added hee seemed afterwards to restraine baptizing Infants to the case of necessity You ask of me Doth he seeme onely to restrain it to the case of necessity He gives say you his reason why they should be baptized but withall declares his opinion that others should stay longer but what of all this what follows hence more then this that in his dayes Infants were baptized though his advice was that they should defer it unlesse there were danger of death These are the Greek Authors alledged by me none of which are denyed by you to testifie the practice of the Church in this point in their severall ages onely your exceptions have been all on the by not against the testimonies themselves which yet notwithstanding what you have answered I doubt not will by any judicious Reader bee allowed for cleare proofes of the practice of Paedo-baptisme in the Greek Church After your examination of the former Testimonies you adde 3 Arguments to shew that Infant-Baptisme was not known in the Greek Church First if it had been known among them you wonder why I finde nothing for it in Eusebius Ignatius Clemens Alexandrinus Athanasius and Epiphanius To this I say they spake to the clearing of such questions as were afoot in their times had any question been started when they wrote about Paedo-baptisme no doubt they would have cleared it as Cyprian did and as it was done in the Councell of Neocaesarea It is enough to mee that none of the Authors named by you speake against it can wee say that the Fathers living before the Pelagians troubled the Church denyed the traduction of originall sin because they spake not clearly of it before it was denyed by those cursed Heretiques Nor is it any glory to you that your Error was not ancient enough to be confuted by Eusebius Ignatius Clemens Alexandrinus Athanasius and Epiphanius yet whether any of these named by you spake for Infant-Baptisme shall now bee considered I finde even in some of them which you have named expressions which doth induce mee to beleeve that they were farre from rejecting of Paedo-baptisme I will not search into them all for if any thing were brought out of Ignatius you would tell mee that you did not know Ignatius when you see him as you have done with others named before and I have no time to wrangle You desire to know what Clemens Alexandrinus saith why sure he had none but great Infants to his Scholars if you who pretend to be acquainted familiarly with the secrets of antiquity be acquainted with him you 'll know what I meane He desired as it is likely more Greeke Fathers who were converted from Paganisme did to set forth Religion in such a way as might move other Pagans to come and make confession of the Christian faith that so they might be added to the Church by Baptisme in such a way as was proper to the baptizing of grown men The next whose testimony you misse is Athanasius you desire mee to quote any thing out of him to prove the Greeke Church did admit Infants to Baptisme if that will make you cease wondering I 'll doe it what say you to that passage in Athanasius where hee is shewing how we are buryed with Christ in Baptisme and rise againe hee sayes the dipping of the Infant quite under water thrice and raising of it up again doth signifie the death of Christ and his resurrection upon the third day is not that testimony plaine In his Questions ad Antioch in the second question of that booke it is desired to be known how shall we know that he was truly baptized and received the holy Ghost 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in holy Baptism when he was a Child it seems then it was a custome for Infants to receive Baptisme He sets down an answer to it that is to be known saith he by the motions of the Spirit in his heart afterwards as a Woman knows she hath conceived when she feels the child to stir in her womb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not because his Parents say so If that place doth not plainly and in an Orthodoxall way beare witnesse to Paedo-baptisme I know not what can doe it I could out of the same Booke adde another testimony but you will perhaps tell me the words next following those that I shall cite are questioned But I shall then reply 1. The words that follow may bee erroneous and yet written by Athanasius 2. The words which I shall cite may be the words of Athanasius and the words which follow none of his but added by some other 3. How doe you prove that Tertullian or Greg. Nazianzen wrote those words which you cite out of them 4. You can more then once make this a plea for your selfe that your allegations may gaine a favourable construction That your proofes taken out of Antiquity doe â—s strongly prove the point in hand as proofes are usually taken in such matters I doubt not but all impartiall Readers will vouchsafe me the same favourable graines of allowance and then this testimony also of Athanasius may passe for currant These words then which are safe sound grounded upon the same Scripture which I have much insisted on are read in the works of Athanasius where