which I presume will not be affirmed of infants Then you mention the houshold of Stephanas which is said to be baptized 2 Cor. 1.16 and also Chap. 16.15 is said to addict themselves to the ministery of the Saints To this houshold most aptly may be adjoyned that which you omit the house of Crispus concerning whom 't is said Acts 18.8 And Crispus the chiefe ruler of the Synagogue believed on the Lord with all his house and many of the Corinthians hearing believed and were baptized Where under the tearme houshold those onely are meant who believed and those that among the Corinthians were baptized are said first to heare and believe You put in the houshold of Aristobulus the houshold of Narcissus and you doe allude to Rom. 16.10 11. but these are onely brought in to make a number For though our translators in the Text reade of Aristobulus and Narcissus houshold yet in the Greeke it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which cannot well be translated of the houshold of Aristobulus and Narcissus but rather as Beza ex familiaribus and as our translators in the Margin of the friends of Narcissus and if it were translated houshold yet proves not that the whole families were Christians but some of them The next you mention is the houshold of Lydia of whom it was said that shee was baptized and her houshold Acts 16.15 But this must be understood by other places which when they expresse the baptizing of the houshold they expresse also the believing or receiving of the Word by the whole houshold and by the frequent use of the Word which is to put the house for the people of growth in it as Mat. 10.13 Mark 3.25 6.4 Luk. 11.17 Joh. 4.53 Acts 10.2 2 Tim. 4.19 The last you mention is the houshold of the Gaoler concerning whom it is said that he was baptized 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Act. 16.33 I remember Mr Edwards at Christs-Church indeavoured lately to gather from this expression that because it is said all his were baptized therfore his young children or infants but this is but a light conjecture and the Text sufficiently refutes this glosse for ver 32. immediately precedent expresseth who those all his were to wit all those in his house to whom Paul had spoken the word of the Lord and ver 34. immediately subsequent which saith that he rejoyced believing in God with all his houshold But Mr William Cooke pag. 46. hath 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a wise remedy to cure this he tels us thus I conceive it might be rendered more agreeably to the signification of the words the scope of the place and the avoyding of ambiguitie And having believed in God he rejoyced exulted or testified his joy openly by words and actions in all his familie or through his house or all his house over But it is not worth while to refute this conceit at large it is agreeable enough to the scope order meaning and signification of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with all his house to joyne it with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 believing and to expound it as Beza cum universa domo with the whole house and the Vulgar cum omni domo with all the house rather then in domo in the house and to make it answer to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with all his house Acts 10.2 to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with all his house Acts 18.8 so that a◠yet it doth not appeare that either one infant was baptized or that the Gospel tooke place just as the old administration by bringing in whole families together Yea the contrary appeares out of the 1 Pet. 3.1 1 Cor. 7.13.16 that the husband was converted sometimes without the wife and on the contrary 1 Cor. 7.21 1 Tim. 6.1 Phil. 4.22 in the house of infidel Masters were converted servants and on the contrary Philem. 11.12.14 15 16. And our Lord Christ foretold it should be so in the preaching of the Gospel Mat. 10.35 36. Wherefore I much marvaile at the speech of Mr Blake pag. 22. We have examples not to be contemned of the baptizing whole housholds and whether infants were there or no as it is not certaine though probable so it is not materiall the president is an houshold He that followeth the president must baptize housholds It appeares not that any wife was there yet he that followes the president in baptizing of housholds must baptize wives and so I may say servants if they be of the houshold Which speech though it containes onely dictates and might be let passe yet it is not fit to leave it without some animadversions For if it be true that the president is an houshold and wee must baptize households I aske whether we must baptize wife and servants because they professe the faith or because they be of the houshold if the first be said then the president is not of baptizing housholds but baptizing a professor of the faith which is the thing the Antipaedobaptists contend for if because of the houshold whether professing faith or not then an unbelieving wife or servant should be baptized because they are of the houshold unlesse it be supposed that in an houshold when the Master or a husband is a believer the wife and servant cannot be an unbeliever the contrary whereof hath appeared above But this I believe none will deny to be absurd and heterodox and consequently that speech of Mr Blakes is very absurd that I say no worse of it To which I adde that Mr Blake gives no reason nor I thinke can why the baptizing of housholds Acts 16. should be the precedent for baptizing rather then the baptizing Samaria Act. 8.12 the 3000. Acts 2.42 all Judea Mat. 3.5 So that in fine it appeares that the administration of Baptisme is not just as the administration of circumcision and that though it be true that sometimes housholds were baptized yet it is said those housholds received the Word and the word houshold is often put for the growne people of it and therefore as yet there is no example in Scripture to justifie the baptizing of infants according to ordinarie rule As for the objection of the houshold eating the Passeover and the answer to it I shall let it passe now because it will come againe in the last objection of the fourth part of your Sermon And thus I have at last examined your first and maine argument Your second it seemes you make lesse account of and therefore I shall sooner dispatch the answer Thus you frame it THe second argument to whom the inward grace of Baptisme belongs to them belongs the outward signe they ought to have the signe who have the thing signified the earthly part of the Sacrament must be granted to those who have the heavenly part but the infants of believers even while they are infants are made partakers of the inward grace of Baptisme of the heavenly and spirituall part as well as growne
men therefore they may and ought to receive the outward signe of Baptisme The major proposition that they who are made partakers of the inward grace may not be debarred of the outward signe is undeniable it is Peters argument Acts 10. Can any forbid water that these should not be baptized who have received the holy Ghost as well as wee And againe for as much as God gave them the like gift as he did unto us what was I that I could withstand God And this is so cleare that the most learned of the Anabaptists doe readily grant that if they knew any infant to have received the inward grace they durst not deny them the outward signe and that the particular infants whom Christ took up in his armes and blessed might have been baptized The Question between us is whether the infants of believers universally or indifferently are to be admitted to the Sacrament of Baptisme according to ordinary rule Now I suppose you doe not hold that the infants of believers indifferently have actually the thing signified by Baptisme that is the Holy Ghost union with Christ adoption forgivenesse of sinnes regeneration and everlasting life for then they are all sanctified and are all believers and if this could be proved there would be no question about Paedobaptisme the texts Act. 8.37 Act. 10.47 Act. 11.17 would undeniably prove it and therefore there is no Antipaedobaptist I thinke but will grant your Major That regenerate persons united to Christ whose sins are forgiven adopted persons that have received the Holy Ghost are to be baptized But I conceive though in the laying down the Major you use these phrases who have the thing signified who have the heavenly part and in your Minor are made partakers yet you do not mean in this Assumption actuall having and being made partakers of the inward grace of Baptism concerning which the Antipaedobaptists do so readily grant the Major but a potentiall having or as you after speak being capable of the inward grace and so you use the fallacy of equivocation in the Major having being understood of actuall having and in the Minor of potentiall which makes four terms and so the Syllogisme is naught Or if you do mean in both actuall having you mean it only of some Infants of Believers not of all of whom the Question is and so your conclusion is but particular that some Infants of Believers who are sanctified actually are to be baptized But this will not reach home to your tenet or practice concerning the baptizing of all Infants of Believers in as much as they are the children of Believers without the consideration of actuall faith or sanctification It is true the Lutheranes do teach that Infants have actuall faith and are regenerate in Baptisme and therefore in Colloquio Mompelgarâ—ensi upon the fourth Artic. de Baptismo they put these among the Positions they reject as contrary to the Scripture Non omnes infantes qui baptizantur gratiae Christi participes esse regenerari infantes carere fide nihilominus baptizari that all the Infants which are baptized are not partakers of the grace of Christ and regenerate that Infants want faith and neverthelesse are baptized And I remember when I lived in Oxford there was a book published in English of Baptismal initiall regeneration of elect Infants the Position whereof was opposed as favouring the doctrine of conferring grace by Baptisme ex opere operato by the work wrought and intercision of regeneration sith according to that doctrine a person might have the Spirit initially in infancy and though it could not fall away finally as being an elect person yet might run out in a continued course of sinning grosse and scandalous sins with full consent untill his dying day which doth enervate the urging of that Text 1 John 3.9 against Apostasie of regenerate persons when out of it is proved that raigning sin is not in the regenerate and the like texts which in that Controversie are urged against Arminans With that book Dr. Featley in his late feeble and passionate Tract against Anabaptists and Antiprelatists concurs pag. 67. in these words Nay so farre are they from excluding faith from Infants that are baptized that they believe that all the children of the faithfull who are comprised in the covenant with their fathers and are ordained to eternall life at the very time of their baptisme receive some hidden grace of the Spirit and the seed of faith and holinesse which afterwards bears fruit in some sooner in some later And since I came to London I met with a Book intituled A Christian plea for Infants Baptisme by S.C. who holds positions somewhat like to the Lutherans that though children of believing parents be not all holy and righteous they may degenerate apostatize yet the Infants of believing parents are righteous by imputation are believers and confessors imputatively c. pag. 10. and elsewhere And he hath this passage pag. 3. It is a sure truth that the sins of the parents being forgiven the Lord will not impute the same unto their Infants Originall sin I say taketh no more hold on the Infants then on their parents and touching actuall sin they are as clear as their parents Many more like passages there are in that Book these I mention that you may see what stuffe Paedobaptists do feed the people with But I suppose you do not hold that all Infants of Believers either actually or initially or imputatively are sanctified regenerated adopted justified as knowing how contrary this is to Rom. 9.6 c. to daily experience to the doctrine of Beza and his Collegues at Monâ—pelgart to the reformed Churches of Geneva c. and what advantage it gives to Papists Lutherans Arminians and those that follow the way of Tomson in his Diatribe of which I suppose you are not ignorant and therefore conceiving you orthodox in this point the answer to your Syllogisme is either by shewing it doth not conclude the question if your Minor and conclusion be understood of actuall having the inward grace and they be particular only If you understand them of actuall having and they be universall then I deny your Minor If your Major be understood of potentiall having I deny it if of actuall and the Minor be of potentiall there be four terms and so the Syllogisme is naught Take away the ambiguity of your terms and the answer is easie But for the proof of your Minor you say thus And for the Assumption or Minor That the Infants of Believers even while they are Infants do receive the inward grace as well as grown men is as plain not only by that speech of the Apostle who saith they are holy but our Saviour saith expresly Mark 10. That to such belongs the Kingdome of God as well as to grown men And whereas some would evade it by saying that the Text saith not To them belongs the kingdome of God but of such is the Kingdome of heaven 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
first conversion will subscribe to those speeches of yours when you say all who partake of that grace are but meer patients and contribute no more to it then a childe doth to its own begetting and therefore Infants as fit subjects to have it wrought in them as grown men and the most grown men are in no more fitnesse to receive this grace when it is given them in respect either of any faith or repentance which they yet have then a very little childe What doth the most grown man in any of these more then an Infant may do being only passive in them all If my memory deceive me not the Divines of great Britain at the Synod of Dort in their suffrage did set down some things which might be done in respect of faith or repentance when grace is given by grown men more then an Infant can do and so doth in like manner Mr. Rutherfurd The Triall and Triumph of Faith Serm. 14. pag. 109 110. And though you say The most grown men are only passive in them all yet D â— Twisse in his Vindiciae gratiae lib. 3. errat 9. Sect. 3. thought this subtilty necessary that the will in the first conversion is meerly passive as the willing of the will is taken forâ—ally as being in the subject but as it is taken efficiently it being a vitall act so it is not meerly passive in the first conversion And Dr. Preston in his acute Exercitation De irresistibilitate gratiae convertentis hath these words Nos sustinemus voluntatem in primo actu conversionis partim passivè partim activè id est prius passivè dein activè se habere ideoque cum Deo cooperari We hold the will in the first act of conversion to be partly passive partly active that is first of all to be passive then active and therefore to cooperate with God It is true the acts of taking away the heart of stone creating a heart of flesh forgiving iniquity loving freely as they are acts of God a man is neither active nor passive in them they are not in man as the subject nor from man as the agent only we may be said to be passive or active in respect of the terminus or effect of them a new heart faith or repentance produced by them and in respect of this in some sense we are meerly passive in some partly active and partly passive in the first conversion according to the doctrine of the two learned Doctors forenamed You conclude this Argument with this speech And whoever will deny that Infants are capable of these things as well as grown men must deny that any Infants dying in their infancy are saved by Christ. Concerning which speech if you mean that Infants are capable of these things as well as grown men simply in respect of the things it is true that Infants are capable of them as well as grown men and he that denies it denies their salvation But if you mean it in respect of the modus habendi the manner of having then it is not true for Infants are not capable in the same manner of a new heart faith and repentance by hearing and outward ordinances as well as grown men But what is all this to prove your Minor which is not of potentiall having inward grace which is not denied but of actuall having And so still it remains unproved that all the Infants of Believers or the Infants of Believers as such are actually partakers of the inward grace of Baptisme And thus have I at last examined the third part of your Sermon containing your Arguments from Scripture for Paedobaptisme I proceed now to examine the last part which followes Infant-Baptisme is a corruption of the Ordinance of BAPTISME PART IIII. Concerning the Objections against Infant-Baptisme AGainst this argument severall things are objected which I shall indeavour to râ—move out of the way First it is said that although infants are capable of these things and they no doubt are wrought by Christ in many infants yet may not we baptize them because according to the Scripture patterne both of Christs Command Mat. 28. in his institution of Baptisme where this was injoyned and John the Baptist Christs disciples and Apostles they alwayes taught and made them disciples by teaching before they baptized any It is true the institution of Christ Mat. 28.19 and the practise of John Baptist and the Apostles are the great objections against Paedobaptisme This principle being laid down as a truth avouched against the Papists by Protestants generally that it is a sinne of prophaning the Sacraments when the institution is altered by substraction as when the cup is denied to the lay people or by addition as when chrisme and spittle c. are added to the elements and by the non-conformists conformists of England that it is will-worship to administer the Sacraments any other wayes by addition of any thing to them but circumstances which are alike requisite to civill actions now the persons to be baptized cannot be conceived a meere alterable circumstance but to belong necessarily to the administration or worship as the person baptizing and as the persons receiving the Lords Supper and therefore there must be warrant from institution for it else it is a sinfull invention of man But neither Christs institution or John the Baptist or the Apostles practise doe warrant the baptizing of infants therefore it is will-worship that the institution Mat. 28.19 doth not warrant the baptizing of infants is proved 1. Because the institution appoints onely disciples of all nations to be baptized but infants are not such therefore the institution doth not warrant their Baptisme The Major and Minor of this Syllogisme have been made good Part. 3. Sect. 13. 2. Because the order Christ appoints is that teaching or preaching the Gospel should goe before Baptisme now the order of Christ is a rule of administring holy things as we argue in like manner 1 Cor. 11.28 The Apostle appoints that a man is first to examine himselfe then to eate of that bread ergo Children are not to have the Lords Supper so in like manner wee may argue wee must first teach persons and then baptize them therefore children that cannot be taught by us are not to be baptized To that which Mr Edwards answereth to this argument that John is said Mark 1.4 to baptize and preach I oppose the words of Beza annot in Mark 1.4 Quod autem Erasmus subjungit Joannem priùs baptizâsse deinde praedicâsse baptismum ejusmodi est ut ne refutatione quidem videatur indigere Quid enim cum diceret Joannes Poenitentiam agite appropinquat enim regnum coelorum non docebat quos erat baptizaturus Imò veâ—ò nisi priùs docuisset in quem finem baptizaret quis tandem ad ejus baptismum accessisset Certe cum sacramenta sint 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 necesse est ut praeeat doctrina quam obsignent 3. Because the institution is to
