of grace and to be elect and to persevere in grace are meant of the same persons according to the Apostles doctrine Rom. 9.7 8. c. and the common doctrine of the Contra-Remonstrants And on the contrary Bertius in his book de Apostasia sanctorum pag. 79. among other absurdities which he reckons as consequent on their opinion that deny Apostasie of Saints puts this as the seventh Baptismum non obsignare certo in omnibus liberis fidelium gratiam Dei quum inter illos quidam sint etiam antecedente decreto Dei ab aeterno absolute reprobati ac proinde dubitandum esse fidelibus de veritate foederis divini Ego sum Deus tuus seminis tui post te And when this was urged by the Author of the Synod of Doâ—t and Arles reduced to the practise Part. 3. Sect. 6. in these words For to every person whom they baptize they apply the promises of the Covenant of grace clean contrary to their own doctrine which saith that they nothing belong to the Reprobates of the world Dr. Twisse answers that however in the judgement of charity they take all Infants brought to be baptized to be elect yet the promises of the Covenant of grace do indeed belong only to the Elâ—ct which he proves at large by shewing that there are promises of the Covenant of grace as of regeneration circumcising the heart writing the Law in their hearts Jer. 31.33 which must needs be absolute For no condition can be assigned of performing these promises but that it will follow That grace is given to wit the grace of faith according to mens workes which is plaine Pelagianisme Whence he concludes Now then who are they on whom God should bestow faith and regeneration but Gods Elect And accordingly Baptisme as it is a Seale and assurance of performing this promise of Justification and salvation unto them that believe so it is a seale and assurance of the promise of circumcising the heart and regeneration only to Gods Elect. And after pag. 192. VVe are ready to maintaine that all who are under the covenant of grace are such as over whom sin shall not have the dominion Rom. 6.14 Besides he that shall heare you preach that the children of believers are in the Covenant of grace and that they that are in the Covenant of grace cannot fall away may be apt to conceive himselfe within the Covenant of grace without repentance and faith and that he shall be saved without obedience and so lay a ground-work for Antinomianisme and consequently Libertinisme And may not on the other side believing Parents when they see their children vicious and ungodly doubt whether they themselves be true believers because they see not their châ—ldren in the Covenant of grace and so while you think to comfort parents about their children you may create great discomfort concerning themselves Lastly if this were true that the Covenant of grace is a birth-right priviledge then the children of believers are children of grace by nature for that which is a birth-right priviledge is a priviledge by nature and if as Mr. Blakâ— saith pag. 6. of his book Christianity is hereditary that as the childe of a Noble man is Noble the childe of a freeman is free the childe of a Turke is a Turke of a Jew a Iew the childe of a Christian is a Christian then Christians are born Christians not made Christians and how are they then children of wrath by nature which whether they may not advantage Pelagians and denyers of Originall sin it concernes those that use such speeches to consider But the Author of the writing entituled Infants baptizing proved lawfull by Scripture mentions other promises besides that Gen. 17.7 to wit Deu. 28.4 Deut. 30.2.6 Isa. 44.3 Isa. 59.21 Exod. 20.6 Psal. 112.2 and such like To all which the answer is plaine if men would conceive it 1. That according to the Apostles own determination Ro. 9 7 8. these promises as they contain such things as accompany salvation must be restrained to the Elect whose children soever they be by naturall generation and this is agreeable to our Saviours applying the promise Isa. 54.13 to them that are given of his Father Iohn 6.45 And thus are we to understand Deut. 30.6 Isa. 44.3 2. That the text Isa. 59.21 is plainly applied to the time of the calling of the Jews Rom. 11.27 and therefore cannot be applied rightly to the posterity of any believers at any time indefinitely 3. Thâ—t the promises Deut. 28.4 Psal. 112.2 are expresly meant of outward blessings and therefore cannot prove a covenant of grace in Christ. 4. That Exod. 20.6 doth plainly include a condition of obedience and it is expresly mentioned Psal. 103.17 18. as included in other promises of like kind which condition God doth not undertake for any children of a believer but the elect nor is Christ surety for any but the elect and therefore till it can be proved that the Election of grace belongs to the children of believers it cannot be proved that the Covenant of grace belongs to them by vertue of these promises I Now return to your Sermon You tell us thus As it is in other kingdomes corporations and families the children of all subjects born in a kingdom are born that Princes subjects where the father is a free-man the childe is not born a slave where any are bought to be servants their children born in their masters house are born his servants Thus it is by the Lawes of almost all nations and thus hath the Lord ordained it shall be in his kingdome and family the children follow the Covenant-condition of their parents if he take a father into his covenant he takes the children in with him if he reject the parents out of the covenant the children are east out with them This passage I might have passed over as containing nothing but dictates Yet I think it necessary to observe 1. That you do very carnally imagine the Church of God to be like Civill corporations as if persons were admitted to it by birth whereas in this all is done by free election of grace and according to Gods appointment nor is God tied or doth tie himself in the erecting and propagating his Church to any such carnall respects as descent from men Christianity is no mans birth-right The Apostle knew not that God had so by promise or other ingagement bound himself but he was free as he said to Moses after the promise made to Abraham to have mercy on whom he would Rom. 9.15 Yea to conceive that it is in Gods Church as in other Kingdomes and after the laws of Nations is a seminary of dangerous superstitions and errors Dr. Rainolds in his Conference with Hart hath shewed that hence arose the frame of government by Pâ—triarchs Metropolitans c. And is not this the very reason of Invocation of Saints that I mention not more of the like kind 2. When you say if he take a