the question is about Infants dying requiring a resolution that might clearly set forth whether they goe to be punished or to the Kingdom The answer is Seeing the Lord said Suffer little children to come unto me for of such is the Kingdom of Heaven And the Apostle sayes Now your children are holy observe that Gospel ground the same that I build upon it is manifest that the Infants of beleevers which are baptized doe as unspotted and faithfull enter into the Kingdome This assertion is owned by all the Reformed Churches Epiphanius you say sayes nothing of it in a place which you cite and are you sure he sayes nothing any where else admit he doth not forme a Syllogisme and see how your argument will run c. but I desire you at your leasure to cast your eye upon that expression of Epiphanius which doth induce mee to beleeve that hee did not reject Paedo-baptisme where hee tells us That Circumcision had its time untill the great Circumcision came that is the washing of the new birth as is manifest to every one What 's the washing of Regeneration but Baptisme which he would scarcely have called Circumcision if hee had rejected Infant-Baptisme and denyed that the children of beleevers who are hopefully capable of Circumcision made without hands may lawfully partake of this great Circumcision and addes That this was notoriously knowne to all surely then none denyed it in his time Secondly you reason from the continuance of the Questions put to persons when they were to be baptized and answered by them which I think because we must conceive children were not able to returne an answer to them thereby you would
children of Women as come out from among Infidells being then converted when they are with childe for Balsamon sayes Such Women as were with childe and come from the Church or company of unbeleevers and what is this to our Question which is about children born in the Church of beleeving Parents Secondly Balsamon distinguishes of children some are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yet in the wombe and not brought forth into the world others are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 young but borne into the world for the first of these he sayes no man can undertake he meanes in Baptisme but as for children that are borne 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they affirme by such as undertake for them and they being actually Baptized are accounted worthy of divine illumination your inference by Balsamons testimony is directly contrary to Balsamons words for hee rotundis verbis affirmeth that children born do in Baptisme answer by such as undertake for them which words are mentioned neither by Grotius nor your selfe herein you wrong the truth and labour to deceive the Reader in the beginning you charged me with overlashing which yet was your haste and not my errour but here I may safely put you in mind of docking or Curtalling the Author cited by you Lastly in this Paragraph you tell us that Grotius addes that many of the Greeks in every age unto this day doe keepe the custome of deferring the Baptisme of little ones till they could themselves make confession of their saith you bragge much of the Greeke Church but I will not deale with the Greeke Churches as you deale with the Fathers I will not put the Latine Church Augustine and those Fathers and Councells which accord with him in one scale and the Greeke Church in the other such comparisons are odious But this I can and must say that when you have searched into the Greek Church to the utmost that you and all the Anabaptists in England cannot prove that the Greeke Church did for many hundred yeers reject the Baptisme of Infants which is the assertion which I said might well put the Anabaptists to the blush and now I adde your self also for justifying them in so saying To returne to Grotius his Annotations who sayes that many of the Greeks c. What some of the Greeks may doe at this day I know not but against his testimony of the Greeks in every age I will produce some testimonies gathered by a learned Grecian to whom the customes of the Greek Church were better knowne then to Grotius or the Anabaptists who relye on Grotius his relation whereby it is evident that baptizing Infants was held eeven necessary to be observed in the Greek Church Photius that learned Grecian gathering together the Greek Councells and laws for ordering of Church affaires and reconciling them one with another hath many things for Infant-Baptisme as first hee brings in an Imperiall Constitution wherein it was provided that all baptized Samaritans and Grecians should be punished who brought not their wives and children in their families to holy baptisme Here was a Law which required Grecians that were baptized to procure baptisme for their children otherwise they should be punished Again Tit. 4. ca. â— he brings forth another Imperiall Constitution concerning Samaritans such among them as are of age must not rashly bee baptized but requires they should bee trained up in good Doctrine and then admitted to