you and Mr. Blake aim at But your words concerning the knowledge of the will of Christ as the rule of baptizing rather advantage the Antipaedobaptists who know no other rule to baptize by but the condition you truly propound of profession of faith and therefore conceive your words a good plea for them But you further say And in this the rule to direct our knowledge is as plain for Infants as for grown men the rule having been alwayes this that grown men who were strangers from the covenant of God unbelievers Pagans Heathens should upon their being instructed and upon profession of their faith and promise to walk according to the rule of the covenant be received and added to the Church and made partakers of the seal of their entrance and their Infants to come in with them both sorts upon their admission to be charitably hoped of untill they give signes to the contrary charity being bound from thinking of evill of them not bound to conclude certainly of any of them because they ought to know that in all ages all are not Israel who are of Israel and that many are called but few chosen That the rule for baptizing Infants should be so plain as the rule to direct our knowledge about baptizing grown men professors of faith I wonder you should say it much more that you should preach and print it sith your selfe confesse pag. 34. no expresse command in the new Testament that they should be baptized no expresse example where children were baptized but on the other side pag. 35. you say expresse command there is that they should teach the Heathen and the Jews and make them disciples and then baptize them And I hope you do not imagine that a rule gathered by virtuall consequence is so plain as that which is expresse it may be as true but it is not possible it should be so plain But the truth of that additionall rule of Infants coming in with their parents hath been examined and as yet it hath been found to me neither plain nor true YOu go on to the fourth Objection But all who enter into covenant and receive the seal of the covenant must stipulate for their parts as well as God doth for his they must indent with God to perform the Believers part of the covenant as well as God doth to perform his part as even this Text 1 Pet. 3. requires that Baptisme which saves us must have the answer of a good conscience to God Now although it be granted that Infants are capable of receiving the first grace if God be pleased to work it in them yet what answer of a good conscience can there be from Infants unto God they having not the use of reason and not knowing what the covenant means For my part I own not this objection taken from the generall nature of the covenant as if it did exclude Infants or that particular text 1 Pet. 3.21 For the word used for a Covenant may be as well translated a Testament and the Holy Ghost Gal. 3. and Heb. 9. doth use it in that notion and it may be that covenants of another may be by interpretation of Law as their covenant as in the covenant of the Israelites with the Gibeonites And for that text however Beza translates 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by stipulation and in his Annotation on that place sayes The Apostle had respect to the interrogations of Catechists in which the catechised even then did witnesse their inward baptisme to be confirmed by the outward as Acts 8.37 whereto sayes he belongeth the Apostles Creed and that translated from the baptisme of grown persons to the baptisme of Infants by a greater error if you consider the Infants themselves Dost thou believe I do believe Dost thou renounce I do renounce Whence that of Tertullian which is as it were in the stead of a Commentary on this place in his book of the resurrection of the flesh The soul is established not by washing but by answering I say though Beza do upon second thoughts and neerer consideration conceive this to be the meaning yet I build not on it as being doubtfull and in mine apprehension it rather notes an effect of Baptisme and the resurrection of Christ then a prerequisite condition and there are other plain places before alledged which do prove the thing that the baptized were to professe and promise or to use your phrase seal which I deny not to be the phrase of John Baptist Joh. 3.33 as Acts 8.37 c. So that the objection is the same with the second Now let us see what you answer you say thus The Infants of the Jews were as much tied as the Infants of Believers under the Gospel every one who was circumcised was bound to keep the whole Law Gal. 5. And these men professe that Israelitish Infants were within the old covenant when yet they knew not what it meant nor could have the same use of it with their parents and others of discretion look what answer they will make for the Jews Infants if true will abundantly satisfie for the Infants of Believers under the Gospel It is true this answer serves turn against those that argue from the generall nature of a covenant but it is no answer against those that only urge Instituton and Apostolicall practice as our rule As for that which you here and all along in your Book suppose that there is the same reason of the mixt covenant made with Abraham as with the pure Covenant of the Gospel and of every Believer as of Abraham and of Baptisme as of Circumcision it is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 chief error which misleads you throughout your Sermon and makes you speak and write in a dialect which in the Scripture is unknown And for that which you say that the Infants of the Jews were as much tied as the Infants of Believers under the Gospel if you mean it of common duties of Euangelicall obedience it is true if you mean it thus which alone serves for your purpose that persons to be baptized now are no more tied to make profession of faith before Baptisme then Infants of the Jews were tied to make profession of faith afore Circumcision it is false For there is now plain Text for the requiring of it before Baptisme but not before Circumcision But you say every one that was circumcised was bound to keep the whole Law Gal. 5. True and therefore circumcision was in the use of it diametrally opposite to the use of Baptisme You say and these men professe that the Israelitish Infants were within the old Covenant when yet they knew not what it meant and then say look what answer they will make for the Jews Infants if true will abundantly satisfie for the Infants of Believers under the Gospel If you mean this concerning the reason why the Christians Infants should not be baptized though the Jews Infants were circumcised this is a true and satisfactory answer
untill they shew signes to the contrary God having both reckoned them unto his people and given them all the means of salvation which an Infants age is capable of All this passage is but dictates what or how much of it is true or false hath been considered before only that you say all the other Infants of the world have their visible standing under the prince and in the kingdome of darknesse and consequently whilest others have no hope of their childrens spirituall welfare untill they be called out of that condition If you mean by all other Infants all that are unbaptized though the Infants of Believers in the Church it is a very harsh and uncharitable speech and you oppose those that in dispute against the Papists concerning the necessity of Baptisme to salvation do hold that Infants of Believers are holy and in the Church afore they be baptized and joyn with Lutherans and Papists denying it if you mean only the unbaptized Infants of Infidels what comfort do you give more to believing parents that have their children baptized then belongs to them though their children were not baptized And when you say that all others have no hope of their childrens spirituall welfare if you mean it of believing parents that baptize not their children it is in like manner an uncharitable speech and doth border too neer on the opinion of the necessity of Baptisme for Infants to salvation and when you say these need not have any doubt of their childrens welfare if they die in their infancy if you mean it of parents because their children are baptized you do speak like one that did hold that Baptisme doth conferre gratiam ex opere operato conferre grace by the work done but for ought you can shew out of Scripture a believing parent hath as much ground of hope for his Infant that dies unbaptized as for the baptized and as much reason of doubt concerning the baptized as the unbaptized And therefore what you here speak doth no whit encourage parents to baptize children if it be well weighed except there can be proved an institution and a promise But you say secondly here is much priviledge and benefit to the children when as beside what inward secret work God is pleased to work in them they being members of the Church of Christ have their share in the communion of Saints are remembred at the Throne of grace every day by those that pray for the welfare of the Church and particularly in those prayers which are made for his blessing upon his Ordinances By your parenthesis you intimate some inward secret work God is pleased to work in the Infants baptized by Baptisme If you conceive a bestowing of grace ex opere operato by the work done or baptismall initiall regeneration of the elect supposed to be in the Infants in baptisme notwithstanding till death they live wickedly speak plainly that we may know what you mean and then an answer may be framed to your speâ—ch As for being members of the Church if you meâ—n the invisible Church neither I nor you can affirm or deny it s in Gods bosome alone if you mean the visible you must make a new definition of the visible Church afore Infants baptized will be proved members For their remembring at the Throne of grace daily if you mean it particularly and by name I do not finde that to be in use after Baptisme any more then afore and I think they are remembred by the godly in generall as well afore Baptisme as after and for the praying for Gods blessing upon his Ordinances if Infant-baptisme be not Gods Ordinance this prayer in reference to Infant-baptisme at that time might be better spared You say And lastly it 's no small priviledge to have that seale bestowed on them in their infancy which may afterwards plead when they are growne and come to fulfill the condition When where and how Baptisme should be pleaded as you shew not neither doe I well conceive It is not Baptisme of it selfe that will yeeld a plea of any force either in foro soli in the Court of earth or in foro poli in the Court of heaven but the promise of God and the condition of faith in Christ. And these will be good pleas in prayeâ—s to God and in the court of conscience when Infant-baptisme will stand in no stead The plea of the Apostle will hold Rom. 8.31 32 33 34. which baptisme rightly administred doth strengthen 1 Pet. 3.21 But I never knew any Saint that pleaded his infant-baptisme in such cases YOu say further But if their being capable of the spirituall part must intitle them to the outward signe why then doe we not also admit them to the Sacrament of the Lords Supper which is the seale of the Covenant of grace as well as the Sacrament of Baptisme And this is urged the rather because say they the infants of the Jewes did eate of the Passeover as well as were circumcised Now if our infants have every way as large a priviledge as the infants of the Jewes had then can we not deny them the same priviledge which their infants had and consequently they must partake of the one Sacrament as well as the other This argument is good ad homines against the partie opposite proceeding upon the Paedobaptists hypotheses or suppositions to wit 1. That those to whom the Covenant belongs to them the seale belongs 2. That to the infants of believers the Covenant belongs 3. That the Lords Supper is a seale of the Covenant as well as Baptisme And these are your hypotheses Now then if this be a good argument children are to be baptized because they are in the Covenant and the seale belongs to those in Covenant by the same reason they are to receive the Lords Supper because they are in Covenant and the seale belongs to those in Covenant Now this argument is strengthened from other hypotheses as that the Lords Supper succeeds the Passeover as Baptisme Circumcision but children not of yeares of discretion had the Passeover therefore they are to havâ— the Lords Supper And this is confirmed by the practise and opinion of the Ancients that gave the Lords Supper to infants for 600 yeares after Christ as well as baptisme To this you say I answer that infants are capable of the grace of Baptisme we are sure not sure that they are capable of the grace signed and sealed in the Sacrament of the Lords Supper This answer supposeth that there is grace sealed in the Lords Supper which is not sealed in Baptisme To me that Sacrament that confirmes the covenant of grace confirmes all the promises in it and therefore if Baptisme be the seale of the covenant it seales all the graces and all the promises in it and therefore you are as sure that infants are capable of all graces annexed to the Covenant as of one But you say For both of them are seales of the new Covenant yet it is
An Examen OF THE SERMON Of Mr. STEPHEN MARSHAL About Infant-Baptisme in a Letter sent to him Divided into Foure Parts 1. Concerning the Antiquity of Infant-baptisme 2. Concerning the prejudices against Antipaedobaptists from their miscarriages 3. Concerning the Arguments from Scripture for Infant-baptisme 4. Concerning the Objections against Infant-baptisme In which are maintained these Positions 1. Infant-baptisme is not so ancient as is pretended but as now taught is a late Innovation 2. Antipaedobaptisme hath no ill influence on Church or Common-wealth 3. Infant-baptisme cannot be deduced from Holy Scripture 4. Infant-baptisme is a corruption of the Ordinance of Baptisme LONDON Printed by R. W. for George Whitington 1645. Infant-Baptisme Is not so Ancient as is pretended As now Taught Is a late Innovation PART I. Concerning the antiquity of Infant-Baptisme SIR IT is now full nine moneths since that being informed by one of the Members of the Assembly in which you are one that there was a Committee chosen out of the Members of the Assembly to give satisfaction in the point of Paedo-baptisme and advised by the same person out of his tender love to me to present the reasons of my doubts about Paedo-baptisme to that Committee I drew them up in Latine in nine Arguments in a scholastique way and they were delivered unto Mr. Whitaker the Chair-man of the Committee about nine moneths since to which I added after an addition of three more reasons of doubting with a supplement of some other things wanting which was delivered to Mr. Tuckney and joyned by him to the former Papers My aim therein was either to find better ground then I had then found to practise the baptizing of Infants from that Assembly of learned and holy men whom I supposed able and willing to resolve their Brother in the Minâ—stâ—ry Or else according to the solemn Covenant I have taken to endeavour the reformation of these Churches according to Gods word by informing that Assembly what I conceived amisse in the great ordinance of Baptizing The successe was such as I little expected to this day I have heard nothing from the Committee by way of answer to those doubts but I have met with many Pamphlets and some Sermons tending to make the questioning of that point odious to the People and to the Magistracie Among others reading the Sermon of Mr. Richard Vines on Ephes. 4.14 before the Lord Major and the Sermon you preached at Westminster Abbey I perceive there is such a prejudice in you and it may seem by the Vote passâ—d about the members of the visible Church in the generality of the Assembly that he is likely to be exploded if not censured that shall but dispute against it and therefore little or no likelihood that this matter will be argued as I conceive it doth deserve in your Assembly And further I perceive there is a great zeale in your spirit against the denying of Children baptisme as if it were a more cruâ—ll thing than Hazaels dashing out Childrens brains That it were an exclusion of them out of the Covenant of Grace c. Which I the more admire considering the report which hath been of you as a sober learned holy well-tempered man that you should be so transported in this matter as to be so vehement in maintaining that which was accounted heretofore in many ages but an Ecclesiasticall tradition for which you are fain to fetch a command from Circumcision and confâ—sse no expresse example in Scripture for it and go not about to prove it but by consequence inferr'd from five Conclusions which though you call undeniable yet others do not think so nor yet see reason to subscribe to your judgment You are not ignorant I prâ—sume that Mr. Daniel Rogers in his Treatise of the Sacrament of Baptisme part 1. pag. 79. confessed himself yet unconvinced by demonstration of Scripture for it And whereas your Achilles for Paedo-baptisme is the Circumcision of Infants me thinks Mr. Balls words Reply to the Answer of the New-England Elders about the third and fourth Positions pag. 38 39. cut the sinews of that argument But in whatsoever they agree or differ we must look to the Institution and neither stretch it wider nor draw it narrower then the Lord hath made it â—or he is the Institutor of the Sacraments according to his own good pleasure and it is our part to leaâ—n of him both to whom how and for what end the Sacraments are to be administred how they agree and wherein they differ In all which we must affirm nothing but what God hath taught us and as he hath taught us And whereas the words of Paul 1 Cor. 7.14 are your principall strength to prove the Covenant-holines of Infants of a believing parent Musculus a writer of good esteem in his Commentary upon that place confesseth that he had abused formerly that place against the Anabaptists but found it impertinent to that purpose And for my part after most carefull and serious reading and perusing of many Authors and among the rest your Sermon I cannot yet find it to be any other then an innovation in comparison of many other things rejected late maintained by erroneous and dangerous principles having no true ground from Christs institution which alone can acquit it from Will-worship and which hath occasioned many errors in doctrine corruptions in discipline and manners unnecessary and vain disputes and almost quite changed the ordinance of Baptisme Wherefore upon advise I have resolved to examine your Sermon who are a leading man and in respect of your eminency either likely to be a very good or very bad instrument as you are guiâ—dd that you may either rectifie me or I you and that we may if the Lord shall see it good give one another the right hand of fellowship and stand fast in one mind in the truth of the Gospel and cleare the truth of God to the people whose eyes are upon us And so much the rather have I pitched upon your Sermon because I conceive it contains in a plain way as much as can be wel said for Poedo-baptisme and your Epistle seems to intimate your publishing of it to be for the ease of the Assembly and possibly it may be all I may expect from them Now the Lord vouchsafe to frame both your spirit and mine that we may seek and find truth in humility and love in this great businesse which concerns the soules perhaps lives and estates of many millions yea of all godly persons and the glory of God and honour of our Lord Jesus Christ and that we may trample under our feet our own credit our own opinion if it stand not with the honour of Christ and the truth of God LEtting passe the Epistle and leaving the various Questions and allowing the stating of the Question conceiving you mean it of baptizing by warrant of ordinary rule of Scripture without extraordinary revelation or direction Whereas you affirme that the Infants of
