he might sanctifie every age so that here Irenaeus speakes not of being borne againe by Baptisme for it is said who are borne againe by him that is by Christ. Not as if he had baptized infants but because he was an infant that by the example or vertue of his age he might sanctifie infants as the whole context will shew which is this Magister ergo existens Magistri quoque habebat aetatem non reprobans nec supergrediens hominem neque solvens suam legâ—m in se humani generis sed omnemâ—tatem sanctificans per illam quae ad ipsum erat similitudinem Omnes enim venit per seipsum salvare omnes inquam qui per eum renascuntur in Deum Infantes parvulos pueros juvenes seniores Ideo per omnem venit aetatem infantibus infans factus sanctificans infantes in parvuliâ— parvuluâ— sanctificans hanc ipsam habentes aetatem simul exemplum illis pietatis effectus justitiae subjectionis In Iuvenibus Iuvenis exemplum Iuvenibus fiens Sanctificans Domino sic et senior in senioribus ut sit perfectus Magister non solum secundum expositionem veritatis sed secundum aetatem sanctificans simul seniores exemplum ipsis quoque fiens deinde usque ad mortem pervenit ut sit primogenitus ex mortuis ipse primatum tenens in omnibus princeps vitae prior omnium et praecedens omnes Which he confirmes by the testimony of Iohn the Apostle from whom he saith those that conversed with him related that Christ lived about fifty yeares which all sorts of writers doe reckon among Irenaeus his blemishes and thereby shew how little credit is to be given to the too much entertained Apostolicall traditions THe next Greeke Author is Origen who you say lived in the beginning of the third Century Perkins and Vsher place him at the yeare 230. but for his works as of old they were counted full of errours and dangerous to be reade so as now they are we can hardly tell in some of them what is Origens What not for the originall being lost we have only the Latine translation which being performed in many of his works and particularly the Homilies on Leviticus and the Epistle to the Romanes by Ruffinus it appeares by his owne confâ—ssion that he added many things of his own insomuch that Erasmus in his censure of the Homilies on Leviticus saith that a man cannot be certaine whether he reades Ruffinus or Origen and Perkins puts among Origens Counterfeit works his Comentary on the Epistle to the Romans as being not faithfully translated by Ruffinus the like is the judgement of Rivet and others and I suppose did you reade the passages themselves you cite and consider how they are brought in and how plaine the expressions are against the Pelagians you would quickly conceive that those passages were put in after the Pelagien heresie was confuted by Hierom and Augustine who often tells us that the Fathers afore that controversie arose did not speake plainly against the Pelagiens and of all others Origen is most taxed as Pelagianizing Wherefore Vossius in the place aforenamed though he cite him for company yet addes sed de Origene minus laborabimus quia quae citabamus Graece non extant But what saith the supposed Origen In one place that the Church received this tradition of baptizing infants from the Apostles in another according to the observance of the Church baptisme is granted to infants you adde as foreseeing that this passage would prove that then it was held but a tradition that then the greatest points of faith were ordinarily called traditions received from the Apostles and you cite 2 Thes. 2.15 To which I reply true it is that they did call the greatest points of faith though written traditions Apostolicall as conceiving they might best learne what to hold in points of faith from the Bishops of those Churches where the Apostles preached and therefore in prescriptions against Heretickes Tertullian Irenaeus and others direct persons to go to the Churches where the Apostles sate specially the Romane Church which seemes to have beene the seed of Appeals to Rome and the ground of the conceit which was had of the Popes unerring Chaire But it is tâ—ue also they called Apostolicall traditions any thing though unwriâ—ten which was reported to have come from the Apostles as the time of keeping Easter and many more which was the fountaine of all corruptions in discipline and worship And that in those places you cite is meant an unwritten tradition not only the not citing any Scripture for Baptizing of Infants but also the very Phrases Pro hoc et Ecclesia ab Apostolis traditionem suscepit Secundum Ecclesiae observantiam are sufficient proofe to them who are acquainted with the Ancients writings of those times So that yet you have not proved that the baptisme of Infants was time out of minde that it had beene received in the Church or was delivered over to the Church in Origens time and was of ancient use in the Church afore his time But these passages prove that in the time when the framer of those passages wrote it was accounted but an Apostolicall