the same right which the infants of the Jews had and your Arguments fight against the Infants of the Jews as much as against the Infants of the Gentiles for to apply your own words spoken of beleevers now to the Jewes then Though it may bee granted that the infants of the Jews were for the most part under the election and Covenant of grace and so in the visible Church yet it will not follow that every infant of a Jew in as much as hee is the child of a Jew or a beleever is under the Covenant of grace because we have Gods expresse declaration to the contrary Rom. 9. 6 7 8. and all experience proves the contrary is not this as much against the one as the other To what I said the Jewes Infants were graffed in by Circumcision therefore ours are to be ingraffed in by Baptisme You answer by demanding whether in good sadnesse I doe thinke the Apostle here meanes by graffing in baptizing or Circumcision or incision by outward Ordinances for if that were the meaning then breaking off must be meant of uncircumcising or unbaptizing To which I reply that in good sober sadnesse I do think that graffing in is admission into visible membership or visible communion with the Church of Christ and that the externall seale of their visible graffing in was Circumcision and of ours Baptisme and yet it follows not that breaking off is onely uncircumcising or unbaptizing but breaking offâ—â—â— a casting out from that visible membership whereof this Sacrament is a Symbole But to you it seems that ingraffing here is meant of the invisible Church by election and faith I Reply if it be meant of the invisible Church onely and that all who are graffed in in the Apostles sense whether Jews or Gentiles are onely electones I will solemnly promise you never to plead this Scripture more for any Infants either of Jews or Gentiles no nor for visible Professors of either of them provided onely if you cannot make that good you will as indeed you must yeeld that some are to be reputed visible Church-members though not elect whether Jews or Gentiles and that our graffing in is as theirs was they and their children we and our children and if you please let us a little try it out The Text is plaine some of the branches were broken off such branches whose naturall growing in the Olive yeelded them that priviledge which they now partake of who are graffed in in their stead were these broken off from the invisible Church you dare not say so if then the Olive from which they were broken off bee the visible Church I have enough and I wonder that any but an Arminian should make any question that the Apostle speaks onely of rejecting the Nation of the Jewes from being the visible Church and taking the body of the Gentiles in their stead to be Gods visible Kingdom in that it is meant of such an ingraffing as may be broken off which cannot bee from the invisible Church But let us see how you seek to evade this and how you prove that it must bee meant of the invisible Church Abraham say you bad a a double capacity one of a naturall Father and another the father of the faithfull in respect of the former capacity some are called branches according to nature others wilde Olives by nature yet graffed in by faith and when it is said that some of the naturall branches were brokin off the meaning is not that some of the branches of the invisible Church may be broken off but onely such as were so in appearance according as our Saviour expresses it Joh. 15. 2. But I Reply I professe I understand not how this distinction gives you the least helpe for tell me I pray you were not these whom you cal naturall branches is truly in the Olive as they who being wilde by nature were yet graffed in in the stead of them who were broke off If they were how doth this distinction help you You say indeed That the Infants of beleeving Jewes were not in the Covenant of grace because they were their children if by this you meane they were not members of the invisible Church you say the truth but nothing to the purpose But if your meaning be that they had not a visible membership such an ingraffing as gave them a right to outward Ordinances you not onely contradict the Scripture but your selfe who plead this That it was a peculiar priviledge to Abraham that his children should have such a visible standing as ours have not plainly the Jewes were the naturall branches some of them were elect some not the body of them were the branches spoke of in this place many of these were broke off others of them kept their station yet Gods election failes not even so is it now the Gentiles were graffed in that is their visible faith gave them a visible ingraffing their invisible faith gave them who have it an invisible membership yea to me your selfe seem to say as much when pag. 63. you affirme incision may be either into the visible or invisible Church graffing in may be either by faith or profession of faith And pag. 65. It is true that our present graffing in is answerable to or rather for their casting out that is God would supply in his Olive tree the Church the casting away of the Iews by the calling of the Gentiles so much the Apostle saith ver 17. thou being a wilde Olive wer 't graffed in in ramorum defractorum locum into the place of the branches broken off if you mean it in this sense say you I grant it And truly Sir in these words to my understanding you grant not onely my interpretation of this place but even the question controverted betwixt us First you grant my interpretation that it is not meant of the invisible but the visible Church for I know you will not say that any of the elect Jewes were broken off and the Gentiles elected and put into their place It must therefore be meant of the visible and of the visible Church of the New Testament and that those Jewes who kept their station and we who are in the roome of those that were broke off doe make that Olive which the Jewes made before Yea secondly you by necessary confequence grant that our children are taken in as theirs were we are graffed in in ramorum defractorum loeum we supply in the Olive tree the Church the casting away of the Jews Now if we thus supply our children supply the place of their children which were broken off and beside we are one with the rest of the Jews who remained in this Olive and their remaining in the Olive did not I hope deprive them of that priviledge which before-times they had for their children and therefore we must have the same with them and a greater then they had for their children none of us ever pleaded though ours be clearer and a greater
further Reformation is to begin with this your darling the casting out this point of Infant-Baptisme a point which you conceive to bee a mother corruption which carries in her wombe most of those abuses in discipline and manners and some of the errors in doctrine which defile the reformed Churches without which all after Cathechizing Censures separaton Church-Covenant c. are altogether insufficient to supply the want of it Secondly that Baptisme therefore hath not that influence into the comfort and obligations of Consciences as it had of old And thirdly that the Assemblies not beginning with this point is one great cause why Gods blessing doth no more accompany them whilst they waste much time about things inconsiderable in comparison of this and either hastily passe over or exclude from examination this which deserves most to bee examined Ah Sir How deare and lovely are our owne children in our eyes did ever any before you conceive so many and great evills to follow upon the baptizing the children of beleevers that such Monsters should be bred in the wombe of it or conceive that the removing of this would bee the healing of all I verily thinke should another have spoke such things of farre greater points you would have called them dictates Chimaraes bold assertions and what not Whether your Examen of my Sermon and your twelve Arguments in your exercitation will prove it to bee a corruption of Christs institution whether the reasons for Paedo-Baptisme be far fetched whether there be a cleare institution of Christ against it as here you affirme wee shall have leisure God willing to examine in their due place but for the present suppose mee to grant your postulâ—tum that it is an applying of an institution to a wrong subject yet I would faine learne of you how all these odious consequences will bee made good how these abuses in doctrine discipline and manners which you mention would be taken away if Paedo-Baptisme were removed nay would not the selfe same things still bee found as grounds or occasions of the same differences while some professe they would baptize any whether Turkes or Heathens who onely would make a profession of their faith in Jesus Christ and then admit them to all other Ordinances and not have them Excommunicated è sacris but onely a private consortio though their lives should prove scandalous and I am misinformed by good friends who know and love you very well if your selfe incline not this way others would take the same course before Baptisme which now they doe before admitting men to the Sacrament of the Lords Supper and would proceed to excommunication à Sacris as well as privately withdraw from such as prove scandalous and obstinate yea and take themselves bound to separate from mixt communions with them as much as they doe now notwithstanding their admission by Baptisme in your way And in this various manner of admitting men to Baptisme and dealing with men in other censures every Church or Eldership proceeding according to the largenesse or strictnesse of their owne principles I can see nothing but that the same abuses in discipline and manners which are now found among Christian people the same controversies about such as should be admitted to the Lords Supper the same divisions and separations would be sound in the Church which now alas take too much place amongst us This I say supposing your Postulatum were a truth But on the contrary supposing it not to be a truth what a Deformation instead of a Reformation should wee bring in in casting the children of Beleevers out of the visible Church reputing them no better then Turkes and Indians and especially doing it upon such grounds as are pleaded by you and others which even alter the state of the Covenant of grace As for your second I know not what influence of comfort or obligation upon conscience Baptisme had of old which is not now to bee found among them who are truely baptized who injoy not onely the putting away the filth of the flesh but the answer of a good conscience towards God by the resurrection of Jesus Christ And lastly for what you speake of the Assembly I impute it to your prejudice and extreame doting upon your owne opinion that you thinke this Point most worthy of their examination