Believers are to be baptized with Christs baptisme by the lawfull Minister according to ordinary rule I deny it That which you say for the practise of baptizing infants may be reduced 1. To the testimonies of Antiquity 2. To the novelties and miscarriages of the opposers of it 3. To the arguments produced for it 4. To the answering objections against it I shall by Gods assistence examine each of these First you affirm That the Christian Church hath been in possession of it for the space of fifteen hundred years and upwards as is manifest out of most of the Records that weâ— have of Antiquity both in the Greek and Latine Churches To this I answer that if it were true yet it is not so much as may be said for Episcopacy keeping of Easter the religious use of the Crosse c. which I conceive you reject 2. That the highest testimonies you produce come not so high 3. Those that be alleaged being judiciously weighed will rather make against the present doctrine and practise then for it 4. There are many evidences that do as strongly prove as proofes usually are taken in such matters Quod ab initio non fuit sic That from the beginning it was not so and therefore it is but an innovation The first of these I presume you will acknowledge that for Antiquity not-Apostolicall there are plain testimonies of Episcopacy keeping of Easter the religious use of the Crosse being in use before any of the testimonies you or any other can produce for baptizing of infants and therefore I will forbear mentioning proofes so obvious to Schollars The second and third thing I shall make good in the weighing of the Testimonies you produce and the fourth in the close YOur Testimonies are either of the Greek or Latine Churches Of the Greekes you alleage foure The first is Justine Martyr of whom you say That he lived Anno 150. which wants somewhat of 1500. years and therefore you did somewhat overlash in saying that it is manifest out of most of the Records of the Greeke and Latine Church The Church hath been in possession of the priviledge of baptizing Infants 1500. years and upwards and then you say In a Treatise that goes under his name By which it is manifest that you know that it was questioned whether it was his or no and I conceive you could not be ignorant that it is not only questioned but also proved by Perkins in his preparative to the demonstration of the Probleme by Rivet in his Critieus sacer by Robert Cooke of Leeds if my memory faile me not to which I am inforced to trust in many things being spoiled of my bookes in his Censure and confessed by Papists to be none of Justine Martyrs but to bee written a great while after his dayes for as much as it mentions not only Irenaeus but also Origen and the Manichees Now what doth this bastard Treatise say You say Question 56. Justine Martyr disputes the different condition of those children who die baptized and of those children who die unbaptized The question propounded is If Infants dying have neither praise nor blame by works what is the difference in the resurrection of those that have been baptized by others and have done nothing and of those that have not been baptizâ—d and in like manner have done nothing The Answer is this is the difference of the baptized from the not baptiâ—â—d that the baptized obtaine good things meaning at the Resurrection by baptisme but the unbaptized obtain not good things And theâ— are accounted worthy of the good things they have by their baptisâ—â— by the faith of those that bring them to baptisme You may by thâ—â— testimony see what ever Age the book was made in what the reason of baptizing of Infants was Not the supposed Covenant of grace made to believers and their seed which you make the ground of baptizing of infants but the opinion that the not baptized should not obtain good things at the resurrection meaning the Kingdome of God mentioned Joh. 3.5 but the baptized should and that by reason of the faith of the bringers what ever the Parents were and therefore they baptized the children of unbâ—lievers as well as believers if they were brought YOur next Greek Author is Irenaeus who was indeed a Greeke and wrote in Greek but now only we have his works in Latine except some few fragments for which reason we are not so certain of his meaning as we might be if we had his own words in the language in which he wrote You say he lived in the same Century and it is acknowledged he lived in the same Century with Justine Martyr but not with the Author of the Questions Answers ad Orthodoxâ—s who as hath been said lived in some Age after Irenaeus is by Vsher placed at the yeare 180. by Osiander at the yeare 183. so that though he were of that Century yet he flourished in the latter part of it and so reacheth not to your 1500. years upwards Of him you say that l. 2. c. 39. he saith Christus venit per seipsuÌ„ omnes salvare omnes inquaÌ„ qui per eum renascuntur in DeuÌ„ infantes parvuloâ— pueros c. Now it is well knowne say the Glossers upon that text renascentiâ— nomine Dominica Apostolica Phrasi Baptismum intelligi You might have added what follows Aperte confirmans Apostolorum traditionem de baptismo infantium parvulorum adversus Anabaptisticam impietatem But I pray you whose Glosse was this Was it any other then Fevardentius if I mistake not of whom Rivet Crit. Sacr. lib. 2 cap. 6. Juniores tantum qui in opera Irenaei incident monitos volo ut caveant ab illis Editionibus quas impudentissimus ille Monarchus Fevardentius homo projecta audacia et nullius fidei foede in multis corrupit annotationibus impiiâ— et mendacibus conspuâ—cavit And for the glosse its false for no where doth our Lord or the Apostles call baptisme Now birth although our Lord speake of being borne againe of water Ioh. 3.5 and Paul of the washing of regeneration Tit. 3.5 and for the words themselves without the glosse all the strength lyes in this that the word Renascuntur is used for Baptisme by the Ancients which yet possibly was not the word Irenaeus used in his owne writing and how the Latine translation alters the meaning of Irenaeus you may see somewhat in Rivet Vossius Thesibus Theologic de Padebapt Thesi. 7. intimates that the proper acception is of sanctification and that the word may be so taken yea and that it is not meant of Baptisme the words and the whole scope of Irenaeus in that place shew For the scope of Irenaeus in that chapter is to refute the Gnosticks who sayd that Christ did not exceede one and thirty yeeres of age against whom Irenaeus alleageth that Christ lived in every age of infancy youth old age that by his age example
objection is But we shun to kisse Infantes as uncleane in the first dayes of their birth to this he answers that to the cleane all things are cleane and we ought not to decline the embracing Gods worke The third objection was the Law of circumcision to this he answers that in Circumcision the eighth day was a figure of the resurrection of Christ Which is now accomplished and we are to account now nothing common or uncleane and therefore we are not to account this an impedinent to obtaine grace by Baptisme Then he addes further if any thing could hinder from obtaining of grace greater sinnes should hinder men of yeares from it now if greater sinnes hinder not men of yeares from it but that they when they beleive obtaine forgivenes grace and Baptisme by how much rather is an Infant not to be forbidden who being newly borne hath not sinned except in that being borne carnally according to Adam he hath contracted the contagion of ancient death in his first Nativity who in this respect comes more easily to receive remission of sinnes because not his owne sinnes but anothers are forgiven him So that whereas you say that Cyprian proves that Infants are to be baptized because they are under Originall sinne they neede pardon You may perceive that the argument is rather thus they have lesser sinnes then others they neede lesse pardon then men of growne yeares and therefore there is lesse hinderance in them to come to Gods grace remission of sinnes and Baptisme thus have I considered that famous resolution of a Councel of 66. Bishops which for the nakednes of it I should more willingly have covered were it not that the truth hath so much suffered by the great esteeme that this absurd Epistle hath had in many Ages YOu adde next to Cyprian Augustine who flourished about the yeare 405. according to Perkins 410. according to Vsher and I follow you to consider him next for though Ambrose and Hierome are reckoned somewhat afore him about 30. or 20. yeares yet they lived at the same time and the Authority of Augustine was it which carryed the Baptisme of Infants in the following ages almost without controule as may appeare out of Walafridus Strabo placed by Vsher at the yeare 840. who in his booke De rebus Ecclesiasticis cap. 26. having said â—hat in the first times the grace of Baptisme was wont to be given to them onely who were come to that integrity of minde and body that they could know and understand what profit was to be gotten in Baptisme what is to be confessed and beleived what lastly is to be observed by them that are new borne in Châ—ist confirmes it by Augustines owne confession of himselfe continuing a Catechumenus long afore Baptized But afterwards Christians understanding Originall sinne c. Ne perirent parvuli si sine remedio regenerationis gratiae defungerentur statuerunt eos baptizari in remissionem peccatorum quod S. Augustinus in libro de baptismo parvulorum ostendit Africana testantur Concilia aliorum Patrum documenta quamplurima And then adds how God-fathers and God-mothers were invented and addes one superstitious and impious consequent on it in these words Non autem debet Pater vel mater de fonte suam suscipere sobolem ut sit discretio inter spiritalem generationem carnalem Quod si casu evenerit non habebunt carnalis copulae deniceps adiuvicem consortium qui in communui filio compaternitatis spiritale vinculum susceperant To which I adde that Petrus Cluniacensis placed by Vsher at the yeare 1150. writing to three Bishops of France against Peter de Bruis who denyed Baptisme of Infants sayes of him that he did reject the Authority of the Latine Doctors being himselfe a Latine ignorant of Greeke and after having said recurrit ergo ad scripturas therefore he runnes to the Scriptures he alleageth the examples in the New Testament of Christs curing of persons at the request of others to prove Infants Baptisme by and then adds Quid vos ad ista Ecce non de Augustino sed de Evangelio protuli cui cum maxime vos credere dicatis aut aliorum fide alios tandem posse salvari concedite aut de Evangelio esse quae posui si potestis negate From these passages I gather that as Petrus Cluniacensis urged for paedo-baptisme the authority of Augustine and the Latine Doctors So Peter de Bruis and Henricus appealed to the Scriptures and the Greeke Church Now the reason of Augustines authority was this the Pelagian heresie being generally condemned and Augustines workes being greatly esteemed as being the hammer of the Pelagians the following refuters of Pelagianisme Prosper Fulgentius c. the Councells that did condemne it as those of Carthage Arles Milevis c. did rest altogether on Augustines arguments and often on his words and Augustine in time was accounted one of the foure Doctors of the Chuâ—ch esteemed like the foure Evangelists so that his â—pâ—nion was the rule of the Churches Judgement and the schooles determination as to the great hurt of Gods Church Luther and others have beene of late Now Augustine did very much insist on this argument to prove originall sinne because Infants were baptized for remission of sinnes and therefore in the Councill of Milevis he was adjudged accursed that did deny it But for my part I value Augustines judgement iust at so much as his proofes and reasons weigh which how light they are you may conceive First In that whereas he makes it so Univeâ—sall a tradition his owne baptisme not till above thirty though educated as a Christian by his mother Monica the Baptisme of his sonne Adeodatus at 15. of his friend Alipius if there were no more were enough to pâ—ove that this custome of baptizing infants was not so received as that the Church thought necessary that all children of Christians by profession should be baptized in their infancy And though I conceive with Grotius annot in Mattâ— 19.14 that baptisme of Infants was much more frequented and with greater opinion of necessity in Africa then in Asia or other parts of the world for saith he in the Councells you cannot finde ancienter mention of that custome then the Councell of Carthage Yet I doe very much question whether they did in Africa even in Augustines time baptize children except in danger of death or for the health of body or such like reason I do not finde that they held that Infants must be baptized out of such cases for it is cleare out of sundry of Augustines Tracts as particularly tract 11 in Johan that the order held of distinguishing the Catechumeni and baptized and the use of Catechizing afore baptisme still continued yea and a great while after insomuch that when Petrus Cluniacensis disputed against Peter de Bruis he said only that therâ— had beene none but infants baptized for 300. yeares or almost 500. yeares in Gallia Spaine Germany
would have him viz. you and your children hâ—ve hitherto been an holy seed but now if you beleeve in Châ—ist your selves your children shall be in no better condition then the rest of the Pagan world strangers from the Covenant of God but if afterward any of them or any of the heathen shall for their parts beleeve and be baptized their particular persons shall be taken into covenant but their children still left out had this thinke you been a comfortable argument to perswade them to come in in relation to the good of their children after them You suppose here that the Apostle used this argument onely in relation to the good of their children whereas the maine matter was concerning themselves to erect them who being told that they had crucified Iesus who was both Lord and Christ verse 36. and had said Matth. 27.25 His blood be upon us and our children were pricked in their hearts and said to Peter and the rest of the Apostles Men and brethren what shall we doe and was it not a comfortable argument for men in that case to be told that notwithstanding all this the promise of Christ and remission of sinnes by him was yet to them and their children on whom they had wished Christs blood to be and to all the Jewes that dwelt afarre off in the diâ—persion as many as the Lord should call and a great incitement to repent and be baptized in the Name of the Lord Jesus for the remission of sinnes However you conceive now sure if your soule had been in their soules stead you would have conceived it a very comfortable speech in this sensâ— that I now give As for that witlesse descant you put on your adversaries I know not whether it be their meaning or not sure I am no such thing follows on the applying the restriction in the end of the verse to them their children and all that are afarre off And that which you would burden your adversaries tenent with as if they put beleivers infants out of the covenant into the condition of Pagans children it is a coccysme answered before and therefore I may well let it passe in this place You adde The plaine strength of the argument is God hath now remembred his Covenant to Abraham in sending that blessed seed in whom he promised to be the God of him and his seed doe not you by your unbeliefe deprive your selves and your posteritie of so excellent a gift In this passage I thinke you hit the marke it is the very interpretation I gave in the reasons of my doubts before mentioned in answering the arguâ—ent from this text onely the alleâ—dging the promise Gen. 17.7 〈◊〉 that expression do not you by your unbeliefe deprive your posteritie of so excellent a gift have a little relish of your interpretation of the promise concerning the naturall seed of beleevers But letting that passe in the maine you expound it rightly The promise is to you and your children that is God hath now remembred his Covenant to Abâ—aham in sending that blessed seed in whom hee promâ—sed to be the God of Abraham and his seed and the sense is plaine Tâ—e promise which is made to Abraham is now fulfilled in sending Christ to you and your children and to all that are afarre off as many as the Lord our God shall call that they might bee turned from their iniquity â—nd baptized in his name for the remission of their sinnes And this agrees with the Apostles exhortation to the same purpose Acts 3.25.26 Ye are the children of the Prophets and of the covenant which God made with our fathers saying unto Abraham and in thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed unto you first God having raised up his Sonne Jesus sent him to blesse you in turning away every one of you from his iniquities And Acts 13.32 33. And we declare unto you glad tidings how that the promise which was made unto the fathers God hath fulfilled the same unto us their châ—ldren in thâ—t he hath raised up Jesus againe You adde And except in relation to the covenant there was no occasion to name thâ—ir children it had been sufficient to have said a promise is made to as many as the Lord shall call Though I deny not their children are mentioned in relation to the covenant in the sense I have given or rather in allusion to the forme of expressions in the covenant and predictions of the Prophets yet there was other occasion to wit their imprecation Matth. 