not many seeds being all one in Christ the head of the Church Verse 16. 28. compared like as Gen. 3. 15. the seed of Eve is Christ with his members in and with him So 1 Cor. 12. 12 13. the name of Christ is not ascribed to the head the Lord Jesus without his body the Church or to the Church of Jewes and Gentiles without him the head but collectively considered Quaeritur whether this in Gal. 3. and 1 Cor. 12. be spoken of the visible or invisible Church I answer to me it seemes that the places admit of the consideration of the Church as visible First in that the Apostle speaketh of all the Galatian Church-members as well as others as one in Christ Gal. 3. 28. Now were all those members elected will any say I suppose not yet all are one in Christ their head Secondly in that hee speakes of them all as Sacramentally one with Christ in baptisme Gal. 3. 27 28. compared so 1 Cor. 12. 12 13. Now albeit the spirit bee the cause of the internall and saving union with Christ in all which are united As Ecclesiastically all the Corinthian members were judged to bee yet indeed and in truth there were many of them not approved to God 1 Cor. 11. 18 19. compared But in both places the Apostle considering them as a baptized Caecus intimateth the consideration thereof as a visible and not as an invisible Church Baptisme being the seale committed to the visible Church by her officers to bee dispensed and not to the invisible Church which hath no Officers in it as such And baptisme being by the Church administred to persons as visible and not as invisible members of the Church Thirdly in that Christ hath head-like influences into the officers and members many whereof are not savingly joyned to him Fourthly in that it is the Church wherein hee hath set diversitie of Church-officers which are not set in the invisible but visible Church that Church being not invisible but visible where Church-officers are set and chosen and act From this consideration it followeth that albeit a mans owne personall faith uniteth him to Christ in respect of saving and invisible union yet the profession and confession of faith before and in a visible Church in reference to visible communion therewith this doth unite a person to Christ as head of the visible Church whether the party bee sincere or no. Hence also a Parent making profession of faith in the covenant of grace as invested with Church-covenant in reference to his children it doth unite them also to Christ as head of the visible Church so farre as to give right to solemne imitation of them into the fellowship of the Church in circumcision as of old or baptisme as now Parents acts in this case being in the face of the viâ—…ble Church their childrens acts as the places quoted Deut. 26. 17 18. and 29. 10 11 12 13 14 and 16 16 17 declared Whence contrariwise the parents neglect of ciâ—cumcision of a babe not capable of personall neglect was câ—unted the childs neglect the uncircumcised manchild whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised that soule shall bee cut off â—rom his people Hee hath broken my covenant And as in other cases the Lord Christ who required personall faith in growne ones to their cure yet in case of children is contented that their parents beleeve on their behalfe John 4. Marke 9. from verse 12. to 18. so Matth. 15. 22. to 29. so is it in the case of this externall Church benefit Albeit the just onely live an effectuall life of grace and attaine the vertue of the seale by their owne faith yet that hindreth not but a child may attaine as it were a Church-life and pertake of the visible interest and use of that initiating Church-seale by his parents covenant and Church faith or that faith which is such to the Church Nor yet doe wee hereby establish as some say a meriting faith no more then we make visibilitie of personall faith to merit personall right to baptisme c. But rather the parents professing to apply the covenant as made to him and his there doth result a parentall as well as a personall right Such weight there is in the covenant applyed as by vertue of the covenant of grace invested with Church-covenant thus professedly applyed there doth arise such a union as of the parent so of the child quoad homines unto Christ as head of the visible Church And looke as the covenant laid hold upon by the lively faith of gracious parents as made with respect to their children hath mighty force to effect very gratious things in the elect seed yea albeit dying young as sundry of those elect ones of Abrahams race did Rom. 9. 6. yea so as to make their outward washings to become effectuall in Christ to an inward clensing Ephes 5. 25 26. yea so as to bring in and bring home many of such covenant children Whence those revolters beloved for their covenant fathers sake as such Rom. 11. 28. and hence made as a ground of their returne verse 15 16. So is there such validitie in the covenant invested with Church-covenant albeit but unworthily oft-times held forth by the parents which doth beget upon the children an externall filiall relation unto God and to his spouse the visible Church whence that respect of children of God and his Church by vertue of that Espousall covenant Ezek. 16. 8. Even in the children of Idolatrous members verse 20 21. 23. Great is the force of this way of the covenant so clothed Albeit many unworthy members are girt up in it to hold them and theirs in externall Church-communion Jer. 13. 11. untill either that Church bee divorced from God or the particular members disfranchised by some Church censure of such a Church-covenant priviledge This consideration with the former mentioned in that first conclusion may also satisfie M. B. that our doctrine touching Infants covenant and Church-right to baptisme doth not necessarily produce either that absurdity of a state of grace and remission of sinnes before calling or of birth grace as J. I. hath it conveyed from parent to child understanding it of grace absolute and grace in them and not of grace upon them or relative grace And if of grace upon them yet if understanding what hee saith as meant of justification and saving adoption and not of externall adoption and covenant administration the former they convey not as neither doth a free Denison his personall gifts of wisedome c. the later hee may not as a man barely but with this reduplication considered as a parent in covenant and Church and spirituall citie estate for so by vertue of the covenant hee is in together with the professed parentall application and challenge of it as to him and his hee may convey such an externall right formerly mentioned Nor is that absurditie ours that wee make such visible members of Christs church before calling for if hee
of a true visible Church which are according to Mr. B's profession and the initiatory seale of the covenant then circumcision now baptisme and so Mr. B. his ninth argument is answered his second third fourth sixth and eight argument hath been elsewhere answered his seventh argument from a mistaken exposition of Acts 19 is elsewhere answered in what is briefly spoken to that place his tenth argument from the taking up of Paedobaptisme from corrupt principles is abundantly answered in the whole discourse wherein better principles are held forth and if any hold it out upon weake and unwarrantable grounds it weakens not a good cause in it selfe that it is ill handled His last argument from universall practise to the contrary is elsewhere answered and amongst others the practise in baptizing Lydia's house is one exception nor doth that which Mr. B. would pretend as an argument to the contrary evince what hee would have they are not said to bee the brethren of the house which Paul there comforted Acts 16. ult doth Mr. B. which would make all the jaylors houshold to bee actually beleevers thinke that they attended not Paul and Silas from prison for hee was now to depart the citie and hasted out of the jaylors house by the comming of the Magistrates thither for that end vers 39. so that there was no opportunitie before to utter what they had to say at parting but another house as that of Lydia in their way out of the citie is a fitter place for that purpose there therefore they make a little pause for that end after which they departed SECT XIIII ANd to adde here to consideration of 1 Cor. 10. 1 2. which to mee hath been long of validitie to prove this practise of Paedobaptisme as then in use nor can I yet bee removed from those thoughts the Apostles scope there was to take downe their pride in priviledges and resting secure in ordinances c. by shewing them the hazard to which they lay open notwithstanding if they provoked God by an argument from a like example of Church members interested not meerely in ordinary but extraordinary priviledges yet by reason of such provocation comming to a sad end and thus lyeth the Apostles argument Where there are like priviledges of grace there if abused will bee like punishments inflicted but with you and with them of old are like priviledges of grace ergo if alike abused there will follow like punishments And because they might glory in those peculiar Church ordinances of the seales which yet they were so apt to abuse hee singles out parallels to them and therein doth not take instance from the ordinary Sacraments of the Jewes but from two extraordinary ones wherein if in any thing they might seeme to bee priviledged above others Now if there were no parallel in that materiall businesse of the childrens baptisme in Corinth Church a great part of the Apostles scope of urging them from a ground of paritie of priviledges failed nay this had been a good argument to have taken downe their pride another way scil that the members of that Church had their children with them in a glorious manner baptized in the cloud and sea yet God dealt so with them in his judgements and you Corinthians that have nothing any way parallel to such a baptisme of your children doe you thinke to escape Object 1. But you will say there is no proportion betwixt them in that this was no Sacrament at all but an extraordinary providence Answ An ordinary Sacrament it was not but a Sacrament it was though extraordinary SECT XV. FIrst in that the other of the Manna and rock was not else spirituall meat and drinke and Christ to many of them really it was then Sacramentally so or no way to them Secondly why else doth the Apostle single out but these two to the one giving the name of baptisme to the other of spirituall meat and drinke and Christ agreeable to that mentioned in the end of this argument vers 16 17. Thirdly why else doth hee having mentioned their being under the cloud vers 1. come over it againe vers 2. and adde the name of baptisme to it It were a tautology if intending it of a bare providence Fourthly else the Apostle had much failed in his scope of deterring the members of this Church considered as such from Church sinnes and wantonnesse under and against Church priviledges Fiftly else why is not the same ascribed to all the rest to the mixt multitude which were with them yea to the very beasts for all shared in this as a providence all passed thorough the Sea with them c. yet none but the Church have this ascribed to them All our fathers were under the cloud and baptized c. the Church fathers to Paul and Gentile Church members as such were those Jew Church members whether parents or children the very babes as then yet in respect of after ages of the Church to whom afterwards they were Instruments to convey Church truths and blessings they were fathers Paul spake this to the brethren of the Church yet not excluding the sisters but including them in his admonition and argument but it 's usuall that Church admonitions and Epistles doe runne in the name of the brethren as being principall actors in all Church matters and hence also albeit the females of the Jew Church as such bee by proportion included in this matter of Church priviledge yet hee nameth onely the males but onely members of the Church did share in it in that respect Sixtly hence also the phrase baptized into Moses not personally but ministerially considered in his doctrine hee gave them from God both a precept for it and a promise encouraging to it or into Moses typically considered as a type of Christ Act. 3. 22. Object 2. Was not this onely a type of saving preservation from sinne c. Answ All the Corinthians had no antitype thereof in their baptisme really no more then many of them and in a Sacramentall way that baptisme to them was as that to the Corinthians a visible seale of salvation Object 3. Doth hee not speake of a samenesse therein betwixt the Jewes themselves and not in reference to the members of the Church of Corinth Answ The scope of the Apostle being what was mentioned will not beare other sense then of comparing them with the Jewes in like priviledge for substance to deterre them from like sinnes lest they incurre like punishments Object 4. By this argument wee set up nationall Churches now Answ No more followeth hence ex natura rei but as onely Church members according to their severall capacities were so priviledged and not others so onely Church members now are to partake of Church Ordinances wee are to consider it herein quà Church which is continuing and not quà nationall Church wherein was some circumstantiall peculiaritie which vanished Object 5. You may then pleade for Infants comming to the Lords Supper since all our Fathers did
other And the Proposition it selfe implyeth as much saying commonly it was so the people being not as now many are in a manner wholly professing Christ but rather wholly Pagan and Prophane and Idolatrous but alwayes it was not so even then for their little ones which were not brought to the faith were also baptized 4 Proposition That by the ancient Fathers of the Primitive Church the children both of the faithfull and others were commonly first instituted in the faith and afterwards upon acknowledging and confessing of the same they were baptized This Proposition is full of equivocall termes it may not therefore passe without some Animadversions for it may so be interpreted as to stand with truth yet so also as to bee utterly false Primitive Church may bee understood of the Church in the same immediatly following the Apostles time or as in some of his Authors for the Church that succeeded more then an 100. yeares yea possibly 200. or 300. afterwards Rupertus Tiuliensis saith it was the custome of the Church of old that they administred the Sacrament of regeneration onely at Easter and Pentecost c. which if it begun in Victors time to whom that restraint of the time of baptisme unlesse in case of necessitie is attributed as the Author of it about the yeere 290. Albeit Rivet in his first Book Critici Sacri cap. 8. citeth the Magdeburge historians centur 1. cap. 8. as proving the Decretalls ascribed to Victor to be spurious or if not then but some time in the third Centurie yet it sufficeth to shew in what Latitude of time Rupertus his expressions runne when hee speaketh of what was the use in the Church of old And in the primitive Church in this Latitude it 's probable there might bee sundry which upon corrupt grounds might deferre both their own and their childrens baptisme too as appeares by the Orations of Gregory Nazianzen stirring up as to come more speedily themselves to bee baptized so to offer their little ones at the most if no danger bee towards in which case hee adviseth the same sooner when three yeeres old if so long deferred yet then to offer them to baptisme which was before they could bee able to make such an acknowledgement of the faith or confession of their sinnes But more of him afterwards Children of the faithfull if hee intend such children as were knowing and able to understand truth taught them so as to bee apprehensive of their sinnes c. It 's true they used when any were received into Church fellowship which had such adult children at that time those to instruct in that way before those children were baptized But if understood of little ones not capable of such an issue and effect of such instruction those they used also then to baptize before such instructions And for this let the Authors owne testimonies which hee quoteth Proposition 7. of Origen Austin and Gregory the fourth witnesse For wee now speake not to that whether it were onely a Church custome and tradition c. wee shall speake to that afterwards But suppose it were onely a Church custome and tradition yet its proofe sufficient that it was so anciently in use as there is mentioned that even children were baptized before they were thus instructed as the cited places declare of which more hereafter 5 Proposition That according to the institution of the Lord Christ and the Apostles and ancient Fathers right use the Teachers required faith with Baptisme and that hee that was baptized must himselfe acknowledge and confesse the same and call upon the name of the Lord for which Matth. 