and to your misinformation to speake no worse that they waste much time about things inconsiderable in comparison or that they exclude this from Examination or seeke to stop it from any Tryall or that they hastily passe it over This is a very bold charge which you give upon the Assembly in the face of the world What evidence have you for this unlesse your Compassionate Samaritan bee Authentick with you The Apostle commands Timothy not to receive an accusation against an Elder unlesse it bee under two or three witnesses But for one man to cast thus much filth in the face of an Assembly of Ministers is very high and savours little of that modesty or meeknesse to which you did sometimes pretend How farre the blessing of God who hath not hitherto altogether left us notwithstanding our unworthines doth and will accompany the endeavours of the Assembly it is fit to leave to himselfe who gives increase to Pauls planting and Apollo's watering according to his good pleasure But as for their shutting out the due examination of this Point you are wholly mistaken though they have returned no answer to your paper It is true as I told you in the beginning that wee are shut up by Ordinance of Parliament from answering any private mens Papers or Bookes without leave from the Houses but I dare speake it in the name of the whole Assembly that they would bee glad you were admitted to dispute all your grounds among them In your next Paragraph which containes a comparison betweeve the evidences held out in the New Testament for the Religious observation of the Lords day and this of Infant-Baptisme you first make your selfe merry with my expressions that all who reject the baptizing of Infants because there is not an expresse Institution or Command in the New-Testament doe and must upon the same grounds reject the observation of the Lords-day But I am no whit ashamed of those words They doe and they must upon the same Principles if they be true to their Principles reject the one as well as the other And though I want the skill which some others have to plead for the Lord-day yet I suppose you shall find I have skill enough to make this good That there is no more expresse Institution or Command in the New-Testament for the Lords day then there is for Infant-Baptisme And whereas you alledge that some of the reformed Churches reject the Lords day and yet entertaine Infant-Baptisme and thence inferre that these two must not necessari'y stand and fall bee received and rejected together I answer Those Churches which doe so conceive that there is an institution for the
right a visible prâ—fessor hath to bee received and reputed to belong to the visible Church quâ— visible professoâ— that right hath his child so to bee esteemed now all know the spirituall part and priviledges of the Covenant of grace belongs not to visible professors as visible but onely to such among them who are inwardly such as their externall profession holds out but yet there are outward Church-priviledges which belong to them as they are visible professors as to be reputed the sonnes of God Gen. 6. 1. the sonnes of God saw the daughters of men Deut. 14. 1. ye are the children of the Lord your God and Paul writing to a visible Church Gal. 3. 26. saith yea are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus yet I suppose you doe not thinke that all the Galatians were inwardly so so likewise to bee reputed children of the kingdome Matth. 8. 12. the children of the kingdome shall bee cast out the children of the Covenant Act. 3. 25. yee are the children of the Covenant which God made unto our fathers and many other of their priviledges which belong to them who are Israeliteâ— in this sense viz. being by such a separation and vocation the professed people of God though they were not all heires of the spirituall part of the Covenant Saint Paul reckons up in severall places as Rom. 9. 4. to them pertaineth the adoption even to the body of that people not a spirituall adoption but the honour of being separated and reputed to bee the children of God Deut. 14. 1. and the glory and the covenants and the giving of the Law and the service of God and the promises yet of these Paul saith they were not all children of Abraham when he speaks of the spirituall seed So likewise Rom. 3. 1. afteâ— Paul had shewed Rom. â— that nothing but faith and inward holinesse gave right to the spirituall part of the Covenant and that all the externall priviledges of the Jewes who were onely Jewes in propatulo Jewes outwardly were nothing to justification before God hee then propounds this question Cap. 3. 1. What advantage then both the Jew or what profit is there of Circumcision what priviledge or gaine is it to bee a visible professor a visible member of the Jewish Church hee answers the advantage is great many wayes and instances in this one particular that the Oracles of God were deposited to them the custody and dispensation of his Ordinances which they might use as their owne treasure and thereby learne to know and feare him therefore it is called their Law John 8. 17. It is also written in your Law when the rest of the nations all that while were without God in the world and received the rule of their life from the Oracles of the Devill according to that of the Psalmist Psal 147. 10 20 He shewed his word to Iacob his statutes and his judgments to Israel hee hath not dealt so with any nation and as for his judgements they have not knowne them So Deut. 33. 4. The Law is called the inheritance of the Congregation of Iacob And although it bee true that these visible and externall priviledges will end with the greater condemnation of them who live and die in the abuse of them while they rest in Cortice in the outward thing it selfe and labour not after the spirituall part yet the priviledges themselves are very great It is no small mercy to have a membership or visible standing in that societie where salvation is ordinary this our blessed Saviour told the woman of Samaria Iohn 4. 22. Salvation is of the Iewes this was the priviledge which the Church of the Jewes had above the Samaritans that salvation was to bee found in their way and God in his wisedome hath so ordained it to have his visible Church made up of such I meane so as to have some of them inwardly holy and others of them by externall profession onely for this reason among many others that there might bee some who should from time to time bee converted by the Ordinances dispensed in his Church as well as others who should be built up that the Pastors which hee sets up to feed his flocke should not onely bee nursing fathers to build up but also fathers to beget sonnes and daughters to him and though all are bound de jure to bee inwardly holy who joyne to the Church yet would hee have his Church admit those who professe their willingnesse to bee his that hee by his discipline might make them inwardly such as they externally professe themselves and as yet are not in truth as into a Schoole are admitted not onely such as are actually learned but such as are dedicated to be learned not onely quia docti sed ut sint docti and who ever will deny this that there are some rightly admitted by the Church to visible membership who onely partake of the visible priviledges must deny that any are visible members who are not inwardly converted which I thinke you will doe but lest you or any other should I shall at the present back it onely with that speech of the Apostle Rom. 11. where Paul speakes of some branches grassed into the Olive and afterwards broken off not onely the Iewes whom hee calleth the naturall branches were broken off but the Gentiles also the Gentile Churches who were graffed in in their roome and were made partakers of the roote and fatnesse of the Olive even they also may bee broken off if they beleeve not and God will no more spare these branches then hee did the other now this cannot bee meant of any breaking off from the invisible Church from partaking of the spirituall roote and fatnesse of the Olive from this neither Jew nor Gentile are ever broken off it were Arminianisme to the purpose to affirme the contrary it must therefore bee meant onely of a visible standing and externall participation of Church-priviledges and if you thinke otherwayes that none of old were nor now are visible members of the Church or had right to externall Church priviledges unlesse they were inwardly sanctified I beseech you in your next to cleare this and open our eyes with your evidence that wee may see it with you and in stead of leading your Reader into a maâ—e by framing multitudes of senses the like produce some solid arguments to shew and prove that no other but true beleevers may in fore visibiâ—â—â— Ecclâ—siae bee reckoned to belong to the Church and people of God But I suppose in this particular you will hardly deny a lawfulnesse of admitting men into a visible communion upon a visible profession and that rightly even by a judgement of faith though their inward holinesse be unknown to us for so much you grant pag. 159. and if by a judgement of faith a Minister as Gods Steward may dispence the seale of the Covenant of grace and not stay from applying the seale