tradition according to the observance of the Church Like speeches to which are found in Pseudo-Dyonisius in the end of his Hierachy and Augustin lib. 10. de Genesi ad literam c. 23. and elsewhere which argue that it was held as an Ecclesiasticall tradition in those times THe fourth and last of the Greeke Church you name is Gregory Nazianzen who is by Perkins placed at the yeare 380. by Vsher 370. much short of 1500 yeares and upwards you say that Orat. 40. in Baptismum he calls baptisme signaculum vita cursum in euntibus and commands Children to be baptized though afterwards he seemed to restraine it to the case of necessity But doth he seeme onely to restraine it to the case of necessity the words are plaine that he gives the reason why Infants in danger of death should be baptized 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that they might not misse of the common grace but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he gives his opinion of others that they should stay longer that they might be instructed and so their minds and bodyes might be Sanctified and these are all you bring of the Greek Church By the examination of which you may perceive how well you have proved that it is manifest out of most of the Records that we have of antiquitie both in the Greeke and Latine Church that the Christian Church hath beene in possession of the priviledge of baptizing the infants of beleivers for the space of 1500. yeares and upwards Whereas the highest is but a bastard Treatise and yet comes not so high if it were genuine the next without a glosse which agrees not with the text speakes nothing to the purpose the third is of very doubtfull credit the fourth which was
An Examen OF THE SERMON Of Mr. STEPHEN MARSHAL About Infant-Baptisme in a Letter sent to him Divided into Foure Parts 1. Concerning the Antiquity of Infant-baptisme 2. Concerning the prejudices against Antipaedobaptists from their miscarriages 3. Concerning the Arguments from Scripture for Infant-baptisme 4. Concerning the Objections against Infant-baptisme In which are maintained these Positions 1. Infant-baptisme is not so ancient as is pretended but as now taught is a late Innovation 2. Antipaedobaptisme hath no ill influence on Church or Common-wealth 3. Infant-baptisme cannot be deduced from Holy Scripture 4. Infant-baptisme is a corruption of the Ordinance of Baptisme LONDON Printed by R. W. for George Whitington 1645. Infant-Baptisme Is not so Ancient as is pretended As now Taught Is a late Innovation PART I. Concerning the antiquity of Infant-Baptisme SIR IT is now full nine moneths since that being informed by one of the Members of the Assembly in which you are one that there was a Committee chosen out of the Members of the Assembly to give satisfaction in the point of Paedo-baptisme and advised by the same person out of his tender love to me to present the reasons of my doubts about Paedo-baptisme to that Committee I drew them up in Latine in nine Arguments in a scholastique way and they were delivered unto Mr. Whitaker the Chair-man of the Committee about nine moneths since to which I added after an addition of three more reasons of doubting with a supplement of some other things wanting which was delivered to Mr. Tuckney and joyned by him to the former Papers My aim therein was either to find better ground then I had then found to practise the baptizing of Infants from that Assembly of learned and holy men whom I supposed able and willing to resolve their Brother in the Minâ—stâ—ry Or else according to the solemn Covenant I have taken to endeavour the reformation of these Churches according to Gods word by informing that Assembly what I conceived amisse in the great ordinance of Baptizing The successe was such as I little expected to this day I have heard nothing from the Committee by way of answer to those doubts but I have met with many Pamphlets and some Sermons tending to make the questioning of that point odious to the People and to the Magistracie Among others reading the Sermon of Mr. Richard Vines on Ephes. 4.14 before the Lord Major and the Sermon you preached at Westminster Abbey I perceive there is such a prejudice in you and it may seem by the Vote passâ—d about the members of the visible Church in the generality of the Assembly that he is likely to be exploded if not censured that shall but dispute against it and therefore little or no likelihood that this matter will be argued as I conceive it doth deserve in your Assembly And further I perceive there is a great zeale in your spirit against the denying of Children baptisme as if it were a more cruâ—ll thing than Hazaels dashing out Childrens brains That it were an exclusion of them out of the Covenant of Grace c. Which I the more admire considering the report which hath been of you as a sober learned holy well-tempered man that you should be so transported in this matter as to be so vehement in maintaining that which was accounted