28. Marke 16. Acts 8. are againe urged of which before so Acts 19. 2 3 4 5. 1 Pet. 3. 21. not now to speake how pertinently this last place especially is brought or not The proposition if understood as adaequately expressing all that Christ ordained or the Apostles practised and the Fathers after them which baptized regularly as if none else were baptized but such as came in such a way is denied as false 6 Proposition That Christ neither gave commandement for baptizing of children nor instituted the same and that the Apostles never baptized any Infants this Proposition in the termes of it is false as before hath appeared when wee proved that a consequentiall command of Scripture is Christs command and that such a command there is for the baptisme of children The other part also that the Apostles never baptized any Infants is as rash and false 7 Proposition is of the same stamp scil that the baptisme of Infants and sucklings is a ceremony and Ordinance of man brought into the Church by Teachers since the Apostles time and instituted and commanded by Councells Popes and Emperours 8 Proposition labours of the same Frenzie sc that young children or Infants ought not to bee baptized and that none ought to bee brought or driven or compelled thereunto Proved by Scripture Matth. 28. 19. Mark 16. 15. These three Propositions might have been all put into one but that the Author or Authors would speake many things so might the other five Propositions have been reduced to fewer heads The unsoundnesse of these Proprositions in the Authors sense I hope hath been cleared to humble and pliable minds in the former discourse CHAP. II. SECT I. WEe shall now trace these Authors in their quoted Authorities Proposi 1. Hierom upon Matth. 28. 19. is quoted Proposition 1. and 8. The Lord saith he commanded his Apostles that they should first instruct and teach all nations and afterward should baptize those that were instructed in the mysteries of faith for it cannot bee that the body should receive the Sacrament of baptisme unlesse the soule have received before the true faith This whole testimony is intended by the Author of growne ones in what way adult Pagans are to bee baptized and of their receiving of baptisme so as to have the saving benefit of it But to make it his mind to intend exclusion of Babes is to make him worke and practise things against the light of his owne judgement and conscience The Author confessing in the eight proposition that his proofes are out of ancicient later teachers who have and do maintaine the use of baptizing children and Hierom is one hee quoteth As for Hieroms judgement this way see his first Tome his 7th Epistle scil ad Laetam where having said before that the good and evill of little children is ascribed to the parents hee addeth nisi forte existimes Christianorum filios c. unlesse thou thinke that if the children of Christians receive not baptisme the children onely are guilty of the sinne and that the wickednesse is not also imputed to those that would not give the same to them especially at that time when the children which were to receive baptisme could not contradict the same as on the other hand the salvation of the Infants is the Ancestors gaine Hee reckons that there is wickednesse in it carelesly to neglect
baptizing of persons but that it may appeare that onely such were not then in the assembly albeit the growne persons were those to whom especially such speeches were directed compare this with that of Austin in his 4. Serm. in octav Paschae adneophytos where hee saith To day are celebrated the octaves of Infants their heads are uncovered in token of libertie c. Those children Infants little ones sucklings hanging on their mothers breasts and ignorant of what grace is bestowed as you may perceive because they are called Infants even they also also have their octaves to day And these old men young men striplings all are also Infants By this testimony we may perceive a larger interpretation of the word Neophytos scil any one newly planted into the Church whether Infant youth or other any one who was as new borne Sacramentally in baptisme of what age soever And that at the solemnitie of Easter * Infants sucklings were baptized as well as elder ones even before that change of the limitatiō of Baptism to Easter and and Pentecost Of which Rupertus and Boemius speake baptisme of Infants was not brought in for mortalities sake upon the change of the old use of baptisme at Easter and Pentecost but was in use while yet those limited times stood and long before this corrupt use of limiting the time of baptisme was in force of which more anon Yet also this I deny not but that corrupt addition to Paedobaptisme being in use in those times of asking questions to the child by the sureties c. this answer might suffice that even Infants too were in that number of young plants mentioned which did answer as is there said by their sureties Austin is againe quoted for proofe of the 7th Proposition de baptismo contra Donat. lib. 4. cap. 23. de Genesi ad literam lib. 10. cap. 23. now then let us examine what Austine saith there and how pertinent a proofe it is of the proposition hee calleth it there saith the Treatise a Church custome and thence concludes by the witnesse that Paededobaptisme is an ordinance of man brought into the Church by Teachers since the Apostles time and instituted by councells c. but let us heare Austin speake for himselfe at the first hand and not take a report of his words at second hand lest it prove a slander thus he speaketh in the former place the which the whole Church holdeth as delivered to it that even little Infants are baptized which truely yet cannot beleeve with the heart unto righteousnesse nor confesse with the mouth unto salvation as the Thiefe he meanes the converted Thiefe c. and yet no Christian hath affirmed that they are baptized in vaine and immediatly Chap. 24. addeth And if any seeke divine authoritie in this matter scil of Infants baptisme although that which the whole Church holdeth neither was instituted by councells but alwayes retained wee assuredly beleeve that it was not delivered but by Apostolicall authoritie yet wee may truely conjecture opposing this to all false and uncertaine conjectures of what authoritie or force the Sacrament of Infants baptisme is from circumcision c. where first in the very place quoted hee saith not that it was a tradition of the Church onely or from the Church but was delivered to the Church and least any should imagine that this was delivered to the Church by any corrupt teachers since the Apostles times Austin in the next Chapter within five or six lines of that in the 23. Chapter mentioned giveth his arguments to prove that it could not bee delivered to the Church but by Apostolicall authoritie first in that it was never instituted by any councells secondly because it was ever held by the Churches scil since there was any Church planted by the Apostles and I thinke his arguments are weightie other things which were of such note as this of Paedobaptisme was if innovations either they may bee proved that they came in by such or such councells or authors or it may be proved that there was never any such thing in use before such or such a time which in this case will be hard for any to undertake to make the same good by convincing testimonies or arguments But to returne to our Authors they bring in this testimony to prove that baptisme of Infants was instituted by councells * The first witnesse saith flatly it was not instituted by Councells what forgery is this they make him their witnesse to prove it to bee an ordinance of man the witnesse proveth that it 's of divine authoritie What notable jugling is this Will they never leave this trade Let us examine the other place where Austin saith that it is a Church custome if our Authors speake truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth of the place quoted the words there are as followeth the custome of our mother the Church in baptizing Infants is not to bee despised nor by any meanes is the same to be thought superfluous Yery good then will they say this place is full for us Nay stay Sirs be not too hasty to interrupt the witnesse whilst hee is speaking let him speake all hee hath here to say scil nor were it at all to bee beleeved unlesse it were an Apostolicall tradition c. So you heare Sirs hee tells you it 's such a Church custome as withall it is an Apostolicall tradition and that in the other place quoted is of Divine authority hee makes account which is delivered to the Church by the Apostles As indeed it is unlesse that any thinke that the Apostles in their Apostolicall ministry erred and delivered that to the Church as the mind meaning and intent of Christ which hee never meant And Austin hath the very same words as here in his third Epistle ad Yolusiam Nay lest there should bee any stick in the words traditum ab Apostolis and Apostolicall tradition hee peremptorily affirmeth speaking of the Churches authority in this case of Paedobaptisme lib. 1. de peccat merit remiss cap. 16 proculdubio per Dominum Apostolos traditum that without all question it was delivered by the Lord and his Apostles But our Authors here will not leave Austin thus but they will make him speake for them ere they have done therefore hee is quoted againe in the 28th Epistle to Jerom to confirme their 7th Proposition Content wee will heare any thing hee can say What saith Austin there Nay pag. 32. our Authors are silent and onely quote the place not the words and leave us to finde the sense out as Nebuchanezzar did his dreame and them to interpret it But let mee assure them Austin doth rather confirme the contrary in that Epistle then otherwise clearing both the spirituall ends of Christian parents in hastning with their children to Baptisme and ratifying Cyprians judgement touching the case of Paedobaptisme that hee therein did not frame some new decree but held the most firme beleefe
of the Church that way And possibly the Authors by adding this testimony of Austin to that of Cyprians Epistle and on this say that Cyprian ordeined children should bee baptized they bring this to confirme it which doth indeed confirme it that Cyprian held this and ratified this but not as the first Author of it which perhaps the Treatise would make the world beleeve but rather as that which the Christian Church had ever firmely beleeved According as Austin in his 10th Sermon of the words of the Apostle speaking of Paedobaptisme saith this the Church meaning the Christian Church hath alwayes had alwayes held this it hath received from the faith or doctrine of the ancients this doth it keepe most constantly unto the end Yea but pag. 33. our authors ciâ—e some words of his in his 28th Epistle to Jerom therefore doe men hasten so with their children to baptisme because they beleeve they cannot otherwise be made alive in Christ and to the like purpose in his Enchiridion from the young to the old none are to bee denyed baptism for salvation is not promised to the children but through baptisme c. and to the same purpose Austin and the Bishops of the Milevitan councell wrote as condemning such as thinke Infants can bee saved without Baptisme All this if they intend it of the necessitie of Baptisme in respect of Gods precept in opposition to contempt and neglect and of salvation promised in such sort as with reference to this as one ordinary helpe and seale thereof leaving extraordinary wayes and secrets to the Lord Charitie would thinke favourably of their words especially since as much in effect is in this sense held forth Ephes 5. 25 26 27. But bee it that Austin superadded his owne Stubble and Straw yet that hinders not but the bottome and foundation of that Ordinance was good and sure you will not say because Papists hold baptisme to bee of necessitie to salvation that therefore baptisme of growne persons is no Ordinance That other speech of Austins that as those were circumcised which were borne of circumcised parents even so should they bee baptized which are borne of parents that are baptized is sound and good and no proofe of that 7th Proposition that Paedobaptisme is an humane Ordinance Thus wee see Austin hath sped no better then his neighbours SECT III. MElancton is the next witnesse who is called in to give evidence to confirme the 2d 6th and 7th Proposition I am sorry that these bookes cited are not at hand so that I cannot so well discover the ill dealing which I suspect upon the 1 Cor. 11. 15. hee is said to affirme In time past those in the Church which had repented them were baptized and it was in stead of an absolution wherefore repentance must not bee separated from baptisme For baptisme is a Sacramentall signe of repentance It 's evident that Melancton here speakes of the baptisme of growne ones those in the Church which had repented were baptized and so in like case of baptizing adult persons repentance should not bee separated from baptisme But to Melancton himselfe it is a non sequitur that therefore Infants ought not to bee baptized because they cannot repent witnesse the answer he maketh in his Common places unto that objection against Paedobaptisme Loco de Baptismo Infantum It is most true saith hee that in all adult persons Baptisme faith and repentance are required but in the case of Infants this sufficeth that the holy Spirit is given them by baptisme c. As for that definition of Baptisme that it is a Sacramentall signe of repentance it is imperfect nor yet will it follow thence that none else should bee baptized but such as actually repent no more then in that circumcision was a signe of Heart circumcision and therefore of repentance Deut. 10. 16. Jer. 4. 4. Deut. 30. 6. that none but adult persons were fit to bee circumcised Melancton is againe quoted Proposition 6. for saying there is no plaine commandment in Scripture that children should bee baptized And if hee did say thus doth this prove that there is no command at all because not plaine or expresse scil in so many words you shall baptize children there is a command to bee deduced from Scripture by necessary consequence in Melanctons judgement witnesse the foure arguments which hee drawes from necessary consequence of Scripture to prove it Loco de Baptismo Infantum and witnesse his hand subscribed at Wittenberg amongst others to that Article with its explication touching Paedobaptisme as necessary in respect of divine command as before wee mentioned Proposition 7. Melancton in his answer to the Anabaptists Articles is quoted but no words mentioned that hee should speake unlesse the Authors cite him for mentioning the story of Cyprian and the other Bishops determinations about Paedobaptisme which were impertinent in as much as Origen is here quoted for saying that Paedobaptisme was a tradition of the Church Now Origen was before Cyprian and the Church whose tradition it 's supposed Origen saith it was was long before Origen so that Cyprian did not first ordaine Infants Baptisme the Authors themselves being Judges I have not that booke of Melanctons and I cannot divine what his words were unlesse they were mentioned And I wonder if they were for their purpose they set them not downe I conclude then of Melanctons testimonies as of the rest that they are wrested CHAP. IIII. SECT I. IVstin Martyr as the Authors of ignorance or the Printer by oversight calls Justin Martyr in his oration ad Antoninum Pium I will declare unto you how wee offer up our selves to God after wee are renewed though Christ those amongst us that are instructed in the faith and beleeve that which wee teach them is true being willing to live according to the same wee doe admonish to pray for the forgivenesse of their sinnes and we also fast and pray with them then they are brought by us to the water and there as wee were newborne are they also by newbirth renewed and then in calling upon God the Father the Lord Jesus Christ and the holy Ghost they are washed in water Mr. Blackwood addeth that of Justin also That wee do bring the party so washed not the beleever as hee expresseth it and joyned to the brethren as they are called where they are gathered together to common prayers and supplications is not expressed as Mr. Blackwood hath it but thus that wee may pray both for our selves and for the party newly enlightned c. Now whereas the Treatise brings this to prove the third Proposition that the people were commonly first instructed and then baptized c. Mr Blackwood is more peremptory in that matter making this testimony contrary and so inconsistent with any other testimony in the questions ascribed to Justine and concludeth hence that in Justines time Paedobaptisme was not in the world Let us therefore consider whether this apology and that which is recorded