A DEFENCE OF INFANT-BAPTISM IN Answer to two Treatises and an Appendix to them concerning it Lately published by Mr. Jo. Tombes Wherein that Controversie is fully discussed the ancient and generally received use of it from the Apostles dayes untill the Anabaptists sprung up in Germany manifested The Arguments for it from the holy Scriptures maintained and the objections against it answered By Steven Marshall B. D. Minister of the Gospell at Finchingfield in Essex The promise is made to you and to your Children Acts 2. 39. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Greg. Naztanzenus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Basilius Magnus Hoc viz. infantium baptisma Ecclesia semper habuit semper tenuit hoc à majorum fide accepit hoc usque in finem perseveranter custodit August Printed at London by Ric. Cotes for Steven Bowtell and are to bee sold at his Shop at the Bible in Popes-head Alley 1646. TO THE Reverend Assembly of Divines and Commissioners of the Church of Scotland now sitting at Westminster Reverend Sirs WHereas all of you in generall are concerned and some of you particularly named in the Booke I deal with the world might happily have expected a joint endeavour where there was a common interest That I therefore whilst you are otherwise fully employed should undertake this taske I desire may not bee imputed by you or any to an over weening conceipt of mine own abilities for had it fallen to some of your lots I should have hoped the Church of Christ might have reaped more fruit then it is like to doe by my poore and weake endeavours But my personall ingagement to assert that truth of God which I had held forth in a Printed Sermon which my Learned Antagonist passing by other bookes written by other men on the same argument was pleased to single out to combate with and to lay out his strength upon hath called me forth to stand up in this controversie not as your Champion but as an affectionate friend to the truth which we are all called upon earnestly to contend for in which conflict as I cannot but feare that you will easily discover my weaknesse so I cannot but hope that you will not finde me either so foiled by mine adversary or deserted by God whose cause I plead as not to have sufficiently answered that booke which hath obtained to bee called in Print The strongest Shield and Buckler wherewith that cause was ever protected but in Salem God of old brake both Sword and Shield and if he hath done the like now the weake hand which hee hath made use of serveth onely to point at that mightie arme of his which hath gotten himselfe the victory Truth triumph and the Churches peace I have had in mine eye and have desired to carry meeknesse and love even to him whose opinion I fight with all along in my heart and pen what ever measure my former writing met with from him I have endeavored to looke upon his with a neither bloodshot nor loftie eye passion blinds the one and pride makes the other oft-times overlook that truth which a lowly eye seeth clearly at a nearer distance sure I am the wrath of man worketh not the righteousnesse of God whilst the meeke hee will guide in judgement and teach his way VVhat herein God hath inabled me to doe I willingly submit to the Churches censure and humbly present to you not as any way worthy of you but onely as a publick testimony of my reverence and gratitude for all the refreshings of spirit and that abundance of spirituall grace I have found from the hand of God whilst I have had the happinesse to sit among you for a yet more plentifull effusion whereof upon you to the happy setling at length of these distracted Churches in truth and peace is the prayer of Your unworthy brother and servant in the Lords work Steven Marshall Aprill 2. 1646. A Table of Scriptures vindicated and explained Gen. 17. 9. 10 14 p. 92. Deut. 30. 6. p. 128. Deut. â—3 2. vindicated p. 149 Esay 19. 24. explained 210. Esay 44. 2. p. 128 Esay 59. 21. p. 128. Malac. 2. 15. vindicated p. 156 Mat. 18. explained and answered p. 209 226 c. Mar. 10. vindicated p. 221 John 15. 2. p. 138. Acts 2. 38 39. vindicated p. 124. Proves Infant-baptisme by consequence p. 218. Acts 15. 10. explained and vindicated p. 217. Acts 19. 5. 6. vindicated p. 69. Rom. 11. 6. vindicated p. 134. 1 Cor 7. 14. vindicated p. 145 153 154 157 c. maintained against p. 148. Verse 17 p. 161. ver 34. vindicated p. 151. 1 Cor. 10. 3 4. explained p. 199. 2 Cor. 3. 10. vindicated 188. Gal. 3. 27 28. opened p. 189. Ephes 6. 1 2. explained p. 200. Coloss 2. 8 9 10. vindicated p. 169 174. Heb. 8. vindicated 188. 1 Tim. 4. 5. vindicated p. 152. INFANT BAPTISME NO LATE INNOVATION But cleared to bee as Ancient as is pretended SIR I Received your Book about the time mentioned by your self which when I had read over and thereby perceived how meane an esteem you had not onely of my Sermon but of all other things extant in defence of Infant-Baptisme and indeed of all Men whose judgement differs from your owne and how highly you value your own performance in this piece I concluded you would have no rest in your spirit untill it saw the light and the rather because you so earnestly presse mee To call in to my assistance all the rest who are ingaged in this Cause that so you might have an adversary fit to deale with that as a mighty man you might incounter with an Host But when after some friendly conference with you you declared to me that if you might enjoy liberty to exercise your Ministery in some place where you should not be put upon the practice of baptizing of Infants you could yea and intimated to me that you would keepe this Opinion private to your selfe provided onely that if any should preach in your Pulpit for the Baptizing of them you should take your self bound in the same place to preach against it otherwise Mens preaching or printing abroad should be no provocation to you In hope whereof my self endeavoured to help you in to the place where now you are desiring the Church might not lose the benefit of those good gifts which God hath bestowed upon you And thereupon I tooke no further thought of any present Examination of your large Treatise having my hands full of other employments because I verily thought you would have sate quietly down preached Christ kept your Opinion to your self and not have any further appeared especially at this time to increase the flame of our Divisions and confusions But since you think it necessary to deprive the Infants of Beleevers of that which wee conceive to bee their glorious priviledge yea and looke upon all other endeavours of Reformation as things which will come to nothing till this opinion of yours prevaile so dearely
overlashing herein is not so much as you would have the world believe though my testimonies had pleaded for no higher time then 150 after Christ Neither have I overlashed so farre in this as God willing hereafter shall appeare as you have done more then once I said the Church was so long in possession of it and if you bee pleased to subtract 150 from 1645. I hope the remaining number will shew the mistake was not great as appeares in the margent If the Church was not all the while in possession of it it had been your part to have informed your Reader of the time wherein the Churches quiet possession was disturbed and by whom It is true I named Baltazzar Pacommitanus with his associates who to their own ruine started up to disturbe this possession but the claim of an unjust intruder to justle out the true owner will not carry the Title in any Court where equity takes place In pleading the Churches possession of this truth for so long time I said not so much as others have affirmed before me Learned Augustine though his judgement bee slighted by you affirmed as much in his time and yet I read not of any then that excepted against him for it The Church saith he ever had it ever held it they received this from the faith of their Ancestors and this will it with perseverance keep unto the end If he might say that the Church before his time ever had maintained it and if after his time it was more clearely hâ—ld out then I hope I did not overlash in saying the Church had bin 1500 years possessed of it And it were an easie task to produce abundance of testimonies giving evidence not onely for their own age but that it was the received custome in all ages even from the Apostles time that this evidence was true we may hence know saith Learned Vossius because the Pelagians never durst deny it when the Orthodox Divines used to presse it who certainly wanted neither Learning nor will to have gainsayed them if they could have found them abusing Antiquity nay they not onely not denyed this but concurred in it so saith Augustine lib. 2. contra Caelist Pelag. Caelistus saith he in a book which hee set forth at Rome grants That Infants were baptized for the remission os sins according to the rule of the universall Church and according to the sentence of the Gospell In the next place you tell me I know that booke from whence this testimony was taken was questioned whether it was Justine Martyrs or no. Truly I was not ignorant thereof therefore I said in a Treatise that goes under his name I did not confidently averre that he was the Author of it yet you plainly call it a bastard Treatise and never prove it but whosesoever it was it is well known to be ancient and both Protestants and Papists asserting Paedobaptisme cite it Thirdly I take notice that you answer nothing against the truth of the testimony it selfe onely you say that by it I may see that the reason of baptizing Infants was not the Covenant of grace made to beleevers and their seed which you make the ground of baptizing Infants at this day You cannot be ignorant that this testimony was not alledged by me to prove the ground why it was administred I onely made use of it to beare witnesse to the matter of fact that Infants were baptized in that age in which that booke was written which is plainely held out in the answer to the question you may also remember what I said of all the testimonies quoted by me that I did not relate them to prove the truth of the thing but onely the practice of it and so much it doth notwithstanding the answer which yet you have brought unto it what ground the Covenant of Grace made to beleevers and their seed gives to Baptisme shall bee manifested hereafter and whether the Ancients used not at least some of the Arguments which we doe Come we now to consider what you answer to Irenaeus his testimony here you speake 1. Of his Countrey 2. Of the age he lived in 3. You question his translation 4. And in the last place you speake a little against the testimony it self Before you fall upon the examination of the testimony you say Hee was a Greeke and wrote in Greeke but wee have his Works in Latine except some fragments this you conceive to be a reason why we cannot be so certain of his meaning as we should be if wee had his owne words in the language in which he wrote and may not this Objection lie against any Translation whatsoever and upon that ground you may slight it I cannot guesse why you adde this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that hee was a Greeke c. unlesse it were to intimate to your Reader that I could not discern whether he were to be numbred in the Catalogue of Greek or Latine Fathers yet you know that I mentioned him in the first rank of those Renowned Lights of the Church which wrote in the Greek tongue to which afterwards I added two other and when I came to speake of any of the Latine Fathers Cyprian was the first in whom this question did occurre But whether his words in the testimony alledged bee truly translated into Latine shall by and by be considered As for his age you acknowledge with me that hee lived in the same Century with Just Martyr the yeare in which he flourished is variously related by the Authors named by your selfe one sayes 180 the other 183 I may adde iâ— third who varies from them both and sayes 175 and may not others point at other times also For ought I know you needlesly trouble your selfe and your Reader in naming particular yearâ— in which these famous Lights of the Church lived which I thinke can hardly with exactnesse be done it is safe to say about such a time or in such a Century such and such lived which cannot bee prejudiciall to the Reader when wee know a Century includes many years neither can any man warrantably restrain it to any one year alone wherein such a man flourished as if he had flourished one year and no more But I proceed to what you say of the testimony it selfe it is extant Iren. 2. 39. Christus venit salvare 〈◊〉 c. Your exceptions against it are many First you question whether reâ—asuatur there signifies baptisme or no as Feuardemiur his glosse takeâ— it Secondly You say that neither Christ nor his Apostles call Baptisme a new birth Thirdly possibly this was not the word used by Irenaeus in his own Writing Fourthly that the Latine alters Irenaeus his minde as learned Rivet sayes Lastly that Irenaeus meant not Baptisme in this place you goe about to prove by his scope therein These are your exceptions which now wee come to examine To begin with the first of them when Irenaeus saith Christus
