baptisme was ordained by the Apostles and thinke that the same is to be received as the placita Scholasticorum Theologorum which cannot bee proved by Scripture Here the Authors use their old art of substraction and addition His words are thus It is probable that to baptize Infants was instituted by the Apostles and yet they are not to bee condemned which doubt thereof With the same moderation many tenents of Schoole Divines are to bee received which cannot evidently be proved from the Scriptures The first speech of Erasmus is wholly left out which is crosse both to that peremptory if not impudent conclusion expressed in the 6th Proposition and this set downe in the 7th if even Erasmus his judgement bee adhered to for if it bee probable that Paedobaptisme was of Apostolicall institution then it is not so peremptorily and with such plerophory to bee asserted that it was never ordained of Christ or practised by the Apostles but is an ordinance of man And whereas it is rendred and think that the same is to bee received inter placita Scholasticorum c. there is no such connexion or expression But it is a distinct sentence With the same moderation c. many Schoole tenents are to be received c. scil they are also not to bee condemned which doubt of some Schoole tenents which are not so expresse and cleare from Scripture Hee doth not say that Baptisme of of Infants is to bee thought placitum Scholasticorum but speakes of other instances of things probable Nor doth hee speake of bare Schoole Notions which have no bottome at all in Scripture and which cannot at all bee proved from the Scripture as the Treatise saith which cannot bee proved but which cannot evidenter probari per Scripturas True it is Henry Denne hee saith that Bellarmine taxeth Erasmus with that opinion of denying childrens Baptisme but in Erasmus his preface to his Paraphrase on Matthew hee rather condemneth the carelesnesse of Priests in so much that many Christians are in respect of knowledge rather as Pagans and at best are rather in titles customes and ceremonies Christians then indeed And adviseth that children after they have been baptized and come to riper yeeres that they bee well instructed in what their sureties have promised for them and called to account how they profit thereby and whether they doe avouch and owne the promise made by their sureties and if so then at some time or other that they in the open Congregation expressing it bee then with some solemnitie approved And if they reject this motion then to be debarred the Eucharist untill they change their mind So that hee seemeth not to disallow Paedobaptisme but carelesnesse afterwards This I speake that none may bee rendred worse then they are bee they Papists or others Albeit I would not much weigh the expressions of Papists this way to whom bare Church traditions are equivalent to Scripture commands expresse or virtuall SECT IIII. THe next Author is Bullinger in his Decads expounding Matth. â—… 28. Docete omnes Gentes c. make Disciples of all Nations c. What then doth Bullinger intend baptizing Infants as not here enjoyned Nay in the place quoted in his Decades of Sermons Tom. 5. Decad. 5. Serm. 8. hee brings this as an Argument for Paedobaptisme God hath commanded to baptize all Nations and therefore Infants for these are comprehended in the words all Nations Bullinger is againe cited as a Testimony for the proofe of the second Proposition in the same place speaking upon the words of Paul 1 Cor. 1. God hath not sent mee to baptize but to preach the Gospel Hee is quoted to say This must not so slightly be understood as if hee were sent not to baptize at all but that teaching should goe before baptisme For the Lord commanded his Apostles both to preach and to administer the Sacraments Bullingers words are Non quod negaret absolutè which our present translators render this must not so sleightly bee understood Negaret is in their English not to bee understood and absolutè is in their English slightly If they had translated it simply it would have hit it but I thinke sleightly fits them indifferent well se ad baptizandum non esse missum sed quod doctrinam praeferret utrumque enim c. That clause is expounded but that teaching should goe before baptisme c. Here I want my construing booke but I will follow my translators sed quod but that doctrina teaching praeferret should go before Risum teneatis amici But if the translators had learned common rules and read the place they would have clearely discerned Bullingers meaning to bee farre wide from their purpose scil To prove rather the prioritie of the Gospel to baptisme in dignitie and excellency then in order of dispensation For besides that the common Grammer construction of that passage sed quod doctrinam praeferret will beare no sense so well as that mentioned See Bullingers Commentary on 1 Cor. 17. his words immediatly preceding also cleare the same Evangelium majus est baptismo the Gospel is more excellent then Baptisme or greater then Baptisme For Paul said the Lord sent mee not to baptize but to preach the Gospel not that hee denied it absolutely c. Sed quod doctrinam praeferret And it is yet more strange that this which Bullinger brings as his third Argument to prove Paedobaptisme to bee of God the Authors of this Pamphlet bring as a testimony to their purpose against Baptisme for Bullinger subjoynes to the words before That children are received in the Gospel doctrin they are not refused of God who therefore unlesse he were besides himselfe would exclude them from the lesse In Sacraments are considered the thing signified and the signe the former is the more excellent Infants are not excluded from that scil the Gospel the promise who will deny then the signe for truely the Sacraments of God are rather to bee esteemed by the word scil the promise then by the signe As for Bullingers expressions out of Austin contra IulianuÌ„ quoted in the 7th Proposition they prove that the Carthaginian councell did indeed ratifie Baptisme but not that it came in first by that councell Nay the testimony cited of Austin against the Donatists lib. 4. cap. 23 24. useth that as an argument that it was of Divine authoritie because not instituted by any councells And Origens testimony there cited Proposi 7. proveth it to be in his time which was 200. yeeres before that Carthage councell in the time of Innocent the first Yea Origen proveth it to bee at least a Church custome long before from the time of the Apostles Bullingers testimony in his Decads as proving the 7th Proposition scil that Paedobaptisme is an humane ordinance when in that very Sermon of his there quoted in this Treatise hee by many arguments from Scripture proveth it to be of divine authority is also abused and shamefully misconstrued and perverted