that it came to bee used by the Fathers that lived 300. yeers after the Apostles as much saith A. R. in his Childish baptisme But say Cassander spoke as Proposition 4. hee is said to doe yet that proveth not that children of the faithfull were commonly first instructed ere baptized because some beleevers deferred baptisme or Tertullian and Gregory counselled it much lesse that this was well done according to Christs mind for wee have seene upon what unsound principles they did it and as for the Councell of Tertullian and Gregory it hath been before weighed of what force herein As for the other speech of Cassander that Pedobaptisme came in use by the Fathers 300. yeeres after the Apostles time it maketh mee stand and wonder at the impudent forehead of errour and yet I might wonder the lesse since it 's but just with God that they which hold lies should also tell lies I read Cassander with as much heed as I could to finde out whether there might bee any colour of ground of such a speech of him but could not finde out any like it unlesse that which hee saith bee this way wrested scil that the Apostles in the beginning by the command and charge of the Lord set up their worke and did every where constitute Churches gathered of the Gentiles to the Communion of the Gospel growne ones which consented to the Apostles doctrine after confession of the faith were without any distinction of times or places knit unto the Church of Christ by the Sacrament of Baptisme administred by the Disciples of the Apostles But saith also in the next words although even at that time it is to be beleeved that Infants also and especially sickly ones were offered to bee consecrated by the baptisme of Christ but clearely to evince the falsehood of that speech before cited to confirme Proposition 7. the very title of this booke contradicteth the same George Cassander of Infants baptisme The testimonies of the Ancient Ecclesiasticall writers which flourished within the 300. yeeres from the times of the Apostles that is from the departure of John the Apostles being more then the hundreth yeere from the birth of Christ And according to this his worke that hee propoundeth hee bringeth in very notable testimonies of the antients both Latine and Greeke that lived in that space for the proofe of Paedobaptisme that any that had not sâ—ene authorities before might have been thence well furnished for this purpose and after the testimonies produced Cassander closeth thus These are the testimonies of ancient Fathers which wee suppose are sufficient for the deciding of this controversie of childrens baptisme which hath been raised up by certaine wretched persons for in as much as all these whose testimonies wee have produced in a continued series from the Apostles were Orthodox teachers and guiders of Churches of Christ at severall times and places there is no question but that this Tenent being held forth by them all severally as with one mouth it was the very doctrine of the whole Church which the Church had received from the Apostles and transmitted the same to those in after times and upon the speech of Austin l. 4. contra Donat. c. 13 14. addeth To this Apostolicall doctrine of baptisme of Infants all the Apostolique Churches planted by the Apostles throughout the whole world they doe give testimony c. Who seeth not now the grosnesse of this falshood in fathering that upon Cassander the very contrary whereunto is his businesse there to evince SECT V. Zwinglius THe next testimony is of as grand an adversarie to Anabaptisme as any and that is Zuinglius who is quoted to confirme the 4th and 6th Proposition hee is said to affirme that there is no plaine word in Scripture whereby childrens baptisme is commanded his meaning is no more then thus that it is not in so many words said you shall baptize children as neither the first day of the weeke shall bee to you the Lords day or Christian Sabbath c. but the principall place and for the other two quotations they are to no purpose is that mentioned in his booke of Articles Act. 18. whose words because the treatise is so often tripping wee shall set downe verbatim who there speaking of Confirmation saith although I am not ignorant as it may bee gathered out of the Ancients that of old time Infants were baptized this is rendred otherwise in the Treatise and yet not so common as now it is but the children were alwayes instructed openly and when their faith had made impression upon their hearts and they confessed with their mouthes then they were admitted to baptisme this custome of teaching I wish were used and recalled now namely that baptisme being given to Infants they may bee afterwards taught when they come to age as they are capable of instruction from the Word of God this the Treatise leaveth out Zwinglius his judgment was that the maine in the childs right to baptisme was the Parents Covenant estate whence the child being federally holy which else had been uncleane had its maine title to baptisme so that in case both parents were visibly Pagans or Idolatrous c. they were not to bee baptized when yet in his time many such were baptized And thus I take it is that which hee intendeth that since in Ancient times albeit sometimes every little children of Infidels as may appeare were baptized yet not so commonly as now such like children are baptized promiscuously hand over head for which some as it appeares by Beza upon 1 Cor. 7. 14. have pleaded albeit hee counts it their errour ibid. and since in those times Catechising as it appeareth of children was too little in use Zwinglius maketh that use of the Catechising of children of old both of persons joyned to the Church which were capable of instruction when first their parents joyned in Church estate before their baptisme which was one sort of children so catechised and of the exposititious children of Pagans also those children of their Pagan captive or slaves which were another sort of children catechized before baptisme Zwinglius wisheth that albeit it were not in his time used as neither before baptisme to such like children so neither after the baptisme neither of such children nor of others of visible beleevers which ought in Infancy to bee baptized yet now catechizing of children might bee in more use Assuredly Zwinglius was strong for this that baptisme of Infants was no practise taken up after the Apostles but by the Apostles no bare old custome taken upon humane grounds but his judgement was directly crosse to the Proposition hee is brought as a witnesse to that Christ did not institute Infants baptisme c. witnesse his many arguments from Scripture for it and his judicious answers to the evasions of the adversaries to that truth And as much may bee said of Oecolampadius his companion who is cited to confirme the 6th Proposition whereas in the first
all without regard to their parents Church or covenant estate yet was it an old errour albeit not so old so farre as I can finde But if it should bee taken in reference to children visibly in the covenant I wonder if hee should speake any such thing in that sense having so solemnely subscribed to the contrary in that famous meeting at Wittenberg formerly mentioned SECT III. CAlvin that grand opposer and stigmatizer of Anabaptists is quoted to confirme Proposition 6. and 8th lib. 4. Instit cap. 16. Hee confesseth that it is no where expresly mentioned by the Evangelists that any ones child was by the Apostles hands baptized Now Calvin having said Sect. 8. that there is none which seeth not that Paedobaptisme is not of humane devising which is established by such Scripture approbation brings it in by way of objection that it will bee said it 's no where expresly mentioned where the Apostles baptized children which giving albeit not granting hee saith Bee it so c. yet because neither were they excluded as oft as mention is made of baptized families who unlesse hee bee mad will thence reason that they were not baptized they may as well reason on that ground that women were forbid to receive the Supper when notwithstanding in the Apostles time they were thereunto admitted Yet our Authors are so madde to bring this very place to prove their 6th Proposit that the Apostles never baptized any Infants And upon Matthew Calvin is said to say Christ hath no where commanded to baptize Infants But on what place in Matthew Calvin saith so is not said but this I can say that in the most likely places where that Argument of baptisme is handled Calvin no where speaketh in these words here expressed as farre as I can finde Dathenus in his Colloquie is the next witnesse confessing It 's no where plainely in such words written that Christian children shall in the New Testament bee baptized and yet wee have no expresse commandement of it scil as before in so many words You shall baptize children and that there is no evident or expresse example scil in so many words recorded that the Apostles baptized such or such children and what then therefore Christ never instituted the Apostles never practised Paedobaptism according to the 6th Proposition Non sequitur Here then are three more witnesses abused CHAP. VIII SECT I. ORigen calleth childrens baptisme a ceremony and tradition of the Church Hom. 8. in Levit. and in Rom. 6. lib. 5. What doth Origen say so in both places that is false In the former hee saith baptisme is given to Infants according to the first observation of the Church But if any boggle at that in the other place quoted hee telleth you the groundworke of that observation of the Church For this also the Church hath received a tradition from the Apostles to give baptisme even to Infants If it were an Apostolicall tradition then not a bare Church tradition if the Church received it from the Apostles then was not the Church the Author of it but the Apostles rather Yea but others perceiving the force of the Testimony of so early an author in the matter of the practise of Paedobaptisme casheere it as a spurious testimony of some other rather then of Origen Some stumble at the word Tradition when yet it 's no other then what Basil speaking as before quoted of the forme of Baptisme calleth it a tradition and in his 73. Epistle speaking of the Spirit the comforter as placed in equality with the Father and Sonne to bee a thing which they had received as delivered to them So Justin Martyr another author formerly cited maketh the forme of that manner of worship mentioned in his second Apology to bee that which they had received from the Apostles So Gregory Nazianzen another quoted Author here in his first oration against Julian the Apostate hee inveigheth against that abusive imitation of the Church traditions the manner of administration of the ordinances for Pagan uses Clemens Alexandrinus a speciall Author quoted by Mr. B. yet hee counteth it a metamorphosing of a Christian to kick against the tradition of the Church and warpe to opinions of humane heresies lib. 7. Stromaton Hee meanes not bare Popish superstitious Church customes but such as are opposite to meere humane conceits and devices yet calleth them Church traditions Yea but those corrupt exploded Canons are yet called the Apostles Canons They are so by Papists not so by Protestants Such all those orthodox Divines may explode them yet maintaine this as an Apostolicall tradition which is genuine and divine Yea but it may bee said that Erasmus noteth in his Praecognita unto the Booke of Leviticus that hee which readeth this worke scil the Homilies upon Levit. and the Enarration upon the Epistle to the Romans hee is uncertaine whether hee reade Origen or Ruffinus And the peroration of the Translator annexed to the commentary of the Romans saith that hee added something defective whereof yet hee had the fundamentalls from the Author and abbreviated other things too largely expressed in the Commentaries upon the Romans Leviticus Genesis Exodus Joshua and Judges Suppose these additions of things defective by Ruffinus yet hee saith hee had the foundations of what hee added from Origen So that Origen gave such foundations of Paedobaptisme if Ruffinus added that as gave occasion to it but why is not this particular mentioned as Origens rather then Ruffinus his notion Because Origen was somewhat Pelagianisticall and this place touching baptizing Infants in respect of originall sinne was too crosse to Pelagianisme This is new to mee that Origen held that errour albeit hee were not free of others but I have read more said of Ruffinus that way scil that hee was the forerunner of Pelagius If on that ground it was not Origens much lesse was it Ruffinus his owne dictate And Erasmus denieth not but all there mentioned must bee fathered upon either Origen or Ruffinus But to put an end to this dispute the Homilies on Luke are not questioned to bee Origens neither doth Erasmus nor the Translator in the peroration mentioned acknowledge either additions or detractions in setting forth of those Homilies on Luke Yet there Origen affirmeth to the substantiallâ— mentioned in that place of the Romans for in his 2. Tom. Hom. lib. 14. on Luke hee saith parvuli baptizantur c. and little children are baptized unto remission of sins of what sins or when did they sinne or how can there bee any occasion of washing in little children unlesse in that sense of which wee spake a little before None is cleane from blemish no though but a day old in the earth and because the defilement of our Nativitie is put away by baptisme therefore even little children are baptized Nor doe I finde in our Criticks or the Authors quoted by them that these Homilies of Origens on the Romans are doubted of to bee genuine Albeit both Perkins and Rivet doe
as of much use on his part in way of authoritie yet saith hee will not regard any authorities which the other party at least bring above the limit of time But to returne to Chrysostome who in his 40. Homil. upon Genesis saith But our circumcision or grace I say of Baptisme hath cure without griefe and brings innumerably good things to us c. and it hath no limited time set as there was but it is lawfull to receive this circumcision made without hands either in our first or middle or last age and so in his homily ad Neophytos 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for this cause wee also baptize little ones which have no sinne meaning of their owne have not committed actuall sinnes that to them righteousnesse holinesse adoption inheritance and fraternitie of Christ may be communicated that they may all become his members and an habitation of his Spirit Anno 430. Of Theodoret Theodoret in his Epitome of divine decrees and Cap. of baptism for baptism is not like a razour as the frantique Messalians say taking away onely sinnes that are past for that God giveth in superabundantly for if this only were the effect of baptisme why doe we baptize infants which have not yet relished sin for the Sacrament doth not promise onely those things but greater for it is the pledge of future good things and a type of future resurrection and it is the communication of the Lords death and participation of his resurrection the garment of salvation and gladnesse For as many as are baptized into Christ have put on Christ and as many as are baptized into Christ are baptized into his death that as Christ was raised from the dead so wee should walke in newnesse of life and adding haec nos de sanctissimo baptismo sentire docuit Apostolus and the Apostle hath taught us thus to hold concerning baptisme and makes those speeches Gal. 3. and Rom. 6. to bee verified in Infants baptizing as well as others and that they are baptized in respect of future good rather then present and that the Apostle taught them so to thinke hereof Nor is that Dionysius Graecus who ever hee were albeit not the Areopagite yea albeit having sundry mixtures in his booke to bee wholly slighted or neglected SECT II. Cassander de baptis Inf. Of the Easterne and Greek Churches As for the Easterne and Greeke Churches Cassanders testimony is very round and full albeit their discipline may well bee gathered by their teachers and councells doctrine speaking of testimony of Paedobaptisme he saith but especiall and chiefe testimony and weight of authoritie to this baptisme of Infants is further added from the universall and constant custome which unto this day in the Churches which are extant in the world and there are many such without the limits of the Roman Church is retained for the Churches which are yet remaining in Greece Asia Syria Aegypt and India and the Russians and Muscovites which follow the Greeke orders lastly the Aethiopians under the government of Prester John I say all these Christians professing nations although differing in some opinions and rites yet in the custome of baptizing Infants they all of old agreed among themselves some stating the 8. and the Aethiopians the 40. day for baptizing them unlesse in the case of danger or those of the female Sex The Russians and Armenians baptize Infants as they doe Adults unlesse that when they baptize Infants there are witnesses and the Indian Christians doe so likewise for which hee quotes Josephus Judas in his Aethiopian navigations and Franciscus Alvares and it 's not credible that such Churches so averse from the Latines would yet buckle to their customes of consecrating the unleavened bread or eating thngs strangled or blood that they did borrow this of Paedobaptisme so much abhord formerly by them from the Westerne Churches and Paget in his Christianography citeth a speech of the Bishop of Bitonto in the Councell of Trent acknowledging of the Greeke Church thus ea igitur Graecia mater est that the Greeke Church is that mother to whom the Latin owneth whatever it hath see the acts of the Councell of Trent pag. 18. and hee mentions the forme of the Russians baptisme the Priest when hee dippeth the child useth these words in the name of the Father Sonne and holy Ghost and as oft as the God-fathers are asked whether they renounce the Devill so oft they spit on the ground Guagniny relig Muscovit In the Greeke Church the Priest having said certaine prayers taking the child in his armes putteth him three times into the water saying The servant of God N N. is baptized in the name of the Father the Sonne and Holy Ghost Jerom the Patriarch pag. 103. and the same doth Thomas Aquinas observe in his third part Quest 6. Artic. 