Baptisme but their children though they know not the Doctrine are to bee baptized So for Grecians it 's required that all their little ones without delay be baptized Conc. in Trullo Can. 84. Whereupon it was appointed in that Councell when there were no sure Witnesses to be produced who were able to testifie little Children whose baptisme was doubted of were baptized neither for their tender age could testifie it themselves without any offence such should be baptized Balsamon in his glosse upon that Canon relates a story how Children comming from a Christian Countrey were taken by the Scythians and Agarens and bought by the Romans the question was whether the Children should bee baptized or no though some pleaded they came from a Countrey where Christians dwelt and therefore it is to be presumed that they were baptized 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in their Infancy Some pleaded it was the care of their Mothers to procure baptisme to them and others pleaded other Arguments for their Baptisme yet if they could produce no witnesse to make it good they were to bee baptized All which clearely testifies that Infant baptisme was then generally in use among Christians seeing they were so carefull to have it testified that they were baptized and did presume where Christians dwelt it was in use Now see what from these testimonies may bee held out for Paedo-baptisme among the Greeks if such among them as brought not their Children to Baptisme were punished if Imperiall Laws as well as Synodicall Canons required Infant-baptisme which they held so fit that if there were any Children of whose Baptisme it was doubted they required they should be baptized may not I from all this wonder why Grotius or you from him do affirme That in every age they deferr'd the baptisme of their children till they could make themselves a confession of their faith Whereas the former Constitutions about Infants Baptisme testifie that among them in those ages it was held an undoubted truth I might also adde to these one of the eight Canons concluded in Carthage against the Pelaegians wherein was affirmed That whosoever denyed Baptisme for the remission of sinne to a new borne Infant c. should be anathematized All which being duely weighed it will easily appeare Whether the Anabaptists need to blush in saying that the Ancients especially the Greeke Church rejected the Baptisme of Infants for many hundred yeares Let the severall testimonies of the Ancients in the Greeke Church alledged by mee speake whether the Greeks rejected that ordinance or no And so wee passe from the Greek Church here though afterwards you give me occasion to search further into the Grecians Come we now to examine whether the Writers of the Latine Church will be more propitions to you in opposing Paedo-baptisme then the Greeks have been here Cyprian is the first that comes under your Examen and calculating his age you tell us Vsher places him in anno 240 Perkins 250 I might tell you that others take notice of him in other yeares as Trithemius 249 Henr. Ocâ—us 245 so hard a thing it is to set down precâ—sely the particular year yet all as I said before agree in the Century in which he lived You acknowledge with me that he was one of the anciencest Writers among the Latine Fathers onely Tertullian you say was before him and who denies that here upon your Semi-Socinian Grotius his credit you say That nothing was determined in Tertull. his time concerning the age in which children were consecrated by their Parents to Christian Discipline
made thee an Orphan and mee a widow and this fell out when Chrysostome 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was young and could not speake as shee sayes there shee puts him in minde of her care of his education and of the charge she had been at to improve it but not a word of his Religion I confesse it appeares from Chrysostome that about the 20 yeare of his age his mother was a Christian but whether his Father or his mother was so at his birth it appeares not His education in his younger time was under Libanius who was an enemy to Christianity and a scoffer at it untill he was about 20 years of age then changing his former studies habit and profession he came to Meletius by whom being instructed in divine knowledge within 3 yeares afterwards he was baptized of him After his mothers death he betook himselfe to a Monasticall life in which time hee was much furthered in his holy studies by Carterius and Diodorus to whom he often repaired These things considered which Chrysostome his own words make out you can hardly perswade your Reader that there is any strength in what you bring forth from his example to plead against Paedo-baptisme for you neither prove his Parents were Christians at his birth neither was he educated under Meetius yet both these you have affirmed but without ground of evidence To all the forenamed instances you adde somewhat more out of Grotius which before I doe examine I have something to say to you concerning Grotius whom I see you follow in severall