27.25 and especially because Christ was as it is Acts 3.26 first sent to the Jews and their children and to be offered first to them as it is Acts 13.46 But it was not to intimate that which you would gather that the promise is such to them if they did beleeve that their children even their infants upon their fathers faith whether the children were called or not were taken into the covenant either of saving graces or visible church-membership which you should have proved but never will prove out of this Scripture But taking your Hypothesis that these to whom Peter speakes were within the covenant made to Abraham and cirumcised rightly and yet the Apostle requires these to repent afore they are to be baptized the Antipaedobaptists have hence a good argument against baptizing infants because Peter required of such as were in the covenant repentance afore Baptism I passe on to the next proof you bring for your Conclusion YOu say as plain it is out of the 11. Rom. 16 c. where the apostles scope is to shew that we Gentiles have now the same graffing into the true olive which the Jews formerly had and our present graffing in is answerable to their present casting out their taking in in the latter end of the world shall be the same graffing in though more gloriously as ours is now Now all know that wheÌ„ they were taken in they and their children were taken in when they were broken off they and their children were broken off when they shall be taken in in the latter end of the world they and their children shall be taken in and that because the root is holy that is Gods covenant with Abraham Isaac and Jacob extends yet unto them when their unbelief shall be taken away The root being like Nebuchadnezars tree the tree hewen down and the root bound with a hand of iron until seven times were passed over it and then the bands should be broken the root should spring and the tree should grow again So their present nation like this tree is cut down and this holy root the covenant made with their forefathers is suspended bound with an iron bar of unbelief blindnesse being come upon them untill the fulnes of the Gentiles were come in and then all Israel shall be saved And mark that in all this discourse the holines of the branches there spoken of is not meant of a personall inherent holines
of David proceeds upon this mistake that by the root and first fruit are meant any Ancestor whereas it is meant of Abraham the Father of the faithfull as Deodate in his Annot. on Rom. 11.16 or at most Abraham Isaac and Jacob in whose names all the elect are comprehended when God calls himself The God of Abraham Isaac and Jacob as our Saviour intimates Luke 20.37 38. Mat. 22.32 Mar. 12.26 27. And for that which he saith that the Jews in Pauls time were holy by covenant howbeit for the present the sons were branches broken off for unbeliefe if it be meant of the Jews broken off through unbelief in respect of their present state they were not holy by covenant Only thus fâ—r the Jewish nation in Pauls time is said to be holy either in respect of the remnant according to the election of Grace mentioned vers 5. of which he was one or in respect of the posterity that should afterwards be called according to the promise of God to Abraham in which sense they were federally holy yet this did neither give right for the baptizing of children of unbelieving Jewes in Pauls time nor now And for that which he saith that God hath chosen the race and nation of the Gentiles it is not right For God hath not chosen simply the race and nation of the Gentiles but a people to himself out of the race and nation of the Gentiles as it is said Rev. 5.7 Thou hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred and tongue and nation As for Mr. Blakes Argument because it falls in with your reason I shall answer them together in that which followes You say Now we know that when that one nation of the Jews were made Disciples and circumcised their Infants were made disciples made to belong to Gods School and circumcised with them when that nation was made disciples in Abrahams loynes and circumcised their seed also was the same when that nation was taken out of Egypt and actually made Disciples their children were also with them This is your first Argument to prove a command by cleare consequence from Mat. 28.19 for baptizing Infants Now the strength of it lies in these suppositions First that Christ did bid them baptize all nations after the manner that the Jews did circumcise one nation And Mr. Blake doth conceit this so strongly that he saith this cannot be denyed of anâ— that will have the Apostles to be able to know Christs meaning by his words in this enlarged Commission Secondly that the nation of the Jews were discipled when they were circumcised I do not impute it to Mr. Blake through defect of ability to understand but through the strong hold which these points have in his minde that Baptisme succeeds Circumcision in the place roome and use of it and the covenant of the Gospel is all one with the covenant made to Abraham that he imagines there should be such an allusion to circumcision as that the Disciples must understand Christs meaning whom to baptize from the Precept of circumcision Gen. 17. but in mine apprehension there is no colour for such a conceit 'T is true he enlargeth their commission and bids them Go and make Disciples of all nations or as it is in Mark Preach the Gospel to every creature and then to baptize the Disciples of all nations but this enlargement of commission was not in opposition to the restriction about circumcision Gen. 17. but in opposition to the restriction Mat. 10.5 6. as your self rightly expresse it pag. 44. And for that expression that the nation of the Jews were discipled that their Infants were discipled that the nation was made Disciples in Abrahams loines it is such a construction of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 make Disciples as I believe no Lexicon nor I think any Expositor to this day made of the word which plainly signifies so to teach as that the persons taught do learn and accordingly professe the things taught and our Lord Christ in Mark expresseth it by preaching the Gospel and accordingly the Apostles by preaching did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 disciple Acts 14.21 which how it can be said of Infants that can neither understand nor speak the doctrine of the Gospel preached to them without a miracle I know not I make no question but Abraham did teach his children and make them Disciples and that the Israelites did teach and make Disciples of their children as soon as they could understand the things of God but that they should be disciples in Abrahams loynes is such a piece of language as I never read in the Bible nor in any Author but such as torture words to make them speak what they would have them And sure if the Apostles had understood our Saviours command thus Disciple all nations baptizing them that is Admit the infants of all nations to baptisme as the Jews did the male Infants of that one nation to circumcision they might have saved themselves a great deal of labour of preaching afore baptisme and of baptizing females and would have left us some precedent of such a practice But you adde further And we know that in every nation the children make a great part of the nation and are alwayes included under every administration to the nation whether promises or threatnings priviledges or burthens miracles or judgements unlesse they be excepted So are they in families in cities it being the way of the Scripture when speaking indefinitely of a people nation city or family to be either saved or damned to receive mercies or punishments expresly to except Infants when they are to be excepted as we see in the judgement that befell Israel in the Wildernesse when all that rebellious company that came out of Egypt was to perish by Gods righteous doome their little ones were expresly excepted Numb 14.31 and in the covenant actually entred into by the body of the nation Nehem. 10. it is expresly limited to them who had knowledge and understanding And the Disciples who received this commission knew well that in all Gods former administrations when any parents were made disciples their children were taken in with them to appertain to the same school and therefore it behooved the Lord to give them a caution for the leaving out of Infants in this new administration that they might know his minde had be intended to have them left out which that ever he did in word or deed cannot be found in Scripture The Lord hath plainly given a caution in Scripture for the leaving out Infants in this administration accoâ—ding to ordinary rule For in that he directs them to baptize disciples upon preaching he doth exclude Infants who are not such disciples nor according to ordinary providence can be And this the Apostles could easily understand as knowing that under the term Disciple in common speech and in the whole new Testament those only are meant who being taught professed the doctrine taught by such a one
as Johns Disciples Christs Disciples the disciples of the Phâ—risees Luke 5.33 the disciples of the perverters Acts 20.30 and accordingly they administred Baptisme And in that Christ appoints these to be baptized he excludes others For the appointment of Christ is the rule according to which we are to administer holy things and he that doth otherwise follows his own invention and is guilty of will-worship and thus we construe the meaning of the Holy Ghost in other appointments As because it is said 1 Cor. 11. 28. Let a man examine himself and so let him eat therefore Infants are excluded though Infant-câ—â—â—union was held lawfull and necessary for six hundred yeers in the Church Wine is appointed in the Eucharist therefore not Water mixt with Wine as the Papists contend Water in Baptisme therefore not salt chrisme spettle the Preacher to baptize therefore not women or private persons Males to be circumcised therefore no females two shall be one flesh therefore no more then two against Polygamie Matth. 19.5 So that unlesse you will alter the definition of wil-worship according to Mat. 15.9 in point of worship that is excluded which is not expressed And therefore whereas you say it behoved the Lord to give them a caution for the leaving out of Infants in this new administration that they might know his minde if that be intends to have them left out which that ever he did in word or deed cannot be found in Scripture I may more truly invert thus it behoved the Lord to give them a Precept for the putting in of Infants in this which you truly call new administration as being not the same with Circumcision that they might know his mind if that he intends to have them put in which that ever he did in word or deed cannot be found in the Scripture Certainly you may as soon extract water out of a flint as draw a command to baptize Infants out of this Scripture by any expresse terms or virtuall consequence but the ordinary baptizing of Infants is and may be proved from this Text to be a wil-worship if this Scripture be the rule of administring ordinarily that Ordinance which it indeed is and hath been still taken to be As for that which you say The children make in every nation a great part of the nation so do the Infidels that are adulti of ripe yeers and yet are not therefore included in this speech Teach all nations and baptize them and as for that which you say the children are alwayes included under every administration to the nation whether promises or threatnings priviledges or benefits mercies or judgements unlesse they be excepted therefore here Infants are included when it is said Go teach all nations baptizing them I answer Fiâ—st that this speech in so universall and ample expressions if understood of temporall judgements and mercies is contrary to Ezek. 17.20 Jer. 31.29 30. Isai. 6.13 and 10.22 if of eternall as it seems you mean when you say to be either saved or damned it is contrary to Rom. 9.13.27.29 Rom. 13.5 Secondly if it were true yet makes nothing to the purpose sith this Precâ—pt is not an appointment to baptize all nations as nations without aâ— further circumscription for then every person in the world might be â—aptized but disciples of all nations and therefore it is not a nationall priviledge but a personall belonging to Disciples or Believers of every nation And for that which you say The disciples who received this commission knew well that in all Gods former administrations when any parents were made disciples their children were taken in with them to appertain to the same school if it be thus understood that God required that parents being called should instruct their children and so the children in potentia propinqua in a neer possibility were disciples it is granted according to that which God speaks of Abraham Gen. 18.19 and requires of the Israelites Deut. 6.7 But if you mean it thus that the Disciples knew that when any parents were made disciples barely and precisely for this reason without any other the children were actually disciples and so to have Baptisme administred to them it is an untruth that hath no ground for it But you have yet somewhat more to say for Infants being disciples and therefore you thus answer an objection If it be said they are not capable of being disciples I answer as capable as the Infants of the Jews and Proselytes were when they were made disciples It is granted but neither were the Infants of Jews or Proselytes capable of being actually disciples in an ordinary way nor are ours You go on And besides they are devoted to be disciples being to be trained up by their parents who are from their Infancy to teach them the knowledge of Christ. It is hard to say that parents are to teach Infants from their infancy the Knowledge of Christ For though it is said of Timothy Thou hast known the Holy Scriptures 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2 Tim. 3.15 yet our Translators would not render it from an Infant but from a child But however if their parents be to teach them from their infancy and the parents devote them to be disciples yet this doth not make them disciples actually but potentially they may never be disciples for all that But you tell us And at the present they are capable of his own teaching I deny not but Infants are capable of Christs own teaching yea of actuall faith yea of actuall profession of faith The same power that could make John Baptist in his mothers womb sensible of the presence of Christs mother and to leap for joy that could open the mouth of Balaams Asse can out of the mouth of babes and sucklings perfect praise But then this is done in an extraordinary way and extraordinary accidents make not an ordinary rule But you adde And suâ—e I am in Christs own dialect to belong to Christ and to be a Disciple of Christ or to bear the name of Christ are all one and that such Infants do belong to Christ and bear the name of Christ I have sufficiently proved already and in the margine you cite Mat. 10. 42. Mar. 9.41 Mat. 18.5 Mr. Blake pag. 21. seems to triumph in this Argument when he saith Who then is not afraid to refuse them who will receive Christ Who will not baptize them that is willing to baptize disciples in the name of Christ But this is a triumph afore victory The plain truth is there 's never a one of all the three Texts speaks of little ones in respect of age The first Mat. 10.42 is meant of the Apostles and as Beza in his Annotations sayes rightly Parvos vocat per concessionem suos discipulos homines nimirum coram mundo viles abjectos He calleth his Disciples little ones by concession to wit men vile and abject before the world so that they are called little in respect of their outward estate in the world