8. Quest 67. Artic. 6. and Quest 66. Aâ—…tic the 5th And the same doth Dominic a Sot in quest 1. Art 8. testifie and let mee adde two things more First that the doctrine of Paedobaptisme was never ex professo opposed by any Orthodox Churches or Christians in all the times of old as farre as I can finde of Tertullians mind wee have spoken before and Gregory Nazianzen how farre they went Auxentius the Arrian Bishop of Millain as Bullinger in his Decads hath it did so and so indeed did the Samosatenian Heretiques The Donatists they baptized Infants witnesse the 48. Canon of the third Carthaginian Councell in reference to Siritius and Simplicianus So did other African Councels in Austins time ordaine that children baptized by Donatists should not bee rebaptized the Pelagians themselves denied it not wholly Austin in his 14. Sermon de verbis Apostoli baptizandâ—… esse parvulos nemo dubitet c. none need to doubt of baptisme since even those here doubt not which in part doe contradict scil the Pelagians there are cases and times wherein some one of the servants of God saw much more then many and most did as Athanasius and some few more in the point of the Divinitie of Christ in that Arrian age and Paphnutius the Confessor in the point of Ministers marriage to which the Fathers of the Nicene Councell had like to have gone contrary and yet before and after these times whole Churches and Councels held out as much as these Saints did SECT IIII. Object NO such example in the opposers of Paedobaptisme Yes you will say Berengarius about a 1050. and afterwards Peter de Brucis and the Albingenses and so the Waldenses for they had such diverse names according to places and countries in which they were scattered c. they denied it and some of them appealed to the Scriptures and to the Greeke Church for warrant Answ I deny not but that the Popish writers as their manner is use to brand the servants of God with some odious tenents for which all would hate them when that they never held the same but that old accuser of the Brethren casteth on by
therein which you in a Church-way professe have so much influence upon your yokefellowes as to sanctifie them in and to your conjugall use But that there be invaliditie and privation of influence thereof in that your conjugall relation then must you be as well to seeke of any validitie thereof in another relation also scil in your parentall relation to your children even there also shall the covenant and faith have no influence unto such an effect of holinesse of your children If they produce not such an effect in the former by which yet the Infidell partie have no personall priviledge how will they produce the later by which children have according to you an unquestioned personall priviledge that they are holy hee that will question or cast off the force of such instruments influences in one thing hee by the same distemper will cast the same off in another Yea if it be groundedly and really for that the Covenant of Grace which beleevers lay hold of together with their faith therein have no efficacy in one condition or relation it is as well true in another only reserving the diversitie of influences as diversly elicited or expressed If they are not effectuall to produce something peculiar to beleevers in a conjugall relation differing from all Pagan spouses they will neither produce any thing peculiar to them in a parentall relation to their children But as your spouses shall bee to you as all other pagan spouses in common to each other meerely lawfull to use so your children with and to you shall be in your parentall relation but as pagan children are uncleane or profane which to all were absurd But now rather they are holy namely Federally and not as other Pagans children profane Now when I mention in this exposition the Covenant as in part having some influence in both relations as well as faith I doe it as not daring to sever faith from the word of faith which even giveth strength to faith it selfe And besides God having made a Covenant with Abraham and with his spirituall seed in their Generations as well as with the Jewes And that in such sort also as with respect to Church estate and as invested with Church-Covenant hence it is that the meere Infidelitie of a Pagan spouse abiding Pagan when the other comes to the faith shall not hinder the course and force of Gods Covenant to In-Churched beleevers seed witnesse the example both of the son of Moses Exod. 4. 24. c. and of Eunice Act. 16. 1 2 3. even many personall sinnes of the Saints hinder it not much lesse doe other personall sinnes evacuate the same Hence so long as this Covenant-Interest holdeth in force that either it be not rejected by the parents as it was by those Jewes Rom. 11. 20. or that they be not justly for covenant breaches dispoyled of Church benefit by it by some Church-censure so long the covenant is Ecclesiastically of force to the childrens federall Church-estate So in the case of those Idolatrous Church-members being not discovenanted and discharged by Gods hand or by Ecclesiasticall authoritie their children were federall and Church-seed the Churches children borne by her unto God Ezek. 16. 8. 20 21 23. compared That holy Covenant produceth that respect of holy persons Dan. 8. 24. compared with 11. 28. 30. 32. Hence the Covenant and Church-estate of Covenant and In-churched parents is firstly the parents priviledge and so to bee considered Hence also I conclude then that the little ones of visible beleeving and In-churched parents such as these mentioned in the Text were 1 Cor. 1. 1 2. with 1. and 14. they are Federally and Ecclesiastically holy In this sense the word holy is frequently used yea of many persons which were neither inherently holy nor imputatively holy in a strict sense no nor so much outwardly holy in point of lively expressions of personall holinesse yet are called holy scil Ecclesiastically and in externall respect to the Covenant and that not a Covenant of workes for that calleth no sinners holy nor by any meere ceremoniall holinesse but by vertue of Abrahams Covenant Gen. 17. 7. with Ezra 9. 2. They are called the holy seed and the same phrase in the same Covenant and Church respect is in Scripture frequently used with respect to such Infants the holy people destroyed by Antiochus Dan. 8. 24. were the Jewish children as well as growne persons The children were a part and a speciall part of that chosen beloved and people redeemed from Egypt which were called holy Hence both Deut. 14. 2. and 26. 18 19. and 28. 2. 9. speaking of the whole people as holy it is in the phrases thou thee loved and established Thee that thou mayst bee an holy people c. Adoption belongeth to the little ones as did the promises as well as to the rest of Pauls kindred Rom. 9. 4. They were children of the Church and borne to God as husband to the Covenant Church Ezek. 16. 8. 20 21. 23. compared with Jer. 2. 2. 3. 1. and Esa 54. 4 5. nor was this as I intimated a ceremoniall matter no more then either Abrahams Covenant was with some which oppose us confesse did belong in speciall sort to the Jewes and that Covenant was the very Covenant of Grace and therefore that did by this grant in speciall wise belong to them nor was it more ceremoniall then was that Deut. 30. 6. 11 12 13 14. which the Apostle maketh the very doctrine of faith which they preached as by comparing that with Rom. 10. 6 7 8. wee shall God willing declare This was not as the ceremonies against them but for the good of them and theirs and avowed by the Apostles after Christs ascension Act. 2. 38 39. of which afterwards And as 1 Pet. 2. 9. which Interpreters agree relateth to Exod. 19. 6. spoken of them not as an invisible Church but visible such as had officers over them which the invisible Church as such hath not For supposing a company with Church-officers they are now not an invisible but visible Câ—…us see 1 Pet. 5. 1 2 3. and 4. 10 11. hee calleth them elected such they were to the judgement of charitie and in respect of visibilitie so that visible Church of Babylon hee calleth it elected 1 Pet. 5. 13. yet were there in that visible Church as in others some tares and vessels of dishonour Some things mentioned in Peter of their obedience exercise of faith c. are not actually appliable to Infants yet that hinders not but that Infants are intended in that Inchurched part of the 10. Tribes as Calvin and Ames thinke in reference to James 1. 1. and Hos 1. 10. or in that In-churched part of the Gentiles as Oecumenius Aretius c. thinke since in Exod. 19. 6. to which this place is to bee referred this condition of that Covenant-priviledge scil Actually and personally to keepe Gods Covenant and to obey his voyce indeed Exod. 19. 5. was applyable onely to the
growne part yet the Infant part were in that account of an holy people c. and as much may bee conceived of 1 Pet. 2. 9. SECT VI. AGainst what is usually brought from 1 Cor. 7. 14. That is objected that children of parents not sanctified by faith in their matrimoniall fellowship as Pharez and Zarah of Judah and Thamar Jepthah of Gilead and many others were within the Covenant both of saving grace and Church-priviledge Therefore faith sanctifying of the use of the marriage bed is not such a cause of sanctifying of the children Federally and Ecclesiastically so as that unlesse that bee the children are uncleane in that respect Ans This objection may seeme to make a faire flourish against such as give the Apostles meaning as onely such But mee it hurts not who make the maine spring of the holinesse of the children not to be the sanctifying of the unbeleeving yoke-fellow to the beleeving but the grace of the Covenant to the beleever and his seed even the sanctification of the beleeving yoke-fellow springeth from the grace of the Covenant sanctifying beleevers seed by vertue whereof the infidelitie of the yoke-fellow becomes no overpowering let thereunto and so in part by vertue of that Covenant as well as faith in it such a yoke-fellow is sanctified so farre forth nor is the Apostles influence from the cause to the effect of that communion but rather from a like effect of the Covenant and faith in another relation of a beleever as a parent to children unto that in that relation of an yoke-fellow that if the influence of the Covenant and faith bee wholly denyed in the one it may well bee wholly denyed in the other and that hee makes account was an absurditie in the sight of all Concerning the assertion that Bastards were Interested in the Covenant of saving grace I will not now dispute it but reason ex suppositis That Covenant interest of those bastard-Infants it was not from the parents faith sanctifying of that communion Whence was it It could not be from any actuall faith of the babes they had it not it was surely from the force of Abrahams Covenant at least as invested with Church-Covenant from which the parents being not cut off by Gods hand nor cast out by the Churches power their Covenant relation still stood so far in force that is they were interessed externally therein and so their seed with them and thus in foro Ecclesiae the force of the Covenant took off even that impediment according to that position of the objectors and how much more doth the same force of the Covenant take off any impediment of a Pagan parents infidelitie in the Texts case of lawfull conjugall followship so that such children of a Gentile Corinthian Church-members have an interest at least externall in the saving Covenant of Grace and Church-priviledge Obj. Whether the parents beleeve or not the children may bee in the Covenant and regenerate therefore that 's no cause thereof Ans Wee speake not of the inherent holinesse of the child as regenerate that is immediatly from God but of holinesse Federall and Ecclesiasticall which may bee applyable to persons unregenerate as Psal 50. 5. 16. 17. Of which more afterwards The parents visibly beleeving and Inchurched are instrumentall causes of that holinesse of their children yea whether beleevers in veritie or onely visibilitie It sufficeth thereunto nor are little ones thus in Covenant with God and his Church without either the visibilitie of faith in the parents past or present personall holinesse consisteth not with living in knowne sinnes but Federall holinesse may Ezek. 16. Obj. The Text is a reason of the question which was not about Federall holinesse but living together Ans The former part of the Text is a reason of that and none pleades for the Infidell spouses Federall holinesse but the latter part is a confirmation of that reason from another ground And Mr. B. knoweth in proofe of conclusions we take divers mediums Obj. Yea but if the child bee Federally holy then the Infidell wife is holy with covenant sanctification Ans It followeth not The word sanctified in and to another and being holy differ and signifie different things as before said Obj. If Federally holy then Abrahams seed and then they have faith Gal. 3. Ans Wee shall in due place I hope prove that they are Abrahams seed without actuall personall faith of their owne and so as Abrahams seed federally holy Obj. The Apostle speakes of an outward holinesse common to reprobates also Heb. 9. 15. and not of holinesse knowne to the Church for which persons ought to bee baptized and it 's either inward holinesse which the Church deales not with or outward of which Baptisme is not a signe Ans Outward holinesse scil that which is visible to the Church is seal'd in Baptisme The Church deales not with inward holinesse therefore with outward unlesse there is an holinesse which is neither invisible nor visible Hebr. 9. is of Ceremoniall holinesse This of Federall and Church-holinesse knowne to the Church and holinesse visible or knowne to the Church is common to Reprobates unlesse any will say the Churches judgement erres not and confound visibilitie and infallibilitie CHAP. II. Sect. I. Touching the Explication of Act. 1. 38 39. ANother Scripture confirming the Doctrine of Federall holinesse of children of In-churched parents as approved and held forth by the Apostles is that Act. 2. 38 39 where Peter directing his speech chiefly to the Jewes vers 22. and 36. saith the promise is to you and to your children not was to you c. as intending any legall blessing but a promise then in force after Christs ascension to effect some chiefe promised blessing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 used to signifie the free promise or Covenant of Grace to which they had visible right SECT II. THe promise here I. S. conceiveth to bee meant onely of the Messiah which was the promise to be sent and by children to be meant allegoricall children which others inlarging expresse these two wayes 1. That the promise made unto Abraham was then fulfilled Act. 2. in sending Christ to them and to their children and to all that are afarre off namely those of the dispersion as many as the Lord our God shall call that they may bee turned from their iniquitie and bee baptized into his name for the remission of their sinnes Secondly supposing the promise to bee of a saving grace of Christ sent of the outward ordinance of baptisme of the extraordinary gifts of the holy Ghost c. It is none of these wayes true but with that limitation scil If they repent For neither God promised saving grace nor outward ordinances nor extraordinary gifts nor sent Christ to them their children or all that were afarre off without calling them and every of them Hen. Den speaketh to like purpose as this second particular hath first the promise is to you upon calling to them that are afarre of