passages of your Examen I cannot but wonder why you who pretend to bee familiarly acquainted with the secrets of Antiquity should have so much correspondency with them who are not likely to help you with any certain intelligence Hugo Grotius is the strongest stake to support your tottering hedge and sure I am Grotius was a friend to the Socinians and it is well known what they thinke of Baptisme I have learned from Reverend Doctor Rivet that Grotius was perverted by Cardinall Peron who pleaded the cause of the Anabaptists in his answer to King James Quae tum protulerat congessit saith Doctor Rivet of the Cardinall in suam responsionem ad Regem M. Britan. Anabaptistarum causam egit quantum potuit strenue Video eum satisfecisse D. Grotio qui in talibus satis est liberalis Doctor Rivet told Grotius that learned Vossius had set forth 8 Arguments in Print to prove the lawfull use of Infant-Baptisme and desired him to answer them first and then Doctor Rivet promised to vindicate Vossius but Grotius made a poor excuse in his Votum pro pace Ecclesiastica and returned no answer at all Grotius that hee might comply with the Papists grants that Infant-baptisme ought to be received upon the authority of the Church of Rome and to please the Socinians also for it seemes hee intended to gratifie both he puts forth this question An Christus ab Joanne baptizatus suit in nomen Patris Filii S. sancti If any man desire a full character of Grotius let him read his Piety such as it is in that subtle peece entituled Hugonis Grotii Pietas or his Annotations upon Cassander and his defence of those Annotations and his Votum pro Pace and he will acknowledge that Grotius was no fit man to bee trusted nor likely to deliver the true sense of the Ancients in this or any other point I will not stand to tell you what Laurentius and Maresius say of him but sure they prove enough against him and therefore I will put an end to this discourse with that censure which learned Rivet hath passed upon Grotius in Grotius own words Judicat prout amat aut odit amat odit prout libet In his verbis exactissime descripsit ingenium suum saith D. Rivet Apologet. pro vera pace Eccles Sir I shall desire you may have a more sure friend to relye upon then Grotius how far he hath deceived you and you following him hath wronged the truth and both of you your Reader I will now God willing open You say Grotius in Annot in Matth. 19. 14. addes That the Canon of the Synod of Neocaesare a determines That a Woman with Childe might bee baptized because the baptisme reached not to the fruit of her wombe because in the confession made in Baptisme each one 's own free election is shewed from which Caâ—on you say Balsamon and Zonaras doe inferre That an Infant cannot be baptized beâ—ause it hath no power to choose the confession of divine Baptisme Your inference from the Canon gives me just occasion to thinke that you never read Balsamon whom you name for if you had you would not assert what you doe That this may appeare I will set downe the words of the Canon the occasion of it and what the Glossator mentioned by you sayes of the same The words of the Canon are these Of her that is with Child that shee may bee baptized when shee will for shee that bringeth forth in this doth not communicate with the birth that is brought forth because every one manifests his own free choice in confession The occasion of this Canon was this as both your Glossators observe it was propounded to the Fathers in that Councell to know whether a Woman when shee is with child might be baptized or no some opposed it because as they thought in her Baptisme the childe in her wombe was also baptized and this they held could not bee because there is required of him that would professe himselfe a follower of Christ as Zonaras expounds the last words of the Canon a free election or as Balsamon hath it there is required of every one in Baptisme his own promise which an Infant in its mothers wombe cannot doe at length it is determined in the Canon the woman in that condition might bee baptized when shee would c. from whence your friend Grotius infers That the childe useth not to bee baptized but of its owne proper will and profession and to back this assertion hee addes some words from Balsamon and Zonaras as if Balsamon had denyed that any were to be baptized but such as were able of themselves to make confession of their faith in Christ To vindicate the truth here from Grotius false inference and yours also in concurring with him therein I desire the Reader to take into his consideration these two things 1. Of what kinde of Women the Canon speakes of 2. What the Glossator mentioned by you speakes in the same glosse of Infants baptized in their Infancy The first will let us see that what you would infer from the Canon is nothing to the question before us The second will let all men see that you deale not fairely with your Reader Remember our Question is Whether Infants of beleevers are to bee baptized with Christs Baptisme c. but this Canon speakes of