because hee disswadeth by so many Reasons in his Booke of Baptisme c. 18. the baptizing of Infants And you adde If he did allow it it was onely in case of necessity as may appeare by his words in his booke De Anima ca. 39. Though my task in this examination of your Examen bee onely to make good what I said before in my Sermon yet you shall have my answer to this place quoted by your self whereby it may appeare there are more witnesses to confirm the same truth which I avouched but onely by the testimonies of a few Tertullian indeed in the former of these places is perswading men to defer both the Baptism of children and others who are of age Yet I beseech you tell me doth he not therein intimate that it was the custome of the Church in his age to baptize the one as well as the other otherwise I see no reason why he should desire that they would defer the one as well as the other And what 's the reason of his delay such as did undertake or promise for children were in danger whilst they promised on their behalf that which by reason of their own mortality and increase of evill disposition in children afterwards might make them breake or destroy their promise his words are these Pro cujusque personae conditione de dispositione etiam aetate cunctatio Baptismi utilior est praecipue tamen circa parvulos Quid enim necesse est si non cam necesse sponsores etiam periculo ingeri qui et ipsi per mortalitatem destruere promissiones suas possunt proventu malae indolis falli Is it not evident by that place that Baptisme was administred in all ages even to little ones and that there were some who undertooke that they should perform the promises made by them on their behalf onely this custome of baptizing them did not very well please Tertullian wherefore he seeks to disswade from it but never pleads against it as an unlawfull thing or an abuse of Christs institution as you doe yet how displeasing a delay of that nature was to others famous in the Church hath been cleared by severall testimonies before here may you take notice of one even before Cyprian in the Latine Church that beares witnesse against you that in his time children were baptized This truth is so perspicuously laid down by him that you cannot deny it and therefore you come with an if and say If hee did allow it it was onely in case of necessity for this you refer me to his book de Anima c. 39. where having reckoned up the idolatry and superstitious fooleries of the heathen at the birth of their children he speaks of children one of whose Parents is holy and confesses both by the priviledge of their birth and profession they are designati sanctitatis ac per hoc etiam salutis not sancti till they be born of water and the Spirit but in that place is altum silentium of his allowing baptism to them in case of necessity as you say wherein if a man told you that you did overlash he should not wrong the truth But before wee part with Tertullian give mee leave to aske the question whether the disswasion which you cite out of Tertullians booke de Baptismo may not reasonably bee interpreted of the Infants of Infidells because in that Chapter Tertullian speakes of the baptisme of such as were not born of Christian Parents such as the Eunuch and St. Paul and therefore hee desires that the Baptisme of such Infants should bee deferred till they came to yeares and were able to make confession of their sinnes and profession of their faith their Parents being Infidels and their Sponsors mortall for what saith hee though these Infants may have some Sponsors to undertake for their Christian education yet their Sponsors may die before they are capable of instruction and then that promise is void and of none effect And I am very much inclined to beleeve that this is the true meaning of the place because it is cleare and evident by the 39. Chapter of his book de Anima that Tertullian did acknowledge that the children of beleevers had a kinde of priviledge which he calls prerogative by their birth besides that of their education and therefore in case the Sponsors who undertook for the education of the Infants of Pagans did live yea and give those Infants due education yet there was a great difference between them and the Infants of beleevers who had such a birth priviledge as gave them right to Baptisme and by Baptisme and the Spirit saith he they are made what they were by God designed to be holy indeed Because I will give you and the learned Readers light enough I will transcribe the passage at large and give you leave to judge for I hope you will make it appeare that you are pius Inimicus and passe judgement upon my side when you have received some new light if it bee new to you but truly I feare that you saw something in this 39 Chapter which made against you and therefore you doe barely cite the Chapter and not set down the words of the Author which was not so fairly done be pleased then to peruse the testimony in words at length and not in figures Hinâ— enim Apostolus ex sanctificato alterutro sexu sanctos procreari ait tam ex seminis praerogativa quam ex institutionis disciplina caeterum inquit immundi nascerentur quasi Designatos tamen sanctitatis ac per hoc etiam salutis intelligi volens fidelium filios ut hujus spei pignora matrimoniis quae retinenda censuerat patrocinarentur Alloquin meminerat Dominicae definitionis nisi quis nascatur ex aqua spiritu non introibit in regnum Dei id est non erit sanctus Sir are you not now convinced that Tertullian did conceive that the Infants of beleevers had such a sanctity as I called Covenant-holinesse by the prerogative and priviledge of their birth as gave them a right to baptisme I would not abuse Tertullian as you did Origen and other Reverend and Learned men and therefore have given you a faire interpretation out of his owne words I beleeve by this time you are sicke of Tertullian let us confer with Cyprian and his 66 Colleagues upon whom you have passed a Magisteriall censure Cyprian say you saith enough and more then enough except hee spake to better purpose if that which hee hath spoken be weighed in the ballance of your judgement his words though many will be found but light yet you say that Hierom and especially Augustine relyed upon that Epistle for the proving of baptizing Infants for my part I am more strengthened in my Opinion of the worth of Cyprian's words in that Epistle by this your confession for had there not been solidity and truth in what hee said learned Hierom and Reverend Augustine two eminent men in the Church though
the weaknesse thereof this is a sure truth That the Sacrament of the Lords Supper is to be received So it is here divers Arguments are brought to prove that children are to bee baptized and amongst many this is one They conceived the want of it might bee prejudiciall to the salvation of Infants which I will not justifie yet I dare not reject the truth made out by other media reasons or arguments And it is to bee remembred that this Argument was most frequently used by the Ancients in the heate of disputation when they had to do with them that denyed the traduction of originall sin from Adam to Infants howsoever at some other times they confesse with Augustine that some doe receive rem Baptismi absque Sacramento a man may have the grace given in Baptisme and not be baptized As for the third inference made by you from his words that not onely Infants of beleevers but all Infants are to bee baptized though he layes it down in generall termes that none are to be hindered from comming to Christ yet what he says ought to bee understood of the Church because he speaks of such as God hath cleansed or purified who were common You construe some passages of the Epistle as answers to some objections which doe no wayes weaken but strengthen what I have said from thence Onely in the closure of this Section you would find fault with my gathering up of Cyprians mind as if hee had meant that Infants are to bee baptized because they are under Originall sinne and need pardon You say the Argument is rather that they have lesser sinnes then others and therefore there is lesser hinderance to them to come to this Grace remission of sinne and Baptisme Cyprian indeed sayes if Baptisme be not denied to men of yeares who hath committed more hainous sins then Infants why should Baptism be denyed to Infants who are onely guilty of Originall sin derived to them from Adam doth hee not there mention Originall sinne which he sayes is remitted to Children when they are baptized which in his judgement is lesse then the grievous actuall sins of men of years added to their Originall sin In the farewell of your censure of Cyprians judgement you call it naked and say you would have covered the nakednesse thereof but that the truth suffered so much thereby and so can at your pleasure put upon it the title of an absurd Epistle Sir for one man to slight the judgement of 66. men eminent in their generation doth not well become a modest disposition taught in the Gospel to thinke better of others then himself I am afraid that when Cyprians Epistle and your answer shall bee compared together the nakednesse of your answer will rather appeare yea remember what the Philosopher trampling upon Plato his neat Carpet said calco Platonis superbiam yet hee spying a hole in his slovenly cloake answered ego per rimam pallii tuam video superbiam c. I cannot but account it your nakednesse that if it be naked you have not in your answer laid open the nakednesse of it but though it be absurd in your eye yet in the judgment of men renowned for learning and piety it hath ever been accepted in the Church notwithstanding some mistakes in it Next to Cyprian comes Augustine under your Examen Whose authority was it as you say that carryed on Baptism of Infants in the following ages almost without controule For which you bring forth Walfridus Strabo and Petrus Cluniacensis testimonies which I here mean to passe over and take notice of them in another place I confesse learned Augustine his authority was great in