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
But here is no mention of our Infants graffing in Answ. We must not teach the Lord to speake but with reverence search out his meaning there is no mention made of the casting out of the Jewish Infants neither here nor elsewhere when he speakes of taking away the Kingdome of God from them and giving it to the Gentiles who would bring forth fruit no mention of the Infants of the one or of the other but the one and the other for these outward dispensations are comprehended in their parents as the branches in the root the infants of the godly in their parents according to the tenor of his mercy the infants of the wicked in their parents according to the tenor of his justice There are sundry things in this passage you would have to be marked that deserve indeed to be marked but with an Obeliske not with an Asteriske as 1. That you oppose personall inherent holinesse to derivative as inconsistent The truth is the holinesse the Apostle speaks of is first in respect of Gods Election holinesse personall and inherent in Gods intention He hath chosen us that we should be holy Ephes. 1.4 Secondly it is also holinesse derivative or descending not from any Ancestors but from Abraham not barely as a naturall father but as a spirituall father or Father of the faithfull and so derived from the Covenant of grace which passed in his name to him and his seed And lastly it shall be inherent actually being communicated by the Spirit of God when they shall be actually called But this is such a kinde of holinesse as is more then you mean to wit not only an adherent or relative holinesse which they have by enjoying outward Ordinances but also inherent by faith whereby they aâ—e holy as the root that is Abraham the father of the faithfull 2. Whereas you make it the case of any believers to be a holy root to their posterity especially in the following words when you say The infants both of the Jews and Gentiles for these outward dispensations are comprehended in their parents as the branch in the root the infants of the godly in their parents according to the tenor of his mercy the infants of the wicked in their parents according to the tenor of his justice Master Blake pag. 8. more plainly The branches of Ancestors are roots of posterity being made a holy branch in reference to their issue they now become a holy root This is not true for in the Apostles resemblance Abraham only is a holy root or at most Abraham Isaac and Iacob in whose names the Covenant runs No other man though a believer is the father of the faithfull but Abraham And the body of believers is compared to the Olive and each believer to a branch that partakes of the root and fatness of the Olive tree not in outward dispensations only as you speak but also in saving graces which is mainly here intended I remember Master Thomas Goodwin who hath handled this matter of Paeâ—obaptisme by spinning out similitudes and conjectures fit indeed for the common people that are more taken with resemblances then Syllogismes rather then with close arguments indeavoured to infer a kinde of promise of deriving holinesse from believers to their posterity out of the similitude of an Olive and its branches compared with Psal. 128.3 c. but it is dangerous to strain similitudes beyond that likenesse the Holy Ghost makes It is a tedious thing to Auditors that look for arguments to be deluded with similitudes and conjectures 3. Whereas you alluding to the words of the Apostle v. 28. that the Jews were beloved for their fathers sake carry it as if this were true of any believing parents the Apostle meanes it of those fathers only in whose names the Covenant was made especially Abraham called the friend of God Jam. 2.23 and the father of the faithfull Rom. 4.11 and in reference to the promises made to them they are beloved and therefore it is added ver 29. For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance Lastly you say That the infants of the wicked for these outward dispensations are comprehended in their parents according to the tenor of Gods justice I intreat you to consider whether this speech do not symbolize with the tenet of Arminius in his Antiperkins on the fourth Crimination and in the end of his Treatise where he maketh the cause why the posterity of some people have not the Gospel to be their forefathers fault in refusing it Against which you may see what Doctor Twisse opposeth in both places and Moulin in his Anatomy of Arminianisme cap. 9. And thus it may appeare that you have very much darkened this illustrious Scripture by applying that holinesse and insition to outward dispensations only in the visible Church which is meant of saving graces into the invisible by faith and made every believer a like root to his posterity with Abraham to his seed I Am now come to your principall hold you say And yet plainer if plainer may be is the speech of the Apostle in 1. Cor. 7.14 The unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband else were your children uncleane but now they are holy By the way Because you acknowledge in the Margin page 24. that signifies to as well as in and you conceive it may be here read in or to as well as by and though our translators following the vulgar read by yet Beza dislikes that reading it might have done well in the citing of this text by you to have given some hint of that varietie But to follow you You say the plain scope and meaning thereof is this The believing Corinthians amongst other cases of Conscience which they had sent to the Apostle for his resolution of had written this for one whether it were lawfull for them who were converted still to retaine their Infidell wives or husbands You doe rightly here expresse the scope of the Apostle but you make another scope page 25. when you say We must attend the Apostles scope which is to shew that the children would be unholy if the faith or believership of one of the parents could not remove the barre which lies in the other being an unbeliever against the producing a holy seed which I shall shew in its place not to be the scope of the place but only this which you first give You then say their doubt seemes to arise from the Law of God which was in force to the Nation of the Jews God had not only forbidden such marriages to his people but in Ezra's time they put away not onely their wives but all the children that were borne of them as not belonging to the Common-wealth of Israel and it was done according to the Law and that Law was not a particular Edict which they did agree upon but according to the standing Law of Moses which that word there used signifieth and in