Believers are to be baptized with Christs baptisme by the lawfull Minister according to ordinary rule I deny it That which you say for the practise of baptizing infants may be reduced 1. To the testimonies of Antiquity 2. To the novelties and miscarriages of the opposers of it 3. To the arguments produced for it 4. To the answering objections against it I shall by Gods assistence examine each of these First you affirm That the Christian Church hath been in possession of it for the space of fifteen hundred years and upwards as is manifest out of most of the Records that weâ— have of Antiquity both in the Greek and Latine Churches To this I answer that if it were true yet it is not so much as may be said for Episcopacy keeping of Easter the religious use of the Crosse c. which I conceive you reject 2. That the highest testimonies you produce come not so high 3. Those that be alleaged being judiciously weighed will rather make against the present doctrine and practise then for it 4. There are many evidences that do as strongly prove as proofes usually are taken in such matters Quod ab initio non fuit sic That from the beginning it was not so and therefore it is but an innovation The first of these I presume you will acknowledge that for Antiquity not-Apostolicall there are plain testimonies of Episcopacy keeping of Easter the religious use of the Crosse being in use before any of the testimonies you or any other can produce for baptizing of infants and therefore I will forbear mentioning proofes so obvious to Schollars The second and third thing I shall make good in the weighing of the Testimonies you produce and the fourth in the close YOur Testimonies are either of the Greek or Latine Churches Of the Greekes you alleage foure The first is Justine Martyr of whom you say That he lived Anno 150. which wants somewhat of 1500. years and therefore you did somewhat overlash in saying that it is manifest out of most of the Records of the Greeke and Latine Church The Church hath been in possession of the priviledge of baptizing Infants 1500. years and upwards and then you say In a Treatise that goes under his name By which it is manifest that you know that it was questioned whether it was his or no and I conceive you could not be ignorant that it is not only questioned but also proved by Perkins in his preparative to the demonstration of the Probleme by Rivet in his Critieus sacer by Robert Cooke of Leeds if my memory faile me not to which I am inforced to trust in many things being spoiled of my bookes in his Censure and confessed by Papists to be none of Justine Martyrs but to bee written a great while after his dayes for as much as it mentions not only Irenaeus but also Origen and the Manichees Now what doth this bastard Treatise say You say Question 56. Justine Martyr disputes the different condition of those children who die baptized and of those children who die unbaptized The question propounded is If Infants dying have neither praise nor blame by works what is the difference in the resurrection of those that have been baptized by others and have done nothing and of those that have not been baptizâ—d and in like manner have done nothing The Answer is this is the difference of the baptized from the not baptiâ—â—d that the baptized obtaine good things meaning at the Resurrection by baptisme but the unbaptized obtain not good things And theâ— are accounted worthy of the good things they have by their baptisâ—â— by the faith of those that bring them to baptisme You may by thâ—â— testimony see what ever Age the book was made in what the reason of baptizing of Infants was Not the supposed Covenant of grace made to believers and their seed which you make the ground of baptizing of infants but the opinion that the not baptized should not obtain good things at the resurrection meaning the Kingdome of God mentioned Joh. 3.5 but the baptized should and that by reason of the faith of the bringers what ever the Parents were and therefore they baptized the children of unbâ—lievers as well as believers if they were brought YOur next Greek Author is Irenaeus who was indeed a Greeke and wrote in Greek but now only we have his works in Latine except some few fragments for which reason we are not so certain of his meaning as we might be if we had his own words in the language in which he wrote You say he lived in the same Century and it is acknowledged he lived in the same Century with Justine Martyr but not with the Author of the Questions Answers ad Orthodoxâ—s who as hath been said lived in some Age after Irenaeus is by Vsher placed at the yeare 180. by Osiander at the yeare 183. so that though he were of that Century yet he flourished in the latter part of it and so reacheth not to your 1500. years upwards Of him you say that l. 2. c. 39. he saith Christus venit per seipsuÌ„ omnes salvare omnes inquaÌ„ qui per eum renascuntur in DeuÌ„ infantes parvuloâ— pueros c. Now it is well knowne say the Glossers upon that text renascentiâ— nomine Dominica Apostolica Phrasi Baptismum intelligi You might have added what follows Aperte confirmans Apostolorum traditionem de baptismo infantium parvulorum adversus Anabaptisticam impietatem But I pray you whose Glosse was this Was it any other then Fevardentius if I mistake not of whom Rivet Crit. Sacr. lib. 2 cap. 6. Juniores tantum qui in opera Irenaei incident monitos volo ut caveant ab illis Editionibus quas impudentissimus ille Monarchus Fevardentius homo projecta audacia et nullius fidei foede in multis corrupit annotationibus impiiâ— et mendacibus conspuâ—cavit And for the glosse its false for no where doth our Lord or the Apostles call baptisme Now birth although our Lord speake of being borne againe of water Ioh. 3.5 and Paul of the washing of regeneration Tit. 3.5 and for the words themselves without the glosse all the strength lyes in this that the word Renascuntur is used for Baptisme by the Ancients which yet possibly was not the word Irenaeus used in his owne writing and how the Latine translation alters the meaning of Irenaeus you may see somewhat in Rivet Vossius Thesibus Theologic de Padebapt Thesi. 7. intimates that the proper acception is of sanctification and that the word may be so taken yea and that it is not meant of Baptisme the words and the whole scope of Irenaeus in that place shew For the scope of Irenaeus in that chapter is to refute the Gnosticks who sayd that Christ did not exceede one and thirty yeeres of age against whom Irenaeus alleageth that Christ lived in every age of infancy youth old age that by his age example