with some difference Baptisme properly seales the entrance into it the Lords Supper properly the growth nourishment and augmentation of it Baptisme for our birth the Lords Supper for our food Now infants may be borne againe while they are infants have their originall sin pardoned be united to Christ have his image stampt upon them but concerning the exercise of these graces and the augmentation of them in infants while they are infants the Scripture is altogether silent You spake somewhat to like purpose before which I examined part 3. sect 15. To me it is yet as a paradoxe that Baptisme seales properly the entrance into the Covenant and the Lords Supper the growth nourishment and augmentation of it If you make the entrance at remission of sins justification or mortification the Lords Supper that seales Christs death seales the entrance into the Covenant Mat. 26.28 And for Baptisme it seales dying with Christ and rising with Christ Rom. 6.3 4 5. Gal. 3.27 Col. 2.12 1 Pet. 3.21 and therefore not onely the first worke of conversion but also after-growth and exercise of holinesse And the Lords Supper signifies the same receiving the Spirit which Baptisme doth 1 Cor. 12.13 And according â—o the doctrine of Protestants Baptisme seales as well the pardon of other sins as of originall sin And so Peter Acts 2.38 and Ananias Act. 22.16 And therefore this difference you put is a difference which the Scripture makes not that I say nothing of your strange phraseology of the growth nourishment and augmentation of the Covenant But you say And what is said concerning the infants of the Jewes eating the Passeover to which our Sacrament of the Lords Supper doth succeed there is no such thing mentioned in the Book of God It is said indeed that the severall families were to eate their Lambe if the houshold were not too little for it and that when their children should aske them what that service meant they should instruct them about the meaning of it but no word injoyning nor any example witnessing thaâ— their little children did eate of it The Commands were that all the males should thrice a yeare appeare before the Lord one of which was the Passeover Exod. 23.17 Exod. 34.23 Deut. 16.16 And at that time there was no other food to be eaten but the unleavened bread and the paschall Supper Therefore those males that could eate though not come to yeares of discretion fit to receive the Lords Supper yet were to eate the Passeover Ainsworth notes on Exod. 12.26 So both the outward rite and the meaning of it was to be taught to their children Touching whom the Jewes hold from the Law in Exod. 23.14.17 Deut. 16.14.16 that every child that could hold his Father by the hand and goe up from Jerusalem gates to the mountaine of the Temple his Father was bound to cause him to goe up and appeare before God with him to the end he might catechize him in the Commandements And who sow as bound to appeare was bound to keep the feast Maimâ—ny in Hagigah Chap. 2. sect 3 4. Also they say A childe that is able to eate a marsell of bread they catechize him in the Commandements and give him to eate so much as an Olive of the unleavened bread Maimony Treatise of leaven and unleavened bread c. 6. sect 10. But you say If they say as some of them doe that those little ones who were able to enquire concerning the meaning of that service and capable to receive instruction about it did eate of the Passeover with their parents I answer although the Scripture speaks nothing of their eating yet if that be granted it is no prejudice to us because the Gospel prohibites not such young ones from the Lords Supper who are able to examine themselves and discerne the Lords body True but children that were to appeare at the Passeover and to partake of it were many of them such as might be instructed concerning the meaning of that service and yet too young to examine themselves or to discerne the Lords body so that if the Lords Supper succeed the Passeover and a rule may be drawne from the Passeover to the Lords Supper children unable to examine themselves may be admitted to the Lords Supper THe rest of your Sermon is application which being not argumentative I shall let it passe Onely whereas you charge Anabaptists with a rash and bloudy sentence condemning infants as out of the state of grace condemning all the infants of the whole Church of Christ as having nothing to doe with the Covenant of grace and then tragically aggravate this thing as parallel or rather exceeding the cruelty of Herod and Hazael in slaying and dashing the infants of Israel against the wall till you produce some testimonies of those you call Anabaptists so determining I shall take it to be but a false accusation and a fruit of passion not of holy zeale For the thing it selfe I have shewed part 2. sect 10. that it doth not follow on the doctrine of Antipaedobaptisme and I conceive that if to be in the Covenant of grace be rightly explained to wit so as to signifie the having of the promise of justification and salvation by Christ Jesus besides which I know not any other Evangelicall Covenant of grace your selfe will be found to exclude them from the covenant of grace as much as they As they dare not say that this or that particular infant of a believer is in the covenant of grace that is certainly elected justified and to be saved so neither dare you Your owne words are pag. 48. Charitie being not tyed to conclude certainly of any of them because they ought to know that all are not Israel who are of Israel and that many are called but few are chosen If you should you would gainsay the Apostle Rom. 9.6 7 8. And on the other side as you will not say they are damned so neither will they I am perswaded but suspending any sentence concerning this or that in particular leave them to God who is the soveraigne Lord both of them and us THus have I at last in the middest of many wants distractions discouragements and temptations with the assistence of God who hath never failed me to him be the praise examined your Sermon and thereby shewed that it doth not satisfie and how little reason you had to say in your Epistle I am assured that it is Gods truth which I have preached and which he will blesse Notwithstanding which confidence I presume you will see cause to consider more exactly of this matter upon the reading of this answer I dare not thinke any otherwise of you then as of one who loves and seekes the truth Nor doe I know any reason why you should conceive that I have taken this paines for any ends crosse to the finding of truth My reall intention in this worke is to discover truth and to doe what is meete for mee in my calling towards
he might sanctifie every age so that here Irenaeus speakes not of being borne againe by Baptisme for it is said who are borne againe by him that is by Christ. Not as if he had baptized infants but because he was an infant that by the example or vertue of his age he might sanctifie infants as the whole context will shew which is this Magister ergo existens Magistri quoque habebat aetatem non reprobans nec supergrediens hominem neque solvens suam legâ—m in se humani generis sed omnemâ—tatem sanctificans per illam quae ad ipsum erat similitudinem Omnes enim venit per seipsum salvare omnes inquam qui per eum renascuntur in Deum Infantes parvulos pueros juvenes seniores Ideo per omnem venit aetatem infantibus infans factus sanctificans infantes in parvuliâ— parvuluâ— sanctificans hanc ipsam habentes aetatem simul exemplum illis pietatis effectus justitiae subjectionis In Iuvenibus Iuvenis exemplum Iuvenibus fiens Sanctificans Domino sic et senior in senioribus ut sit perfectus Magister non solum secundum expositionem veritatis sed secundum aetatem sanctificans simul seniores exemplum ipsis quoque fiens deinde usque ad mortem pervenit ut sit primogenitus ex mortuis ipse primatum tenens in omnibus princeps vitae prior omnium et praecedens omnes Which he confirmes by the testimony of Iohn the Apostle from whom he saith those that conversed with him related that Christ lived about fifty yeares which all sorts of writers doe reckon among Irenaeus his blemishes and thereby shew how little credit is to be given to the too much entertained Apostolicall traditions THe next Greeke Author is Origen who you say lived in the beginning of the third Century Perkins and Vsher place him at the yeare 230. but for his works as of old they were counted full of errours and dangerous to be reade so as now they are we can hardly tell in some of them what is Origens What not for the originall being lost we have only the Latine translation which being performed in many of his works and particularly the Homilies on Leviticus and the Epistle to the Romanes by Ruffinus it appeares by his owne confâ—ssion that he added many things of his own insomuch that Erasmus in his censure of the Homilies on Leviticus saith that a man cannot be certaine whether he reades Ruffinus or Origen and Perkins puts among Origens Counterfeit works his Comentary on the Epistle to the Romans as being not faithfully translated by Ruffinus the like is the judgement of Rivet and others and I suppose did you reade the passages themselves you cite and consider how they are brought in and how plaine the expressions are against the Pelagians you would quickly conceive that those passages were put in after the Pelagien heresie was confuted by Hierom and Augustine who often tells us that the Fathers afore that controversie arose did not speake plainly against the Pelagiens and of all others Origen is most taxed as Pelagianizing Wherefore Vossius in the place aforenamed though he cite him for company yet addes sed de Origene minus laborabimus quia quae citabamus Graece non extant But what saith the supposed Origen In one place that the Church received this tradition of baptizing infants from the Apostles in another according to the observance of the Church baptisme is granted to infants you adde as foreseeing that this passage would prove that then it was held but a tradition that then the greatest points of faith were ordinarily called traditions received from the Apostles and you cite 2 Thes. 2.15 To which I reply true it is that they did call the greatest points of faith though written traditions Apostolicall as conceiving they might best learne what to hold in points of faith from the Bishops of those Churches where the Apostles preached and therefore in prescriptions against Heretickes Tertullian Irenaeus and others direct persons to go to the Churches where the Apostles sate specially the Romane Church which seemes to have beene the seed of Appeals to Rome and the ground of the conceit which was had of the Popes unerring Chaire But it is tâ—ue also they called Apostolicall traditions any thing though unwriâ—ten which was reported to have come from the Apostles as the time of keeping Easter and many more which was the fountaine of all corruptions in discipline and worship And that in those places you cite is meant an unwritten tradition not only the not citing any Scripture for Baptizing of Infants but also the very Phrases Pro hoc et Ecclesia ab Apostolis traditionem suscepit Secundum Ecclesiae observantiam are sufficient proofe to them who are acquainted with the Ancients writings of those times So that yet you have not proved that the baptisme of Infants was time out of minde that it had beene received in the Church or was delivered over to the Church in Origens time and was of ancient use in the Church afore his time But these passages prove that in the time when the framer of those passages wrote it was accounted but an Apostolicall tradition according to the observance of the Church Like speeches to which are found in Pseudo-Dyonisius in the end of his Hierachy and Augustin lib. 10. de Genesi ad literam c. 23. and elsewhere which argue that it was held as an Ecclesiasticall tradition in those times THe fourth and last of the Greeke Church you name is Gregory Nazianzen who is by Perkins placed at the yeare 380. by Vsher 370. much short of 1500 yeares and upwards you say that Orat. 40. in Baptismum he calls baptisme signaculum vita cursum in euntibus and commands Children to be baptized though afterwards he seemed to restraine it to the case of necessity But doth he seeme onely to restraine it to the case of necessity the words are plaine that he gives the reason why Infants in danger of death should be baptized 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that they might not misse of the common grace but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he gives his opinion of others that they should stay longer that they might be instructed and so their minds and bodyes might be Sanctified and these are all you bring of the Greek Church By the examination of which you may perceive how well you have proved that it is manifest out of most of the Records that we have of antiquitie both in the Greeke and Latine Church that the Christian Church hath beene in possession of the priviledge of baptizing the infants of beleivers for the space of 1500. yeares and upwards Whereas the highest is but a bastard Treatise and yet comes not so high if it were genuine the next without a glosse which agrees not with the text speakes nothing to the purpose the third is of very doubtfull credit the fourth which was
them to him by his Spirit forgiving them their birth-sin through Christs obedience â—lthough they be not baptized As corrupt as the Schoolmen were they could say Gratia Dei non alligatur Sacramentis The grace of God is not tyed to Sacraments If most of the Anabaptists hold universall grace and free-will there may be as much said of most of the paedobaptists taking in a great part of the Papists almost all the Lutherans and Arminians and if they denyed originall sin it is their dangerous error but it is not consequent on their denying Paedobaptisme But the late confession of faith made â—n the name of 7. Churches of them in London Art 4 5 21 22 23 24 26. will abundantly answer for them in this point of Pelagianisme The third is Or that although they be tainted with originall corruption and so need a Saviour Christ doth pro bene placito save some of the infants of Turks and Indians dying in their infancy as well as some of the infants of Christians and so carry salvation by Christ out of the Church beyond the Covenant of grace where God never made any promise Nor doth this follow for it may be said all that dye in their infancy are not damned nor all saved because they have no birth-sin nor some of the Indians saved For the some that may be saved may be the infants of believers to whom God may forgive their birth-sin without baptisme Thus you may perceive how the push of all the horns of your horned Syllogisme may be avoyded But you conceive it a great absurdity to say That Christ doth pro bene placito save some of the infants of Indians it is true it is a bold saying to say he doth save them but â—is as bad to say that God may not save them pro bene placito according to his good pleasure He hath mercy on whom he will have mercy Buâ— then salvation by Christ is carried out of the Church where he hath made no promise if you mean by the Church the invisible Church of the elect the Church of the first-born that are written in heaven of which Protestant Divines as Morton de Ecclesia and others against Bellarmine understand that saying Extra Ecclesiam non est salus without the Church is no salvation then it follows noâ— that if the infants of Indians be saved salvation is carryed without the Church for they may be of the invisible Church of the elect to whom belongs the promise made to Abraham I will be thy God and the God of thy seed But if you mean it of the visible though I disclaim Zuinglius his opinion who was a stiffe assertor of Paedobaptisme and I think the founder of the new way of maintaining it by the new addition to the Covenant of grace that Hercules Arist des Socrates Numa and such like heathens are now in heaven yet I cannot say no persons without the communion of the visiblâ— Church are saved He that could call Abraham in Vr of Chaldea Job in the land of Vz and Rahab in Jericho may save some amongst Turks and Indians out of the visible Church You will not call Rome a true visible Church nor will you I think say that all are damned that are in Rome You adde That God hath made a promise to be the God of believers and of their seed we all know If you know it yet I professe my ignorance of such a promise I reade indeed of a promise made to Abraham That he would be his God and the God of his seed and I reade That they that are of the faith of Abraham are the children of Abraham Gal. 3.7.29 Rom. 4.11 12 13 16. But I am yet to seek for that promise you speake of to be the God of believers and their seed You say But where the promise is to be found that he will be thâ— God of the seed of such Parents who live and die his enemies and theâ—â— seed not so much as called by the preaching of the Gospel I know not Nor do I. Only I know this I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion Rom. 9.15 which is the Apostles answer in this very case Thus have I entred your out-works I shall now try the strength of your walls I mean the third part of your Sermon Infant-baptisme cannot be deduced from holy Scripture PART III. Concerning the Arguments from Scripture for Infant-baptism YOu say My first argument to â—his The Infants of believing parents are foederati therefore they must be signati They are within the Covenant of Grace belonging to Christs body Kingdome Family therefore are to partake of the seal of his covenant or the distinguishing badge between them who are under the Covenant of grace and them who are not The ordinary answer to this argument is by denying that Infants are under the Covenant of grace only some few deny the consequence that although they were within the Covenant yet it follows not that they must be sealed because say they the women among the Jews were under the covenant yet received not circumcision which was the seal of the Covenant They that deny the consequence of your argument do it justly for the consequence must be proved by this universall All that are foederati must be signati all that are in the covenant of Grace must be sealed which is not true If it were true it must be so either by reason of some necessary connexion between the termes which is none for it is but a common accident to a man that hath a promise or a covenant made to him that he should have a speciall sign it may adesse vel abesse a subjecto it may be present or absent from the subject God made a speciall promise to Joshuah that he should bring Israel into the Land of Canaan to Phineas a covenant of an everlasting Priesthood without any speciall sign or seal distinct from the Covenant or else it must be so by reason of Gods will declared concerning the covenant of Grace but that is not true The promise made to Adam which you confesse was the same in substance with the covenant of Grace had no speciall sign or seal annexed to it Noah Abel were within the covenant of Grace yet no speciall sign appointed them therefore it is not Gods will that all that are foederati in the Covenant must be signati Sealed if they had been signati though they were foederati it had been will-worship God not appointing it to them But you will say all that are foederati should be signati since the solemn Covenant with Abraham But neither is this certain sith we finde no such thing concerning Melchizedeck and Lot that lived in Abrahams time nor concerning Job that it 's conceived lived after his time You will say but it is true of all the foederati in Abrahams family but neither is that true for male children before