heretofore in many ages but an Ecclesiasticall tradition for which you are fain to fetch a command from Circumcision and confâ—sse no expresse example in Scripture for it and go not about to prove it but by consequence inferr'd from five Conclusions which though you call undeniable yet others do not think so nor yet see reason to subscribe to your judgment You are not ignorant I prâ—sume that Mr. Daniel Rogers in his Treatise of the Sacrament of Baptisme part 1. pag. 79. confessed himself yet unconvinced by demonstration of Scripture for it And whereas your Achilles for Paedo-baptisme is the Circumcision of Infants me thinks Mr. Balls words Reply to the Answer of the New-England Elders about the third and fourth Positions pag. 38 39. cut the sinews of that argument But in whatsoever they agree or differ we must look to the Institution and neither stretch it wider nor draw it narrower then the Lord hath made it â—or he is the Institutor of the Sacraments according to his own good pleasure and it is our part to leaâ—n of him both to whom how and for what end the Sacraments are to be administred how they agree and wherein they differ In all which we must affirm nothing but what God hath taught us and as he hath taught us And whereas the words of Paul 1 Cor. 7.14 are your principall strength to prove the Covenant-holines of Infants of a believing parent Musculus a writer of good esteem in his Commentary upon that place confesseth that he had abused formerly that place against the Anabaptists but found it impertinent to that purpose And for my part after most carefull and serious reading and perusing of many Authors and among the rest your Sermon I cannot yet find it to be any other then an innovation in comparison of many other things rejected late maintained by erroneous and dangerous principles having no true ground from Christs institution which alone can acquit it from Will-worship and which hath occasioned many errors in doctrine corruptions in discipline and manners unnecessary and vain disputes and almost quite changed the ordinance of Baptisme Wherefore upon advise I have resolved to examine your Sermon who are a leading man and in respect of your eminency either likely to be a very good or very bad instrument as you are guiâ—dd that you may either rectifie me or I you and that we may if the Lord shall see it good give one another the right hand of fellowship and stand fast in one mind in the truth of the Gospel and cleare the truth of God to the people whose eyes are upon us And so much the rather have I pitched upon your Sermon because I conceive it contains in a plain way as much as can be wel said for Poedo-baptisme and your Epistle seems to intimate your publishing of it to be for the ease of the Assembly and possibly it may be all I may expect from them Now the Lord vouchsafe to frame both your spirit and mine that we may seek and find truth in humility and love in this great businesse which concerns the soules perhaps lives and estates of many millions yea of all godly persons and the glory of God and honour of our Lord Jesus Christ and that we may trample under our feet our own credit our own opinion if it stand not with the honour of Christ and the truth of God LEtting passe the Epistle and leaving the various Questions and allowing the stating of the Question conceiving you mean it of baptizing by warrant of ordinary rule of Scripture without extraordinary revelation or direction Whereas you affirme that the Infants of
remissione ad Marcellinum in which he maintains baptisme of Infants and Infant-communion as necessary to salvation and the certainty of regeneration and salvation to Infants that are baptized and receive the Lords supper So that the same answer is to be given concerning Hierom which is to be given concerning Augustine The last you alleadge is Ambrose who lived about the same time though he be placed some yeares before Augustine and Hierom And it is confessed that he was of the same judgement and many other of thâ— Ancients of the same time and in after-ages but nothing comparable to those already named and therefore adding no more weight to the cause NOw these you say you relate not to prove the truth of the thing but only the practise of it It is well you added this that you might disclaime the validity of these tâ—stimonies for proof for the truth is they rather prove the thing to be an error than a truth which was held upon such erroneous ground as they taught and practised it to wit the necessity of Baptisme to salvation Joh. 3.5 The certainty of remission of originall sin by baptisme The denying of Gods grace to none And the perishing of those to whom Baptisme was not given Whether you have any better pâ—oofs I shall consider hereafter in the mean time this I adde 1. That concerning the practise your testimonies prove not that it was in practise buâ— in case of supposed nâ—cessity 2. That there was still in use a constant course of baptizing not only the converted from infidelity but also the grown children of professed believers when they were at full age 3. That they did alike conceive a necessâ—ry of and accordingly practise the giving of the Lords supper to Infants 4. That they made no distinction between the Infants of believers and unbelievers being brought to them 5. That your ancientest testimonie for practise according to any Rule determined is Cyprian neer 300 yeeres after Christ. 