean that God hath so visibly noted out the children of the Notoriously ungodly as such to lie under his displeasure that he would have the Church and all take notice of it and esteem of them accordingly The reason of the Consequent is because Baptizing puts them among those that are visibly under Gods favour the Church being called the Body of Christ the House of the Living God c. But those that be visibly from under his special favour should not be put into such a Body The Antecedent I prove 1. from the second Commandment where note 1. that the parties differenced are the Posterity of them that hate God on one side and on the other those that love him and keep his Commandments Not only between Professors of Faith or of Infidelity but between godly and ungodly it being usual in Scripture to call the ungodly Haters of God and justly and it is those that love him not and keep not his Commandments that are called haters of him 2. Note that it is a visible mark of his favour which he there putteth on the seed of the godly from whence we may well gather their Church-membership as I have shewed elsewhere Therefore it is a visible note of his disfavour which he putteth on the Notoriously ungodly from whence we may gather that they are not to be visible Church-members 3. Note also that this is in the Decalogue and a standing determination of God and not ceremonial or transitorie Note also how the Scripture all along concurs The seed of Cain are called the children of men though its like they acknowledged God to be their Maker who might have heard Adam tell them of the creation And indeed it is ungodliness and wickedness that God drowned the World for Yet are these children of Cain as an excommunâ—cate brood whom the children of God might not joyn with The Infants of all the wicked of the world are drowned with their Parents in the Flood The Infants of Sodom and Gomorrah are destroyed with their Parents who are said by Jude to suffer the vengeance of eternal fire as an example not of original sin but to those that after should live ungodly The children of the Egyptians are destroyed for their Parents sins while Israels are preserved The children of Daâ—han and Abiram and their confederates were swallowed up with them for their Rebellion yet did their parents confess the true God and were circumcised Achans children were all stoned to death and burned for his sin Josh. 7.15.26 It was Gods command to Israel that if any City were reduced and drawn away to serve other gods that City infants and all should be destroyed Deut. 13.12 13. c. God commanded Israel to put to death all the Infants of all the Nations that were given them for Inheritance Deut. 20.16 17. which was for the Parents abomination The Amalekite's infants must all be slain So are all the Males among the little ones of the Midianites Numb 31.17 The children of Daniels Accusers are cast into the Den of Lions Dan. 6.24 And Babylones little ones must be dash't against the stones Psal. 137.9 The wicked are cursed in the fruit of their body yea It is cursed Deut. 28.18.32.41 Christ would have gathered the children of Jerusalem great and small but did not because they would not On that Generation he brought all the righteous blood that was shed from Abel and takes witness from their own mouths that They were the children of them that killed the Prophets Now I think if the children of the notoriously ungodly lie under Gods visible displeasure thus far they should not by Baptism as theirs be taken into that society that are visibly in his favour and distinguished from all the world as a Peculiar people a Holy Priesthood a Royal Nation the Children of God the Body and Spouse of Christ and the Temple of the Holy Ghost Argu. 22. That Doctrine is not found which confoundeth the Catechumeni as to their description which the rightfull members of the Church But such is the Doctrine that we oppose yea worse For the Catechumeni might understand and believe the fundamentals which is all the Title that these men can produce by their profession But they were not to be admitted into the Church till they had more even resolutions expressed to obey Nay many such without the Church had some willingness to learn and waited long on teaching to that end But so will not many of these in