Gods faithfulnesse impeached or impaired nor need the faith of beleevers bee shaken if this or that child should prove live and die wicked the force of the Covenant is not to bee measured by the fatall miscarrying of many of Abrahams Church seed To bee sure it taketh in some of his Church-seed as the Apostle reasoneth Rom. 9. 4. 6. compared Whether our doctrine herein or the adversaries which deny any interest at all to any beleevers Infants in the Covenant bee more uncomfortable let the world judge And therefore to affirme with Paul if taken in the strict of elect ones and of sincere beleevers that they onely are Abrahams choyce seed yet it 's no other then Gospell to affirme as much as wee have done of others ye they also are Abrahams Church seed SEâ—T V. 4. A Fourth Conclusion is that the Church in dispensing an enjoyned Initiatory seale of the Covenant of grace looketh unto visibilitie of interest in the Covenant to guide her in the application thereof Nor is it the saving interest of the persons in view which is her rule by which shee is therein to proceed The matter to bee dispenced is not an Initiatory seale of the Covenant before it bee commanded as before Circumcision or baptisme bee commanded but supposing that de facto they are commanded the rule of judging of the jus of persons propounded to the Church with desire of her admission by her officers to the fellowship of the initiatory seale of the Covenant it is not the internall and saving state of the partie or parties but the visibility of covenant right and estate saving right consisting in Gods electing act which is a very secret in saving interest in Christ and his death in saving influences and operations of his spirit and the like all which incurre not to outward discerning nor can be infallibly known by man being things per se invisible to others John 3. 8. John Baptist did and might lawfully baptize those multitudes albeit in the generall hee knew that many yea most of them would prove false and frothy Matth. 3. 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12. It sufficeth that albeit hee were perswaded in the generall that many were unworthy members of that floore and Church of Christ amongst them all yet they having appearances of a better estate and hee not being able to say in the particular persons presented to baptisme which of them notwithstanding would prove chaffie and vile hee baptized them Albeit wee may think in the generall that to bee sure in all visible Churches there will bee some vessells of dishonour sometimes and yet Ministers which are the Churches as well as Christs servants they are not therefore to refuse to dispense Church-Ordinances since they are in the face of the Church such utensils as the Lord may have and hath need of Hence the Apostles which as extraordinary persons knew the guile of persons secret from the Church witnesse that act against Ananias and Saphira Act. 5. 1 2 3 4 5. to 11. Yet in administring the Church-seale of Baptisme they refused not Ananias and Saphira no nor Simon Magus Act. 8. nor thousands of others of the Jewes amongst whom how many proved false let Acts 2. 41. and 4. 1 2 3 4. compared 21. 20 21 22 23 24. 28. 30 31. 36. and 22. 20. 22. and 23. 12 13. witnesse Nor could the Apostles imagine otherwise in the generall but many of them would prove such Yea Christ himselfe who by his divine knowledge knew Judas to bee a devill John 6. 70 71. and 13. 18. yet hee ministred to him that Supper whether the Pascall Lambe or the Lords Supper Verse 1. 2. 26. and 21. compared with Luke 22. 19 20 21. I determine not one of them it appeares it was Austin and others thinke Judas was admitted to the Lords Supper and that he did partake of the bread of the Lord albeit not of the Lord that spirituall bread so thinkes Mr. Cartwright from that connexion Luke 23. 19 20 21. but if admitted by Christ to the Passeover which Christ administred to him formerly and at that time it sufficeth to our purpose Christ ministring as man dealeth with Judas in his ministration of the Sacrament as man and as Judas was according to man and to the rest of that family to which hee then in speciall sort ministred Ishmael God discovered by a divine revelation to Abraham Esau to Rebeckah not to bee Gods elect seed of the Covenant yet Abraham and Isaac as Prophets and Priests at that time to the Church in their families circumcise them extraordinary cases brake not ordinary rules If Peter kill bodily any persons or Phinehas or Elias It 's not a warrant for Ministers to bee executioners or orderers of civill justice It 's the Magistrate is to do that by ordinary rule Rom. 13. If Ananias a private Disciple by extraordinary call in a vision baptize Paul yet it 's no crosse to that ordinary rule of ministring baptisme onely by preaching ministers Matth. 28. 19 20. So here in extraordinary cases persons to bee admitted to the seales of the old or new Testament may bee discovered to bee false hearted as was Ishmael Esau and Judas yet that hinders not but being in facie Ecclesiae visibly interested in the Covenant the seales are to bee administred unto them The Church in Abraham and Isaacs house had not that revealed to them touching Ishmael and Esau as neither the family of Christ knew that of Judas therefore as to them they had visible right to those seales so were they administred to them A Minister may see much good or evill in persons which are to partake of the seales yet if this bee not as well visible to the Church as to himselfe hee cannot of himselfe admit or reject them regularly hee is not the Church but acteth in admission rejections to or from the fellowship of Church-Ordinances such as the seales are by and with their consent A person Ecclesiastically holy is admittable and hee may not refuse them upon his owne private surmises It were to breed confusions in Churches and lay foundations of enthusiasmes The ordinary Elders of that visible Church of Ephesus must feede the Church in the dispensation of the word or seales occasionally Albeit many admitted to that fellowship many among themselves will prove Apostates Acts 20. 28 29 30. If particular persons saving interest in Gods promise and Covenant of grace were the rule it were either to necessitate ministers to come under guilt of sinne or Anomie breach of rule or for avoiding of that which they must needs doe with such breach of rule never to administer any Church-ordinances since they sometimes shall breake that rule in administring the same to hypocrites and albeit they doe sometimes administer them to elect ones yet not being able to know that secret infallibly they observe not that rule in faith but doubtingly and so can have little comfort of any such of their administrations
elect or reprobate but one in nature albeit in use and efficacy it were various according as the Spirit of God and faith made thereof improvement or not To adde one word more in way of proofe that Gentile-inchurched-beleevers Infants they are the seed of Abraham this being wholly denyed by Anabaptists If I prove that this species or sort of persons are Abrahams spirituall seed without personall actuall faith by which onely they say persons come to bee Abrahams seed quoting for it Gal. 3. 7. 6. 9. 16. 27 28 29. it sufficeth Now the place to mee is full proofe thereof whole Christ mysticall in all the parts of his body the Apostle maketh it to bee the seed of Abraham but that sort of persons the Infants of beleevers are a part of Christ mysticall or Christ considered with his body the Church as Christ is in Gal. 3. and 1 Cor. 12. 12. compared as hath beene proved Ergo that sort of persons as well that other of actuall beleevers are Abrahams spirituall seed And here supposing according to them that Christ is considered there as with his body the invisible Church it maketh still more for what I am to prove since if that sort of persons bee not of the invisible Church whereof Christ is head there can none of that sort not beleevers children at all bee saved since out of the invisible Church is no salvation at all as some of the most judicious of our opposites doe speake in way of answer to what is brought by our friends that extra ecclesiam non est salus that is say such extra ecclesiam invisibilem non visibilem But wee will goe yet further and take this as meant of Christ considered with his body the visible Church according as formerly it was proved to bee considerable And I say to exelude that sort of persons scil beleevers infants from being a part of the visible Church in generall is to exclude them from any ordinary state and way of salvation Nay I will go further and say that for any to suppose all the individuall Infants and each of them which come of such inchurched parents not to bee also parts of this body of Christ the visible Church and consequently not to bee Abrahams spirituall seed is to exclude them from a state and way of salvation in respect to the ordinary course thereof and so to leave them all under the consideration of such a way to bee saved in as is onely extraordinary ordinarily they are not to bee supposed to bee saved as at least it is not to be supposed that ordinarily or that in any ordinary way any Pagans or Turkes out of the visible Church or any in and of Rome as Tridentine and Antichristian should bee saved yet God may and sometimes doth and will have some soules brought on to him thence and even from amongst Mahumetans c. but all will yeeld I suppose that this is an extraordinary case so crosseth not that rule that without even the visible Church there is no salvation scil taking the maxime in reference to ordinary times and withall to the ordinary course and way of attaining unto salvation Such then as exclude all Infants of beleevers one or other from the notion of Abrahams spirituall seede from Covenant and Church estate they put them in the Pagan Gentiles estate of which Paul speakes who being they and theirs strangers from the promise and covenants and from the visible Church they place them in that respect in an estate of persons that are without God in the world and so under the devill the God of the world and in an hopelesse estate neither they nor any for them can have any grounded hope of them they are without hope in regard at least of any ordinary way or meane of salvation Ephes 2. 11 12. Nor let it seeme grievous that our friends and brethren in the Lord of name and worth in the Church have as it seemeth urged that in case of such an exclusion of beleevers children they are made as Turkes or Indians so farre forth in regard that being not in covenant nor Church estate the Apostle truely states such persons cases they are without hope and without God in the world Hee maketh no distinction of potentia remota propinqua in that case Yea but hee speakes of Pagan parents wee of Christian and there is not the same reason of the childrens estate which are of the one as of the other Tell me the difference supposing them actually excluded from covenant and Church estate It is not in their parents prayers or in the Churches nakedly considered without reference to any covenant or Church estate of theirs for they pray as well for Indians c. as for them Nor is it barely in their instruction and education of them for if they have any Indian or Black more bond servants in their house they must instruct both them and their children in Gods feare as they are capable thereof Yea but for the one their prayers and instructions come from a nearer bond and are carried on with more strength then in the other grant that yet this is but more and lesse and they vary no species of any formall reason of difference yea but they may beleeve more for the one then for the other and why so because usually the one sort prove religious when the other is not usuall This confirmeth what I am to prove that God is a covenant God to the children of his people and Church because albeit sometimes some prove vile enough yet usually they prove religious and pious and God speakes of things as they more frequently prove Yea I demand what is the ordinary revealed instrumentall meanes of the saving efficacy which is upon any children of Gods people and Church especially supposing they die very young is it not the word of Gods covenant as hath beene often said from Rom. 9. 6. and Eph. 5. 25 26. Yea I would know whether if beleevers have hope to take hope most properly concerning their childrens good or glorious resurrection by Christ if they die in Infancy have they other ground then that of Gods being a God to them This is Christs demonstration in that case Luke 20. 36 37 38. Is it any other then Scripture hope or comfort that way or must they sorrow as persons without hope If they draw any waters with joy Esay 12. 3. must it not bee out of the wells of salvation the promises not other promises which concerne not the case they will not helpe at such a dead lift but promises pertinent to the case of their children Yea can they have such hope without faith or can they have well-grounded faith where they have not a word of faith for it and when they cannot beleeve that God should bee so much as externally much lesse internally and savingly a covenant God to them or can they conjecture that ever any were saved ordinarily if at all touching whom God never made
into such an estate Gal. 3. 27 28 29 were none but true beleevers and elect ones in that Church baptized for all that were baptized are said to bee one in Christ as having put on Christ and if Christ then Abrahams seed either then there were none but elect ones true beleevers in those Churches which were absurd and crosse to the Scriptures before named or if there were any hypocrites or reprobates in that Church they were left unbaptized which were as absurd to avow it for how knew they so exactly to distinguish of such divine secrets in so infallible a way were they Gods to know the secret guile of hearts Now if not unbaptized then they also in baptisme putting on Christ and putting on Christ being one with Christ and so Christs and being Christs were Abrahams seed now A. R. must conte with us to say that when 't is said that all baptized persons put on Christ Gal. 3. 27. it was verified in generall of them all Sacramentally and Ecclesiastically and so when said to bee all one in Christ and to bee Christs and Abrahams seed and all children of the promise and of Jerusalem which is above c. hee must distinguish of persons being such in foro dei and of persons which are such in foro facie ecclesiae visibilis In the former sense onely the elect amongst them were such in the latter sense all in common sound and unsound members of the Church they were such and that the Apostle speakes such things of them in common not by a meere infallible Apostolicall dictate and sentence as concluding them to bee all such savingly but ministerially to hold forth what such as members of Christ as head of the visible Church were Ecclesiastically Object But will it not bee said that whereas Gen. 17. 7. maketh but two subjects of the covenant God made scil Abraham and his seed which Paul expounds to bee beleevers wee by our doctrine doe make three subjects and parties Abraham and beleevers and the Infant seed of both Answ To which I answer that wee doe not make three such distinct subjects now any more then of old there was made before Christ was incarnated then Abraham and his beleevers growne children and the Infant seed of both made but Abraham and his seed and so is it with us Secondly that the covenant being made with Abraham and his seed Abraham sustaining the person of all beleevers Jewes and Gentiles which in a sense also were his seed in that covenant hence therefore the covenant still is onely between Abraham and his seed CHAP. IIII. Sect. I. Touching the Explication of Luke 18. 15 16 17. ANother Scripture holding forth the Federall and Ecclesiasticall right and holinesse of inchurched visible beleevers little ones is Luke 18. 15 16 17. where the Lord affirmeth of the children offered to him by those pious minded parents that of such is the kingdome of God as Matthew hath it Chap. 19. of such is the kingdome of heaven which is here taken for the visible Church so Matth. 8. 11. 12. and 13. 