6. Lastly there are many evidences that do as strongly prove as proofs are usually taken in such matters That it was not so from the beginning As particularly 1. The continued propounding of the ordinary questions even to Infants concerning their faith repentance and obedience afore they were baptized which in the School-men was still held necessary and therefore Sureties thought necessary to answer for them yea even in Reformed Churches unto this day which as it was conceived by Strabo and Vives in his Comment on Aug. lib. 1. de civit Dei c. 27. a cleare evidence so I conceive any reasonable man will think it to be a manifest proof that at first none were baptized but such as understood the faith of Christ. 2 The examples before mentioned of the baptizing Gregory Nazianzen Chrysostom Augustine Constantine the great c. being children of professors of Christianity is a manifest proof they did not then baptize Infants ordinarily but extraordinarily in case of necessity 3. Specially if we joyn hereto the disswasions of Tertullian and Gregory Nazianzen forementioned 4. The plain testimony of the Councel of Neo-Caesarea agaiâ—st it before mentioned 5. The silence of the chiefe writers Eusebius c. concerning it 6. The many passages in Augustine and others referring it only to Apostolicall tradition and that usually proved by no higher testimony than Cyprian that brought in upon erroneous grounds is a strong evidence it came not from the Apostles To all which I may add the testimony of Hugo Grotius before recited concerning the Greek Church the testimony of Ludovicus Vives Comment in August de civit Dei l. 1. c. 27. affirming that he heard the old use continued in some Cities of Italy of not baptizing till the party baptized did desire it Which it seems Bellarmine an Italian when he mentions that speech of Vives did not deny More testimonies and â—vidences might be brought out of sundry authors but these are enough to me and I think to any that search into Antiquity to prove that the custome of baptizing Infants was not from the beginning and therâ—fore is but an Innovation especially that your tenet and practise accordingly is a very late innovation That Baptisme is to be given to Infants of Believers only because of supposed Covenant-holinesse not elder then Zuinglius and so not much above one hundred yeares old so far as I can find Antipaedobaptisme hath no ill influence on Church or Common-wealth PART II. Concerning the prejudices against Antipaedobaptists from their miscarriages HAving examined the first part of that you produce for baptizing of infants I proceede to the second taken from the noveltie and miscarriages of the opposers of it And here I wish you had remembred the order of the Areopagites mentioned by Smectymnuus that in pleading causes before them prefaces should be avoyded as tending to create prejudice in the Judges For to what end serves this your Narration of your adversaries but to beget an Odium hatred or prejudice at least in your Auditors which if it had come after other arguments might have been more excusable but placed as it is neither suites with serenity of minde fit for judging in you or your Auditors Unto which give me leave to adde that the courses taken by too many as namely by the Author of the Frontispice to Doctor Featlies booke which is light and immodest by Mr. Edwards in his prejudices agâ—inst the persons of his opposites as that none that ever maintained Antipaedobaptisme lived and died with repute in the Church of God the historie of the Anabaptists the Anabaptists Catechisme with the invectives against this as an heresie everting the Fundamentals as leading into all heresie over-throwing all government used in Sermons every where to make Antipaedobaptists odious and to forestall men with prejudice though for the present they serve like Medusaes head to astonish men specially the more unlearned yet are they not right courses but Artifices serving only to prevent impartiall discussing of things which is necessary that truth may appeare and perhaps when truth shâ—ll appeare will returne on the head of the Authors of â—hem But I resolve to follow your steps YOu begin thus And indeed although some in those times questioned as Augustine grants in his Sermons de verbis Apostol yet the first that ever made a head against it or a division in the Church about it was Baltazar Pacommitanus in Germany in Luthers time about the yeare 1527. You say in those times some questioned as August grants in his Sermons de verbis Apostol But you doe not tell us who those some were nor in which Sermons which might have been requisite for your Reader Upon search I finde the 14. Sermon De verbis Apostol om 10. intituled de baptismo parvulorum contra Pelagianos but it is plaine out of that Sermon and out of Augustines bookes of Heresies ad Quod vult Deum Tom. 6. Heres 88. and else where that the Pelagians did