Italy and all Europe and it seemes he denyed not the baptizing of growne persons in Asia still whence I collect that even in the Latine Church after Augustines dayes in sundry ages the baptizing of persons of growne age did continue as well as baptizing of infants till the great darknes that over-spred the Wâ—sterne Churches spoiled by Barbarâ—us Nations destitute of learned men and â—uled by ambitious and unlearnâ—d Popes when there were none to Catechizâ— and therefore they baptized whole Countries upon the baptisme of the King of that Country though both Prince and people knew little or nothing of Christianity but were in respect of manners and knowledge Pagans still which hath beene the great cause of the upholding of Papacie and corrupting of Christian Churches I mean this great corruption of baptizing making Christians giving Christendome as it is called afore ever persons were taught what Christianity was or if they were taught any thing it was only the ceremonies and rites of the Church as they called them 2. You may conceive how light Augustine's juâ—gement was by considering the ground upon which Augustine held and urged the baptisme of Infants so vehemently which was as all know that read his works the opinion he had that without baptisme Infants must be damned by reason of originall sinne which is not taken away but by Baptisme yea though he wanted baptisme out of necessity urging those places Joh. 3.5 Rom. 5.12 continually in his disputes against the Pelagianâ— particularly tom 7. de natura gratia c. 8. And tom 2. ep 28. he saith Item quisquis dixerit quod in Christo vivificabuntur etiam parvuli qui sine Sacramenti ejus participatione de vita exeunt hic profecto contra Apostolicam praedicationem venit totam condemnat ecclesiam And in the close of the Epistle calls it robustissimam fundatissimam fidem qua Christi ecclesia nec parvulos homines recentissime natos a damnatione credit nisi per gratiam domini Christi quam in suis Sacramentis commendavit posse liberari And this Perkins in his Probleme proves was the opinion of Ambrose and many more And hence as Aquinas so Bellarmine proves baptisme of Infants froâ— Joh. 3 5. And this hath been still the principall ground The ground that you go on that the covenant of grace belongs to believers and their seed I cannot find amongst the Ancients Yea as you may perceive out of Perkins in the place alleadged although Ambrose and Augustine in his 4. book de Baptismo contra Donatistas c. 22. yielded that either Martyrdome or the desire of Baptisme might supply the defect of Baptisme and some of the School-men Biel Cajetan Gerson do allow the desire and prayer of parents for children in the wombe in stead of baptisme Yet we finde no remedy allowed by them but actuall baptisme for children born into the world So strictly did Augustine and the Ancients urge the necessity of Baptisme for Infants born 3. You may consider that Augustine held a like necessity of Infants receiving the Lords supper from the words Joh. 6.53 as is plainly expressed by him lib. 1. de peccat merit remis c. 20. And accordingly as in Cyprians time the Communion was given to Infants as appears by the story which he relates of himself giving the Communion to an Infant in his book de lapsis mentioned by August epist. 23. So it is confested by Maldonat on Joh. 6. that Innocentius the first Bishop of Rome held it necessary for Infants and that this opinion and practise continued about 600 yeares in the Church though it be now rejâ—cted by the Romane Church in the Councel of Trent 4. You may consider that Augustine held such a certainty of obtaining regeneration by Baptisme that not only he puts usually regeneration for Baptisme but also he makes no question of the regeneration of Infants though they that brought them did not bring them with that faith that they might be regenerated by spirituall grace to eternall life but because by Baptisme they thought to procure health to their bodies as is plain by his words epist. 23. ad Bonifacium Nec illud te moveat quod quidam non ea fide ad Baptismum percipiendum parvulos ferunt ut gratia spiritali ad vitam regenerentur aeternam sed quod eos putant hoc remedio temporalem retinere aut recipere sanitatem non enim propterea illi non regenerantur quia non ab illis hac intentione offeruntur celebrantur enim per eos necessaria ministeria By which last words you may perceive how corrupt Augustine was in this matter so as to excuse if not to justifie their fact who made use of Baptisme in so profane a manner as to cure diseases by it which is no marvaile if it be be true which is related of the approbation that was given of the Baptisme used by Athanasius in play amongst boyes 5. You may consider that in the same Epistle when Bonifacius pressed Augustine to shew how Sureties could be excused from lying who being asked of the Childs faith answered He doth believe for even in Baptisme of Infants they thought in all ages it necessary that a profession of faith go before He defends that act in this absurd manner Respondetur credere propter fidâ—i Sacramentum And thence is he called a believer because he hath the Sacrament of faith Which as it is a ridiculous playing with words in so serious a matter before God so it is a senslesse answer sith the interrogation was of the Childs faith before it was baptized and the answer was given before and therefore it cannot be understood of believing by receiving the sacrament of faith which came after 6. It is apparent out of the same Epistle that Infants were then admitted to baptisme whether they were the children of believers or not it was no matter with what intention they brought them nor whose children were brought yea it was counted a work of charity to bring any children to baptisme and in this case the faith of the whole Church was counted a sufficient supplement of the defect of the parents or bringers faith So that whereas the present defenders of Infant-baptisme pretend Covenant-holinesse a priviledge of Believers it was no such matter in the time of the Ancients but they baptized any Infants even of Infidels upon this opinion That Baptisme did certainly give grace to them and if they dyed without baptismâ— they did perish And thus I grant that it is true the Epistle of Cyprian is cited and approved by Augustine but neither is Augustine to be approved for approving it nor doth it advantage your tenet that you have cited his citation of it NExt to Augustine you place Hierom and it is true that he cites and approves Cyprians Epistle in the end of his third book of his Dialogues against the Pelagians and he cites and approves and commends Augustine's books de peccat merito