my owne part Pace tanti viri I humbly conceive the Prophet intended not a legitimate seed onely as Mr. Calvin would have it but to shew what was Gods chiefe end in the institution of marriage viz. The continuance of a seed of God wherein the Church is to be propagated to the end of the world now according to your interpretation of holinesse for chastity the Apostles Argument must run thus If your marriage were not lawfull your children would be bastards but now they are chast which sense were too ridiculous which to avoid you are compelled in stead of chaste to say legitimate without any example of such a use of the word holy Lastly yet one Argument more I propound your sense makes the Apostles Argument wholly inconsequent if the unbeleeving party were not sanctified by the beleever viz. matrimonially then were your children unclean that is in your sense Bastards which follows not for if they were both unbeleevers yet their children were not bastards and if they were both chast yet being Infidells their children were uncleane id est Infidells and Pagans so that to close this I retort your owne words page the 75. That let this be granted that it is meant of matrimoniall sanctification â—â— of necessitie it must then the uncleanenesse must bee meant of Bastardy and holinesse of Legitimation but I say é centra let this bee granted as of necessitie it must that it is not meant of matrimoniall sanctification or lawfulnesse of wedlock then uncleannesse must not bee meant of Bastardy nor holinesse of Legitimation but of some other holinesse which what it is is next to be enquired Having thus plainely overthrowne your interpretation it remaines that I make good my interpretation against your exceptions I said their doubt seemes to arise from the Law of God which was in force in Ezraes time where Gods people were ordered to put away their Infidell wives and children as a polluted seed which God would not have mingled with his owne you answer first You see very little agreement betweene this case and that and that the cases are very farre different of two persons not under the Law marrying in unbeleefe and of two persons under the Law the one a Iew by profession the other a stranger secondly and that none of the phrases except the word holy are used in the one place which are not used in the other thirdly you rather thinke their doubt arose from a former Epistle which hee had wrote to them mentioned 1 Cor. 5. 9. wherein he commanded them not to keep company with fornicators or Idolaters thereupon they might doubt whether they should continue with their unbeleeving yoke fellowes I reply first that the cases were the very same when their scruple arose for though they were both unbeleevers when they were married and at that time neither of them both belonged to the Church of God yet when one of them was converted and the other remained an Infidell one of them was now become a Church-member the other remained an alien their case was the very same and they finding their condition parallell with that in Ezra might very well apply that case to themselves and make this their doubt Secondly although the phrases used in Ezra differ from those used here that makes nothing against this collection because phrases are used according to the different administrations each speaking according to the received dialect belonging to the administration they lived under Thirdly and as to that you say that it might arise from 1 Cor. 5. 9. I answer should that be granted yet my sense remaines as strong as before for if this scruple now rose that if beleevers because of the unbeleefe or Infidell condition of the husband or wife might not by the rule of the Gospel continue in marriage societie with them it must bee from some rule of Religion which must strike upon their conscience and from what rule could they gather that their marriage which before was lawfull was upon their conversion turned into fornication and if their doubt were as your selfe grant whether it were lawfull for a converted party or a beleever still to retaine their Infidell wife or husband not of unbeleevers whether they bee sanctifyed matrimonially one to another the doubt must necessarily arise from something in Religion some case which was peculiar to beleevers now as Mr. Beza saies truely the doubt being in their consciences of an unlawfulnesse to continue in their married condition from some thing peculiar to Gods people the Apostle should have used a most indirect argument to pacifie their consciences in referring them to the civill Lawes of other nations by which their marriage is proved lawfull and to what purpose should hee discourse of Bastards or the like when their consciences were scrupled in something which begun to concerne them upon their conversion and to tell them they were sanctified in their unbeleefe could never have reacht the scruple arising after they begun to bee beleevers because their marriage might be firme and good while they remained unbeleevers yet the Infidell might now become impure in that relation of marriage to the