did only contain the covenant of Grace in Christ whereas it is apparent ouâ— of the Text that the Covenant was a mixt Covenant consisting of temporall benefits to wit the multiplying of his seed v. 6. the possâ—ssion of Canaan v. 8. the birth of Isaac v. 16. and the spirituall blessings v. 5 7. Yea Cameron thâ—sibus de triplici foedere Dei thesi 78. saith That circumcision did primarily separate Abrahams seed from other Nations sealed the earthly promise it signified sanctification secondarily And indeed this is so plainly delivered in the Scripture that the Psalmist cals the promise of Canaaâ— the covenant made with Abraham Ps. 105.8 9 10 11. He hath remembred his Covenant for ever the word which he commanded to a thousand generations which Covenant he made with Abraham and his Oath unto Isaac and confirmed the same to Jacob for a Law and to Israel for an everlasting covenant Saying unto thee will I give the Land of Canaan the lot of your inheritance If you should say that these promises were types of spirituâ—ll and heavenly things the reply is that though it be true yet the things promised were but carnall and earthly as the Sacrifices were but carnall things though shadowes of spirituall 2. When you say thus The manner of administration of this Covenant was at first by types and shadowes and sacrifices c. It had been convenient to have named Circumcision that it might not be conceived to belong to the substance of the Covenant But of this there may be more occasion to speak at pag. 35. of your Sermon 3. Whereas pag. 14. you place among the third sort of Abrahams seed Proselytes that were selfe-justitiaries carnall and formall professors it behoved you to shew where in Scripture they are called Abrahams seed which I think you cannot Yea the truth is you herein joyn with Arminius who in his Analysis of the 9. to the Romans makes this as the ground of his wresting that Scripture that there is a seed of Abraham mentioned Romans 4.9 10. and Galat. 3. 4. cap. Qui per opera legis justitiam salutem consequuntur Who follow after righteousnesse and salvation by the works of the Law To whom Baine on Eph. 1.5 p. 139. answers Beside 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 But it is yet stranger to me that which Mr. Blake hath pag. 9. where he saith That there yet remaines in the bosome of the Church a distinction of the seed of Abraham borne after the flesh and after the spirit And that now by vertue of being born after the flesh some have a Church-interest And applies that of Gal. 4 29. Even so it is now to children born of believing parents after the flesh as having there by title to Church-interest Which passages are very grosse though he makes this the medium of his fourth Argument For first whereas the Apostle by being born after the flesh means not infants born of believing parents but those that are under the covenant of Mount Sinai that is who sought righteousnesse by the law and not by faith Mr. Blake means by being born after the flesh birth by naturall generation of infants born of Christian parents 2. Whereas he saith that such are in the bosome of the Church the Apostle saith they persecute the Church and are cast out 3. Whereas â—e makes such Abrahams seed he therein joyns with Arminius against the truâ—h and against the Apostle for though the Apostle makes Ismael to be the son of Abraham and speaks of him as born after the flesh whom he typically makes to represent legall justitiaries yet doth he not call Abrahams seed simply such justitiaries 4. Whereas the covenant of grace is made the reason of baptizing infants by alleâ—ging this place for baptizing of infants To be born of Hagar that is to be in the covenant of works should give a child interest into the Church of Christ. For my part I can see no other consequence than this of that cloudy argument The rest of your explication of the first Conclusion I let passe without any further animadversions as being unwilling sectare minutias to insist on small things or to stand upon matters of expression where I think you mean right and your words are likely to be so taken YOur second Conclusion is this Ever-since God gathered a distinct number out of the world to be his Kingdom City household in opposition to the rest of the world which is the kingdom city and houshold of Sathan He would have the Infants of all who are taken into Covenant with him to be accounted his to belong to him to his Church and family and not to the Devils This Conclusion you expresse so ambiguously that it is a Cothurnus a buskin that may be put