that the hearers were presently capable of all points of the doctrine of Christ which is most unlikely Christ himselfe did not take such a course with his owne Apostles nor were they capable of it John 16. 12. Yea by the leave of the objectors since they were to hold forth by this solemne injunction of Christ whatsoever Christ had commanded indefinitely which were not meerely personall commands they must amongst other such commands of his hold forth the doctrine of his touching the interest of the little ones of pious minded persons pressing after and prising of his blessing of their children The kingdome is of such not meerely of those very persons or babes but of others of like parents c. and his solemne command upon that ground of their interest in Gods kingdome that his Apostles should not hinder them but suffer the approach of such unto him in any externall way whereof they are capable and for which they are fit as many of our Divines have pleaded thence that they are for baptisme Seventhly to that argument from the exposition of baptizing into the name of the Father c. scil in invocating his name as Paul was bid to doe Act. 22. to this I say if Paul was bid to doe so yet doth not that prove that that injunction was ever intended to bee the explication of being baptized into Christs name that is being baptized so as then personally and actually to call upon his name into which the person was baptized when Paul in 1 Cor. 1. 13. saith were yee baptized into the name of Paul will it thus bee expounded that is when you were baptized did you call upon Pauls name if any doe so it is new light as they call it For I never yet heard of that explication of it albeit of others but if that bee the rule that the persons baptized must make their prayers personally and particularly to God when they are baptized then did those women of Samaria Acts 8. make their personall prayers before the publique assembly which I suppose none will affirme and if they will not then the rule of baptisme was not attended by Philip which were as absurd or that was no rule mentioned nor was it possible that those 3000. baptized in one day should arise each of them and call upon the name of the Lord as they were baptized Some would bee longer in prayer if others would bee short and who would limit or confine them just to such an expence of time and no more and if Peter would have parcelled out the time for that end amongst them yet he wanted much time for all and each of them to arise and call thus on Gods name SECT III. THe coast being thus cleared I may I hope now passe on the more freely from interruption to what I intend concerning Matth. 28. And first I say in the generall the strict of thâ—se words had reference to the inchurching of the first Gentiles and so Marks relation which our opposites make parallel herewith evinceth as Marke 16. 17 18. doth shew unlesse any will say those signes and miracles endured ever since as of use in particular visible Churches and so now hold and will hold to the worlds end Secondly I say this had reference in the generall to the Jewish nation that when as they onely were of the visible schoole and under the doctrine discipline of Christ the Prophet of his Church as speaking by his spirit in their Prophets and Teachers and as acting in the Church guides and officers by some influence of his authoritie c. now not one nation and people but all nations the partition wall being broken downe are to bee called unto the fellowship of the promise or covenant and the initiatory seale of it Acts 1. 38 39. not as formerly circumcision but baptisme not males onely but without distinction of sexes not of such a strict day and age as eight dayes old but indefinitely whether elder or younger but that our opposites make bold to goe so farre as to say not now Infants but onely adult persons they were best be on better grounds then yet I see lest the rebuke of Christ light on them also so far forth to hinder the approach of beleevers Infants to him nor will their rule of beleevers Ergo onely such hold as before we shewed or that of the affirmative including the negative no more then the affirmative Hee that calls on the name of the Lord shall bee saved or Hee that labours must not eate includeth each its negative that hee which calleth not on Gods name as no Infant doth or hee that laboureth not as no Infant can shall not bee saved or eate and so all Infants must perish and famish And when I say it hath reference to the Jewish nation I intend it onely thus far that looke as none but covenant and inchurched parents and their children were initiatorily sealed then by circumcision so no others are now in ordinary Church administration to bee baptized then the inchurched parts in and of the nations Thirdly I say Christ prefacing that ground to this commission scil his soveraigne power over not his generall kingdome of the world but over his speciall kingdome of his Church especially that which is or shall bee in the whole earth hee intendeth the execution of this commission to have reference to all such as may at least externally bee brought under that estate and account of members in that his kingdome according to their severall capacities of either or both the branches of the particulars in the commission Fourthly Discipling I take in a Scripture latitude by nations discipled I understand not all the numericall and individuall persons in every nation where the Gospel commeth but the specificall parts of the nations scil all sorts of persons in that nation albeit not all and every person of each sort SECT IIII. THese things premised whereas Anabaptists doe affirme that no Infants but adult persons onely are to bee baptized according to any rule of Christ I say that that sort of persons scil the Infants of inchurched beleevers are to bee baptized as well as that sort of persons scil Adult persons making personall and particular profession and confession of their faith c. and that from the force of Matth. 28. 19 20. My reasons are First Taken from the subject to bee discipled and baptized by commission scil all nations and therefore at least all the specificall parts of the nations all sorts of persons in the nations but not all of every sort If it bee denied that neither all individuall persons nor yet so much as all sorts of persons scil some little ones and babes male and female as well as some adult persons of both sexes I would know why the collective nations are mentioned under that title of nations rather then under that of growne persons of the nations when God Gen. 12. promiseth that all nations shall bee blessed in Christ all sorts of