other which was converted And therefore it remaines that it must bee resolved from some rule which must reach beleevers as they were the people of God and not bee common to Infidels with them now what is that Argument which Paul here uses to satisfie them which must reach them as they were beleevers your selfe grant it is this else were your children uncleane which is the medium because your children are not uncleane but holy therefore the unbeleever must bee granted to bee sanctified to the wife or husband this Argument must therefore necessarily inferre some kind of holinesse which is appliable onely to the State of Religion therefore it must be federall holinesse But against this you except many things First this could not have resolved the doubt in the case of those who by Age could not bee sanctified to this end or by reason of accidendall inabilitie for generation they might still depart each from other notwithstanding this reason I answer it followes not this is a laying downe of their right which they may claime when ever they are capable of it this is their priviledge which remaines firme though it should never come into Act as if a freeman of a Citie should have right to have all his children borne freemen that is to bee numbred among his priviledges though hee should never have a child this reaches to men and women married and unmarried yea even to children yet unborne besides the first part of it reacheth to the bed even the coitus is not onely undefiled but sanctified Secondly say you this reason would then run thus you may live together for you may bâ—get a holy seed and so their consciences should have been resolved of their present lawfull living together from a future event which was uncertaine and here as I toucht
all the degrees of forbidden marriage in Moses Lawes stand firme The like say you against Pâ—lygamy there is proofe against it Matth. 19. 5. 9. But is this an expresse prohibition of it must you not bee compelled to goe by a consequence to bring it in which is all I contend for For that of the Sabbath you referre your Reader to Sect. 8. Part 2. whither I also most willingly send him and leave it to his impartiall judgement whether the advantage lie not clearely on my side I added there is no expresse command for children of Beleevers when they are growne that they should be instructed and baptized no expresse command or example where women received the Lords Supper good consequence I acknowledge there is but no syllabicall or expresse mention of it but say you there is expresse mention of womens receiving the Sacrament Let a man examine himselfe 1 Cor. 11. 8. where the Greeke word comprehends both sexes but doth that Greeke word where ever it is used signifie both sexes you will not offer to say it I deliver to you what I received from the Lord Vers 23. that say you is a command to the whole Church which consisted of women as well as men c. But Sir if any man were disposed to wrangle with you might hee not in your owne words doe it and say all these expressions must be limited pro subject a materia I grant all this is good by consequence but not in expresse termes the same say I for Infants you grant all disciples may bee baptized for that you say there is an expresse command your selfe also grant that regenerate Infants may be called disciples I grant this a good Argument by consequence that such Infants may bee baptized and if I have proved or can prove that Infants of beleevers by their birth priviledge have a right to bee esteemed visible Disciples then by your owne gâ—ant by a good consequence they also may bee baptized and I undertake to justifie that Infants of beleevers are visible Disciples as truely as regenerate Infants are invisible disciples I adde further they who are visible Covenanters are to receive the visible signe Ergo Infants who have been at large proved to bee visible Covenanters are to receive Baptism which is the visible signe of it these things are fully cleared already it is apparent there is as cleare a command for Baptisme to be the initiall seale under this administration as ever there was for Circumcision under that administration and as good evidence that our children are to be reckoned to the Covenant as there was for theirs and no exception in the word put in against them Is not here then good consequence that therefore they are to have the Seale administred to them suppose when Paul said let a man examine himselfe and so let him eatâ— that there had been no women there then amongst them would not this command by consequence have reached women as well as men if this qualification was found in them that they could have examined themselves must the command necessarily expresse all sexes ages or conditions or else not reach them these things I mention as consequences parallell to these which your selfe infist upon I added wee by good consequence have sufficient command and example for Infantâ— Baptisme to which you answer I should have said jeere I fetch such a compasse that you imagine my attempt will prove