the Church both whilst he lived and since and that worthily not onely for his defence of the truth which you now oppose but of other greater and more necessary truths also which hee solidly maintained against the adversaries who laboured either to suppresse or corrupt the same albeit you seeme not much to stand upon his judgement which with you is of no more value then his proofes and reasons can adde weight thereunto Thus you slight him though what he said is approved by divers Fathers and Councels named by your selfe and how far your bare single judgement and censure will out-weigh Augustine Prosper Fulgentius and the Councells which you mention in this Question let the Reader judge It hath been an ancient justifiable course in the Church in examining of controversies in Religion to look back upon the writings of famous men who flourished in the Church before was not Sisinnius his counsell to good purpose which he presented to Theodosius then studying how to put an end to the unhappy differences which troubled the Church in his time when hee perswaded him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and to demand of them who petitioned him whether they would not stand to the judgement of such as were Teachers in the Church before it was divided especially when their judgement dissented not from the Scriptures his counsell no doubt was good and wholsome yet I desire that herein I may not bee mistaken This I speake not as if I attributed more to Antiquity then to Verity I have long since resolved by Gods assistance with Hierom Antiqua legere probare singula â—etinere quae bona sunt a fide Catholicae Ecclesiae non recedere it were happy for the Church among us if in this unruly age many who not content with former truth are carryed on with an itching disposition after novelties would doe the like I return to judicious Augustine Here I expected your accurate Examen would have canvast the severall testimonies in the places quoted by me but I am deceived Whereby it seems you have nothing to say against them but that they evidence what was that Churches practice in his time about our question which was the true and onely end why I named any testimonies from Antiquity for if they did not I doubt not you would have said so much onely here you tell us what your account is of his proofes and reasons of his judgement in this controversie all which to you seeme to bee but light this you labour to prove in 6 following Sections which I will now view and see whether your weighty answers wil satisfie his light reasons in the judgement of any indifferent Reader Your first exception against his judgement is because he makes it an universall Tradition a shrewd fault or a dangerous position which wil not down with an Anti-paedo-baptisme And first you reason against it to this purpose If the Church had thought it necessary that all children of Christians by profession should bee baptized in their Infancy then none born within the pale of the Church should have miss't of it But so it is that many did Ergo c. Your Minor you prove Augustine himselfe Adeodatus his son and Alipius his friend were not so baptized and thus you labour
Baptizing of Infants but none for the observation of the â—ords day although herein I humbly conceive they are mistaken I doubt not but it doth and will appeare to impartiall and unprejudiced Readers that there is sufficient evidence of an Institution for both of them though not in such expresse Texts of Scripture in the New-Testament as the Anabaptists require and I shall now examine whether you bring any better evidence for the one then is to be found for the other First you say they meane it of positive worship consisting in outward rites and not of worship which is naturall or morall Answ But this but a blind morall and naturall are not to be confounded whatever worship is naturall may bee indeed acknowledged to be morall but not whatever is morall is to be esteemed naturall I know you cannot bee ignorant of the received distinction of Morale Naturale and Morale positivum and I beseech you though a Sabbath be grantâ—d to be Naturall yea if I should adde that one day in the revolution of seaven should bee so yet that this or that seventh day in the revolution of a weeke should bee observed all grant this depends upon an Institution and hath no more moralitie in it then what can bee made out from an Institution and consequently that the first day of the weeke should be the Christian Sabbath or that this one day of seven which God hath separated to himself and had once expresly fixed upon the seventh or last day of the week should be translated from the last day to the first day of the weeke must depend wholly upon an Institution and consequently they who reject that which depends upon positive Institution unlesse its Institution can bee expresly found in the New-Testament are as much at a losse for the Lords day as for the baptizing of Infants Nay give me leave to adde that in this point in question the advantage lies more on this hand I meane for Infant-Baptisme because there is more necessitie of clearing the Institution for the Lords day then for baptizing of Infants because in the one the ordinance it selfe and its institution is questioned but in this of Infant-Baptisme the question is not of the Institution of the Ordinance it selfe but onely of the subject to whom the Ordinance is to be applyed If the question bee betwixt Baptisme and the Lords day all grant that we have clearer Institution for the Sacrament of Baptisme then for the Lords day Baptisme is clearly instituted in the New-Testament to bee the Sacrament of our admission into the Covenant of grace and to succeed in the roome of Circumcision as your selfe grant Now the onely question is whether taking this for granted that baptism succeeds in the roome of Circumcicision and to bee applyed unto all persons by the will of God who are in Covenant with him whether the same persons may partake of this Sacrament as might partake of the other unlesse those persons bee expresly set downe in the New-Tement I hope in the judgement of all indifferent men a question about the persons to whom an ordinance is to bee applyed is a question of a farre inferiour nature to that question whether such a thing pretended to be an Ordinance have any Institution at all or not It 's one thing to invent a new Ordinance of worship another and that of inferiour rank to mistake in some of the persons to whom an Ordinance is to be applyed In some of the ancient times the Lords Supper was given to Infants and carried to sick persons when absent to testifie their communion with the Church I take them both for errours but yet not for errors of the like nature with inventing a new Sacrament I say againe there is a great difference betweene bringing in a new Ordinance and applying it to these or these persons especially when the question is not of the persons in generall who are the subject matter as whether men or Angels men or beasts but whether men of such an age or of such a Sex Sir to my best understanding these two questions are not parallell a just parallell question to this of Infant-Baptisme would be such a one as was once disputed betwixt Mr. Bifield and Mr. Brerewood viz. Taking it for granted that by a cleare Institution the Lords day succeeds in the roome of the old Sabbath whether yet the same persons are tied to keepe the Lords day who of old were tied to keepe the Sabbath unlesse those parties were mentioned in the New-Testament as whether servants as well as their masters the same holds here All this I speake not as any whit doubting that there is as cleare evidence for Baptizing of Infants as there is for the religious observation of the Christian Sabbath notwithstanding the latter seemes to require fuller evidence then this doth Your second explication gives you as little advantage you say that Apostolicall example which hath not a meâ—re temporary reason is enough to prove an Institution from God to which that practise doth relate especially when such examples come to bee backed with the constant practise of all Churches in all ages And then you bring in Pauls preaching at Troaâ— the collections upon the first day of the weeks in the first of the Corinthians and the sixteenth the mentioning of the Lords day Revel 1. Sir I except against none of all this to bee a part of that good evidence which wee have for the religious observation of the Lords day but I dare confidently speake it that out of these you can never evince more laying all things together to prove the Institution of the Lords day then I have done for the lawfulnesse of baptizing of Infants and I appeale to all learned Readers whether the many bookes written of late against the Institution of the Lords day give not as specious and plausible answers to these places alledged by you concerning the Christian Sabbath as yours are against Infant-baptisme although they have received sufficient cleare and solid answers yea and tread under their feet all arguments taken from these examples with as much confidence and scorne as your selfe doe that which I and others have named for Paedo-Baptisme And as for the supplement which you bring out of the constant practise of the Churches for the religious observation of the Lords day in stead of the old Sabbath I earnestly desire you in your next to produce as many of the ancients to beare witnesse to that truth as I have done in this point for Paedo-Baptisme and I promise you you shall receive my hearty thanks among the rest of your Readers in the meane time the Reader shall judge whether I have not brought a moity of that for the Baptizing of Infants which you have done for the Lords day Further whether you have not abused your reader in so confident averring that there are no footsteps in Antiquity for Paedo-Baptisme till the erroneous conceit of giving Gods grace by it the