foedus dei inituÌ„ cum Abrahamo non omnes Abrahae posteros fimbria sua comprehendere sic simpliciter instituenduÌ„ esse censemus Esavus Jacobus erant ex posteris Abrahae at horuÌ„ utâ—uÌ„que non coÌ„plexus est Deus foedere suo cum Abrahamo inito ergo non omnes posteros Abrahami Probatur autem Deum non complexuÌ„ fuisse utruÌ„que foedere gratiae quiae non complexus est EsavuÌ„ majoreÌ„ sed JacobuÌ„ minoreÌ„ Bain on Eph. 1.5 p. 138. He answereth the assumption of the latter Syllogism by distinguishing of Israel children denying that al Israelites are that Israel to which Gods word belongeth or that all Abrahams seed are those children whoÌ„ God adopted to himselfe v. 7. but such only who were like Isaac first begotten by a word of promise and partakers of the heavenly calling The reason is to be conceived in this manner the rejecting of such who are not the true Israel nor belong not to the number of Gods adopted children cannot shake Gods word spoken to Israel and Abrahams seed but many of the Israelites and Abrahams seed aâ—e such to whom the word of God belonged not ergo the word of God is firm though they be rejected Pag. 139. A childe of the flâ—sh being such a one who descendeth from Abraham according to the flesh For it is most plaine that these did make them thinke thâ—mselves within the compâ—sse of the word because thâ—y were Israelites and the seed of Abraham in regard of bodily generation propagated from him and Arminius doth decline that in objecting and answering which this discourse consisteth Beside that though the sons of the flesh may signifie such who carnally not spiritually conceive of the Law yet the seed of Abraham without any adjoyned is never so taken The assumption which is to be proved is this That many of Abrahams seed are such to whom the word belongeth not The word which belonged not to Ishmael and Esau but to Isaac and Jacob only and such as were like to them that word belonged not to many of those who are the seed of Abraham and Israelites But the word shewing Gods love choice adoption blessing of Israel and Abrahams seed belonged not to Esau Ishmael and such as they were but to Isaac and Jacob. Amesius Animadv in Remonstr citat scripta Synod de Praeâ—estin cap. 8. § 6. thus expresseth the Apostles scope Multi sunt ex semine Abrahami ad quos verbum promissionis non spectat ut Ismael Ismaelitae si autem multi sunt ex semine Abrahami ad quos verbum promissionis non spectat tum rejectio multorum Judaeorum qui sunt ex semine Abrahami non irritum facit verbum promissionis Out of all which I gather if the naturall posterity of Abraham were not within the Covenant of grace by vertue of that promise Gen. 17.7 then much lesse are our naturall posterity but the former is true Rom. 9.6 7 8 9 10 11 12. therefore the latter is true and the contrary delivered in that which I conceive your â—ssertion false A second reason is this The Apostles Exposition of the promise shews us best what is the meaning of it but the Apostle when he expounds the promise of God to Abraham I will be thy God and the God of thy seed as it was a promise of saving grace to wit justification and life expounds it as belonging to Abraham not as a naturall Father but as Father of the faithfull whether of the Jews or the Gentiles and his seed not his naturall but his spiriâ—uall seed Christ and believers Rom. 4.11 12 13 14 15 16 17. Gal. 3.7.16.29 Whence George Downham of Justification lib. 6. cap. 6. § 4. speakes thus The other promises concerning his seed are two The former concerning the multiplication of his seed that he should be a father of a multitude of Nations namely in Christ and that he would be a God to him and his seed he doth not say to seeds as of many but as of one to thy seed which is Christ Gal. 3.16 that is Christ mysticall 1 Cor. 12.12 Containing the multitude of the faithfull in all Nations both Jews and Gentiles This promise therefore implyeth the former that in Christ the promised seed Abraham himselfe and his seed that is the faithfull of all Nations should be blessed And in confirmation of this promise he was called Abraham because he was to be a Father of many Nations that is of the faithfull of all Nations for none but they are accounted Abrahams seed Rom. 9.7.8 Gal. 3.7.29 Thus he opens the Apostles meaning and thus frequently do Protestant Divines in their writings Now if only believers are in that promise as it was a promise of saving grace then it is not made to the naturall posterity as such of any believer much lesse of us Gentiles My third reason is this The Covenant of grace is the Gospel and so you call it pag. 37. when you say This is a part of the Gospel preached unto Abraham Now the Gospel preached to Abraham the Apostle thus expresseth Gal. 3.8 9. And the Scripture foreseeing that God would justifie the heathen through faith preached before the Gospel unto Abraham saying in thee shall all Nations be blessed so then they which be of faith are blessed with faithfull Abraham and ver 11. But that no man is justified by the Law in the sight of God it is evident for the just shall live by Faith it is Hab. 2.4 By his faith And generally when Divines distinguish of the Covenant of grace and of workes they say the condition of the Covenant of grace is faith They then that say the Covenant of grace belongs not only to believers but also to their naturall children whether believing or not these adde to the Gospel and the Apostle saith of such Gal. 1.8 9. Let him be accursed Fourthly I thus argue If God have made a Covenant of grace in Christ not only to believers but also to their seed or naturall children then it is either conditionally or absolutely if conditionally the condition is either of works and then grace should be of works conâ—rary to the Apostle Rom. 11.8 or of Faith and then the sense is God hath promised grace to bâ—lievers and to their seed if believers that is to believers and believers which is nugatory If this Covenant of grace to believers seed be absolute then either God keeps it or not if he do not keep it then he breaks his word which is blasphemy if he do keep it then it follows that all the posterity of believers are saved contrary to Rom. 9.13 or if some are not saved though they be in the Covenant of grace there may bee Apostasie of persons in the Covenant of grace by which the Arguments brought by Mr. Prynne in his Perpetuity and others for perseverance in grace are evacuated and Bertius his Hymenaeus desertor justified The truth is generally to be in the Covenant