but a Mouse from the Mâ—untaines travell I perceive you know not how you should possesse your Reader with prejudice if you should not now and then interline a confident scoffe but let 's try the particulars my first was Abraham who received the Covenant had a command to seale his children with the initiall seale because his children were in Covenant with him Now because what concerned the substance of the Covenant is alwayes the same and what concerned them then who were in Covenant as they were Covenanters the same concernes us equally with them as we are Covenanters what concerned them in reference onely to their administration was peculiar to themselves as that which concernes the manner of our administration is peculiar to us it thence follows that the same command which was laid upon them in their administration in all those things which properly related to the substance or spirituall thing intended in that administration by a just analogie and proportion binds us as well as them I said this our Divines maintaine against the Papists that Gods commands and institutions about the Sacraments of the Jewes bind us as much as they did them in all things which belong to the substance of the Covenant and were not accidentall to them my meaning being plainly this that all Gods Commands and Institutions about the Sacraments of the Jewes as touching their generall nature of being Sacraments and seales of the Covenant and as touching their use and end doe bind us in our Sacraments because in these they are the same To speake yet more plainely if I can there are in the Sacraments these two things to bee distinguished the generall nature end and use of a Sacrament to seale the Covenant of God by some sensible signe and secondly the manner of administration of these signes as they referre to Christ to be exhibited or to Christ already exhibited The first concernes rem ipsam the thing it self which I called in my Sermon the Substance the other which concernes the peculiar way or manner of doing it in reference to Christ not yet come or to Christ already come that in my Sermon I called Accidentall now when I say that Gods commands about their Sacraments bind us my meaning never was to assert that the rituall part of their Sacraments doe remaine in the least particle or that we are tied to practise any of those things but onely that there is a generall and analogicall nature wherein the Sacraments of the Old and New Testament doe agree and that in these things our Divines doe argue from their Sacraments to our Sacraments thus Chamier Catholici docent convenire Sacramenta vetera cum novis omnibus iis capitibus quae sunt de Sacramenti natura Protestants doe teach that the Sacraments of the Old Testament doe agree with the Sacraments of the New in all things which concerne the nature of a Sacrament and yet saith he our very senses teach us that the externall rites of their Sacraments doe differ from ours So Amesius quaecunque de Circumcisione dicuntur spectant ad Sacramentalem ejuâ— naturam quam habet in communi cum reliquis Sacramentis illarecte applicantur ad omnia Sacramenta and addes immediatly ratio signandiest talis in circumcisione and you know multitudes of our Divines speake to the same purpose their Sacraments were Seales of the Covenants so are ours their Sacraments had a Divine institution so have ours their Sacraments were not empty Sacraments no more are ours the grace accompanying their Sacraments was not included
them if we knew in what Infants the Lord did so worke wee might baptize those Infants but that we cannot know by any ordinary way of knowledge therefore we may not baptize any of them but wait to see when and in whom God will worke the thing signified and then apply the signe to them You answer this is granted that if by revelation it could bee knowne such as have this inward grace might be baptized and that those who are thus intituled are not through want of an institution to be excluded To my understanding this over throws all which you have hitherto contended for for then if wee can prove that Infants are such as to whom this Sacrament belongs by your owne grant they are not to be excluded for want of an institution now I have proved that Infants of beleevers are such as to whom the Sacrament doth belong yea and your selfe grant that true faith is not a needfull pre-requisite to the administration of Baptisme Besides I desire before I leavâ— this passage to know of you how you will reconcile this with that which you spake pag. 162. That there is a plaine Text requiring confession before Baptisme though not before Circumcision I hope you doe not think a regenerate babâ— can make a confession of its faith surely these two things doe much differ Gods inward revealing that he hath sanctified a child and the childs own profession or confession God revealed that Saul was hid behind the stuffe but this was not Sauls owne confession God revealed to the Prophet Ahijah that the disguised woman was Jeroboams wife but that was not her owne confession My answer to this