on either legge right or left which should not have been in the main Proposition upon which the whole frame of your Argument hangs You say The Infants of all who are taken into covenant with God are to be accounted his but you tell us not in what sense this is to be understood For whereas persons may be said to be accounted his either before God or in facie Ecclesiae visibilis in the face of the visible Church 1. Before God either in respect of his election from eternity or his promise of grace in Christ congruous to it Or of their present estate of inbeing in Christ or the future estate they shall have 2. In facie Ecclesiae visibilis persons may be said to be accounted God's either as born among his people and so potentially members of the Church as being in a way to be in time actuall members of the Church of Christ or who already enquire after God and professe Christ though they do not well understand the doctrine of Christian Religion such as the Catechumeni of old were or they are to be accounted his in respect of actuall participation of Baptisme and the Lords supper 3. The accounting of them to be God's may be either an act of science or faith or opinion and that grounded on a rule of charity of prudence or probable hope for the future You do not declare distinctly in which of these senses or respects the Infants of all who are taken into covenant with God are to be accounted his so that I am almost at a stand what to deny or grant It cannot be denied but God would have the infants of believers in some sort to be accounted his to belong to him his Church and family and not to the Devils which expression I fear you use in this and other places ad faciendum populum to please the peoplâ— It is true in facie Ecclesiae visibilis the infants of believers are to be accounted Gods to belong to his family and church and not to the Devils as being in a neer possibility of
father into his covenant he takes the children in with him If he reject the parents out of covenant the children are cast out with them If you mean this taking in and casting out in respect of election and reprobation it is not true neither if you mean it of the Covenant of grace for that is congruous to election and reprobation Nor is it true in respect of outward Ordinances the father may be baptized heare the Word and not the child and on the contrary the father may be deprived and the child may enjoy them Nor is it true in respect of Ecclesiasticall censures the father may be excommunicated and the sonne in the Church and on the contrary And about that which you say there is no certainty in the Paedobaptists determination Rutherford The due right of Presbyterie p. 259. saith The children of Papists and excommunicate Protestants which are borne within our visible Church are baptized if their forefathers have been sound in the faith But others will deny it But it is true as well of Paedobaptists as of Anabaptists that like waves of the Sea they beat one agninst another You tell us That it was without question in the time of the Iews Gen. 17.9 And when any of any other Nation though a Canaanite or Hittite acknowledged Abrahams God to be their God they and their children came into covenant together That when Parents were circumcised the Children were to be circumcised is without questioâ— Gods command is manifest Whether this make any thing for baptizing Infants is to be considered in its place But that which you say It was in the time of the Iews if God did reject the parents out of the covenant the children were cast out with them is not true Parents might be Idolaters Apostates from Judaisme draw up the fore-skin again and yet the children were to be circumcised But in all this there is no Argument THe first Text you dwell upon is that Act. 2.38 39. and thus you speak And so it continues still though the Anabaptists boldly deny it Acts 2.38.39 When Peter exhorted his hearers who were pricked in their hearts to repent and to be baptized for the remission of sins he useth an argument to perswade them taken from the benefit which should come to their posterity For the promise saith he is to you and to your children and to all that are afar off even as many as the Lord our God shall call if once they obey the call of God as Abraham did the promise was made to them and their children VVhether they who obey this call were the present Jews to whom he spake or were afar off whether by afar off you will mean the Gentiles who as yet worshipped afar off or the Jews or any who were yet unborn and so were afar off in time or whether they dwelt in the remotest parts of the world and so were afar off in place The argument holds good to the end of the world Repent and be baptized for the remission of sins and ye shall receive the Holy Ghost for the promise is made to you and your children they shall be made free of Gods city according to Abrahams copy I will be thy God and the God of thy seed It is a very irksome thing to Readers