of his Law it is all applyed to all indefinitely yet sense and reason tells us that sundry of the children were neither capable then of such observing of all Gods words no nor so much as hearing the words read at that time in such sort as thereby at present to bee stirred up to feare or obey the Lord but some things onely are appliable to the whole assembly wholly other things now mentioned to the whole at present onely in respect of the growne part and to the others no other thâ—n as involved in any such acts of their parents at most so Joel â— 14. â— solemne assembly of all the inhabitants of the land is to 〈◊〉 convented for fasting so chap. 2. 1. againe repeated and ver 15 16 17. instance is given in the sucklings as to bee a part of that assembly for that end and the maine dutie vers 13 14 is laid forth as required of them all which are called to this solemne fast scil not meerely to abstaine from food or to expresse sorrow by rending their garments but to rend their hearts by godly compunction and sorrow c. all will yeeld that such things are not properly applyable to sucklings but to some of the assembly nor yet will any in reason exclude Infants from being of that Church assembly for such Church use according as they were capable of any thing mentioned albeit not capable of all mentioned Jer. 43. 4. 6 7 disobedience to Gods voyce is applied to all the people yet not properly verified in all the children which were of that people and company Deut. 29. 1. All Israel is said to have seene those wonders in Egypt and yet many of them that were then growne it being 40. yeares after their comming out thence vers 5. never saw the same much lesse did the little ones which were a part of that assembly vers 14. yet who will conclude because little ones were not Israel seeing theâ—e wonders that therefore they were not Israel entring into Covenant vers 11 12. and marke the phrase applied to the little ones that they also entred into covenant with God ibid. as well as God is said to make his covenant with them vers 14 15. this was a covenant of grace as hath been proved so that Hen. Dens notion holds not concerning God being in a sense in covenant with Infants but they may not bee said to enter into covenant with him that by the way To returne to that in hand nations baptized Matth. 28. are to bee taught to observe Christs commandements but non sequitur that Infants are no part of the Churches in the nation to bee baptized so here Infants beleeve not actually c. non sequitur ergo not to bee added to the Church in a solemne way of initiation to Church estate inchoatively by externall baptisme Both may stand together and have their truth of the whole in some things wholly wherein they are capable as of Church estate and baptisme in others true of the whole in respect of some part thereof as actuall beleeving To like purpose C. B. argueth weakely in his sixth argument that the whole citie was baptized men and women mentioned not their children too as if therefore excluded I may as well argue from Gen. 14. 11 12. That those Kings tooke all the goods of Sodome and Lot ergo they tooke no people besides contrary to vers 16. or if they did take people and women yet not children too And if Lot were first taken and then redeemed by Abraham with others yet not ergo his children or daughters or if then under the notion of women yet not a word of children wherefore either they were left behind in the Citie without their Parents when they were taken or if taken with the Cities and persons yet not brought backe againe which would bee absurd to affirme Secondly suppose the beleeving Jewes children were not just at that time baptized when their Parents were thus solemnly admitted to that Church of Christians yet non sequitur that they were not baptized afterwards When members are solemnly admitted to compleat and fixed membership in our Churches wee baptize not oft times their little ones the first day of that their admittance yet doe it afterwards as occasion is offered and their desire thereof signified SECT VIII YEa but neither then nor in any other Text in the Acts is it ever mentioned that any children of any beleeving Jewes were baptized A. Non sequitur that therefore they were never baptized Many things of great weight were done by Christ and so by his Apostles which were not recorded yet not therefore never acted by them John 20. 30 31. of which see more before touching consequences of Scripture But doe our opposites indeed conclude that none of the beleeving Jewes children were ever baptized by Apostolicall approbation Is it imaginable that among so many thousand beleeving Jewes at least ecclesiastically such which are so moved and touched in the case of their childrens being not circumcised and sealed that way to the covenant that it would not much more startle them to suppose such a tenet or practise as to deny them to bee sealed any way by initiatory sealing at all as neither by circumcision so not by baptisme Are they so ready to move contentions in that point Acts 22. 21. and upon but a supposed deniall of it and are they no way moved so much as to put the case state the question to be satisfied from the old Testament for no other Scripture was then extant why their Infants which were ever used to bee reckoned in Abrahams covenants so sealed thereto by the seale then only in use but now they are either wholly excluded any Church interest and any covenant interest actually or if owned yet as such yet why denied of that which is now the initiatory seale of such interest in the covenant Yea doth Peter expresly mind them of the interest of their children as well as themselves in the promise wishing them therefore to be baptized and this occasioned no stirring of questions and cases why on the same ground their children must not be also baptized other contentions about other things are mentioned and other differences in points controvertible in those times as Acts 11. 2 3. and 15. 1. 2. c. and 21. 11. and 6. 1 2. and 15. 38 39. and Gal. 2. 11. Surely then either the beleeving Jewes which when worse men had that priviledge of their childrens covenant and Church estate and right to the initiatory seale the case is so soone altered with them that they thinke it no matter of scruple to call the deniall and omission of it into question or to assay to desire satisfaction in it for matter of judgement and practise in the case or if starting it why is not so great a controversie mentioned as started by some at least that could not so wholly forget their childrens good when solicitous about their owne and when so