men therefore they may and ought to receive the outward signe of Baptisme The major proposition that they who are made partakers of the inward grace may not be debarred of the outward signe is undeniable it is Peters argument Acts 10. Can any forbid water that these should not be baptized who have received the holy Ghost as well as wee And againe for as much as God gave them the like gift as he did unto us what was I that I could withstand God And this is so cleare that the most learned of the Anabaptists doe readily grant that if they knew any infant to have received the inward grace they durst not deny them the outward signe and that the particular infants whom Christ took up in his armes and blessed might have been baptized The Question between us is whether the infants of believers universally or indifferently are to be admitted to the Sacrament of Baptisme according to ordinary rule Now I suppose you doe not hold that the infants of believers indifferently have actually the thing signified by Baptisme that is the Holy Ghost union with Christ adoption forgivenesse of sinnes regeneration and everlasting life for then they are all sanctified and are all believers and if this could be proved there would be no question about Paedobaptisme the texts Act. 8.37 Act. 10.47 Act. 11.17 would undeniably prove it and therefore there is no Antipaedobaptist I thinke but will grant your Major That regenerate persons united to Christ whose sins are forgiven adopted persons that have received the Holy Ghost are to be baptized But I conceive though in the laying down the Major you use these phrases who have the thing signified who have the heavenly part and in your Minor are made partakers yet you do not mean in this Assumption actuall having and being made partakers of the inward grace of Baptism concerning which the Antipaedobaptists do so readily grant the Major but a potentiall having or as you after speak being capable of the inward grace and so you use the fallacy of equivocation in the Major having being understood of actuall having and in the Minor of potentiall which makes four terms and so the Syllogisme is naught Or if you do mean in both actuall having you mean it only of some Infants of Believers not of all of whom the Question is and so your conclusion is but particular that some Infants of Believers who are sanctified actually are to be baptized But this will not reach home to your tenet or practice concerning the baptizing of all Infants of Believers in as much as they are the children of Believers without the consideration of actuall faith or sanctification It is true the Lutheranes do teach that Infants have actuall faith and are regenerate in Baptisme and therefore in Colloquio Mompelgarâ—ensi upon the fourth Artic. de Baptismo they put these among the Positions they reject as contrary to the Scripture Non omnes infantes qui baptizantur gratiae Christi participes esse regenerari infantes carere fide nihilominus baptizari that all the Infants which are baptized are not partakers of the grace of Christ and regenerate that Infants want faith and neverthelesse are baptized And I remember when I lived in Oxford there was a book published in English of Baptismal initiall regeneration of elect Infants the Position whereof was opposed as favouring the doctrine of conferring grace by Baptisme ex opere operato by the work wrought and intercision of regeneration sith according to that doctrine a person might have the Spirit initially in infancy and though it could not fall away finally as being an elect person yet might run out in a continued course of sinning grosse and scandalous sins with full consent untill his dying day which doth enervate the urging of that Text 1 John 3.9 against Apostasie of regenerate persons when out of it is proved that raigning sin is not in the regenerate and the like texts which in that Controversie are urged against Arminans With that book Dr. Featley in his late feeble and passionate Tract against Anabaptists and Antiprelatists concurs pag. 67. in these words Nay so farre are they from excluding faith from Infants that are baptized that they believe that all the children of the faithfull who are comprised in the covenant with their fathers and are ordained to eternall life at the very time of their baptisme receive some hidden grace of the Spirit and the seed of faith and holinesse which afterwards bears fruit in some sooner in some later And since I came to London I met with a Book intituled A Christian plea for Infants Baptisme by S.C. who holds positions somewhat like to the Lutherans that though children of believing parents be not all holy and righteous they may degenerate apostatize yet the Infants of believing parents are righteous by imputation are believers and confessors imputatively c. pag. 10. and elsewhere And he hath this passage pag. 3. It is a sure truth that the sins of the parents being forgiven the Lord will not impute the same unto their Infants Originall sin I say taketh no more hold on the Infants then on their parents and touching actuall sin they are as clear as their parents Many more like passages there are in that Book these I mention that you may see what stuffe Paedobaptists do feed the people with But I suppose you do not hold that all Infants of Believers either actually or initially or imputatively are sanctified regenerated adopted justified as knowing how contrary this is to Rom. 9.6 c. to daily experience to the doctrine of Beza and his Collegues at Monâ—pelgart to the reformed Churches of Geneva c. and what advantage it gives to Papists Lutherans Arminians and those that follow the way of Tomson in his Diatribe of which I suppose you are not ignorant and therefore conceiving you orthodox in this point the answer to your Syllogisme is either by shewing it doth not conclude the question if your Minor and conclusion be understood of actuall having the inward grace and they be particular only If you understand them of actuall having and they be universall then I deny your Minor If your Major be understood of potentiall having I deny it if of actuall and the Minor be of potentiall there be four terms and so the Syllogisme is naught Take away the ambiguity of your terms and the answer is easie But for the proof of your Minor you say thus And for the Assumption or Minor That the Infants of Believers even while they are Infants do receive the inward grace as well as grown men is as plain not only by that speech of the Apostle who saith they are holy but our Saviour saith expresly Mark 10. That to such belongs the Kingdome of God as well as to grown men And whereas some would evade it by saying that the Text saith not To them belongs the kingdome of God but of such is the Kingdome of heaven 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