objection was That our knowledge that God hath effectually wrought the thing signified is not the condition upon which we are to apply the seale he never required that we should know that they are certainly converted whom we admit to Baptisme we are indeed to know that they have in them the condition which must warrant us to administer the signe not that which makes them possessed of the thing signified fallible conjectures are not to be our rule in admistring Sacraments either to Infants or growne men but a knowne rule of the Word out of which we must be able to make up such a judgement that our administration may be of faith as well as out of charity To all this you assent and consâ—quently that there is nothing needfull according to the Word but a visible right and then what is become of all your pleading That because we cannot know that all infants of beleevers have the inward grace we may not therefore baptize them this hold you have now quitted and when once you have proved that they have not a visible right to bee reckoned and accounted to belong to the visible Church I promise you to quit all mine Whereas I added That I doubted whether in case Peter or Paul could by the Spirit of revelation have known that Ananias or Alexander would have proved no better then hypocrites whâ—ther they either would or ought to have refused them from baptisme whiles they made that publick profession upon which others were admitted who in the event proved no better then those were You think they would and ought because the end of such an extraordinary revelation would be to warn them not to admit such persons I answer the cause depends not upon it whether your conjecture or mine be rightest in this particular and I confesse should such an extraordinary revelation be made purposely to warne them not to admit such persons that would be equivalent to a prohibition but might not such a thing be revealed for other ends Christ knew that Judas would prove a devill yet he admitted him not onely to baptisme but Apostleship and since your selfe doe grant that we have a warrant de fide out of faith and not out of charity onely to admit men into visible communion by baptisme upon an externall confession onely I cannot understand why my private knowledge upon a particular revelation of a mans inward condition should be a sufficient barre against proceeding according to the ordinary rule if I were infallibly assured that some glorious professor were no better then an hypocrite were that sufficient warrant to deny the Sacrament of the Lords Supper to him so long as his life was unblamable before the Church Lastly I added That in this the rule to direct our knowledge is as plaine for Infants as for growne men the rule having beene alwayes this that grown men who were strangers from the Covenant of God Pagans or Heathens should upon their being instructed and upon profession of their faith and promise to walke according to the rule of the Gospel bee received and added to the Church and made partakers of the Sacrament of admission and their Infants to come in with them both sorts upon their admission to be charitably hoped of untill they give signes to the contrary charity being bound from thinking evill of them not bound to concludâ— certainly of any of them Your onely exception against this is wondering that I dare say the rule to direct our knowledge is as plaine for Infants as for growne men I answer truly Sir by as plaine I intended onely the truth of the rule that it may be as truly known as the other though possibly not so clâ—arely I deny not but I had spoken more fitly in saying the rule is plaine for Infants as well as for growne men and that I have proved abundantly My fourth Objection was That all who enter into Covenant must stipulate for their parts as well as God doth for his they must indent with God to performe the beleevers part of the Covevenant as well as God doth to performe his part My answer was The Infants of Jews were as much tyed as the Infants of beleevers under the Gospel every one who was circumcisâ—d was bound to keep the Law yet they knew not what it meant nor could have the same use of it with their Parents and others of discretion You own not this Objection nor say any thing against my answer onely you except That through my whole booke I suppose there is the same reason of the mixt Covenant made with Abraham and that it is the same with the pure Covenant of the Gospel and of every beleever as of Abraham and of Baptisms as of Circumcision I doe so and have justified these thing to bee true against your exceptions You adde also God commanded the one but no where commanded the other which whether he have or no by good consequence I leave the Reader to judge by what is already spoken I added in my Sermon God seales to them presently i. e. conditionally as I have before shewed and when they come to years of discretion they stand obliged to the performance of it in their owne persons in the meane time Jesus Christ who is the surety of the Covenant and the surety of all the