this for the comfort of parents and such an Odium cast on Anti-paedobaptists for denying it and therefore I see not but your assertion if you do not revoke your plea for paedobaptisme must be conceived thus That God hath made a Covenant or promise of saving grace in Christ not only to believers but also to their seed whom you baptize for this reason The Author of the little book intituled Infants baptizing proved lawfull by Scripture pag. 3 4 5. Intâ—rprâ—ts the Covenant I will be thy God and the God of thy seed thus I will be the God of every believer and the God of every believers seed in respect of outward Church-priviledges to be members of the visible Church partakers of baptisme c. to the naturall seed in respect of inward and meerly spirituall to none but true Saints in whom the new creature is formed But I say againe Abraham or thee in that Covenant is put only for Abraham and not for evâ—ry believer For sith the Apostle plainly interprets believers to be Abrahams seed Rom. 4.13 16. Gal. 3.29 to say Abraham is put for any believer makes the speech to have an inept tautology I will be the God of Abraham that is of every believer according to that Authors sense and I will be the God of thy seed that is of every believer according to the Apostles sense And that in that Covenant should be a promise to us believing Gentiles That to our seed should be conferred visible Church-priviledges to be members of the visible Church partakers of baptisme c. is but a dream the Scripture no where explaining it so and being so understood were not true there being many of the seed of believers that neither de facto in event nor de jure of right have those visible Church privilâ—dges to be members of the visible Church partakers of bapâ—isme c. and if there were such a promise God could not take away the Candlestick from the posterity of believers which he threatens Rev. 2.5 George Philips vind of Infant bapt p. 37. Cals the Covenant an offer to become their God and all along supposeth infants under the Covenant because grace was offered in circumcision and they sealed because it was offâ—red But the Covenant is not an offer but a promise nor is a man under the Covenant of grace or in the Covenant of grace because an offer is made for then refusers might be said to be under the Covenant but because God hath promised or performed to them And if infants are to be bapâ—ized which is his ground because the Covenant is offered to them in baptisme then in effect it is to argue they are to be baptizâ—d because they are to be baptized which iâ— nugatory I hâ—ve discussed this matter more fully that I may shew you how doubtfull your speeches are and give you the reason why I set down this as your conclusion to be denyed by me That the Covenant of saving grace in Christ expressed Gen. 17.7 In thâ—se words I will be thy God and the God of thy seed is made to believers and their naturall seed Now I will shew you the reason why I take this to be an error and that very dangerous MY first reason is taken from the Apostle Rom. 9 6. c. in which place this very Text that is now the apple of our contention was brought into question Beza thus expresseth the question Qui fieri possit ut rejectus sit Israel quin simul â—onstituendum videatur irritum esse pactum Dei cum Abrahamo ejus semine sancitum I deny not but there was also some other promise included in that objection to wit some promise made to Israel or the house of Israel probably that Jer. 31.33 36.37 for so the words ver 6. They are not all Israel which are of Israel do intimate But without question the promise made to Abraham Gen. 17.7 was one which was included in that objection Beza Twisse Ames and others answering Arminius call it the Covenant of God with Abraham which was that Gen. 17.7 and the very phrase of Abrahams seed In Isaac shall thy seed be called ver 7. The children of the promise are counted for the seed ver 8. Sarah shall have a son ver 9. do evidently shew that the promise objected to prove that if the Jews were rejected from being Gods people then God failed in making good his word was that promise to Abraham I will be thy God and the God of thy seed Whereto I may adde that the Answerers of Arminius and the cited Remonstrants to wit Baine and Ames do say It was the word of promise not of the Law as Arminius conceived for the word of promise saith Ames Animadv in Remonstran script Synod de praedest cap. 8. Sect. 4. Is distinguished and opposed to the words of the Law Gal. 3.17 18. Now the word of the promise there is to Abraham and his seed ver 16. and this is there called by him verbum foederis the word of the Covenant Now let us consider how the Apostle answers it He denies that Gods word made to Abraham did fall though the Jews were rejected because that promise I will be thy God and the God of thy seed as it coÌ„prehended saving grace was never meant by God of all Abrahams posterity or of any barely as they were descended from Abraham by natural generation but of the Elect whether descended by natural generation from Abraham or not And this is apparent both from the words v. 7. Neither because they are the seed of Abraham are they all children but in Isaac shall thy seed be called c. v. 8. It is expounded thus That is they which are the children of the flesh these are not the childâ—en of God but the children of the promise are counted for the seed Whence it is apparent that the same are not alwayes the seed by calling which are the seed of Abraham by naturall generation and that the children of the flesh are not the same with the children of promise and that the Apostle conceived this the right way of answering those that objected the falling of Gods word upon the rejâ—ction of the Jews by restraining the promise of being God to Abrahams seed only to the Elect whether of Abrahams naturall posterity or not with so little respect to any birth-right priviledge that he not only rejected Ismael and took Isaac but also loved Jacob and hated Esau by prophesie declaring his minde the elder shall serve the younger and in this the Apostle acquits God from unrighteousnesse in that He hath mercy on whom he will have mercy and whom he will he hardens notwithstanding his promise made to Abraham and Israel or any birth-right priviledge they could claime That I may not be thought to go alone in this I will recite some others concurring with me in this Dr. Twisse vind Grat. l. 1. part 3. digr 2. ArgumentuÌ„ Apostoli ad probanduÌ„
circumcision made without hands a better circumcision then the Jews was in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ. You say rightly First that the Apostle would take them off wholly from circumcision therefore not teach them that they had another Ordinance in stead of it by vertue of that command Secondly That the use of circumcision ingaged them to the use of the rest of the Jewish ceremonies and therefore that Baptisme succeeds not in the use of Circumcision Thirdly In Christ we are circumcised with a circumcision made without hands a better circumcision then the Jews was in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ and therefore we have circumcision not in another Ordinance but in Christ and his circumcision You go on and whereas the Jewish teachers would be ready to object that the receiving of the inward grace of circumcision did not make them so compleat as Abraham and his seed was because they also had an outward sensible signe whereby they might be further perswaded comforted and confirmed This is but a conceit that either the Jews were ready thus to object or the Apostle intended to answer such an objection The intent of the Apostle is to declare in what way and manner and by what means they became compleat in Christ to wit Baptisme and Faith whereby they had communion with Christ and so were compleat in him But you say To this he answers vers 12. that neither is this priviledge wanting to Christians who have as excellent and expresse a Sacrament of it being buried with Christ in Baptisme the effect whereof he there sets down and therefore they needed not circumcision as their false teachers insinuated thereby directly teaching that our Baptisme is in stead of their circumcision It is true the Apostle teacheth them that they needed not circumcision but not because they had Baptisme in lieu of it but because all was in Christ now who hath abolished all these rites or taken them away quite vers 14. as being but shadows of good things to come and the body is of Christ vers 17. in whom and in that which befell him all was accomplished And Aretius therefore in his Comment on Colos. 2. saith rightly in this not a rem ipsam vindicari sanctis sine externo symbolo quod tamen indesinenter urgebant adversâ—rii sâ—c Rom. 2.29 Phil. 3.3 Atque hoc beneficium in Christo habemus est igitur perfectum organum salutis note that the thing it self is asserted to the Saints without an outward symbole which yet the adversaries incessantly urged so Rom. 2.29 and Phil. 3.3 and this benefit we have in Christ he is therefore a perfect organ of salvation so that it is utterly against the Apostles scope and whole argument to say that therefore they needed not circumcision because they had another Ordinance in the room of it For the Apostles intent is plain to shew that Christ is in stead of Circumcision and all the rest of the Jewish ceremonies and the truth is by this doctrine that Baptisme is in stead of Circumcision the Apostles argument for the disanulling the Jewish ceremonies both here and Hebr. 9. 10.1 13. in the Epistle to the Galatians chap. 3. 4. and Ephes. 2. is quite evacuated who still useth this argument to prove the abolition of the ceremonies of the Law because they have their complement in Christ not in some new Ordinance added in stead of them for if there be need of other Ordinances besides Christ in stead of the old then Christ hath not in himself fulnesse enough to supply the want of them and this abolition is not because of Christs fulnesse but other Ordinances that come in stead of the abolished And indeed Baptisme and the Lords Supper though they be Ordinances of Christ that may imitate or resemble the Ordinances of the Jews yet it cannot be said they succeed into the roome place or use of them For Christ only and that which he did doth so succeed So that if things be well weighed this Text is against your Position not for it and so your Ordinance is turned against you You go on And the Analogy lies between two sacramentall types of the same substance regeneration to both Jews and Gentiles I deny not but that there is Analogy between Circumcision and Baptisme and so there is between the Deluge and Noahs Ark or deliverance from the Deluge and Baptisme 1 Pet. 3.21 they do resemble each other in some things But we are not to conclude thence that Baptisme succeeds into the roome place and use of Noahs Ark or that therfore we are to baptize married persons only because in Noahs Ark only married persons were saved For in the administration of an Ordinance we are not to be ruled by bare Analogy either framed by us or delivered by the Spirit of God but the institution of God But the truth is in this place Col. 2.11 12. the Apostle rather resembles buriall to circumcision then baptisme and so makes the Analogy not between Circumcision and Baptisme but circumcision and Christs buriall And so Chrysostome on the place and after him Theophylact 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and what he calls circumcision he again calls buriall You proceed thus And in truth had not baptisme come in the roome of it the Apostle could not have pitched upon a worse instance then Circumcision which was so much valued by them and was so great and usefull a priviledge to them It is true circumcision was a great and usefull priviledge to them in that estate they were before Christs incarnation in comparison of Heathens who had not a School-master to bring them to Christ yet absolutely it was a burthen and heavie yoak Act. 15.10.28 and it would be a burthen not a priviledge for us to have an Ordinance in the roome place and use of it now Christ is come in whom we are compleat And it is true the Apostle pitched on circumcision vers 11. because the Jews much valued it but not to shew as you say that Baptisme is in the roome plâ—ce and use of it but to shew that in Christ we have circumcision and are compleat in him You close up this conclusion thus Nor had there been any reason to have here named Baptisme but that he meant to shew Baptisme to Christians was now in the roome of circumcision to the Jewes This is said with more confidence then truth For another reason is plain from the context that therefore Baptisme is named because it is one of the means by which Christians come to have communion with Christ and to be compleat in him which was the thing the Apostle intended in the 12th verse and therefore he joynes faith with Baptisme they being the two speciall means whereby we come to have communion with Christ and to be compleat in him And this is further confirmed by comparing this with other Scriptures
to prove it Rom. 3.1 2 3. Rom. 9.4 And the truth is priviledges are so arbitrary and various that God gives them as he thinkes good oft times without assigning any special reason so that no argument can be drawne thus God gave such a priviledge to the Jewes Ergo we must have such a priviledge too except we can prove it is Gods will it should be so And therefore this Argument is of no force but rather an argument of arrogant presumption without an institution to attempt to prove that because the Jewes had a priviledge to circumcise infants therefore we must have a priviledge to baptize infants nor doe any of the many Scriptures you have alledged prove that Baptisme of infants is a priviledge granted by God in lieu of Circumcision But you take upon you to answer this objection You say but these things have no weight we are inquiring for priviledges which are branches of the Covenant of Grace which every man who is in Covenant with God may expect from God by vertue of the Covenant were he a Jew or a proselyte not for any particular or peculiar favour to a particular man or woman or family or tribe All these forementioned things and many other of the like kind as the ministery of the Tabernacle Temple to belong to one Tribe the Kingly office to one family such and such men never to lacke a man of their house to stand and before God proceeded indeed from free grace but were no parts of the Covenant of Grace which God made to Abraham and all his seed For could every man in Covenant challenge these things at Gods hand and that by vertue of the Covenant Could every one of them promise that Christ should be borne of his flesh or every one of their women that shee should be the mother of Christ Could every one whom God owned to be in Covenant with him promise by vertue of the Covenant that their Children if cast off by unbeliefe should after many hundred yeares be againe called in We speak onely of such priviledges as were universall and common to all who were in Covenant for which by vertue of the Covenant they might relie upon God Though you say the things objected have no weight yet it may seeme they are so heavy presse your conclusion so hard as that you cannot well ease it of them The things objected you deny not but you answer that they are impertinent you tell us why because you enquire for priviledges which are branches of the Covenant of Grace common to all in Covenant which they may challenge at Gods hand by vertue of the Covenant and such are not these It is not materiall what you inquire after men may sectari Aquilam in nubibus follow after an Eagle in the Clouds But sure I am the Scriptures you bring prove not that believers now have more priviledges belonging to the Covenant of grace which all may challenge at Gods hands then the Jewes had Yea your second conclusion contradicts your fifth understood in this sense Beside Circumcision was not a priviledge common to all in the Covenant of Grace For besides all the faithfull before Abraham and those of his time Melchisedeck and Lot and their households and Job after his time there was a sort of proselytes called strangers or of the gate who were not circumcised yet the Scripture reckons them among the worshippers of God Such is Cornelius conceived to be by Mede in his discourse on Acts 17.4 by Selden lib. 2. de jure nat Gent. c. 4. who is said to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a godly or devout man and one that feared God with all his house which gave much almes to the people and prayed to God alwayes Act. 10.2 and therefore within the Covenant of Grace Besides the priviledges alledged in the objection doe some of them at least belong to the Covenant of Grace as well as Circumcision as to be Father of the faithfull to be the Mother of Christ and the last belongs much more to the Covenant of Grace then circumcision And those Rom. 9.4 are priviledges which you alledge as belonging to the Covenant of Grace to which I may joyne that Rom. 3.2 that to them were committed the Oracles of God which yet were prerogatives of the Jewes as Mr Rutherford rightly and according to truth Lastly the phrases Rom. 11.21 of the naturall branches ver 24. of the wild Olive by nature thou wast graffed in besides nature these according to nature doe seeme to me to import not that the Jewes were in the Covenant of Grace by nature but that they had this priviledge to be reckoned in the outward administration as branches of the olive by their birth by vertue of Gods appointment which the Gentiles have not But you goe on Let any mâ—n shew out of the Scripture where our priviledges under the Gospel are cut short in any of these things and be saith somewhat and in particular for the case in hand concerning our infants right to the Covenant of Grace and the seale of it Once we are sure the infant children of all Covenanters were within the Covenant and the seale also belonged to them and by vertue of the Covenant which is still the same we plead their interest in it Let any man shew when and where this was taken away when the infant children of believers were expunged out of the Covenant of grace It is unreasonable to require men to shew what they doe not avouch it were equall to exact this taske at the hands of those who doe expunge the infant children of believers out of the Covenant of Grace we neither write in nor expunge out but leave that to God onely from whom we learne Esau have I hated Jacob have I loved Though you thinke your selfe sure that all the infants of Covenanters were within the Covenant of Grace yet I see no cause to believe you for as much as I thinke God never shewed you the booke of life that you may see who are written in who expunged out of the Covenant of Grace and St Paul who was as well read in that booke as you saith Rom. 9.8 They which are the children of the flesh are not the children of God but the children of the promise are counted for the seed which how to spell I have shewed above But you adde Certainly who ever will goe about to deprive them of it to cut off such a great part of the comfort of believing parents must produce cleare testimonies before they can perswade believers to part with either of them either right to the Covenant or to the seale of the Covenant And you adde two reasons of it You are now on your advantage ground in a veine of Oratory and on a subject of all others aptest to move affections to wit parents tendernesse to their children But wee must not sacrifice truth to either of these You insinuate that Antipaedobaptists goe about to deprive infant-children