Gentile partake in common with them in shewes and semblances nay in realities in the very fatnesse of the Olive of which they partooke else it was not a partaking in common as both partooke also in common in the root Ibid. scil Abraham Isaac and Jacob not as naturall fathers for so Abraham Isaac and Jacob albeit they were naturall fathers unto the Jewes yet not in any respect naturall fathers unto the Gentiles but rather as they were Church fathers if they had not beene Church fathers to the Jewes as well as to the Gentiles how did Jew and Gentile partake in common in them as a root and what common Church fathers were Abraham Isaac and Jacob those fathers vers 28. of the invisible Church nay verily but of the visible of which even the the refuse Jewes sometimes were Which may bee a second argument that the Olive tree of which Abraham as some say and yeeld or Abraham Isaac and Iacob as others where the roote is considered here under the adjunct of the visible and not of that of the invisible Church and so it 's plainely ly verified that Jewes and Gentiles were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 partakers in common in the root and fatnesse of the Olive Rom. 11. 17. A third reason thereof is in that the Olive here intended is that whose fatnesse it is that is communicated to the branches yea to such branches as were broken off as were many refuse Jewes or might bee broken off as sundry of the Gentiles which came in their stead might bee whence that vers 21. yea ver 22. otherwise thou shalt bee cut off and so many have beene witnesses that Apostate Churches of Asia and other Churches Now saving graces peculiar to the elect flow not from any company of men no not from the invisible Church nor is it theirs but Christs to convey and communicate they cannot spare that oyle for others Matth. 25. 9. but the ordinances and they are the Churches properly and such as from the Church are derived and communicated to others whether elect or reprobate that are members of her Yea but what Church is that which holdeth forth and dispenseth Church ordinances to others not the invisible Church all the members being homogeneall the invisible Church properly hath not officers if you suppose officers you must suppose some calling others called and then they cease to bee meerely invisible for in this act they become visible now a Church without officers cannot administer all Church ordinances not communicate that Church fatnesse of the seales so then the Olive Church communicating all Church fatnesse indefinitely and so the seales too must bee the visible not the invisible Church Besides since no Olive or Church fatnesse is to bee had but in and from the Church no Church ordinances ordinarily to be dispensed but in and from the Church if the Olive here bee supposed to bee the invisible not the visible Church no ordinary communication of Church ordinances to any is possibly to bee had since the invisible Church being a Church onely of elect and savingly called persons and no hypocrites or reprobates being in or of that Church whither shall any repaire for Church ordinances there being no Church in the world dispensing ordinances by ordinary officers which alone can now dispense them in a Church way that consists onely of elect ones but there are some chaffe and tares and trash and vessels of dishonour in it Matth. 3. and 13. 2 Tim. 2. yea that Church being invisible as such is not obvious to the sense of any which being brought to the faith would desire to bee joyned to this Olive thereby to partake of it's fatnesse hee cannot see where nor what that Church is for it is invisible this will drive us all to become Seekers not till new Apostles come as some fondly imagine but perpetually yea hopelesly Fourthly it 's not denied by such as oppose us herein that the Jewes had this priviledge to bee reckoned in the outward administration of the covenant of grace as branches of the Olive by birth by virtue of Gods appointment which cannot bee true but in reference to the visible Church C.B. Object 6. You will hereby set up a Catholique visible Church Answ If that should follow hence touching a Catholique Church as noting Aliquid integraliter universale as eum dicimus orbis universus which is not really distinct from all the particular Churches in the world considered in one this universall integrum the Church albeit not visible at once to any ones eyes yet in its parts it is visible both divisim in its particular visible members as also conjunctim in visible congregations Ames medul Theolog. lib. 1. cap. 31 32. CHAP. III. Sect. I. Touching the Explication of Matth. 28. 19 20. and Marke 16. according to our opposites HAving laid downe such conclusions as make way let us now addresse our selves to some further considerations of Pedobaptisme it self according as other Scripture grounds hold it forth And first because Matth. 28. is much controverted let us try whether it make more for us then against us therein and withall take in the consideration of Marke 16. 16. which our opposites pleno uno ore cry up as quite overthrowing our doctrine of Pedobaptisme And herein I am content that they should speake First Mr. Blackwood maketh the commission to be even for the very order of the words so exact that Ministers as commissioners must stick to them and giveth reasons to prove the very order of the words to bee morall in both places and brings Mark. 16. for his proofe that without all distinction of Churches gathering or gathered thus it must bee beleeving in Christ must proceed baptisme this hee maketh his second argument and the same also his fourth onely varying the words a little but the proofe is Mark 16. 16. to which Acts 8. 12. 37. is added for proofe from which proofes also of Act. 8. 12 c. he rayseth his sixth argument so that all those three arguments together also with his eighth and last they all turne upon one hinge and have all one bottome A. R. hee also explaineth the same in the same way applying Marke 16. as an explication of Matth. 28. the Scriptures saith he hold forth that Disciples that is beleevers onely should bee baptized so Mr. B. upon Marke 16. onely beleevers are to bee baptized and unbeleevers by that affirmation are forbidden And further to prove the same the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Matth. 28. is urged by Hen. Den A. R. and Mr. B. as in reference to Disciples not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in reference to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the nations Besides in that Christ added teaching them as if the persons to bee baptized are presently to bee taught and so not Infants And that also preaching is to goe before baptisme upon the same ground And as by that plaine and well grounded treatise is added that baptizing into the name of the