24. and it seemeth evident from Luke 18. that hee mentioneth the kingdome of God three wayes First a kingdome of which such Infants and such like persons are namely as subjects Secondly a kingdome which such actuall subjects of that kingdome doe receive Thirdly a kingdome unto which in an ordinary way and meanes they come to enter The first is meant of the visible not of the invisible Church and of them as members of the former and not so properly of the latter touching which let it bee remembred that this was not a bare temporary and present charge in reference barely to those very children and onely to that very present approach to Christ but did respect after approches of such like persons unto Christ hee saith not suffer these little children to come at this time to mee for of these is the Kingdome of God but indefinitely rather suffer little ones scil of this sort such as these are to come to mee nor would A. R. and others which apply it to such like persons for humilitie c. restraine it to the occasionall act at that time but inlarge it in reference to any such persons at any time in a like case that they should not bee hindred from Christ Now as for the members of the invisible Church as such they are invisible and fall not under the proper cognizance of the sons of men to know which or where they are and to suppose an injunction of not hindring their approach to Christ unlesse they came under a visible respect of members of the visible Church that they might bee discerned and it might bee knowne how and when and in whom this rule of suffering such to come to Christ were kept or broken it were very incongruous and it 's a very improbable conjecture that Christ spake thus of these very Infants by an act of divine knowledge of them to bee the elect of God as if a company of children should bee by an unwonted providence singled out to bee brought to him which were every one of them elected to eternall life and not any of them in a contrary estate And by the latitude of the extent of Christs speech as before wee shewed in reference to after and other times and examples of like nature as to the present case it appeares hee neither spake thus as God or as a meere extraordinary inspired Prophet but delivered as in ordinary administration of the mind of God as at other times an ordinary rule of ordinary practise and use afterwards in reference not barely to those very little ones then brought but to others like them wherefore such evasions of C. B. in his fourth answer to this place are frivolous And why should there bee such startling at this place as if it were uncouth doctrine that children of inchurched members should be counted subjects of Gods kingdom or members of his visible Church the Jews children as well as parents which were cast out together Matth. 8. 11 12. were surely in that kingdome together out of which they came to bee cast afterwards the uncircumcised man child was of the people or Church of God in visible account else not cut off from his people in that case of neglect Gen. 17. 14. and in the purer dayes of the Gospell yet expected the children are put under David or Christ their Prince as King and head and Lord of his visible Church as well as the parents as before wee shewed from Ezek. 37. 25 26 27. and God accounted them even in very corrupt time children of his covenant spouse or visible Church Thy children which thou barest to mee Ezekiel 16. 8. 20 21. 23. witnesse the setting to of the initiatory Church seale of circumcision to those children of Abraham Isaac and Jacobs loynes and no wonder in that they were all interested in the covenant of grace as invested with Church-covenant which is even the very
they were intended to bee invalid in any such way now and yet God never expressed his minde for repeale of such substantiall branches of his minde of Grace towards his people and Churches there are so far stumbling blocks laid before them to occasion mistakes For who will not take the same for granted which considers the same advisedly as indeed the Churches of old have done before And when was it a fitter time to make exceptions of Infants then when the inchurching of the Gentiles is mentioned Matth. 28. 19 Why should even then the old phrase of nations bee used if no intent at least of the specificall parts of the nations to be inchurched what though circumcision bee left out yet the species of the persons circumcised are plainely included If all nations bee to bee blessed in Christ that sort of persons in the nations scil little ones as well as that of adult persons are included how else come any of either sort to bee blessed in Christ or saved by him so in this case Matth. 28. 19. SECT IX 8. THat the childrens federall interest and right it is firstly the confederating parents priviledge Hence given as an incouragement to Abraham to walke in faith and truth with God Gen. 17. 1. In that God also would bee a God to his seed vers 7. and the like was spoken in way of incouragement also unto those Israelites and proselytes Deut. 30. 6 7 8 9 10 11 c. And the like course is taken by the Apostles after Christs ascension Act. 2. 38 39. Hence the covenant blessing of Jacob pronounced in a propheticall as well as parentall way upon the sonnes of Joseph Ephraim and Manasseh and their children after them scil that the name of Abraham Isaac and Jacob as covenant and Church fathers must bee called on them albeit they had other personall names as of Ephraim c. Now this is yet called Jacobs blessing of Joseph their father Gen. 48. 15. hee blessed Joseph scil in his childrens covenant blessing vers 16. SECT X. 9. THat visibly beleeving and covenanting parents they are injoyned the use of the initiatory covenant and Church seale in reference to their childrens initiatory sealing together with them according as they are outwardly capable thereof As it is their priviledge to have it so so is it their charge and dutie to take wise faithfull and seasonable care that it be so done Abraham alone is not to bee circumcised but his seed also which are naturally capable thereof are to be so initiated sealed unto covenant and Church fellowship It was onely Abraham to whom God then appeared and declared his covenant and mind of grace touching his and his seeds sealing yet Abraham is not spoken to in the one or other respect as to a meere particular man but as to a common and representative person also imbracing and owning a gratious covenant and the generall condition at least of it As on his owne particular behalfe so on the behalfe both of the choyce seed of his loynes in their generations together with the rest of his Church seed by Isaac in their generations as also with generall reference in the essentialls of both covenant and condition of it unto his spirituall seed in their generations after Christs ascension which were to bee of the Gentiles and of the Jewes both before their rejection and upon their re-ingraffing into visible Church estate Hence in mentioning that particular way of initiation by circumcision first pitcht upon plurall phrases are used when Abraham onely is in presence The covenant which yee shall keepe And each manchild amongst you And my covenant shall bee in your flesh And it shall bee a token of the covenant betwixt mee and you vers 10 11 12 13. Abraham must see all this performed and hee did so so farre as it could bee done at present vers 23. Abraham enters into this holy bond and thereby the obligation became of force upon his children which were not then present Hence the parents act of neglect is temporally at least corrected in the little child even as the parents bond was the childs obligation Gen. 7. 14. Hence too that God might further evince it to bee mainly the parents duty even godly Moses the parent is indangered for the neglect of the sealing of his child Exod. 4. 2. 4 5 6. where by the way let it bee noted that albeit upon some ceremoniall grounds the mind of God being that way made knowne their marriages of old with heathens became so farre unlawfull that even their children also were discarded yet was it not morally and of it selfe of that nature even amongst the members of that Church that the children of such Church members begotten upon heathen wives not of the Church were uncleane and not to bee sealed by that initiatory Church seale For God himselfe is angry with Moses here because his sonne by that Aegyptian wife was not circumcised And long after it was counted offensive if the sonne of a Jewish wife even by a Grecian husband were not that way initiated Acts 16. 1 2 3 which is the very controverted case occasionally mentioned 1 Cor. 7. 14. But to returne to the proposition before laid downe From the same ground mentioned it was that when Peter moved his hearers to bee baptized hee groundeth that motion not barely upon their owne interest in the promise but withall upon their childrens joynt interest with them Acts 2. 38 39. Bee baptized for the promise is to you and to your children why putteth hee that groundworke so largely but to shew that the visible initiatory seale of the promise must bee as large as the promise Their childrens baptisme is virtually called upon too as well as their owne The parents are to take care of their baptisme as well as their owne the children being capable of externall baptisme that new way of initiation into covenant fellowship as well as themselves As they were also to carry home as it were the same charge upon the same ground touching repentance urging that upon their children as they should bee capable of it from the same covenant ground as themselves had been urged thereto Noah alone must not bee baptized in that extraordinary and typicall baptisme but his children with him must in like sort bee baptized Gen. 7. 1. with 1 Pet. 1. 3. 21. God will have all these fathers some whereof at that time mentioned were babes yet in respect to after ages were fathers to bee baptized in that extraordinary baptisme in the sea and in the cloud 1 Cor. 10. 1 2. Exod. 12. 44. If a stranger-servant bee circumcised himselfe hee may eate the passeover for hee was not so bound as the Jewes by command to either circumcision or the passeover but hee is to circumcise his males with that reason annexed For no uncircumcised person shall eate thereof What is the meaning hereof Is it thus else none of those his males or male children for they are most
capable to attend hence the baptisme of John is the doctrine thereof hence the doctrine of baptisme Heb. 6. 1 2. but specially holding forth what they may expect from God so Deut. 10. 16. and Jer. 4. circumcision called upon them for heart circumcision as capable of improving it and incourageth them what to expect especially that way from God Deut. 30. 6. Ezek. 36. 25 26 27 28 c. As for what C. B. addeth touching the rule of baptizing from Act. 2. 38 39. albeit the place hath had its distinct consideration yet I shall here adde a word of answer to this which is C. B. his third argument that if this bee a rule then none are to bee baptized but such as truely repent For to no seeming and visible repentance did Peter then exhort them but to true and saving repentance all will grant and then unlesse wee know mens hearts and principles their confession of sinnes cannot satisfie us when wee are to baptize them as being doubtfull and not certaine that the rule is fulfilled in that our act and wee must either doe things doubtfully and adventure to transgresse rule yea oft breake rule as by this argument John did Matth. 3. 11 12. and Philip Acts 8. Yea but they professed it suppose they did that was not that which Peter saith make confession of or professe your repentance and bee baptized but repent and be baptized therefore if that be laid downe as the rule by which men must or else must not be baptized hee that is baptized otherwise hee was never regularly baptized as possibly it 's the case of many in your churches That which John Spilsbury hath this way I find not in the rest hee maketh use of John 3. 5. as a repeale of the Law of circumcising of Infants and as the new law of admission c. but if that washing of water bee meant of baptisme it will then bee of as absolute necessitie to bee externally baptized as to bee regenerate both if spoken of two severall things being made as one in point of necessitie nor let any say that ordinarily it is so that none else are saved For Christs serious speaking yea protesting shewes hee intends more yea more then a supposed neglect or contempt of baptisme but simply thus verily verily unlesse c. according to vers 3. he had to like effect spoken and taking the kingdome here for a particular visible Church not that of glory which hath no ordinances 1 Cor. 15. 24. and 13. 8 9 10. how stands this with his principles that a man first bee discipled and inchurched ere baptized when as rather hee must bee from this ground first washed with water or baptized ere hee can bee in yea so much as see a visible Church and so baptisme is rather the forme of the Church then the covenant of grace as I. B. elsewhere affirmeth and reason suggesteth a Church first to bee ere Church seales to bee administred to or by it nor need this bee urged in this sense upon Nicodemus as the way of his entrance into Gods kingdome of a true visible Church For of such a Church was hee already a member even of the Jewes Church yea if thus meant then not onely unregenerate persons should not bee of visible Churches but it is not possible that they can get into them for Christ saith verily and unlesse c. hee cannot no hee should not or ordinarily hee doth not enter into the kingdome of God As for what was said of preaching the Gospel to goe before baptisme wee hold it wee preach it the doctrine of the covenant is first opened and then sealed wee hold forth to parents that Gospel covenant of Abraham as to them and their children and the Apostles did as much Acts 2. 38 39. Rom. 10. 6 7 8. they preaching the Gospel wherein all sorts of nationall creatures were concerned they held forth that of Gods mind of grace to that species of Infants of Gospelled Gentiles and so by the Gospel they as well as the other sort of adult Gentiles came to partake of the promise in the initiatory seale at least Ephes 3. 6. and what Gospel they held out in the audible word preached that they sealed by the visible word of baptisme Fiftly to that straine touching the particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as not in reference to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because of the masculine gender and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the neuter if C. B. A. L. and Hen. Den had searched Scriptures they would have found this enallage or change of gender very frequent Rev. 2. 26 27. and 19. 15. it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 see Acts 15. 17. and 26. 17. see more of the like Acts 21. 25. Ephes 2. 11. and 4. 17. masculines joyned with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and I would aske A. R. and the rest whether when it 's said in the neuter gender before him shall bee gathered 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all nations with the masculine annexed and hee shall separate them one from another 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hath not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 reference to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 if not then it seemes some nations shall bee gathered at the last day which shall not bee separated one from the other if it have reference to it then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 them in the masculine here in Matth. 28. may very well have reference to the nations albeit in the neuter gender Sixtly to that argument raised hence from what is added teaching them that is presently teaching them c. so not Infants it is not cogent As much is said in effect of Abraham presently after hee had circumcised the males in his house and before Isaac was borne and circumcised that hee would command his children and his houshold after him and they shall keepe the way of the Lord yet none will conclude that therefore no children of his houshold servants were already circumcised and that Isaac and others should not bee circumcised in that Abraham will take this course with all of his family Are the baptized Gentiles to bee taught the commands of God that they may doe them so are the proselyted persons circumcised and others also circumcised to bee also taught Yea Infants circumcised notwithstanding that part of Gods counsell touching such teaching yea but Infants circumcised were not capable of teaching true nor are ours which are baptized yet both to bee taught and so are and were according as capable thereof and the Text in Matth. 28. 19. evinceth that it is not a present teaching them that are there mentioned simply but secundum quid scil according as the baptized persons were capable of being taught otherwise it must bee concluded that they were presently to bee all and each of them taught the whole mind of Christ and then it will follow that that could presently be done by the dispensers of the word which is impossible and likewise