dictate The Evening of the Passeover is no more accidentall then the day it selfe they being commanded both together And for the Lords Supper how we can be loose to receive it in the Morning or Evening after Supper when the Apostle doth so distinctly mention in this relation of the Institution 1 Cor. 11.23 that it was done in the night and vers 25. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 after he had supped I leave to your Assembly to consâ—der Especially those of you that are so stiffe for the sitting together at the Table which is not mentioned or hinted in the Apostles relation and therefore may seeme as much occasionall as the other And for that which you intimate as if Baptisme were not the Sacrament for spirituall nourishment growth and continuance in the Covenant as well as for entrance I take to be but a dictate like the rest which upon exact examination will not hold it seems to me somewhat neare of kinne to that of Bellarmine and other Papists that the efficacy of Baptisme extends not to the remission of the sinnes of our whole life but of originall sinne onely But you have yet one more Instance and thus you speake The like Instance I give in our Christian Sabbath the fourth Commandement binds as for the substance of it as much as ever it bound the Jewes there God once for all separated one day of seven to be sacred to himselfe and all the world stood bound in all ages to give unto God that one day of seven which should be of his own choosing Now untill Christs time God chose the last day of the seven to be his Sabbath and having by the death and Resurrection of our Lord Jesus put an end to the Saturday Sabbath and surrogated the first day of the week instead thereof to be the Lords day wee need no new Commandement for the keeping of the Lords day being tyed by the fourth Commandement to keep that day of seven which the Lord should choose the Lord having chosen this the fouâ—th Commandement binds us to this as it did the Jewes to the former so in like manner I say in the Sacrament of Baptisme What I conceive about the Lords day I have before declared Part. 2. Sect. 8. where also I shewed you how different the case of Paedobaptisme is from it which I shall not now repeate Onely whereas you bring the Sabbath for an Instance of a Command of God about the Sacraments of the Jewes binding us as well as the Jewes you forget the marke at which you shoote the Sabbath or Lords day being not to be reckoned among the Jewes Sacraments or ours according to the usuall Ecclesiasticall acception and definition of the word You see now your maxime which is the foundation of your undeniable consequence undermined I presume you may see quickly the superstruction it selfe overturned one blow more will doe it You piece things together thus When God made the Covenant with Abraham and promised for his part to be the God of him and his seed what God promised to Abraham wee claime our part in it as the childâ—en of Abraham and whâ—t God required on Abrahams part for the substance of obedience wee all stand charged with as well as Abraham Wee as Abraham are tyed to beleeve to love the Lord with all our heart to have our hearts circumcised to walke before God in uprightnesse to instruct our children and bring them up for God and not for our selves nor for the Devill to teach them to worship God according to his revealed will to traine them up under the Ordinances and Institutions of Gods own appointment All these things God commanded to Abraham and charges upon all the children of the Covenant though there were no expresse reviving these Commands in any part of the New Testament And therefore consequently that Command of God to Abraham which bound his seed of the Jewes to traine up their children in that manner of worship which was then in force binds the seed of Abraham now to traine up their children in â—onformitie to such Ordinances as are now in force Supposing you meane by what God promised to Abraham the spirituall part of the Covenant and the persons claiming to be beleevers I grant this passage to be truth for these duties are morall duties and binde at all times but that which follows I cannot tell how to take for any other then plain Judaisme You say And the sâ—me Command which enjoyned Abraham to seale his children with the seale of the Covenant enjoynes us as strongly to seale ours with the seale of the Covenant and that Command of God which expresly bound Abraham to seale his with the signe of Circumcision which was the Sacrament then in force pro tempore for the time doth virtually binde us to seale ours with the signe of Baptisme which is the Sacrament now in force and succeeds into the roome of the other by his owne Appointment This is your undeniable consequence inferred from a Judaizing principle without so much as one Scripture to prove either the principle or conclusion Whereas â— have brought ten arguments most of them out of the Scripture against your principle and for the Conclusion what construction can be made of it but this that the Command of God to Circumcise binds us still for that was the seale of the Covenant God enjoyned to Abraham and so the Law given by Moses as touching Ceremonies and rites binds Christian men contrary to Art 7. of the Church of England Then must wee Circumcise our Males at the eighth day as they did But you say it binds us virtually only to seale ours with the signe of Baptisme I pray you then what meane you by this virtuall binding The opposite Member was expresly and in Terminis in termes Is this then your meaning that it doth not binde expresly and in terminis but virtually that is implicitely and by Interpretation Tell us then I beseech you by what rule of Divinitie Logick Grammar or Rhetoricke is a man to conceive this Command Cut off the foreskin of the secret part of all the Males in thy house the eighth day That is let a Preacher of the Gospel wash with water at any time after birth the young Infants male and female of Beleevers all over or on the face You call this undeniable Consequence if so it 's either Demonstrative from the cause or effect or definition or propertie or the like or it 's onely Topicall and then not undeniable you say 't is by cleare consequence you may as well say this is good consequence Tu es Petrus super hanc Petram Thou art Peter and upon this rocke Ergo the Pope is Monarch of the Church or with Baronius Arise Peter kill and eate Ergo the Pope may deprive Princes if you can apprehend cleare consequence in it you may enjoy your conceit Nos non sumus adeò sagaces wee are not so quick-witted I passe to the next Command which
such as beleeve and are baptized are taken into Covenant and therefore by good consequence they are to receive the seale of the Covenant the Text not onely shewing that they are within the Covenant but also that a right to Baptisme is a consequence of being within the Covenant This text hath been examined before and it hath been proved that the promise there is the sending of Christ who was raised up to blesse them and their children first then those that were afarre off being called and that the promise doth not belong to their children as the children of beleevers but as called and that the promise is not alledged as of it selfe giving right for them or their children to be baptized without any other consideration but as a motive and incouragement for them to repent and so to be baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus for the remission of sinnes notwithstanding they had crucified the Lord of glory and wished his bloud to be upon them and their children which being thus rightly understood is so farre from proving a command to baptize infants that on the contrary it proves they are not to be baptized You say further Thus for Commands for examples though there should be none there is no great argument in it when the rule is so plaine yet we have examples enough by good consequence It is true if the rule were plaine there would be no need of an example and on the other side if wee had regulating examples we should thereby know how to interpret the rule But whereas you say wee have examples enough by good consequence it may be well suspected these examples will prove like the commands by consequence meere conjectures and conceits of men that would have it so But let us heare what you say For you shall finde that the Gospel tooke place just as the old administration by bringing in whole families together when Abraham was taken in his whole familie was taken in with him when any of the Gentiles turned proselytes ordinarily their whole families came in with them so in this new administration usually if the master of the house turned Christian his whole familie came in and were baptized with him the whole household of Cornelius the first converted Gentile Act. 11.14 the houshold of Stephanus the houshold of Aristobulus the houshold of Narcissus the houshold of Lydia the houshold of the Gaoler These are examples not to be contemned True nor any part of holy Scripture which is written for our learning but in all these there is no example of an infants baptizing in the Scripture You say the Gospel tooke place just as the old administration by bringing in whole families together By the old administration you meane circumcision But wee doe not finde the Gospel or Baptisme tooke place just in the manner or circumcision for in circumcision it was but in one familie singled out of the males onely whether in the covenant of grace or not children or servants elder or younger at eight dayes old in the house by the Master of the familie or others in his stead But in Baptisme it is cleane otherwise so that you might more truly have said the new administration of Baptisme is just opposite to that of circumcision yea in respect of that one thing wherein you make them agree so well the bringing in of whole families together it was but contingently so not alwayes so nor constantly so according to any promise or prophecy and when it did so happen we finde not any infant baptized nor any intimation of baptizing housholds in conformitie to the administration of circumcision And this may appeare by going through the examples of baptizing in the new Testament Concerning John the Baptist it is said Mat. 3.5 Then went out to him Jerusalem and all Judea and all the region round about Jordan and were baptized of him in Jordan confessing their sinnes Luk. 3.29 And all the people that heard him and the Publicans justified God being baptized with the baptisme of John but the Pharisees and Lawyers rejected the counsell of God against themselves being not baptized of him Concerning Christ and his disciples it is said Joh. 4.1 2. When the Lord knew how the Pharisees heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples then Iohn though Iesus himselfe baptized not but his disciples In these examples the practise of baptizing is not by taking in a familie but by admitting all that would become disciples over all the Countries After the ascension of Christ the first example of Baptisme is that Acts 2.44 and there it is said They that gladly received the Word were baptized and these were they to whom he had said ver the 39. the promise is to you and to your children and there were added unto them about three thousand soules and yet never an infant baptized unlesse we shall take Mr Thomas Goodwins conceit for an Oracle possibly the more willingly taken up that it might seeme the more credible that the Church of Jerusalem was but one single formed Congregation in a Church way that therefore it is said There were added three thousand soules to intimate that there were men women and children added he might have observed how ridiculous such a conceit is by that which follows ver 42. And they continued stedfastly in the Apostles doctrine and fellowship and in breaking of bread and in prayer and feare came upon every soule c. Which if he can apply to infants Erit mihi magnus Apollo I shall take his words for Oracles Now sure these three thousand soules were not one family The next example is of the Samaritanes of whom it is said Acts 8.12 That when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the Kingdome of God and the name of Jesus Christ they were baptized men and women Where it is plaine that in a manner the whole Citie were baptized for ver 6. it is said The multitude with one accord gaâ—e heed to that which Philip spake ver 13. Simon himselfe that did before lead them now believed and ver 14. Samaria received the word of God and yet not an infant mentioned to be baptized but those that believed and received the word of God nor was this administration by taking in of a familie but rather of a Citie The next are of the Eunuch Acts 8.38 and Paul Acts 9.18 which were single believing persons not a whole familie The next is of Cornelius of whom you gather from Acts 11.14 That his whole houshold were baptized But it is true withall that his house was not an ordinary familie but a garrison of Souldiers 2. That he called together his kinsmen and neare friends Acts 10.24 3. That ver 2. This whole house feared God 4. That no other are nominated to have been baptized but those who had heard the word ver 44. which spake with tongues and magnified God ver 46. which received the holy Ghost ver 47. who were saved by Peters words Acts 11.14
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of such like that is such as are graced with such like qualities who are humble and meek as children are and that Luke 18. is parallel to this in the meaning of it whosoever doth not receive the Kingdome of heaven as a little child be shall not enter therein But I answer though it be true that in other places this is one use that Christ makes of an Infants age and condition to shew that such as receive the Kingdome of heaven must be qualified with humility c. like unto children yet here it cannot be his meaning because his argument is Suffer them to come to me and forbid them not because of such is the Kingdome of God that iâ— my Church and Kingdome is made of those as well as of others This was the very cause why the disciples rebuked those who brought the children to Christ because they were little not fit to be instructed and therefore not fit that Christ should be troubled about them this Christ rebukes in them and tels them that the littlenesse of children is no argument why they should be kept from him Suffer them said he to come and forbid them not for of such is the Kingdome of God and what kinde of argument had this been if the Text should be interpreted as these men would have it Suffer little children to come unto me that I may touch them take them up in mine arms put my hands upon them and blesse them because the Kingdome of God belongeth to them who have such like qualities who resemble children in some select properties By the very same ground if any had brought doves and sheep to Christ to put his hands upon them and blesse them the Disciples had been liable to the same reproof because of such is the Kingdome of God such as are partakers of the Kingdome of God must be endued with such like properties The Minor to be proved is that all the Infants of Believers or the Infants of Believers in as much as they are Infants of Believers are actually partakers of the inward grace of Baptisme else your Argument will not serve for your purpose as hath been shewed Now neither doth the Apostles speech 1 Cor. 7.14 prove it as hath been shewed above nor doth this Text Mar. 10.14 prove it For first it is doubtfull whether these were Infants or no. I presume you are not ignorant that Piscator observat in Mat. 19.14 doth maintain that the speech of Christ is not of Infants but of children which were capable of instruction which he gathers from this that Christ called them Luke 18.16 And whereas it is said in Mark he took up in his arms the word so translated is used Mark 9.36 For the imbracing of those that were of some growth whom he placed in the midst and of whose scandalizing he there warnes nor doth the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 used Luke 18.15 translated in English Infants prove it for it signifies a childe capable of teaching as when it iâ— said Timothy knew the sacred Scripture from a childe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is ever sinne he was a boy not an Infant nor doth the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 translated brought unto him prove that they were Infants For the same word is applied to them that were guided though they were not carried but did go by themselves as the blinde and deaf Daemoniake Matth. 12.22 and the lunatick childe Matth. 17.16 To this purpose Piscator As for Mr. Thomas Goodwins reason from Julius Pollux that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth signifie one that is madidus moist or sappie it is of no force to prove that they were Infants For besides that not etymologie but use must expound words if it were so yet we know children are moist till they be adolescentes youths we say till they be of good yeers they are but a gristle tender green so that notwithstanding this the children brought to Christ might be of yeers sufficient to be catechumeni and yet fit enough to resemble humility and harmlesnesse by Secondly It is yet doubtfull whether our Saviour said of them is the Kingdome of heaven for the word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of such not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of these And Luke 18.17 Mark 10.15 both adde this speech Verely I say unto you whosoever doth not receive the Kingdome of God as a little childe shall not enter therein like to which is that Matth. 18.3 But you have two exceptions against this First because this had been no reason why they should suffer these little children to come to him because of such is the Kingdome of God Secondly he might as well have said suffer sheep or doves to come to me for of such is the Kingdome of God To these exceptions it may be replied the reason may be thus conceived therefore you should not despise that age as prophane and keep them from me for even they that are my Disciples must become children again in putting off their vices being converted unlearning what they have learned becoming humble and docible which things could not be resembled by sheep and doves Thirdly but let it be granted that these were Infants and that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is to be expounded as Beza in his Annot. on Mat. 19.14 horum similium these and the like yet there is no certainty only conjecture that they were believers Infants For though Christ was in the coasts of Judea then yet it might as well be that the children were brought by others as parents and that without faith in Christ as the Messiah upon the fame of his miracles and the conceit he was a prophet and so they might bring children to him to be blessed as Jacob and Esau by Isaac Josephs children by Jacob c. Fourthly but let it be granted they were the Infants of Believers and that it is said of these is the Kingdome of God it may be as Piscator observes referred not to theiâ— present estate as if for the present they were in the kingdome of God that is believers and justified but that they were elect persons and so in time of them should be the Kingdom of God Now that which gives right to Baptisme 〈◊〉 the present estate of a person Fifthly but let that be also granted yet all this proves not your Minor unlesse you can prove that the reason why the Kingdome of heaven belongs to Infants is common with these to other Infants of Believerâ— and the reason why theirâ— is the Kingdome of God is because they were the Infants of Believers that â—o it may be true of all the Infants of Believers But this cannot be true being contrary to expresse Scripture Rom. 9.6 7 8.13 and inferring this error that a childe hath right to the Kingdom of God in that he is the childe of a Believer And experience proves innumerable of them have no interest in the Kingdome of God Besides this reason may