and especially to Answerers when they that handle a controversie give a text for their assertion and make a paraphrase of it but shew not how they conclude from it by which meanes the enemy is more hardly found then vanquished I wish if ever you write any more in this kind you would distinctly expound and then frame your arguments out of the text you produce for the present I shall devorare taedium swallow downe the tediousnes of this defect as well as I can You do not distinctly tell us what that promise was onely I gather it is that which you after expresse calling it Abrahams copy I will be thy God and the God of thy seed But then you do not distinctly tell us under which part you comprehend the promise to them whether under the first part I will be thy God or under the second I will be the God of thy seed It may seem you thus parallel'd them I will be thy God with the promise is unto you and the God of thy seed with that the promise is to your children But I must see better proofe then yet I have seen afore I assent to this construction I wil be thy God that is of every believer though the Author or infants bâ—pâ—izing proved lawfull by scriptures page 4. sâ—ith It is plaine and manifest by the Gramaticall construction of this promise I professe that I neither know rule in Grammar Logicke or Divinity for that interpretation and yet I thinke all the strength of your proofe lies in this imagined parallelisme Nor doe you tell us of what thing this promise was which you parallel with Abrahams copy I will be thy God and the God of thy seed whether it was a promise of saving graces or outward priviledges Onely that which you bring in of Zaccheus to interpret it let him professe the faith of Christ and the covenant of salvation comes to his house seemes to import that you conceive the meaning thus if you once obey the call of God as Abraham did the promise of salvation is to you and your children and sith you answer the second objection which you call a shift by rejecting the limiting of to you and your children with those words as many as the Lord shall call the sense must be this The promise of salvation is to you and your children whether the Lord our God call them or not But this proposition I know you will not stand to though as you handle the matter this is made the Apostles assertion But it may be you mean otherwise thus If you once obey the call of God as Abraham did the promise of outward church-priviledges that is to be members of the visible Church partakers of Baptism c. is to you and your children Now what an uncouth reason is by this made in the Apostles speech that if they did repent and were baptized the promise should be made good to them and to their children I use your own words expressing what you conceive the strength of the argument lies in that you they shal be members of the visible church partakers of baptism c. So that the Apostle is made to say thus If you will repent and be baptized the promise is to you and your children that you they shal be baptized What I conceive is the meaning I will shew afterwards in the mean time because though on the by you alleage that Text which Mr. Tho. Goodwin also at Bow in Cheapside urged and insisted on for this purpose I shall by the way examine what you say You say Let Zaccheus the Publican once receive Christ himself be he a Gentile as some think he was be he
but a derivative holines a holines derived to them froÌ„ their ancestors the first fruit is holy the lump holy the root holy the branches holy that is the fathers holy accepted in covenant with God the children beloved for their fathers sake and when the vail of unbelief shall be taken away the children and their posterity shal be taken in again because beloved for their fathers sakes Now then if our graffing in be answerable to theirs in all or any of these three particulars we and our children are graffed in together Your argument needs a swimmer of Delos to bring it out of the deep I will dive as deep as I can to fetch it up the thing it seems you would prove is that we and our children are grâ—ffed in together but the words are Metaphoricall and therefore obscure they may be true in a sense and yet not for your purpose The insition you speak of may be either into the visible or invsible church the graffing in may be either by faith or by profession of faith or by some outward ordinance Children may be either grown men or infants the graffing in may be either certain or probable certain either by reason of election covenant of grace made by them or naturall birth being children of believers probable as being likely either because frâ—quently or for the the most part it happens so though not necessary so not certain The thing that is to be proved is that all the infants of every believer are in the covenant of free grace in Christ by vertue thereof to be baptized into the communion of the vâ—sible church now it may be granted that infants of believers are