capable to attend hence the baptisme of John is the doctrine thereof hence the doctrine of baptisme Heb. 6. 1 2. but specially holding forth what they may expect from God so Deut. 10. 16. and Jer. 4. circumcision called upon them for heart circumcision as capable of improving it and incourageth them what to expect especially that way from God Deut. 30. 6. Ezek. 36. 25 26 27 28 c. As for what C. B. addeth touching the rule of baptizing from Act. 2. 38 39. albeit the place hath had its distinct consideration yet I shall here adde a word of answer to this which is C. B. his third argument that if this bee a rule then none are to bee baptized but such as truely repent For to no seeming and visible repentance did Peter then exhort them but to true and saving repentance all will grant and then unlesse wee know mens hearts and principles their confession of sinnes cannot satisfie us when wee are to baptize them as being doubtfull and not certaine that the rule is fulfilled in that our act and wee must either doe things doubtfully and adventure to transgresse rule yea oft breake rule as by this argument John did Matth. 3. 11 12. and Philip Acts 8. Yea but they professed it suppose they did that was not that which Peter saith make confession of or professe your repentance and bee baptized but repent and be baptized therefore if that be laid downe as the rule by which men must or else must not be baptized hee that is baptized otherwise hee was never regularly baptized as possibly it 's the case of many in your churches That which John Spilsbury hath this way I find not in the rest hee maketh use of John 3. 5. as a repeale of the Law of circumcising of Infants and as the new law of admission c. but if that washing of water bee meant of baptisme it will then bee of as absolute necessitie to bee externally baptized as to bee regenerate both if spoken of two severall things being made as one in point of necessitie nor let any say that ordinarily it is so that none else are saved For Christs serious speaking yea protesting shewes hee intends more yea more then a supposed neglect or contempt of baptisme but simply thus verily verily unlesse c. according to vers 3. he had to like effect spoken and taking the kingdome here for a particular visible Church not that of glory which hath no ordinances 1 Cor. 15. 24. and 13. 8 9 10. how stands this with his principles that a man first bee discipled and inchurched ere baptized when as rather hee must bee from this ground first washed with water or baptized ere hee can bee in yea so much as see a visible Church and so baptisme is rather the forme of the Church then the covenant of grace as I. B. elsewhere affirmeth and reason suggesteth a Church first to bee ere Church seales to bee administred to or by it nor need this bee urged in this sense upon Nicodemus as the way of his entrance into Gods kingdome of a true visible Church For of such a Church was hee already a member even of the Jewes Church yea if thus meant then not onely unregenerate persons should not bee of visible Churches but it is not possible that they can get into them for Christ saith verily and unlesse c. hee cannot no hee should not or ordinarily hee doth not enter into the kingdome of God As for what was said of preaching the Gospel to goe before baptisme wee hold it wee preach it the doctrine of the covenant is first opened and then sealed wee hold forth to parents that Gospel covenant of Abraham as to them and their children and the Apostles did as much Acts 2. 38 39. Rom. 10. 6 7 8. they preaching the Gospel wherein all sorts of nationall creatures were concerned they held forth that of Gods mind of grace to that species of Infants of Gospelled Gentiles and so by the Gospel they as well as the other sort of adult Gentiles came to partake of the promise in the initiatory seale at least Ephes 3. 6. and what Gospel they held out in the audible word preached that they sealed by the visible word of baptisme Fiftly to that straine touching the particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as not in reference to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because of the masculine gender and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the neuter if C. B. A. L. and Hen. Den had searched Scriptures they would have found this enallage or change of gender very frequent Rev. 2. 26 27. and 19. 15. it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 see Acts 15. 17. and 26. 17. see more of the like Acts 21. 25. Ephes 2. 11. and 4. 17. masculines joyned with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and I would aske A. R. and the rest whether when it 's said in the neuter gender before him shall bee gathered 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all nations with the masculine annexed and hee shall separate them one from another 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hath not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 reference to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 if not then it seemes some nations shall bee gathered at the last day which shall not bee separated one from the other if it have reference to it then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 them in the masculine here in Matth. 28. may very well have reference to the nations albeit in the neuter gender Sixtly to that argument raised hence from what is added teaching them that is presently teaching them c. so not Infants it is not cogent As much is said in effect of Abraham presently after hee had circumcised the males in his house and before Isaac was borne and circumcised that hee would command his children and his houshold after him and they shall keepe the way of the Lord yet none will conclude that therefore no children of his houshold servants were already circumcised and that Isaac and others should not bee circumcised in that Abraham will take this course with all of his family Are the baptized Gentiles to bee taught the commands of God that they may doe them so are the proselyted persons circumcised and others also circumcised to bee also taught Yea Infants circumcised notwithstanding that part of Gods counsell touching such teaching yea but Infants circumcised were not capable of teaching true nor are ours which are baptized yet both to bee taught and so are and were according as capable thereof and the Text in Matth. 28. 19. evinceth that it is not a present teaching them that are there mentioned simply but secundum quid scil according as the baptized persons were capable of being taught otherwise it must bee concluded that they were presently to bee all and each of them taught the whole mind of Christ and then it will follow that that could presently be done by the dispensers of the word which is impossible and likewise