goe so farre in this case To the saving interest and efficacy of Baptisme it is required that one savingly belong to Christ and bee a Disciple savingly in that sense but to the externall and Church interest in the use of the seale it 's not of necessitie for then none ought to bee baptized but such as are in a saving estate which to us is a secret and so no ordinary proceeding in mans Court yea the very place speakes of the case as one that giveth drinke to another because to him and in his judgement hee is a Disciple for infallibly hee doth not know him but taketh him rather to bee such a one and therefore refresheth him The major therefore of the Syllogisme is in substance the very Text the minor is evident such as externally belong to the Church of which Christ is the the head they doe externally belong to Christ c. hence to bee in his Church by externall profession and to bee in him are put for one John 15. 2 now that such Infants belong to that Church wee formerly proved in proving both that they belonged to Christs visible Church and kingdome and that he was head thereof also Mr. B. frameth two answers to a like objection hence his first wee have already disproved scil that Infants also belong to Christ in respect of visible and Church constitution which hee denyeth His second is as impertinent hee saith Christ speakes in Matthew and Marke of Adult persons true I never intended to urge it otherwise but my argument runs that the signification and reason of the name of Disciple there given though to growne persons yet since what is there in that Scripture applied to such is also appliable to such Infants also therefore they are Scripture Disciples So Acts 11. 26. the name Disciples and Christians are made Synomyna in way of distinction from Pagans not of the Church alike to what is here intended for distinction sake from the rest of the Pagan world amongst which since the breaking down of the partition wall I hope Anabaptists will advise better how they place beleeving Gentiles Babes unlesse they will leave a piece of the old wall standing Discipled persons in the Text as in reference to baptizing implyeth persons externally in the Covenant of grace unlesse our opposites thinke other then such should bee baptized Also persons in the visible Church are baptized unlesse they thinke persons out of any visible Church fellowship may bee in ordinary dispensation baptized for which extraordinary calls and cases our times meddle not nor have not as of old there were some which yet impeach not our rule of the Church seales given to the Church for her use and by her preaching Elders to bee dispensed he then is discipled for Baptisme which is inchurched which is in the Schoole of Christ and in peculiar fellowship with the other Schollers there and in speciall relation to Christ the Teacher of his Church yea such as to whom in some sense hee preacheth Gospell as to those Babes in Luke and howsoever hee teacheth the lowest formes as I may call them that sort of persons in his Church that is some such he so promiseth to teach them inwardly that hee doth so appeare in saved Church children yea so hee may teach Indian Papouses now too I answer if wee speake of his absolute power hee can doe more then he ever will as to make many other worlds c. but to speake of his ordinate and regulate power so hee can doe but what hee willeth to doe what his secret will is not for us Deut. 29. but according to his revealed will wee may say that those children being estranged actually from the Covenant and Church they are actually without God and Christ and hope but beleevers Infants externall estate is ecclesiastically of another nature So much for clearing Matth. 28. and confirmation of Paedobaptisme thence SECT V. A Second Argument is this All those which are the Church seed of Abraham they are to bee baptized Infants of inchurched beleevers are the Church seed of Abraham ergo are to bee baptized The major is not denied I thinke by our opposites but if it bee Gal. 3. 16 17. 27 28 29. proveth that all such were baptized in Apostolicall Churches and therefore are to bee in ours The minor hath beene formerly proved in the conclusions touching federall interest and is evident by the Apostles argument if Christs then Abrahams seed Whence I argue All such as are Christs or belong to Christ they are Abrahams seed Such Infants belong to Christ ergo they are Abrahams seed The Major is true both waies such as savingly and efficaciously belong to Christ they are so farre also Abrahams elect seed such as ecclesiastically are Christs in which sense the Apostle here speakes of it as hath been proved they are so farre also Abrahams Church seed The Minor is true of the species of such Infants if taken in an efficacious way of saving interest that sort of persons as well as the other of adult persons are such else none of them could ever bee saved unlesse some are saved which neither belong to Christ nor are elect either of which would bee absurd to affirme but that is a secret wee are to looke to visibilitie thereof as the rule of dispensation of Church ordinances If therefore taken in an ecclesiasticall sense as here it is as was proved so all such Infants doe belong to Christ as hath beene proved and consequently are ecclesiastically Abrahams Church seed SECT VI. A Third argument is taken from Acts 2. 38 39. thus Those to whom appertaineth any principall ground upon which any of the Apostles have moved and encouraged growne ones to bee baptized they are according to Apostolicall encouragement virtually given to bee baptized But to the Infants mentioned doth appertaine the forenamed ground therefore there is virtually an Apostolicall encouragement for them also to bee baptized The Major is undeniable unlesse any suppose that any of the Apostles as Apostles as here Peter is considered should give an insufficient ground to any thing unto which they encouraged others For to give a chiefe ground of encouraging and putting any upon this or that which will not universally hold where the same ground was to bee found it is to give an insufficient ground If a Pastor ministerially urge a member thus Brother looke you watch over your brethren c. for you are a brother if this bee not cogent with any other brother as a brother unto the like watch it is an insufficient principle and groundworke so here in the case mentioned none will doubt but it was a sufficient groundworke to enforce the former as a dutie scil their repentance to whom hee spake and why not of the like force in the other yea and so you will say it is where both are joyned Nay verily it must bee of force if sufficient to enforce either apart if both bee distinct duties as reason will evince
of his Law it is all applyed to all indefinitely yet sense and reason tells us that sundry of the children were neither capable then of such observing of all Gods words no nor so much as hearing the words read at that time in such sort as thereby at present to bee stirred up to feare or obey the Lord but some things onely are appliable to the whole assembly wholly other things now mentioned to the whole at present onely in respect of the growne part and to the others no other thâ—n as involved in any such acts of their parents at most so Joel â— 14. â— solemne assembly of all the inhabitants of the land is to 〈◊〉 convented for fasting so chap. 2. 1. againe repeated and ver 15 16 17. instance is given in the sucklings as to bee a part of that assembly for that end and the maine dutie vers 13 14 is laid forth as required of them all which are called to this solemne fast scil not meerely to abstaine from food or to expresse sorrow by rending their garments but to rend their hearts by godly compunction and sorrow c. all will yeeld that such things are not properly applyable to sucklings but to some of the assembly nor yet will any in reason exclude Infants from being of that Church assembly for such Church use according as they were capable of any thing mentioned albeit not capable of all mentioned Jer. 43. 4. 6 7 disobedience to Gods voyce is applied to all the people yet not properly verified in all the children which were of that people and company Deut. 29. 1. All Israel is said to have seene those wonders in Egypt and yet many of them that were then growne it being 40. yeares after their comming out thence vers 5. never saw the same much lesse did the little ones which were a part of that assembly vers 14. yet who will conclude because little ones were not Israel seeing theâ—e wonders that therefore they were not Israel entring into Covenant vers 11 12. and marke the phrase applied to the little ones that they also entred into covenant with God ibid. as well as God is said to make his covenant with them vers 14 15. this was a covenant of grace as hath been proved so that Hen. Dens notion holds not concerning God being in a sense in covenant with Infants but they may not bee said to enter into covenant with him that by the way To returne to that in hand nations baptized Matth. 28. are to bee taught to observe Christs commandements but non sequitur that Infants are no part of the Churches in the nation to bee baptized so here Infants beleeve not actually c. non sequitur ergo not to bee added to the Church in a solemne way of initiation to Church estate inchoatively by externall baptisme Both may stand together and have their truth of the whole in some things wholly wherein they are capable as of Church estate and baptisme in others true of the whole in respect of some part thereof as actuall beleeving To like purpose C. B. argueth weakely in his sixth argument that the whole citie was baptized men and women mentioned not their children too as if therefore excluded I may as well argue from Gen. 14. 11 12. That those Kings tooke all the goods of Sodome and Lot ergo they tooke no people besides contrary to vers 16. or if they did take people and women yet not children too And if Lot were first taken and then redeemed by Abraham with others yet not ergo his children or daughters or if then under the notion of women yet not a word of children wherefore either they were left behind in the Citie without their Parents when they were taken or if taken with the Cities and persons yet not brought backe againe which would bee absurd to affirme Secondly suppose the beleeving Jewes children were not just at that time baptized when their Parents were thus solemnly admitted to that Church of Christians yet non sequitur that they were not baptized afterwards When members are solemnly admitted to compleat and fixed membership in our Churches wee baptize not oft times their little ones the first day of that their admittance yet doe it afterwards as occasion is offered and their desire thereof signified SECT VIII YEa but neither then nor in any other Text in the Acts is it ever mentioned that any children of any beleeving Jewes were baptized A. Non sequitur that therefore they were never baptized Many things of great weight were done by Christ and so by his Apostles which were not recorded yet not therefore never acted by them John 20. 30 31. of which see more before touching consequences of Scripture But doe our opposites indeed conclude that none of the beleeving Jewes children were ever baptized by Apostolicall approbation Is it imaginable that among so many thousand beleeving Jewes at least ecclesiastically such which are so moved and touched in the case of their childrens being not circumcised and sealed that way to the covenant that it would not much more startle them to suppose such a tenet or practise as to deny them to bee sealed any way by initiatory sealing at all as neither by circumcision so not by baptisme Are they so ready to move contentions in that point Acts 22. 21. and upon but a supposed deniall of it and are they no way moved so much as to put the case state the question to be satisfied from the old Testament for no other Scripture was then extant why their Infants which were ever used to bee reckoned in Abrahams covenants so sealed thereto by the seale then only in use but now they are either wholly excluded any Church interest and any covenant interest actually or if owned yet as such yet why denied of that which is now the initiatory seale of such interest in the covenant Yea doth Peter expresly mind them of the interest of their children as well as themselves in the promise wishing them therefore to be baptized and this occasioned no stirring of questions and cases why on the same ground their children must not be also baptized other contentions about other things are mentioned and other differences in points controvertible in those times as Acts 11. 2 3. and 15. 1. 2. c. and 21. 11. and 6. 1 2. and 15. 38 39. and Gal. 2. 11. Surely then either the beleeving Jewes which when worse men had that priviledge of their childrens covenant and Church estate and right to the initiatory seale the case is so soone altered with them that they thinke it no matter of scruple to call the deniall and omission of it into question or to assay to desire satisfaction in it for matter of judgement and practise in the case or if starting it why is not so great a controversie mentioned as started by some at least that could not so wholly forget their childrens good when solicitous about their owne and when so
gladly accepting Peters word especially the gladding word of promise which was the joyfullest word hee spake as belonging to them and to their children yea when accepting so gladly that injoyned dutie upon the ground of baptisme surely controversies of farre lesse weight are not passed over in silence witnesse that Acts. 6. 1. and 15. 38 39. and Gal. 2. 11. and 21 22 c. mee thinkes to common reason and rationall heads and hearts as well as gracious It should bee rather concluded as a matter out of question and that no such new distance and difference was put of parents in covenant and Church estate but not now the children as formerly of parents to bee sealed by the initiatory Church and covenant seale unto Church and covenant fellowship but not now their children as formerly SECT IX A Fourth argument followeth scil In that the Infants of covenant inchurched parents which were externally interested in the covenant of grace as invested with the covenant of a politicall visible Church to whom the Seales were appointed they were sealed as they were in bodily respect capable to bee sealed in that initiatory way of circumcising therefore Infants now according to their capacitie in bodily respects of the like initiatory appointed seale are to bee sealed in the initiatory way of baptizing For clearer proceeding in the argument I shall lay downe a few propositions First that the old testament is avowed by the holy Ghost in the new to containe all things necessary for faith and practise for substance and that so fully that a minister of the Gospell ordinary or extraordinary might bee furnished thence with ground-worke and generall rules upon and according to which to proceed in holding forth any thing necessary to bee beleeved or practised Of the Scriptures of the old Testament is that full testimony 2 Tim. 3. 14 15. See Cartwright in locum see Luke 16. 29. 31. Secondly that the Apostles in all other things used to hold forth Gospel services with analogy to legall Types Rites and Sacrifices c. testimonies are plentifull for it Thirdly that it was the Apostles use to hold forth and confirme things of most weight from the old Testament Act. 2. from the 14. to 41. and 3. 22. to the end and 4. 10 11. 24. to 29. and 8. 12. 25. 35 36. compared with Esay 52. 15. and 53. 1 c. So Acts 21. 38 39. old Testament grounds yea from the promise are given them for baptisme it self in the new yea for the dispensation of all the Gospel ordinances unto the Gentiles as thereof capable Acts 13. 46 47 48 c. Either then they had no ground or if any they urged them not which is contrary to those places or if any they urged them from the old Testament then onely extant to establish their practises Fourthly that Christ himselfe gave them patterne in this way of proofe Fiftly that the people with whom they had firstly to doe were beleeving Jewes in that way and they were zealous for the old Testament in the generall Sixtly that the ancients of the primitive Churches have rarely if at all denyed the comming of baptisme in circumcisions stead Seventhly that where a commandement of God doth injoyne any one thing upon such a ground there the command doth require all things wch are of the same nature as helpefull to the same thing as the Commandement Thou shalt not kill forbids anger also as tending to the same end scil to murder and as well forbidding striking rash speaking c. on the same ground as tending to murder yea but Christ expresly forbids it Answer Christ doth not put any thing thus upon the commandement which was not virtually in it before hee urged it but not legislatively as then making a law in such particulars but declaratively as expounding that law and reducing particulars to their generall heads of commandment Yea but there was his sanction thereof in that reducing True but when explained yet so as things in the commands before onely then clearely understood to be so so here looke as God commanding Abraham circumcision in the flesh for that end and on that ground that it might be an initiatory seale or Sacramentall signe of the covenant so also in the same doth hee virtually command baptisme with water as being of the same nature scil such as fulfilleth that end scil initiatorily to seale the covenant therefore albeit circumcision cease yet the commandement thereof reacheth and partly authoriseth that baptisme in the application of it to Infants for that end as of old to those Infants for that end Baptisme is a signe I say of the covenant and therefore either naturall and then any washing uninstituted had sufficed this way but that such washing of water should bee that signe needed an institution and being instituted it is now of the old use to seale initiatorily the covenant to adult or Infant externally initiated in it Yea but Christs institution gave a rise both to the signe that baptisme should bee that and that such and such persons should be signed with it therefore not the command of circumcision gave rise so much as to the application of that signe to such or such persons Answer it followeth not that Christs institution gave warrant therein therefore not the commandment of circumcision since both consent in the maine ground of both scil that wee shall apply our selves to the use of such signes as hee shall appoint and that in both should bee the same moralls or spiritualls signified the Lord knowing that wee needed some solemne externall way of signification of his mind of grace by some signe as well as they did Eighthly as none may adde to so neither may any detract from any words of Gods grace wherein hee hath expressed himselfe unlesse hee himselfe repeale the same hee once would have his covenant of grace to bee to the whole Church and Church seed and once would have it initiatorily sealed on them hee hath repealed the way of sealing but the covenant hee hath not the extent of it to parent and child hee hath not the ordinary dispensation of it in and from and by the visible Church hee hath not the sealing use of an initiatory covenant and Church seale hee hath not the things mainely to bee sealed even covenant and Church right at least externall and the like both of inchurched covenant parents and children hee hath not as in former conclusions hath been shewed SECT X. HItherto that knowne and much controverted place Col. 2. hath reference the Colossian Church and members of it as the Apostle urgeth against the circumcision teachers are as compleat in Christ without circumcision as ever any other Church or the members of it yea as even the best of them were with circumcision that is the proposition hee layeth downe Col. 2. vers 10. if they had objected Abrahams and Isaacs and Jacobs and Davids compleatnesse in covenant respects and Church respects Gentile Churches and members are as