Application have all their vigour in ambiguity of speech as the strength of the Coney is in its burrow which that I may uncover I must distinctly declare what is to be held in this matter and then examine what you say Priviledge is a Law term the Etymologie is Privilegium quasi priva lex quia veteres priva dixerunt quae nos singula dicimus Priviledge as it were a private law because the ancients called those things private which we call singular Gel. noct Attic. lib. 10. cap. 20. Joh. Calvinus Wett in his Lexicon Juridicum voce privilegium Privilegium alii sic definiunt jus singulare in certae personae gratiam favoremve others so define a priviledge a singular right in favour of a certain person so that a priviledge is a particular law whereby some persons have benefit different from common right Calvin ibid. Item beneficium dicitur privilegium quia benè facit iis quibus conceditur contra legem communem likewise a priviledge is called a benefit because it benefits those to whom it is granted against the common law If it do not benefit it is not a priviledge Priviledges therefore may be priviledges at one time which are not at another time and in comparison of some which are not priviledges in comparison of others To have Christ personally present with the Disciples was a priviledge for the time but it was a priviledge that he was absent when he went to heaven and sent his Spirit to them The Lawes delivered to the Jews were priviledges in comparison of the Heathen but not in comparison of Christians Priviledges of the covenant of Grace may be conceived either in respect of the substance of the covenant of Grace or the administration Now when you speak of priviledges of the covenant of Grace some passages sâ—em to mean it in respect of the promises of grace in Christ as when you say Our covenant is established upon better promises we as well as they are called a holy nation c. not only in the clearnesse of the administration but also c. And those especially which you have when you say pag. 31. We are inquiring for priviledges which are branches of the Covenant of Grace which every man that is in covenant with God may expect from God by vertue of the Covenant which cannot be understood but of the promises Now the promises of the covenant of Grace are of the substance of the covenant not of the administration But other passages refer to the administration That yoak that hard and costly way of administration which neither they nor their fathers were able to bear is taken off from our shoulders the glory of theirs had no glory in respect of ours they were under the bondage of Infants under age in comparison of our freedome which things belong to the administration pag. 10.12 Now if you mean your conclusion of priviledges of the substance of the covenant of Grace it is to be denied For so the priviledges of believers are not now inlarged many wayes or made more honourable or comfortable Your self pag. 9.10.12 say they are the same to both Jews and Gentiles but in respect of the administration it is granted they are many wayes inlarged made more honourable and in this sense I grant it that many Scriptures speak of the inlargement of our priviledges and particularly those that speak of the removing the hard yoak Acts 15.10 and bringing us into liberty to full age Gal. 4.1 and greater glory 2 Cor. 3.10 And it is true that those things were priviledges to the Israelites but it is a benefit to us that we are freed from them and so no priviledge for us either to have them or any other thing in lieu of them but Christ already come who is in stead of all Now the thing that you drive at is this that whereas you conceive that you have proved before that the Infants of those that are in the covenant of Grace are covenanters with their parents that Baptisme succeeds in the roome and use of their circumcision that by Gods expresse order Infants were to be circumcised You lastly conclude that our priviledges for our selves and children are at least as honourable large and comfortable as theirs and therefore our Infants are to be baptized The answer to it is this It is true our priviledge is the same with theirs in respect of the substance of the covenant but neither was that made to the Jews naturall posterity as such nor is it made to ours As for Circumcision it was indeed a priviledge but belonging to the manner of administration not to the substance of the covenant which is in variable a priviledge to the Jews in comparison of the Heathens but a burthen in comparison of us and it is so far from being a priviledge to our children that they should have either it or any other thing in the place and use of it but Christ manifested in the flesh that the truth is it is a great priviledge to us and our children that they have neither it nor any other thing in the stead of it but Christ manifested in the flesh And so parents loose nothing by denying Baptism to Infants in the place use of circumcision but it is indeed if rightly considered a benefit to them to want it God not appointing it nor making a promise of grace to be confirmed by it to the Infants of Believers Having premised this I shall examine the proofs of your conclusion and see whether they make any thing against that which I have delivered The thing you should prove is one of these two either that circumcision did belong to the substance of the covenant of Grace or that the want of Circumcision or some Ordinance in the place and use of it is a losse of priviledge of the covenant of Grace to us and our children That which you alledge is this Many Scriptures speak of the inlargement of their priviledges not one for the diminishing or depressing or extenuating of them that yoak that hard and costly way of administration which neither they nor their fathers were able to bear is taken off from our shoulders True and by this you yeeld that it may be an inlargement of priviledge to have somewhat removed that was a priviledge formerly The Scripture to which you allude is that Acts 15.10 Now I pray you what was this yoak but circumcision as your self declare pag. 39. and all the legall ceremonies which were great priviledges to the Jews but yet to us it is a priviledge that we are freed from them and if it be a priviledge to be freâ— from circumcision it is a priviledge to be freed from any ordinance in the roome place and use of it Lastly in that Circumcision is taken off from our necks it appears that it belongs not to the covenant of Grace which is invariable and belongs to Gentiles as well as to Jewes according to your conclusion The next Scripture you
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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