persons albeit not all of every kind are included else I cannot see how any Infants can bee saved unlesse either some are saved which are not blessed in Christ or if blessed in Christ yet such as God never promised should bee blessed in Christ and if so they have a mediator of Christ to them but such an one as is not in respect to them a mediator of the new covenant yea and so have Christ a Savour to them to whom hee is not a covenant as Esay phraseth it Chap. 42. and 49. so every man for every sort of men Heb. 2. 9. and all men for all sorts of men Rom. 5. 18. which are not simply all but many rather vers 16. compared so the world for all sorts of persons in it 1 John 2. 2. how usuall an acceptation and why should it here in matters of lesse moment be scrupled Secondly taken from the nature of the commission scil a charge of Church dispensation of the Gospel or dispensing of it with Church reference Marke 16. 15. it is Gospel they are to preach and this being Gospel that children of inchurched covenant parents were to bee with them also taken into the fellowship of the covenant and people of God externally interested in it as was proved before and the initiatory scale being a branch of the Gospel as well as the promise as baptisme is reckoned Luke 3. 34. 5 6. compared with Marke 1. 1 2 3 4. such Infants federall interest in the Church and initiatory Church seale must needs bee included Thirdly from the latitude of the Church reference to which this commission relateth albeit with some different respects had to those times and ages following according as then the Ministers were extraordinary and Apostolicall and those succeeding were to bee ordinary Pastours Teachers and withall with various respects had to the first foundation members strictly considered as such and others now that latitude it appeares was such as tooke in all the visible Churches throughout the world unto the worlds end From which if such Infants bee excluded an actuall and priviledged interest they are excluded as was proved in ordinary course from salvation there being ordinarily none saved but such as are in the visible Church or some visible Churches in the world And if not excluded an actuall interest in some visible Church or other in the earth why are they excluded baptisme which is here given to distinguish the inchurched parts of the world from all other as well as to ratifie and seale up the covenant to them there is no time set now to limit them to such a day as of old to the eighth that that should suspend their jus ad rem which they had as Abrahams seed so soone as borne from being elicited till the injoyned day Fourthly from that latitude of the nation disciple which taketh in such Infants as well as others and consequently they are reached in the commission of being baptized For Disciples are to be baptized as our opposites confesse For proofe of their discipleship I argue thus All those to whom the thing signified by a disciple as explained in any place of Scripture is appliable they are Scipture Disciples but the former is true of such Infants ergo the latter The Major is evident in that in reason significant names cannot bee denied to persons to whom the thing signified is granted And the spirit of wisedome would not in any place expound the name by the thing if that thing it selfe did not give ground worke to bee so named If any reply that it sufficeth not to have the thing signified by the name in one place unlesse withall the pâ—…ty bee qualified with the signified thing in another as for inâ—…ce in many Scriptures it signifieth a beleever c. this must bee 〈◊〉 in too to this I answer â—…irst I speake of significations of the name as explained by the 〈◊〉 Ghost himselfe and if any will refuse that they presume to 〈…〉 holy Ghost to expound his owne words â—…ly if wee may not rest in one or other such a place but 〈…〉 another way why not another to that and so anoâ—… 〈◊〉 â—…arroweth yet more the signification then that did yea why 〈◊〉 â—…ke in all such places where in any sense it is mentioned where 〈◊〉 wee stop and so that exposition of a disciple Luke 14. 26. must bee taken in as requisite to according as Hen. Den. urgeth it aâ—d thâ—n Judas and Demas and divers others which forsooke Christ never hating their owne lives for his sake could not bee his disciples yet they were so and so doth the holy Ghost call Judas and many others John 6. yea many that never beleeved in Christ himselfe but did after a sort approve his doctrine and followed him albeit for base ends c. yet these were disciples and baptized as such John 4. 12. It 's spoken of disciples of Christ in the Pharisees sense scil persons addicted to his doctrine c. as Disciples of John of Moses c. signifie and not of persons beleeving in him or them John 9. When they asked so oft touching Christ as if they pretended to desire to learne of him c. saith the blind man to those Pharisees Will yee also bee his Disciples or Schollers c. vers 27 28. Bee thou his disciple say they c. not meaning that either should beleeve in him those many Disciples never beleeved that heavenly doctrine of his John 6. yet called Disciples vers 66. Yea if the latitude of the signification of a Scripture disciple must all meet in one to make a compleat definition then Disciples must bee Apostles because some were so called which were such The names of the 12. Disciples Matthew 10. 1. and the names of the 12. Apostles vers 2. are one see more Matth. 28. 16. The eleven Disciples i. e. Apostles It is then enough to attribute that name Disciple to any to whom the reason and explication of that name any where in Scripture mentioned is by the Spirit of God applyed wee neede not feare to follow such a leader and speake after him the minor then is to bee proved that such a signified thing by that name Disciple is appliable to such little ones mentioned For proofe hereof I must take up that wherein I perceive I am prevented by others yet shall not desist to speake the same thing in substance with them one to whom drinke or water is given in Matth. 10. 42. in the name of a Disciple is expounded by the Spirit Matth. 9. 41. to be one to whom it is given in the name of one belonging to Christ Whence I argue All such as belong to Christ externally they are externally his Disciples such Infants mentioned belong to Christ externally therefore they are externally Christs Disciples And the same description of a Disciple which shall bee saved holds thus such as savingly belong to Christ are Disciples which shall bee saved but it 's not needfull to