saving grace to Infants the Seale is set to a blank for give mee leave but to put the same case first for the Infants of the Jewes was the seale put to a blanke with them or had they all promises of saving graces Secondly let mee put the same case in growne men who make an externall visible profession and thereupon are admitted to baptisme can any man say that all the saving graces of the Covenant or the spirituall part of it is promised to all visible professors is it not abundantly knowne that in all ages even in the best times even in the Apostles times multitudes were baptized to whom God yet never gave saving graces and therefore never promised them for had hee made a promise hee would have performed it But I shall desire you a little to consider the nature of a Sacrament in what sense it is a seale and then you neede stumble at this no longer these three things are necessarily to be distinguished first the truth of the thing signified in a Sacrament and secondly my interest in that thing And thirdly my obligation to doe what is required in or by that Sacrament I say therefore that in every Sacrament the truth of the Covenant in it selfe and all the promises of it are sealed to be Yea and Amen Jesus Christ became a Minister of the circumcision to confirme the promises made unto the Fathers so to every one who is admitted to partake of Baptisme according to the rule which God hath given to his Church to administer that Sacrament there is sealed the truth of all the promises of the Gospel that they are all true in Christ and that whoever partakes of Christ shall partake of all these saving promises this is sealed absolutely in Baptisme but as to the second which is interesse meum or the receivers interest in that spirituall part of the Covenant that is sealed to no receiver absolutely but conditionally in this particular all Sacraments are but signa conditionalia conditionall seales sealing the spirituall part of the Covenant to the receiver upon condition that hee performe the spirituall condition of the Covenant thus our Divines use to answer the Papists thus Doctor Ames answers to Bellarmine when Bellarmine disputing against our doctrines that Sacraments are seales alledges then they are falsely applyed ostentimes hee answers to Bellarmine Sacraments are conditionall Seales and therefore not seales to us but upon condition Now for the third thing the obligation which is put upon the receiver a bond or the for him to performe who is admitted to receive the Sacrament this third I say is also absolute all Circumcised and Baptized persons did or doe stand absolutely ingaged to performe the conditions required on their part and therefore all circumcised persons were by the circumcision oblieged to keepe the Law that is that legall and typicall administration of the Covenant which was then in force and Infants among the rest were bound to this though they had no understanding of the Covenant or that administration of the Covenant when this Seale was administred to them Now then since in Baptisme there is first an absolute Seale of the truth of the Covenant of grace in it selfe a conditionall seale of the receivers interest in the Covenant and an absolute obligation upon the receiver to make good the Covenant on his part is there any reason that you should say that the seale is put to a blank where the spirituall part or saving grace is not partaked of What you further say here that by Abraham who is the father of the faithfull is meant Abrahams person and not every beleever that it was a personall priviledge to Abraham and not a common priviledge to beleevers as beleevers which thing you repeate very often it shall bee considered in a more proper place So that you having thus wholly mistaken my sense and undertaken to dispute against a sense which I never owned I may therefore passe over your six arguments which you bring to confute this sense which you have set downe I joyne with you that it is an errour to say that all Infants of beleevers indefinitely are under the saving graces of the Covenant for although I finde abundance of promises in the Scripture of Gods giving saving graces unto the posteritie of his people and that experience â—eacheth us that God uses to continue his Church in their posteritie and that Gods election lies more among their seed then among others yet neither to Jew nor Gentile was the Covenant so made at any time that the spirituall part and grace of the Covenant should bee conferred upon them all it is sufficient to mee that they may have a visible standing in the Church partake of the outward priviledges of the Church and bee trained up under that discipline or administration of the Covenant which God uses to make effectuall to salvation in the meane time all of them to bee visible members as well as their parents and some of them invisible as well as some of their parents And therefore although in some of your fix reasons there are divers expressions which I cannot swallow yet I shall not here stay upon them but examine them when you bring them elsewhere to dispute against mee as here you doe not onely give mee leave to touch upon the last of your fix arguments because in some sense it militates against my Thesis Is this were true say you that the Covenant of grace is a birthright priviledge then the children of beleevers are the children of grace by nature then Christians are borne Christians not made Christians if the child of a Christian be borne a Christian as the child of a Turke is borne a Turke and if so how are they borne the children of wrath as well as others I answer According to the sense which I owne I maintaine this assertion to bee true that the child of a Christian is borne a Christian it is his birthright to bee so esteemed I meane to bee reputed within the Covenant of grace or a member of the visible Church our I am sure it was so the child of a Iew was borne a Iew and it was his birthright to bee an Israelite a visible member of the Church of Israel and the Apostle Paul stuck not to use the word Iewes by nature Gal. 2. 15. We who are Iewes by nature and not 〈◊〉 of the â—â—â—tiles â—ee there opposes the naturall priviledge of the members of the Church to the condition of the heathens and Rom. 11. hee calls the whole nation of the Iewes the naturall branches of the Olive tree because they were the visible Church of God Will you say of them also how were they then the children of wrath by nature I answer doe but consider the Apostles distinction Rom. 2. last betwixt a Jew in propatulo in facievisibilis ecclesiae a Jew without and a Jew in abscondito a Jew within and your objection is answered in the first
against baptisme to succeed circumcision as a Lord Major elect succeeds the old though the old continue after his election for a time Yet further You inquire in what sense Baptisme succeeds in the roome and place of Circumcision and say if by roome and place I meane locus communis et proprius so Baptisme being an action hath no roome or place at all properly and if by roome and place I meane the baptized and baptizers that is true but in part seme who were to be baptized were not to bee circumcised as women Thirdly if by roome and place I meane the same society that is not true Circumcision admitted into the Jewish baptisme into the Christian Church Fourthly if of the Commandement upon which both are sealed that is not true neither Circumcision was commanded long before Baptisme Fiftly if of the same use that is most untrue for the use of Circumcision obliged to keepe the Law to be a partition between Iewes and Gentiles and to initiate into the Iewish Church or rather into Abrahams family Then lastly you say if I meane it of confirming and sealing the same Covenant neither is that true save onely in part because their Covenant was a mixt Covenant and although Circumcision did confirme righteousnesse by faith and signified holinesse of heart so also did the Cloud Sea Manna the Rock the Deluge or Arke and the same are also confirmed by the Lords Supper and therefore to say that Baptisme succeeds in the roome and place of Circumcision is a position erroneous and very dangerous I am prone to thinke that time as well as paper and Inke are very cheape with you who thus needlesly waste them this poore quibbling about succession and roome place c. is too Pedanticall for a grave Divine what Reader will not at the first view see this to bee my meaning of Baptisme succeeding in the roome and place of Circumcision that Baptisme succeeds Circumcision as a signe substituted in the place and stead of Circumcision to signifie and seale the same Covenant of grace which Circumcision did Circumcicision more darkely sealing Christ being not yet exhibited baptisme more clearely the shadow being taken away and the substance come almost all your differences refer onely to the severall manners of administration of the Covenant not to the Covenant it selfe or thing administred yet I shall touch upon each particular First your fancy of Locus proprius communis is too idle to require any answer Secondly that of the Iewish women hath been sufficiently spoken to in the first Section of this third part Thirdly when you say circumcision admitted into one Church baptisme into another I am very loath to impute to your sense which you intend not if you meane onely the severall administrations the Church of the Jewes being Christs Church under one administration the Christian Church the same Church of Christ under another administration you speake truth but not to purpose my conclusion never said Circumcision and Baptisme doe initiate into the same Administration of the Covenant but if you meane that the Church of the Jewes and wee are not one and the same Church you speake pure Anabaptisme indeed and contradict the Scripture expresly which every where makes the Church of the Jewes and the Gentiles one and the same Church though under divers administrations I count it needlesse to annex any proofes because I thinke you dare not deny it Fourthly you lay the command of circumcision was loâ—g before the command of Baptisme but how this followes that therefore Baptisme doth not succeed in the roome of Circumcision I cannot guesse the Lords day succeeds the seventh day in being Gods Sabbath but certainly the institution of it was long after the other And fiftly as for the severall uses mentioned by you they all referre to the manner of administration peculiar to the Jewes I have often granted there were some legall uses of Circumcision it obliging to that manner of administration and so they were part of the Jewish paedagogy which is wholly vanished and therein Circumcision hath no succession but baptisme succeeds it as a Seale of the same Covenant under a better administration as a set and constant initiating Ordidinance onely I wonder that you say Circumcision did initiate into the Church of the Iewes or rather into Abrahams family I pray you explaine this rather into Abrauams family if by Abrahams family you meane the Church of the Jewes why say you rather into Abrahams family if you meane any thing else tell us what it is and how Circumcumcision initiated Proselytes into Abrahams family any otherwise â—hen as it was the Church of the Jewes Lastly you hit upon the right thing intended They he both seales of the same covenant but say you the covenâ—nt was not the same except in part which hath abundantly been confuted before and justified to be one and the same and the difference to lie onely in the manner of administration But say you the Cloud Sea Manna water of the rock c. signified righteousnesse by faith and holinesse of heaâ—t as well as baptisme doth and why then should we not say that Baptism succeeds these as well as it doth Circumcision I answer these were extraordinary signes not standing Sacraments to bee used in all generations much lesse were they set and standing Sacraments of initiation And yet so farre as God hath made the parallel what hurt is there in saying baptism succeeds them sure I am the Apostle Peter compares baptism and the Ark the like figure whereunto Baptisme saves us But whereas you adde And why also should not the Lords Supper succeed Circumcision as well as Baptisme I answer what ever disparity may bee made betweene Circumcision and Baptisme yet herein certainly they agree and you often grant it That both of them are initiall signes and therefore this is most wildly said of you That the Lords Supper may he as well said to succeed Circumcision did ever any thinke the Lords Supper to be an initiall signe And now let the Reader judg of that expression of yours in the close which you so boldly use against all Divines and Churches since the Apostles time who all concurre in the same truth except onely the Anabaptists That to say Baptisme succeeds in the roome and place of Circumcision 〈◊〉 a proposâ—tion 〈…〉 and very dangerous To confirme this of Baptism succeeding Circumcision much may be gathered out of many places in the New Testament which hold out the things wherein they are parallel'd I used onely that clear place Col. 2. 