frequently or for the most part under the election covenant of gracâ— whâ—ch whether it be so or not no meere man can tâ—l and so in the visible chuâ—ch yet it not follow that every infant of a believer in asmuch as he is tâ—e child of a beliâ—ver is under the covenant of grace therefore by baptisme is to be admitted into the visible church now let it be never so probâ—ble that God continues his election in the posterity of bâ—lievers accordingly hath promised to be thâ—ir God in his covenant of grace yet if this be the rule of baptizing children of beleivers no other infants are to bâ— baptized but such as are thus the practise must agree with the rulâ— so not all infants of believers are to be baptized but the elect in the covenant of grace If it be said but we are to judge all to be elected in the covenant of grace till the contrary appeares I answer that we are not to judge all to be â—lâ—cted or in the covenant of grace because we have Gods declaration of his mind to the contrary Rom. 9.6 7 8. and all experience proves the contrary to be truâ— nor is the administration of an outward ordinaÌ„ce instituted by God according to such a rule as is not possible to be known but according to that which is manifest to the ministers of it therefore sith God conceals his purpose of election and the covenant of grâ—ce which is congruous to it in respect of the persons elected it is certain God would not have this the rule according to which outward ordinances are to be administred because such persons are in the election and covenant of grace not others You say our graffing in is answerable to the Jews and their infants were graffed in by circuÌ„cision therefore ours are to be graffed in by baptism But in good sadnesse doe you thinke the Apostle here meanes by graffing in baptizing or circumcision or insition by an outward ordinance if that were the meâ—ning then breaking off must be meant of uncircumcising or unbâ—ptizing The whole context spâ—aks of election of some and rejection of others of the breaking off by uâ—beliefe and the standing by faith and your selfe seeme to understand the phrase so when you say pag. 43. to cut miserable man off from the wilde olive and graffe him into the true olive Tâ—e ingraffing to me is meant of the invisible church by election and faith which invisible church was first amongst the Jews and therefore called the olive out of Abraham the root who is therefore said to beare them And because Abraham had a double capacitie one of a naturall father and another of the father of the faithfull in respect of the former câ—pacitie some are called branches according to nature others wilde olives by nature yet graffed in by faith and when it is said that some of the naturall branches were broken off the meaning is not that some of the branches in the invisible church may be broken off but as when our Saviour Christ saith using the same similitude Joh. 15.2 Every branch in me not bearing fruit he taketh away The meaning is not that any branch truely in him câ—uld be fruitlesse or taken away but he calleth that a branch in him which was only so in appearance So the Apostle speaking of branches broken off meanes it not of such as were truely so but in appearance For similitudes doe not runne with four feet but vary in some things Now if this be the meaning of your words that the insition of the Gentiles is the same with the Jewes and the insition is meant of ingraffing by faith into the invâ—sible church it onely proves this that now beleâ—vâ—rs of Gentiles are by faith in the church of the elect as the Jewes but neither the beleeving Jewes Infants were in the covenant of grace becâ—use their children nor are our children But let us consider the three particulars you speake of that we may examine whether there be any shew of an argument for your purpose in this text You say as plaine it is out of the eleventh of Rom. 16 c. where the Apostles scope is to shew that we Gentiles have now the same graffing into the true olive which the Jews formerly had and our present graffing in is answerable to their present casting out and their taking in in the latter end of the world shal be the same graffing in though more gloriously as ours is now The Apostles scope in the whole chapter is plaine to answer that question v. 1. Hath God cast away his people which he doth 1. by shewing for the present in himselfe and others perhaps unknowne That God had then a remnant according to the election of grace 2. For the future from ver 11. to the end that he intends a calling of all Israel when the fulnesse of the Gentiles shall come in and ver 16. is one argument to prove it It is not the scope of the Apostle as you say To shew that the Gentiles have now the same graffing into the true Olive which the Jews formerly had but to prove that the Jews notwithstanding their presâ—nt defraction shall be graffed into their owne Olive But for the thing it selfe You say That the Gentiles havâ— now