such an ordinance that tendeth to their spirituall gaine in their childrens good thereby furthered Now if Hierom thought there were no Law for childrens baptisme why is there any transgression yea so deepe charged upon the neglectors of it that it is scelus in his account So in his second Tom. 1. 3. Dialogorum adversus Pelagianos ad finem hee proveth infants baptisme to bee for remission of sinnes as well as for entrance into Gods kingdome so that this Authors words are wrested against his owne intention Let us see whether the next be better dealt withall scil Athanasius in his third Sermon contra Arrianos Our Saviour did not slightly command to baptize but first of all hee said Teach and then baptize that true faith might come by teaching and baptisme bee perfected by Faith If Athanasius had said thus in the Authors sense yet the fallacy had still beene the same to conclude à dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter But let us look upon that place and weigh the words of Athanasius there speaking of the unprofitablenesse and vanitie of Baptisme by Arrians hee proceedeth thus For saith hee the Arrians doe not give Baptisme in the Father and Sonne but in the Creator and creature in the maker and workmanship As therefore a creature is a diverse thing from the Sonne so is the Baptisme supposed to bee given by them diverse from true Baptisme Albeit because they see the names of Father and Sonne in Scriptures they doe faine to name them for it is not hee that barely nameth the Lord which giveth lawfull Baptisme but hee that expoundeth that name and holdeth the right faith And therefore our Saviour doth not command to baptize after any fashion the Authors render the word quovis modo by slightly but first hee said Teach and then baptize in the name of the Father Sonne and Holy Ghost this clause the treatise leaveth out that by teaching a right faith might arise the treatise saith true faith might come and with the faith of Baptisme the intire initiation might bee perfected by initiation hee meanes baptisme as the words before these shew In these words The Arrians hazzard the losse of the integrity of that mystery But I speake of Baptisme For if perfect and full initiation bee given in the name of the Father and Sonne and they hold not forth the true Father c. how should the Baptisme which they give bee true c. So that that speech with the faith of Baptisme the intire initiation might bee perfected is that with the faith or doctrine of faith rightly held out the Ordinance of Baptisme might bee perfect or valid which hee calleth the right faith as the words before mentioned shew So that hee doth not here intend fidem quâ credit aliquis sed fidem quam credit hee meaneth it of the object not the habit of faith and of the qualifications of the persons baptizing to make their act valid not of the parties baptized For none will say that an hypocrites Baptisme because hee hath not true faith is not true Baptisme The essence of the Ordinance not depending upon mans faith but Gods word And that hee intends no other thing as it appeares by the premises for if you take his next words following the same it will bee evident Truely saith he even other heresies and those not a few doe in seeming words pronounce that rite of baptizing but being not right in judgement nor retaining the sound faith they possesse and bestow an unprofitable water as destitute of the Deity of Religion so that they which are sprinkled by them are rather polluted through corrupt Religion then redeemed Here therefore is an ancient Authors words wrested to another sense then the scope of his discourse tended and some words left out which served to declare his meaning and other words so palpably mistranslated that the Reader is grossely abused thereby as well as the Author SECT II. THe next testimony is of Haimo upon this Text of Matthew In this place is set downe a rule how to baptize aright scil that teaching should goe before baptisme for hee saith Teach all nations and then hee saith and baptize them for hee that is baptized must bee before instructed that hee first learne to beleeve that which in baptisme hee shall receive for as faith without workes is dead so workes when they are not of faith they are nothing worth This labours of the same fallacy as that of Jeroms testimony à dicto secundum quid ad simpliciter Gerhardi loc com loc de baptismo what the Author spake in reference to Adulti it 's applied as his mind thereby to make baptisme of children besides or against rule when yet the same Author upon the 14. of Romans speaking about the case of their dipping of children hee mentions Cyprian as practising dipping of children in baptisme but once but after saith hee hee being corrected of God hee abounded in more sublime knowledge dipping them thrice Hee looketh then at that way of baptizing Infants as a lesson which Cyprian learned of God Hee then surely thought baptisme it selfe of Infants to bee taught of God and no breach of a rule of God Wee speake not this as allowing Haimo's judgment about Immersion and much lesse that of trina Immersio but to cleare the Author from that intention which the treatise would father upon him or at least by producing the mans writings in one place would make him against hâ—…s owne light to write things contradictory in another Thus is this Author and the Reader with him abused also SECT III. THe next Author cited in this Treatise is Erasmus both upon Matth. 28. and Marke 16. to like purpose When you have taught them if they beleeve c. and repent c. then let them be baptized c. and Proposition 3. those who in times past were to bee baptized were first of all instructed in the mysteries of the Christian faith and were called Catachumeni c. This later one would thinke might have expounded the former that hee intends it of adult Pagans and not of others in Christian Churches such as ours are whose foundations are already laid and established And Proposition 6. It 's no where expressed in the Apostolicall writings that they baptized children Hee doth not say it 's not so much as probable nor is it to bee gathered by consequence that they did so wherefore his testimony is no proofe that the Apostles never did baptize Infants because it 's never mentioned expresly It 's never expresly said that I remember that the Apostles or Evangelists when they Baptized those in Acts 2. and 8. and 16. 18. that they called upon God for a blessing upon the Ordinance but will it follow that they did not sanctifie the Ordinance by Prayer Proposition 7. hee is quoted as a proofe of that Proposition Lib. 4. de ratione concion saying that they are not to bee condemned that doubt whether childrens