8 to 13. whence I made it evident Not onely that we have the same thing signified by Circumcision while we are buryed with Christ in baptism but also that the Apostle plainly setâ— Baptisme in the same state and makes it of the same use to us as Circumcision was to the Jews Christ onely to them â—nd 〈◊〉 also is the
that no part of the spirituall Covenant made with Abraham did appeare to belong to Ishmael when he was circumcised or not to Esau when hee was circumcised God indeed did then declare that Isaac was he in whose family the Covenant should continue but not a word that Ishmael should have no part in it prove if you can in your next that Ishmael and Esau were not by their circumcision bound to have their hearts circumcised and to beleeve in the Messiah that was to come of Abrahams seed And whereas you say againe and againe that no benefit of the Covenant was the proper reason why these or those were circumcised but onely Gods precept I have already cleared it out of the Text Genesis 17. that though Gods command was the cause of the existence of the dutie of Circumcision yet the Covenant of grace was the motive to it and these two are well consistent together Whereas I answered to that carnall objection of the Anabaptists that nothing is plainer then that the Covenant whereof Circumcision was a signe was the Covenant of grace you reply first it was a mixt Covenant which is before taken away in answer to your exceptions against my first conclusion Sect. 2. Part 3. Secondly you say all circumcised persons were not partakers of the spirituall part it 's one thing to bee under the outward administration another thing to be under the Covenant of Grace Sir I thanke you for this answer you grant as much as I have been proving all this while viz. that men may have a visible membership though they bee not elected and that there ever was and will be some such in the Church to whom the outward administration and externall priviledges doe appâ—â—taine though they are not inwardly sanctified and I hope you will not deny but that these are called in that sense which our Saviour meanes when hee sayes Many are called but few are chosen I added Abraham received Circumcision a signe of the righteousnesse of faith true say you Circumcision was a seale of righteousnesse but not to all or only circumcised persons but to all beleevers whether Iews or Gentiles though they never are or may be sealed in their own persons I reply first this is but a peece of odde Divinitie that Circumcision should seale righteousnesse to them who never are circumcised nor reputed so nor capable of being circumcised nor might lawfully be circumcised but let that passe 2ly Indeed none but beleevers have the spirituall part of Circumcision but visible professors had a visible right to it and were obliged to seeke the spirituall grace of it and though they who are externally called and not elected never come to attaine the spirituall part yet are they in foro visibilis Ecclesiae to be reputed Church members and they have as Austin saith veritatem sacramenti though not fructum Sacramenti they receive the truth of the Sacrament though they partake not of the best part of it And the Iewes said I received it not as a nation but as a Church as a people separated from the world and taken into Covenant with God against which you object if I take as with reduplication they received it neither as a nation nor as a Church for if as a nation then every nation must have been circumcised if as a Church then every Church must be circumcised they received it as appointed them from God under that formall notion and no other But what poore exceptions are these my plaine meaning was the Jewes were both a civill societie or Common-wealth they were also a Church or a people in Covenant with God Circumcision was given them in reference to their Church State not in reference to their civill state and was in ordine to the things of Gods kingdome and though the formall reason of their being circumcised was the command of God yet the Covenant of grace or their Church state was the motive to it and the thing it related to as is most cleare out of the 17. of Genesis and many other places where their Circumcision denotates their religious standing as hath often been shewed before But what is all this say you to the answering of the objection which was that Circumcision was not the Seale of the spirituall part of the Covenant of grace to all circumcised persons and that Circumcision was appointed to persons not under the Covenant c. I answer I thinke it very fully answers the objection for if it was commanded and observed as that which was a priviledge and dutie belonging to the Covenant and they used it as being in Covenant the objection is wholly taken off Your frequent bringing in of the manner of administration by types shadowes c. hath been abundantly answered in my vindicating my first conclusion and elsewhere Next you much trouble your selfe how I will cleare that expression of mens conformity to temporall blessings and punishments because blessings and punishments are Gods acts and not mens I desire you to require an account of it from them who assert it I said Circumcision bound them who received it to conforme to that manner of administration of the Covenant which was carried much by a way of temporall blessings and punishments they being types of spirituall things is this all one to conforme to temporall blessings and punishments I added no man can shew that any were to receive Circumcision in relation to these outward things onely or to them at all further then they were administrations of the Covenant of grace you answer they received Circumcision neither in relation to these outward things onely no nor at all either as they were temporall blessings or types of spirituall things and so administrations of the Covenant of grace but for this reason and no other because God had so commanded I reply here had beene the fit place for you to have made good what you have so confidently asserted heretofore that Ishmael Esau and others were circumcised for some temporall respects that Circumcision sealed the temporall or politicall promises c. but in stead of proving this you doe here as good as deny it for if they were not circumcised in any respect at all to their temporall blessings how I pray you did Circumcision seale their temporall blessings Nay further you by consequent deny that Circumcision sealed either temporall or spirituall blessings and consequently it was no seale at all or a seale of nothing at all for if they were circumcised with respect to nothing but onely because God commanded them to bee circumcised how was Circumcision any Seale to them If a father give a child a Ring and command him to weare it onely to shew his obedience to his fathers command what doth the wearing of this Ring seale to the child it declares indeed the childes obedience to the father but seals nothing to the child from the father Nor doth that which you adde any whit helpe this you say You deny not
once the Infants of all Covenanters had this priviledge may I not also exact of you to shew when and where this was taken away who though you goe not about to expunge them out of the book of life yet you expresly expunge them out of visible membership while you say the Jews Infants had it and ours have it not Lastly I added who ever will goe about to deprive them of it to cut off such a great part of the comfort of beleeving Parents must produce clear testimonies before they can perswade beleevers to part with either of them either right to the Covenant or to the seale of the Covenant because next to the glory of God and the salvation of their owne soules their Infants interest in the Covenant is one of the greatest benefits beleevers have from the Covenant of grace even to have their Children belong to Gods family and Kingdome and not to the Devills Children being the greatest treasure of their Parents and the salvation of their childrens soules the greatest treasure in their children and therefore to exclude them out of that society or visible standing where salvation is ordinary is so great a losse or eclipsing of their comfort aâ— whoever would make them yeeld to it had need produce very strong evidence and much more I said in my Sermon to this purpose You answer Here I am upon my 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 I confesse in this point I stand upon a vantage ground not in Oratory to which I pretend not but in point of truth had I only spoken words without weight you could and would have discovered their emptiness and scoffed at them sufficiently you make severall small exceptions which I shal briefly touch as First That I touch something too neare upon the Popish Opinion as if I might be guess'd to symbolize with that Opinion of the Papists who judge all unbaptized infants to perish which is not worth the answering Then you demand What comfort doe wee give Parents which the Antipaedobaptists doe not give them as well as we or what discomforts in truth doe they give them which we doe not I answer the difference is very great you leave them in the state of Infidells we in the condition the Jews children were in while they were the people of God wee account them actually belonging to the visible kingdom of Christ you actually to belong to the visible kingdom of the Devill wee leave them under the benefit of that promise I will be the God