be given why these Infants did belong to Gods Kingdome because they were such as Christ would blesse and then all that you can gather from hence will be that of the Infants of Believers whom Christ blesseth is the Kingdome of heaven But this will never prove your Assumption except you can prove that Christ blesseth all the Infants of Believers Lastly Christs action in this businesse is proper to him as the great Prophet of the Church and extraordinary and therefore yeelds no ground for an ordinary rule of baptizing by the publique Ministery And if an ordinary rule should be made in imitation of it it would serve better for the proving the Sacrament of confirmation which Art 25. of the Church of England puts among things grown from a corrupt following the Apostles then Baptisme And in all probability if Christ would have this accident to be a rule or precedent for bringing Infants to him by a visible signe in the new Testament as Mr. Thomâ—s Goodwin at Bow dictated he would have appointed his Apostles to have baptized these Infants as a samplar For which reason it seems to me that this example rather shews Christ would not have Infants baptized then that he intended to make this accident a precedent for paedobaptisme But you will prove your Minor by reasons and thus you reason Beside what one thing can be named belonging to the initiation and being of a Christian whereof Baptisme is a seal which Infants are not capable of as well as grown men they are capable of receiving the Holy Ghost of union with Christ of adoption of forgivenesse of sins of regeneration of everlasting life all which things are signified and seâ—led in the Sacrament of Baptisme I may apply to you the words of Horace Amphora coepit institui currente rota curâ—â—recus exit A barrell began to be made why the wheel running doth a pitcher come forth The thing you should prove is that all the Infants of Believers are actually partakers of the inward grace of Baptisme but in stead of this you prove they are capable of it they may have it but doth it therefore follow that they actually have it It was once an Axiome in the Schools a posse ad esse non valet argumentum from it may be â—o it is an Argument holds not and I think it is so still Besides must children be baptized because they are capable of Grace Then may all children be baptized for they are all capable of the inward Grace of Baptisme But you have yet something more to say And it is further considerable that in the working of that inward grace of which Baptisme is the signe and seal all who partake of that grace are but meer patients and contribute no more to it then a childâ— doth to its own begetting and therefore Infants as fit subjects to have it wrought in them as grown men and the most grown men are in no more fitnesse to receive this grace when it is given them in respect either of any faith or repentance which they yet have then a very little childe it being the primary intention of the covenant of Grace in its first work to shew what free grace can and will do to miserable nothing to cut miserable man off from the wild Olive and graffe him into the true Olive to take away the heart of stone â—o create in them a heart of flesh to forgive their iniquities to love them freely what doth the most grown men in any of these more then an Infant may do being only passive in them all and of this first grace is the Sacrament of Baptisme properly a seal That which you say it is true is further considerable but to what purpose it is here brought in I cannot readily divine whether it be for a proof of the Minor of your Syllogisme or that which you said immediatly before that Infants are capable of the inward grace of Baptisme or whether you would make a further Argument for Infant-baptisme thus Baptisme is to be given to those that are capable of the first grace as well as grown men and the proof of this seems to be because Baptisme seals properly the first grace But Infants are capable of the first grace as well as grown men and the proof of this seems to be because all who partake of that grace are but meer patients c. Therefore Infants are to be baptized as well as grown men If this be your Argument the Major is to be denyed For a person is not to be baptized because he may have grace but because he hath it And for the reason that Baptisme seals properly the first grace it is obscure what you mean by the first grace is not cleare If the free favour of God mentioned before when you say to love them freely this indeed is the first grace simply Gods eternall love and election and I deny not but Baptisme seals it in some sense properly and so doth the Lords Supper as properly if you mean by the first grace the covenant of Grace which is the first transient act of grace that also is sealed properly in Baptisme and as properly in the Lords Supper if you mean the first grace in execution it is uncertain which you put first justification or regeneration or as some adoption And then which is the second grace is uncertain whether after-sanctification cooperating concomitant subsequent grace sustentation against temptations remission of sins hearing prayers or eternall glory Now I do not well understand in what sense or why Baptisme seals properly rather the first grace then the second sith according to your doctrine it is a seal of the covenant of grace and therefore of all the promises in it Nor can I tell why it should be said that Baptisme seals the first grace properly rather then the Lords Supper I confesse in exactnesse of speech Baptisme seals no grace first or second properly taking it for propriety of speech but improperly because metaphorically as sealing is taken for assuring And if properly notes propriety of right or title or possession in opposition to anothers or that which is alien I see not how Baptisme doth seal that is assure the first grace in respect of the propriety of right more then the second or more then the Lords Supper And therefore your speech seems to me very ambiguous And for the Minor as I conceive you frame it that Infants are capable of the first grace as well as grown men it is true and so they are of the second or at least some of them but both by extraordinary working As for receiving grace by ordinary means they are not capable of one or other And for the speeches which you heap together though I grant that in the first conversion in the sense that some learned men understand it we are meerly passive yet I doubt whether Dr. Twisse and such as have most acutely handled the controversie about the irresistibility of grace in the