as of much use on his part in way of authoritie yet saith hee will not regard any authorities which the other party at least bring above the limit of time But to returne to Chrysostome who in his 40. Homil. upon Genesis saith But our circumcision or grace I say of Baptisme hath cure without griefe and brings innumerably good things to us c. and it hath no limited time set as there was but it is lawfull to receive this circumcision made without hands either in our first or middle or last age and so in his homily ad Neophytos 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for this cause wee also baptize little ones which have no sinne meaning of their owne have not committed actuall sinnes that to them righteousnesse holinesse adoption inheritance and fraternitie of Christ may be communicated that they may all become his members and an habitation of his Spirit Anno 430. Of Theodoret Theodoret in his Epitome of divine decrees and Cap. of baptism for baptism is not like a razour as the frantique Messalians say taking away onely sinnes that are past for that God giveth in superabundantly for if this only were the effect of baptisme why doe we baptize infants which have not yet relished sin for the Sacrament doth not promise onely those things but greater for it is the pledge of future good things and a type of future resurrection and it is the communication of the Lords death and participation of his resurrection the garment of salvation and gladnesse For as many as are baptized into Christ have put on Christ and as many as are baptized into Christ are baptized into his death that as Christ was raised from the dead so wee should walke in newnesse of life and adding haec nos de sanctissimo baptismo sentire docuit Apostolus and the Apostle hath taught us thus to hold concerning baptisme and makes those speeches Gal. 3. and Rom. 6. to bee verified in Infants baptizing as well as others and that they are baptized in respect of future good rather then present and that the Apostle taught them so to thinke hereof Nor is that Dionysius Graecus who ever hee were albeit not the Areopagite yea albeit having sundry mixtures in his booke to bee wholly slighted or neglected SECT II. Cassander de baptis Inf. Of the Easterne and Greek Churches As for the Easterne and Greeke Churches Cassanders testimony is very round and full albeit their discipline may well bee gathered by their teachers and councells doctrine speaking of testimony of Paedobaptisme he saith but especiall and chiefe testimony and weight of authoritie to this baptisme of Infants is further added from the universall and constant custome which unto this day in the Churches which are extant in the world and there are many such without the limits of the Roman Church is retained for the Churches which are yet remaining in Greece Asia Syria Aegypt and India and the Russians and Muscovites which follow the Greeke orders lastly the Aethiopians under the government of Prester John I say all these Christians professing nations although differing in some opinions and rites yet in the custome of baptizing Infants they all of old agreed among themselves some stating the 8. and the Aethiopians the 40. day for baptizing them unlesse in the case of danger or those of the female Sex The Russians and Armenians baptize Infants as they doe Adults unlesse that when they baptize Infants there are witnesses and the Indian Christians doe so likewise for which hee quotes Josephus Judas in his Aethiopian navigations and Franciscus Alvares and it 's not credible that such Churches so averse from the Latines would yet buckle to their customes of consecrating the unleavened bread or eating thngs strangled or blood that they did borrow this of Paedobaptisme so much abhord formerly by them from the Westerne Churches and Paget in his Christianography citeth a speech of the Bishop of Bitonto in the Councell of Trent acknowledging of the Greeke Church thus ea igitur Graecia mater est that the Greeke Church is that mother to whom the Latin owneth whatever it hath see the acts of the Councell of Trent pag. 18. and hee mentions the forme of the Russians baptisme the Priest when hee dippeth the child useth these words in the name of the Father Sonne and holy Ghost and as oft as the God-fathers are asked whether they renounce the Devill so oft they spit on the ground Guagniny relig Muscovit In the Greeke Church the Priest having said certaine prayers taking the child in his armes putteth him three times into the water saying The servant of God N N. is baptized in the name of the Father the Sonne and Holy Ghost Jerom the Patriarch pag. 103. and the same doth Thomas Aquinas observe in his third part Quest 6. Artic. 8. Quest 67. Artic. 6. and Quest 66. Aâ—…tic the 5th And the same doth Dominic a Sot in quest 1. Art 8. testifie and let mee adde two things more First that the doctrine of Paedobaptisme was never ex professo opposed by any Orthodox Churches or Christians in all the times of old as farre as I can finde of Tertullians mind wee have spoken before and Gregory Nazianzen how farre they went Auxentius the Arrian Bishop of Millain as Bullinger in his Decads hath it did so and so indeed did the Samosatenian Heretiques The Donatists they baptized Infants witnesse the 48. Canon of the third Carthaginian Councell in reference to Siritius and Simplicianus So did other African Councels in Austins time ordaine that children baptized by Donatists should not bee rebaptized the Pelagians themselves denied it not wholly Austin in his 14. Sermon de verbis Apostoli baptizandâ—… esse parvulos nemo dubitet c. none need to doubt of baptisme since even those here doubt not which in part doe contradict scil the Pelagians there are cases and times wherein some one of the servants of God saw much more then many and most did as Athanasius and some few more in the point of the Divinitie of Christ in that Arrian age and Paphnutius the Confessor in the point of Ministers marriage to which the Fathers of the Nicene Councell had like to have gone contrary and yet before and after these times whole Churches and Councels held out as much as these Saints did SECT IIII. Object NO such example in the opposers of Paedobaptisme Yes you will say Berengarius about a 1050. and afterwards Peter de Brucis and the Albingenses and so the Waldenses for they had such diverse names according to places and countries in which they were scattered c. they denied it and some of them appealed to the Scriptures and to the Greeke Church for warrant Answ I deny not but that the Popish writers as their manner is use to brand the servants of God with some odious tenents for which all would hate them when that they never held the same but that old accuser of the Brethren casteth on by