of thee and of thy feed you acknowledge no more promise for them then for the children of Turks it may be these things are of no account to you but I doubt not but they will bee with your unprejudiced Reader I next proceeded to the maine and onely Objection made against this whole Argument which is this There is no command no expresse institution or cleare example in all the New Testament of baptizing of Infants and in administration of Sacraments wee are not to be led by our owne reason or grounds of seeming probabilities but by the expresse order of Christ and no otherwise You say this is indeed the maine Objection and without answering it all that I have said is to little purpose But Sir did not you formerly grant that upon the proving of my two first Conclusions the whole cause depended if therefore those Conclusions remaine firme there is enough already said to the purpose You adde Vnlesse this Objection be removed the practice of baptizing infants will never be acquitted from Will-worship and that the Prelatists will shew vertuall commands from analogy of the Ceremoniall Law of the Jews and Traditions Ecclesiasticall as ancient as ours for Paedobaptisme for their Prelacy Holy dayes Surplice c. And therefore if I stand not to iâ— here I must yeeld up my weapons Sure you think you are here like to get some advantage you speake so big but by this time I have had such sufficient experience of your strength that I much feare not your great words First for the point of Will-worship I shall desire you to prove this Conclusion That all things belonging to Christian worship even in the circumstances of it even the ages and sexes of the Persons to whom the Ordinances are to bee applyed must bee expresly set down in the new Testament if you prove not this you say nothing to the purpose for this is our very case I have already shewed the falsenesse of it in the point of the Christians Sabbath for though the Ceremoniall Worship which was a type of Christ be wholly abolished yet not every thing which concerns all Worship which must have an institution is abolished And for the plea which the Bishops and others may pretend from the analogy of the Ceremoniall Law when you shew how they will raise their Arguments which possibly you have more skill and experience to doe then I have as plainly as I doe for Infant-baptisme you may possibly prevaile with the Reader in their behalf And when you shew as much Ecclesiasticall Antiquity for Prelacy Holydayes Surplice c. I shall beleeve your Reading to be greater then I can yet be perswaded of that you have seen some such Monuments of Antiquity which the Prelaticall Party could never yet light upon But I proceed with you I first granted That there is no expresse syllabicall command for baptizing of Infants no expresse example where Children were baptized Sure say you this is a shrewd signe that I am not like to make good my ground having yeelded thus much And why so I pray your very next words leave me ground enough when you say That if it bee made good by good consequence it is sufficient what need was there then of this idle scoffe I added Many other points of high concernment are not expresly laid down in the New Testament aâ— forbidden degrees of marriage Laws against Polygamy the Law of a weekly Sabbath c. You answer In meere positive Worship it must be so it must have either Precept or Apostolicall example equivalent to a precept found in the New Testament else it is will-worship and this say you is our case in hand I answer as before there is no absolute necessitie that every circumstance of an Ordinance or the severall Sexes or ages to whom an Ordinance ought to bee applyed must bee thus set downe in the New Testament this is sufficiently cleared Part 2. Sect. 8. and part 3. Sect. 1. As for the forbidden degrees of marriage you say there is one branch mentioned and censured in the New Testament viz. the incestâ—ouâ— Corinthians case and that is say you a finne against a morall commandement but how would you laugh at such a consequence in another a man may not marry his fathers wife a thing which by the light of nature was abborred amongst the Heathens Ergo
and holy Ghost should be interpreted to be invocation of Gods name and so to make Baptisme and Prayer all one is strange Divinity it is true Paul was exhorted to pray or call upon Gods name when he was to bee baptized Acts 22. 16. but doth it prove that his Baptisme and Prayer was all one it may be you meane onely this that every person who is baptized must be able himself at the time of his baptisme to pray if that bee your meaning prove it by your next shew why more at Baptisme then at Circumcision As for your fourth were not the Infants of the Jews devoted to God by Circumcision though they could not actually devote themselves To your fifth That they were to teach them as soon as they bad baptized them and that therefore none wete to be baptized unlesse they were fit presently after their Baptisme to learne the rest of their duty I answer this also is sufficiently answered in Sect. 13. Part 3. and I further adde that baptized persons ought indeed to be taught all that Christ commands them and so likewise were circumcised persons but not presently onely as they were capable of it and able to receive it And as for the persons baptized by John and Christs disciples I have before answered that it cannot appeare that they baptized no oother but such as made profession of faith and repentance and if it were granted it follows not that therefore no other may be baptized their practice is a good rule though not a full rule as I shewed Sect. 13. Part 3. And whereas you say Iohn baptized none but upon profession of repentance you would have a hard task to prove it if any man should put you to it to prove I say that Iohn did impose or require confession of sin before baptisme it is said hee baptized them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to repentance not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as stated in actuall repentance and his calling for repentance and preaching the Baptisme of repentance shew that this was the lesson they were all to learne not that they must all manifest that they had it before he baptized them and though some did make confession of their finnes yet you can never prove that all did it or were tyed to it Sure I am I meet with very learned Men who judge thus That their confession of sinnes was not because confession was a necessary medium to all who should receive Baptisme but because heretofore Baptisme had initiated into Judaisme and so to Legall performances and the men who came to be baptized of John were such who had been educated in an opinion of Justification by works of the Law and therefore John in calling for repentance did but clear his Baptisme from misconstruction lest they should think it to be a Baptisme obliging to legall performances as that was of old he would teach them that his Baptism was a Baptisme of repentance and faith in Christ and so doth but rectifie those relyers upon their owne righteousnesse in the right doctrine of Justification which the Gospel now began to teach contrary to their legall conceited righteousnesse and that therefore his calling for repentance and beliefe in him that should come after did more shew the nature of the Gospel to which his Baptisme was the introduction then the nature of the Sacrament of Baptisme it selfe or the method in which it was to be administred and with these accords the interpretation Paul made of Johns baptisme Acts 19. 4. and consequently that the confession required had speciall relation to the condition of the persons who came to be baptized and was not necessary for all more would be required of a heretick for his admission into the bosome of the Church then is requisite to be required of a child But however I thinke it will be hard for you to confute this I shall leave it to the Judicious Readers consideration and not insist upon it but shall readily grant that all Jews and Pagans so boâ—ne and bred were not baptized till they professed their faith and repentance because the Jews were all to come under a new administration and the Gentiles till then were wholly aliens from the Covenant of grace and then their Infants came in in their Parents right But say you This grant that the Iewes who already were in Covenant were to make confession before they were baptized is a sufficient proofe that the administration of Circumcision is not the administration under which we now are and that overthrows all virtuall consequences from Circumcision to Baptisme I reply who ever said that this administration is the same with theirs it is the same Covenant but a new administration And as to that you say This overthrows all virtuall consequences from Circumcision to Baptisme I have so abundantly justified this before that I shall not trouble the Reader with it againe though you repeate this so often that I am ready to thinke you hope your reader will beleeve you in one place if he doe not in the other You adde my saying That their Infants were to come in onely in their parents right doth overthrow my second Argument because that is grounded upon a right which Infants had of their own viz. participation of the grace of the Sacrament I answer belike then if any had pleaded thus for the Jewes Infants That to Infants as well as growne men God communicated the spirituall part of Circumcision therefore they might bee circumcised you would answer that that Argument would overthrow their right from their birth-priviledge I rather should judge it to be a second good Argument for their Circumcision the truth is they are both grounds of Gods owne appointing and the second is a farther manifestation of their right to the Sacrament God not onely giving them a visible standing in his Church because they are the seed of the faithfull but among them who are Infants as well as among growne men doth worke inward grace by his holy Spirit according to his good pleasure Whereas you adde that you cannot yet discerne but that our grounds for Paed baptisme are worse then the Papists and ancients who build it upon the necessitie of baptisme to salvation I must needs tell you your respect to the reformed Churches in this is very small whilâ—t you thinke the Papists ground of damnation of Infants not baptized is not so ill as the Protestants who baptize them because they looke upon them as within the Covenant of grace I will not aggravate this I hope in time you will see it and be sorry for it But you glory much in the advantage you thinke you have got from that which followes in my Sermon the Heathen nations who were to bee 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 Iohn and Christs Disciples and Apostles did teach before they baptized because then no