wee may not baptize any of them but waite to see when and in whom God will worke the thing signified and then apply the signe to them This that you here put among the objections is rather an exception to your second argument grounded on Act. 10.47 11.17 In answer to which it is granted that those who have the inward grace meaning it actually are not to be debarred of baptisme for then they are believers and disciples But then it is rightly added that this can make no ordinary rule for baptizing the infants of believers indifferently sith there is no certainty that any one infant of a believer now existent hath the inward grace of baptisme and it is certain that all have not and experience sheweth very many have not when they come to age nor can it be known who have and who have not but by extraordinary revelation which if given would be sufficient authoritie to baptize those infants though the ordinary rule be not to baptize infants of believers indifferently As the extraordinary spirit of Elijah and Phinehas and Peter in killing Ananias and Sapphira were sufficient authoritie to them to doe those things which agree not with ordinary rule And this I grant to Mr Blake that those that are thus intituled through want of an institution are not to be excluded for according to this supposition in this case the institution is cleare for them for they are sanctified persons and so believers and disciples of Christ and besides the extraordinary revelation for that end would be an institution of that particular act But the thing that he and you would infer from this concession is that we may then make it an ordinary rule to baptize infants But that can never be for extraordinarium non facit regulam communem That which is extraordinary makes not a common rule If it did James and John might call for fire from heaven as Elijah did a man in his zeale might kill a wicked man without a legall triall as did Phinehas But let us heare what reply you make to this concession you say thus Our knowledge that God hath effectually wrought the thing signified is not the condition upon which we are to apply the signe God no where required that wee should know that they are inwardly and certainly converted whom we admit to the Sacrament of Baptisme the Apostles themselves were not required to know this of those whom they baptized if they were they sinned in baptizing Simon Magus Alexander Hymeneus Ananias and Sapphira with others wee are indeed to know that they have in them the condition which must warrant us to administer the signe not that which makes them possest of the thing signified fallible conjectures are not to be our rule in adminisâ—ring Sacraments either to infants or growne men but a knowne rule of the Word out of which rule wee must be able to make up such a judgement that our administration may be of faith as well as out of charity In baptizing of grown men the Apostles and Ministers of Christ administred the signe not because they conjectured that the parties were inwardly sanctified but because they made that profession of faith and holinesse of which they were sure that whoever had the thing in truth were received by Christ into inward communion with himself and that whoever thus made it that Christ would have them received into the communion of his Church though possibly for want of the inward work they were never received into the inward communion with Jesus Christ. Indeed when such a confession was made Christian charity which alwayes hopeth the best and thinketh no evill bound them to receive them and think of them and converse with them as with men in whom the inward work was wrought untill they gave signes to the contrary But this their charity or charitable conjecture was not the ground of admitting them to the Ordinance but the profession and confession of the party made according to the Word which they were bound to rest in yea I greatly question 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 whether they either would or ought to have refused them from Baptisme whilest they made that publique profession and confession upon which others were admitted who in the event proved no better then those were so that I conclude not our knowledge of their inward sanctification is requisite to the admitting of any to Baptisme but our knowledge of the will of Christ that such who are in such and such a condition should by us be received into the communion of the Church To the assertion here delivered I assent that not our knowledge that the person to be baptized hath inward grace is necessary but our knowledge of the will of Christ and the person to be baptized his having the condition which is the profession of faith and holiness is sufficient warrant to baptize him And I agree that a judgement of charity is not that a Minister is to proceed by in this case but a judgement of faith as you speak and of ministeriall prudence For a Minister in this case is to act as a Steward who is to deal according to his Lords will not his own minde otherwise his own understanding or affection which are but a Lesbian rule should be his rule which would be intolerable Thus far I agree with you only whereas in the case by you framed your resolution inclines to the negative I rather incline to the affirmative and conceive they would have refused them and that they ought because I conceive the end of such an extraordinary revelation would be to warne them not to admit such persons and so equivalent to a prohibition and in that case the baptizing them would be a plain prophaning the Ordinance which is not to be given to Dogs and Swine And I conceive that which Chamier tom 4. panstra Cath. lib. 5. c. 15. Sect. 13. speaks in justification of the scrutiny heretofore made in examining the competentes so strictly confirms this resolution But to keep to the present businesse that which is granted doth neither prove that upon extraordinary revelation of the present inward sanctification of an Infant that Infant may not be baptized without staying for its profession For though it be true that we are not to stay from baptizing them that professe the faith because we have not a spirit of discerning to know them to be reall Believers yet we may having a spirit of discerning that an Infant that cannot professe the faith yet hath true faith or is inwardly sanctified baptize that Infant without staying for his profession partly because of the principle used by Peter Acts 10.47 and partly because the revelation of the faith of that Infant to that end doth authorize that act Nor doth this concession advantage you to prove baptizing of Infants by ordinary rule which is the thing