baptize into the name of the Father Son and Holy Spirit that is with invocation of the name of the Lord as Acts 22.16 Paul is bid arise and be baptized and wash away his sinnes calling on the name of the Lord. Which infants cannot doe with devoting themselves to the service and adherence of the Father Son and holy Spirit which may be gathered from this that Paul said 1 Cor. 13.15 he had baptized none into his name that is he had not caused them in their baptisme to devote or addict themselves to him as their Master but infants cannot so devote themselves to Christ therefore they are not to be baptized according to this institution 4. Christ bids the Apostles presently after baptisme teach them to observe what â—ver he commanded them but infants cannot doe this therefore they are not to be baptized Likewise baptizing infants doth not agree with the primitive practise of John Baptist and the Apostles who required expressions of repentance and faith afore Baptisme Mat. 3.6 Mark 1.5 Luk. 3.10 Acts 2.38 8.12 13.37 9.18 10.47 11.17 18. 16.15.31 32 33. 18.8 19.5.8.22.16 in which places profession of repentance and faith is still made the antecedent to Baptisme but this doth not agree to infants therefore they are not to be baptized Of these arguments you answer onely to the two first from institution and to the last from example to the first from institution you answered before and there I examined your answer part 3. sect 12 13. To the second from institution and to the last from example you make some answer here not denying that the order appointed by Christ is first to teach and then to baptize for that is so manifest that your selfe page 35. doe so paraphrase the words when you say expresse command there is that they should teach the heathen and the Jewes and make them disciples and then baptize them nor by denying that John Baptist and the Apostles required expressions of faith and repentance afore Baptisme nor by denying that the institution of Christ and the Apostles example are our rule in the administring the Sacraments so as that we cannot vary from them without will-worship and prophaning the worship of God by our inventions for that is so confessed a truth that there hath been a great while scarce a Sermon before the Parliament but hath asserted that rule and pressed it on the Parliament and our solemne Covenant supposeth it the Churches of Scotland New-England c. The Sermons in the Citie continually a vow it and urge it and upon this ground former and later reformations are urged But you have two miserable evasions You say I answer First that of Mat. 28. is not the institution of baptisme it was instituted long before to be the seale of the Covenant it 's only an inlargement of their commission whereas before they were onely to goe to the lost sheepe of the house of Israel now they are to goe unto all the world Whereunto I reply 1. If this be not the first institution of baptisme yet it is an institution and the institution of baptisme to us Gentiles and therefore the rule by which Ministers are to baptize there being no other institution that I know of to regulate our practise by but such as is gathered from John Baptist the Apostles practise and sayings 2. If institution or appointment of God must warrant our practise in Gods worship which you once held in the Sermon cited before part 2. sect 9. then you must shew another institution else you cannot acquit paedobaptisme from will-worship and your selfe from breaking the hedge God hath set about the second Commandement But you adde further And beside it is no where said that none were baptized but such as were first taught and what reason wee have to believe the contrary you have before seene Your selfe say presently in the next words It is said indeed that they taught and baptized and no expresse mention of any other then of the baptisme of persons taught and you assigne a reason of it And page 35. your selfe paraphrase the institution Mat. 28.19 Expresse command there is that they should teach the heathen and the Jewes and make them disciples and then baptize them and consequently there is no expresse command for any other and for the reason you have to beleeve that others are to be baptized which are not taught it hath been examined in the weighing your virtuall consequence which is grounded upon such a principle as in time you may see to be a dangerous precipice how ever for the present the great consent of Doctors in the reformed Churches dazzles your eyes for my part I cannot yet discerne but that your grounds for paedobaptisme are worse then the Papists and Ancients who build it on Joh. 3.5 Rom. 5.12 But you yet adde Secondly it is said indeed that they taught and baptized and no expresse mention made of any other but the reason is plaine there was a new Church to be constituted all the Jewes who should receive Christ were to come under another administration You say right therefore none other were to be baptized but taught persons because though the invisible Church of the Gentiles were joyned to the invisible of the Jewes Rom. 11.17 Ephes. 2.14 15 16. by faith of the Gospel as Ephes. 3.6 it is expounded yet the outward estate of the Church is new and as you say even the Jewes who should receive Christ were to come under a new administration even those who were Jewes by nature and not proselytes were to be baptized as uncleane persons contrary to their former administration in which they were onely circumcised and this is a plaine evidence that the administration of Circumcision is not the administration under which wee are now but that it did belong to that administration which is now abolished which is enough to overthrow all your virtuall consequence from circumcision to baptisme and consequently all the former dispute of your first argument in which circumcision of infants is indeed the alone prop of baptizing infants As for that which you adde And their infants were to come in onely in their right This overthrows your second argument for that is grounded upon this that infants of believers and particularly infants of believing Jewes such as those are supposed to be Mark 10.14 were partakers of the inward grace of baptisme and if so they came in by their own right But that one mans right to baptisme should give another right to baptisme is a position that the Scripture doth not deliver and inwraps sundry errors which I now omit because it comes in onely upon the by But you goe on And the heathen nations who were to be converted to Christ were yet without the covenant of grace and their children could have no right untill themselves were brought in and therefore no marvaile though both John and Christs disciples and Apostles did teach before they baptized
2. 38 39. Luk 19.9 Annot. on the Bible edit 1645. on Acts 2.36 The promise is unto you Christ is promised both to Iewes and Gentiles but the Iewes had the first place §. 7. Of the text Rom. 11.16 So also the new Annot. on Rom. 11.16 Arminius l. 1. Antiperk p 3. Sect. 6. Infantes in parentibuâ— avis abavis atavis tritavis Evangelii gratiam repudiarunt quo actu meruerunt ut a Deo desererentur velim enim mihi c. Perpetua enim est foederis Dei ratio quod filii in parentibâ—â— comprehendantur censeantur Cui opponit Tuissus ibidem Nec us piam in sacris literis significatur Deum ejusmodi foedus cum homine lapso pepigisse ut si crederet adipisceretur gratiam sibi posteris contra si non crederet sibi posteris suis gratiam amitteret cujusmodifoedus sub conditione obedientiae cum Adamo initum fuisse omnes Theologi agnoscunt §. 8. Of the Text 1 Cor. 7.14 Tertul. lib. 2. ad uxorem cap. 3. Fideles Gentilium matrimonia subcuntes stupri reos esse constat arcendos ab omni communicatione fraternitatis ex literis Apostoli dicentis cum ejusmodi nâ—c cibum sumendum Grot. annot in Mat. 19 5. nulla autem arctior amiâ—itia quaÌ„ mariti uxoris quae communionem requirit affectuum corporis prolis vitae denique totius quam rem esse vere sacram id est non humaniâ—us sed divinitus repertam magno consensu gâ—ntes â—â—ed derunt Grâ—t annot in Maâ— 5.8 So ent pro eodem usurpari 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 §. 9. Of the succession of Baptisme into the place room and use of Circumcision §. 10 Of the notion under which the reasons for which persons were circumcised shewing that all persons that were circumcised were not in the covenant of Grace §. 11. Of the priviledges of Believers under the Gospel and whether the want of Infant-Baptisme be want of a priviledge of the covenant of Grace which the Jews had §. 12. That the command to circumcise male Infants is not virtually a command to baptize Infants §. 13. That Mat. 28. is not a Command to baptize Infants but contrary to it Master Balâ—y A diswasion from the error of the times ch 8. p. 175. argues from this very text in like manner to prove that only Ministers have power to preach the Word ordinarily §. 14. Of examples in Scripture of Infants Baptisme particularly of baptizing of housholds §. 15. Of an infants capacity of inward grace the Text Mat. 19.14 and of the inconsequence of Paedobaptisme thereon Grot. annot ad Mat. 9.18 notum erat Judaeis solere Deum Prophetis hunc exhibere honorem ut in alios dona sua conferret ad prophetarum preces quarum symbolum erat manuum impositio Ad Mat. 19.13 pro pueris etiam eo ritu preces concipi solitas manifestum est ex Gen. 48.14 15. Exinde Hebraeis semper observatum ut ad eos qui sanctimonia praestare caeteris crederentur pucros deserrent ipsorum precibus Deo commendandos 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 qui mos bodie apud ipsos manet Hunc autem morem Christus probans ostendit isti etiam aetati prâ—desse aliorum fidem ac preces §. 1. Of the first objectioÌ„ from institution Mat. 28.19 and the practise of John Baptist and the Apostles Cotton in his way of the Churches of Christ in New-England Chap 4. sect 6. And indeed the Commission which Christ gave his Apostles holdeth it forth that they were by preaching to make disciples before they baptized them and their children Mat. 28.19 Now a disciple is a Scholler in Christs schoole and therefore when the Apostles were directed to make disciples before they did baptize them they were not onely to coÌ„vert them to the faith but also to gather them as disciples or schollers into a schoole of Christ. Cotton The way of the Churches of Christ in New-England Chap. 1. sect 1. prop. 4. In the times of John the Baptist such as were received into baptisme they did first make confession of their sins and therewith of their repentance and of their faith also in him who was to come after him Mat. 3.13 Act. 19.4 5. And in the times of the Apostles Philip received â—he Eunuch unto baptisme not untill he had made professioÌ„ of his faith in Christ Jesus Act 8.37 Cham. Panstr Cath. tom 4. l. 5. c. 15. §. 19. Hiritus omnes professionis fidei c. ab ipsae baptismi institutione habuerunt originem nec debeÌ„t omitti tantum proaetatis ratione dispensari §. 2. Of the second objection and therein of the condition prerequisite to Baptisme Videatur Chamierus Panstr Cath. tom 4. li. 5. c. 15. Grot. annot on Mat. 28.19 §. 3. Of the third so called objection and therein of the knowledge requisite concerning the person to be baptized §. 4. Of the fourth Objection therein of the stipulation of Baptisme Cotton The way of the Churches of Christ in New-England ch 4. Sect. 5. The Word of God receiveth none to the fellowship of the seals of the covenant but such as professe their takâ—ng hold of the covenant §. 5. Of the fifth Objection and therein of the benefit that comes by Infant-Baptismâ— Dr. Twisse The doctrine of the Synod of Dort Arles c Part 2. § 3. p. 121. I willingly confesse that the Sacrament of Baptisme is the seale of the righteousnesse of faith unto us Christians as Circumcision was unâ—o the Jews Rom. 4. which is as much aâ— to say that it assures us of the remission of our sins as many as believe and I conceive it to be a visible signe of invisible grace and that not of justification only unto them that believe but of the grace of regeneration also but how not at that instant collatae but suo tempore conferendâ— to wit when God shall effectually call a man and it is very strange unto me that regeneration should go before vocation Sâ—e more to the same purpose in the same Author part 3. §. 6. §. 6. Of the sixth objection and therein of Infant-coÌ„munion by vertue of their being in the Covenant the Lords Supper succâ—eding the Passeover Cotton The way of the Churches of Christ in New-England Chap. 1. sect 2. To the Passeover all Jewes were admitted young and old unlesse defiled with some pollution §. 7. Of the first use and the Anabaptists supposed bloudy sentence §. 8. The Epilogue containing some expressions and motions of the Author Mr Stalhams Epistle before a Conference at Terling in Essex
be given why these Infants did belong to Gods Kingdome because they were such as Christ would blesse and then all that you can gather from hence will be that of the Infants of Believers whom Christ blesseth is the Kingdome of heaven But this will never prove your Assumption except you can prove that Christ blesseth all the Infants of Believers Lastly Christs action in this businesse is proper to him as the great Prophet of the Church and extraordinary and therefore yeelds no ground for an ordinary rule of baptizing by the publique Ministery And if an ordinary rule should be made in imitation of it it would serve better for the proving the Sacrament of confirmation which Art 25. of the Church of England puts among things grown from a corrupt following the Apostles then Baptisme And in all probability if Christ would have this accident to be a rule or precedent for bringing Infants to him by a visible signe in the new Testament as Mr. Thomâ—s Goodwin at Bow dictated he would have appointed his Apostles to have baptized these Infants as a samplar For which reason it seems to me that this example rather shews Christ would not have Infants baptized then that he intended to make this accident a precedent for paedobaptisme But you will prove your Minor by reasons and thus you reason Beside what one thing can be named belonging to the initiation and being of a Christian whereof Baptisme is a seal which Infants are not capable of as well as grown men they are capable of receiving the Holy Ghost of union with Christ of adoption of forgivenesse of sins of regeneration of everlasting life all which things are signified and seâ—led in the Sacrament of Baptisme I may apply to you the words of Horace Amphora coepit institui currente rota curâ—â—recus exit A barrell began to be made why the wheel running doth a pitcher come forth The thing you should prove is that all the Infants of Believers are actually partakers of the inward grace of Baptisme but in stead of this you prove they are capable of it they may have it but doth it therefore follow that they actually have it It was once an Axiome in the Schools a posse ad esse non valet argumentum from it may be â—o it is an Argument holds not and I think it is so still Besides must children be baptized because they are capable of Grace Then may all children be baptized for they are all capable of the inward Grace of Baptisme But you have yet something more to say And it is further considerable that in the working of that inward grace of which Baptisme is the signe and seal all who partake of that grace are but meer patients and contribute no more to it then a childâ— doth to its own begetting and therefore Infants as fit subjects to have it wrought in them as grown men and the most grown men are in no more fitnesse to receive this grace when it is given them in respect either of any faith or repentance which they yet have then a very little childe it being the primary intention of the covenant of Grace in its first work to shew what free grace can and will do to miserable nothing to cut miserable man off from the wild Olive and graffe him into the true Olive to take away the heart of stone â—o create in them a heart of flesh to forgive their iniquities to love them freely what doth the most grown men in any of these more then an Infant may do being only passive in them all and of this first grace is the Sacrament of Baptisme properly a seal That which you say it is true is further considerable but to what purpose it is here brought in I cannot readily divine whether it be for a proof of the Minor of your Syllogisme or that which you said immediatly before that Infants are capable of the inward grace of Baptisme or whether you would make a further Argument for Infant-baptisme thus Baptisme is to be given to those that are capable of the first grace as well as grown men and the proof of this seems to be because Baptisme seals properly the first grace But Infants are capable of the first grace as well as grown men and the proof of this seems to be because all who partake of that grace are but meer patients c. Therefore Infants are to be baptized as well as grown men If this be your Argument the Major is to be denyed For a person is not to be baptized because he may have grace but because he hath it And for the reason that Baptisme seals properly the first grace it is obscure what you mean by the first grace is not cleare If the free favour of God mentioned before when you say to love them freely this indeed is the first grace simply Gods eternall love and election and I deny not but Baptisme seals it in some sense properly and so doth the Lords Supper as properly if you mean by the first grace the covenant of Grace which is the first transient act of grace that also is sealed properly in Baptisme and as properly in the Lords Supper if you mean the first grace in execution it is uncertain which you put first justification or regeneration or as some adoption And then which is the second grace is uncertain whether after-sanctification cooperating concomitant subsequent grace sustentation against temptations remission of sins hearing prayers or eternall glory Now I do not well understand in what sense or why Baptisme seals properly rather the first grace then the second sith according to your doctrine it is a seal of the covenant of grace and therefore of all the promises in it Nor can I tell why it should be said that Baptisme seals the first grace properly rather then the Lords Supper I confesse in exactnesse of speech Baptisme seals no grace first or second properly taking it for propriety of speech but improperly because metaphorically as sealing is taken for assuring And if properly notes propriety of right or title or possession in opposition to anothers or that which is alien I see not how Baptisme doth seal that is assure the first grace in respect of the propriety of right more then the second or more then the Lords Supper And therefore your speech seems to me very ambiguous And for the Minor as I conceive you frame it that Infants are capable of the first grace as well as grown men it is true and so they are of the second or at least some of them but both by extraordinary working As for receiving grace by ordinary means they are not capable of one or other And for the speeches which you heap together though I grant that in the first conversion in the sense that some learned men understand it we are meerly passive yet I doubt whether Dr. Twisse and such as have most acutely handled the controversie about the irresistibility of grace in the