little ones most lately born can be freed from damnation unlesse by the grace of the name of Christ which he hath commended in his Sacraments Pag. 16. Neither let that move thee that some do not bring little ones to receive baptisme with that faith that they may be regenerated by spirituall grace unto life eternall but because they think that by this remedy they keep or receive temporall health For not therefore are they not regenerate because they are not offered by them with this intention For necessarie ministeries are celebrated by them It is answered he doth beleeve by reason of the Sacrament of faith Pag. 18. in the margin Lastly who seeth not that this was the manner of that time when scarce the thousandth person was baptized afore he was of grown age and diligently exercised among the catechized Part. 2. Pag. 21. These to the rest of the errours which they borrowed from the Manichees and Priscillianists added this over and above that they said that the baptisme of little ones was unprofitable inasmuch as it could profit none who could not both himself beleeve and by himself ask the Sacrament of baptisme of which kind we read not that the Manichees and Priscillianists taught any thing They mock us because we baptize infants because we pray for the dead because we ask the suffrages of the Saints They beleeve not that Purgatory fire remains after death but that the soul loosed from the body doth presently passe either to rest or to damnation But now they who acknowledge not the Church it is no marvell if they detract from the orders of the Church if they receive not their appointments if they despise Sacraments if they obey not commands Because he took away Festivals Sacraments Temples Priests because the life of Christ is shut up from the little ones of Christians while the grace of baptisme is denied nor are they suffered to draw neer to salvation Pag. 23. We perceive in the man dexterity and a study of mediocrity But in that man I desire to be deceived I have seemed to my self to have found nothing but immoderate thirst of wealth and glory A fanatique man and grosse Anabaptist Pag. 24. They would seem studious of truth Pag. 25. The word of the Lord. From the staffe to the corner A proverbiall speech in Schools when one thing is inferred from another which have no connexion They who all along these places of Belgick and lower Germany are found bordering on this Anabaptisticall heresie are almost all followers of this Mennon whom I have named to whom now this Theodorick hath succeeded In whom for a great part you may perceive tokens of a certain godly mind who being incited by a certain unskilfull zeal out of errour rather then malice of mind have departed from the true sense of Divine Scriptures and the agreeing consent of the whole Church which may be perceived by this that they alwayes resisted the rage of Munster and Batenburgick that followed after stirred up by John Batenburg after the taking of Munster who plotted a certain new restitution of the kingdom of Christ which should be placed in the destruction of the wicked by outward force And they tauâ—ht thâ—t the instauration and propagation of the kingdom of Christ consists in the crosse alone whereby it happens that they which are such mâ—y seem rather worthy of pity and amendment then persecution and perdition Pag. 28. What part of time Pag. 48. Hâ—w it may be that Israel may be rejected but that together the Covenant of God established with Abraham and his seed should seem to be made void In the margin The credit of that promise Gen. 17.7 8. doth presently appear to be brought into danger by the rejecting of the Jews and the exclusion of them out of the Covenant of God sith they are born of Abraham according to the flâ—sh so saith he it appeares to them that look upon the first fâ—ce of things The Apostle shews thâ—t theâ—efâ—re the word of the Covenant and divine promises made to Israel failed not or was made void aâ—though a great part of the Jews were unbelieving because those promises of the Câ—venant are of God not to them properly who were to come from the seed of Abraham according to the flesh but to those who were to be ingraffed into the family of Abraham by vertue of divine promise Pag. 49. The argument of the Apostle to prove the Covenant of God entred into with Abraham doth not comprehend all the posterity of Abraham in its skirt we think should be thus simply framed Esau and Jacob were of the pâ—sterity of Abraham but God did not comprehend both of these in his Covenant with Abraham Therefore not all the posterity of Abraham It is proved that God did not comprehend both in the Covenant of grace because he did not comprehend Esau the elder but Jacob the younger Pag. 50. There are many of the seed of Abraham to whom the word of promise doth not belong as Ismael and Ismaelites But if so there be many of the seed of Abraham to whom the word of promise doth not belong then the rejâ—ction of many Jews who are of the seed of Abraham doth not make void the word of promise In the margin Calvin gathers hence in that any is the seed of Abraham the promise made to Abraham belongs to him but the answer is manifest that promise understood of spirituall blessing pertaines not to the carnall seed of Abraham but to the spirituall as the Apostle himselfe hath interpreted it Rom. 4. 9. For if you understand the carnall seed now that promise will belong to none of the Gentiles but to those alone who are begotten of Abraham and Isaac according to the flesh He teacheth also that the promises of God are not tied to the carnall birth but to belong onely to the believing and spirituall posterity For they are not the sons of Abraham who are of Abraham according to the flesh but who are according to the spirit Pag. 51. In the Margin The inculcation also of the seed sheweth that onely the elect and effectually called are noted the Apostle so interpreting this place Rom. 9.8 Gal. 3.16 4.28 Pag. 52. That baptisme doth not certainly seale in all the children of believers the grace of God sith among them some are absolutely reprobated even by an antecedent decree of God from eternity and therefore believers are to doubt of the truth of Gods Covenant I am thy God and the God of thy seed after thee Pag. 58. To be a son of Abraham doth declare nothing else but to be freely elected Rom. 9.8 and to tread in the steps of the faith of Abraham Rom. 4.12 and to doe the workes of Abraham Joh. 8.39 From which is rightly gathered certain expectation of salvation to come Rom. 8.29 Pag. 69. In the Margin Infants in their parents grandfathers great grandfathers grandfathers grandfathers have refused the grace of the Gospel by which act