the latter dayes they all by the charge of God must have loâ— and inheritance with them in Canaan What in the earthly Canaan meerely verily there is no cause of such a limitation even with our opposites Canaan is typicall also typed out Gospell mercies covenant blessings and priviledges Heb. 3. and 4. 1 2 3 c. Surely then it 's the charge of God in reference to the choâ—…ce dayes of Gospel Churches that where godly strangers are cast and desire to fix and to incorporate themselves as into one people to injoy one and the same spirituall possessions and mansions under one and the same spirituall government of their Prince that such strangers together with their children should bee joynt inheritors with the Churches in the Churches heritage of the fellowship of such ordinances or priviledges as they are severally capable of as at least they are of the initiatory seale of baptisme And if others which hold with I. S. against us in this point are of his minde his pâ—inciples will further administer answer to that objection he citeth Ezek. 16. 8. Jer. 31. 33. Heb. 8. 10 Gal. 3. 18 19. Heb. 6. 17. Deut. 26. 15 16 17. Deut. 29. 12 13. Rom. 9. 8. with Gal 4. 28 by which it appeareth saith hee that it is the promise or covenant of grace which produceth a Christian and giveth him a being in such an estate of grace as in Church fellowship and afterwards hee useth arguments to prove the covenant of grace to bee the forme of the Church c. which how it will stand with other things elsewhere held forth by him and some of his minde is considerable As first that the command of God was the onely ground of circumcision confessed to bee the seale of the covenant yea but the Jewes had Church fellowship in their circumcision all will yeeld as being a Church ordinance and then the command of God gave them not alone a being in that fellowship since ex concessis the covenant of grace which was ever the forme of the Church c. it 's said it gave them such a being Secondly that the covenant wherein the Jew Church was interested was not a covenant of grace yet this author produceth Ezek. 16. 8. Deut. 26. 16 17 18. Deut. 29. 12 13. to prove that this covenant of grace was the forme of the Church and that by this argument amongst others because it was ever so Surely this Church of old was a true visible Church to which these places have reference and yet the whole body of the people are spoken of as the places declare So then the covenant made with them by this authors grounds was the covenant of grace Thirdly that the little ones of the Jewes were not in the covenant of grace yea but whence then had they that Church being and right to that Church fellowship in the seale of circumcision whence called that covenant Churches children Ezek. 16. 8. 20 21. 23. whence else are they of that number which were to enter into that covenant Deut. 29. 11 12. Albeit the author politiquely leaveth out that v. 11. in citing the place which is here produced to prove the covenant of grace to bee the forme of the Church and that which giveth one a Church being and as hee argueth that to be the forme of the Church because it was of old so so say I of the covenant of grace as invested with Church covenant that which was of old the forme of the Church giving being to Church membership and fellowship in Church ordinances the same is now such but the covenant as made with respect to parents and children was of old the forme of the Church giving being to such scil in circumcision as of parents so of children therefore the same is now in such sort the forme of the Church to give a Church being to parents and children in respect of Church fellowship in baptisme and so I conclude against that Fourthly that children of persons visibly in covenant with God and his Church have no right to baptisme when yet as hath been proved they have interest in the same covenant and so consequently by this very principle laid downe unto this Church initiatory seale of baptisme Yea but Infants have not the law written in their hearts and so it 's a seale to a blank A. No more had they of old no not Infant Isaac nor those Deut. 24. 11. with 30. 6. they are not therefore such as have not the covenant made to them because they have not such a power of grace actually in their hearts that is the execution of Gods covenant which oft times is long after but the very 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Berith or covenant it selfe is the promise of it Deut. 29. 11. 14 15. and 30. 6. compared hence that promise called the covenant as being the most substantiall part of it ibid. and Gen. 17. 6 7. 11. 13. they are present actuall subjects of the promise of future grace I will circumcise their hearts I will bee a God to them c. and that initiatory seale is to this especially Gen. 17. 7. 11. 13. Acts 13. 8. So are not Turkes and Pagans children in foro ecclesiae besides Judas and Ananias his baptisme was in Gods institution and in respect of the Church court and their Church right no seale to a blank albeit Gods Law was never written in their hearts and they shall finde it to their cost both Gospell words and seales will worke one way if not a savour of life then of death the cup in the Lords Supper is to all Sacramentally the testament or a visible seale of the very covenant of grace in Christs blood 1 Cor. 11. 25. yet some drinke of that cup unworthily and because it is Sacramentally of that nature thence are they guilty of Christs blood ver 27. 80. circumcision on all sorts was Sacramentally the Covenant of grace albeit not savingly and efficaciously such Gen. 17. 7. 11. 13. as before was proved SECT XIII AS for that objection of supposed absurdities of making Christs body to consist of dead members forcing Christs spouse upon him destroying Gods Church holding people in blindnesse bringing reproach upon religion filling consciences with scruples making men rest in their baptisme c. I answer they follow not exnatura rei from the initiatory sealing of Infants with the Church seale for if so then without distinction of times or Churches c. it must universally hold and so reflects upon the wisedome and faithfulnesse of God who once at least ordered such a thing scil putting the appointed seale of his covenant circumcision to such Infants they were members of the visible body of Christ a true visible Church c. yet God did not thereby destroy his Temple force a Spouse on Christ fill his Church with dead and rotten members hold people in blindnesse lay a foundation of persons resting in their circumcision kill them with scruples by it or destroy the markes
as is evident The next is Beza who is also quoted Proposition 7. in his annotations upon Matth. 28. 19. Baptize them in the name of the Father that is in calling upon the name of the Father or rather the name of the Father c. being called upon for they are Beza's words Invocato nomine Patris c. And these Translators should have done well to have rendred the Latine properly But all is in the meaning of the words The authors of the Treatise urge it for a proofe of the persons bapzed calling actually upon the name of God when they are baptized according to Christs institution bring Beza for their proofe Quaeritur therefore whether ever Beza intended that in his words Surely no for it 's known well that Beza stoutly maintaineth Paedobaptisme as an ordinance of Christ Now Infants when they are baptized cannot actually call upon the name of God therefore if Beza say the former that the rule of Christ requireth it of all that are to be baptized according to his mind that they should call upon God at the time of their Baptisme he must affirme the later against his owne light and conscience which to doe with so much deliberation as hee that writeth things upon studie must doe were a crime of a very high nature and God forbid any should charge so worthy a light in the Church with that SECT V. BEza is againe cited for confirmation of the third Proposition in his Annotations upon Matth. 3. 6. John taught those that were to bee baptized this clause is not in my Beza upon the place and admitted none to Baptisme but those that gave testimony that they beleeved the forgivenesse of their sinnes In my Beza's Notes it's rather thus that John admitted not others to his Baptisme then those which seriously professed that they did imbrace the doctrine of free remission of sinnes which how different from that of these translators let others judge It followeth in the booke Such confession was also required of the Catechumens in the primitive Church before Baptisme for in that the Sacraments are seales it is requisite that doctrine or instruction should goe before the use of those things by which the doctrine it selfe is to bee sealed Those words before Baptisme and that reason annexed for in that the Sacraments c. is not in my booke scil Beza's Annotationes majores in N. Test Printed Anno. 1594. But to returne to the testimony Beza intended that John baptized no other of that species of persons Adult then such as made that confession but not simply the Baptisme of any other persons of another sort scil babes hee that is so carefull that any should take advantage to deny that children are not rightly baptized because not dived wholly under water that hee the rather as hee saith upon Matth. 3. 11. doth note such things about the particle In omitted Luke 3. 16. surely hee intended not by affirming such things in reference to Johns hearers thereby to exclude childrens Baptisme Hence that added that such confession was required of the Catechumens in the ancient Church Now then what manner of persons they were which hee affirmeth made such confession of old such like persons for age he here intendeth And no more doth he intend exclusion of Infants from Baptisme by affirming the necessitie of confession in Johns hearers unto Baptisme then by affirming that the same was required of those Catechumens mentioned Let us then see Beza's mind further therein which wee may readily doe in the third place of Beza quoted in this Treatise Proposition 4. where Beza upon 1 Cor. 7. 14. But now your children are holy he is thus cited as saying Out of this contradictors of the truth are revealed As first all those that make Baptisme to be the first entrance to salvation and secondly those that permit all children to bee baptized which was unheard of in the primitive times whereas every one ought to bee instructâ—d in the faith before hee were admitted to baptisme And this testimony is brought to prove the Proposition that in the primitive Church the children both of the faithfull and else scil and of Pagans or Jewes were commonly first instructed c. and then baptized so that Beza's mind in that clause whereas every one ought to bee instructed c. is made and every child whether of the faithfull or Infidell should bee first instructed before hee be baptized and in that sense his second errour he blames of such which permit all children to bee baptized is as much as if hee should intend it as an errour to permit any children at all whether of faithfull or infidell persons to bee baptized before instructed So that Beza is by this made a direct Andipedobaptist as they terme it now for modesty sake But you shall not have Beza thus on your side before wee heare him in his owne words who having before spoken touching the cause why wee admit the Saints children to baptisme scil because they are comprehended in the Covenant c. he addeth Now from hence are confuted not onely Catabaptists which doe reject Infants from baptisme as uncleane but those which make baptisme the first entrance to salvation and so exclude all from salvation which are unbaptized and also those which admit all Infants whatsoever to baptisme scil whether of visible Saints or Infidels as appeares by what hee said before and by what followeth which thing scil such promiscuous baptizing of all sorts hand over head was not heard of in the ancient Church As this at least doth declare in that all adult Infidells were first to bee Catechumens before they were baptized Beza refuteth three things from that clause mentioned and explained now your children are holy and one of them is this fourth Proposition of the Authors and yet by the Authors he is brought to refute onely two things First hee refuteth Catabaptists denying baptisme to beleevers children Secondly he from the same ground refuteth them which maintaine the baptisme of all children whatsoever scil that are not children of visible Saints for if they bee such children hee counteth it rather an errour to deny their baptisme Againe in citing the last part of Beza's words the Authors craftily make it as an opposite sentence to that before Thus secondly those that permit all children to bee baptized c. whereas every one c. as if it were a contrary speech to the former permitting all children c. whereas none at all were to bee baptized of old but such as were Catechumens when Beza maketh this later a reason of the former as before wee shewed Besides the Authors shamefully change and mutilate the last words whereas every one ought c. intending every particular person Infant or Aged when Beza's words are expresly in that all adult Infidells ought first to bee Catachumens before they were to bee baptized Now who is there which doth not even feele this palpable guile and falseshood in the setters forth
of this Treatise in this particular But not to forget what wee noted touching Beza's other testimony on Matth. 3. this place cleareth Beza's intent There speaking of adult persons it may bee affirmed such must bee as the Catechumens of old in point of confession before baptisme and yet the same Author never intend by that assertion to exclude children of such as doe make such confession of faith and repentance from baptisme Beza which holdeth this forth here yet here also refuteth that as errour in Catabaptists to deny Paedobaptisme So that still here is the old fallacie à dicto secundum quid ad simpliciter dictum SECT VI. THe next Author quoted Proposition 1. scil Strigelius upon Acts the 8th as saying that to bee baptized in the name of Jesus is to bee baptized in acknowledging and confessing the name of Jesus I have not and therefore cannot examine the same Albeit this sano sensu hinders not us in that when parents offer their children to baptisme the name of the Lord Jesus is confessed and acknowledged The next testimony is of Luther Proposition 1. whereupon Gen. 48. hee is said to affirme before wee receive the Sacrament of Baptisme and the Lords Supper wee must have faith and in another place as quoting Heb. 2. 4. Rom. 1. 17. Heb. 10. 38. Mark 16. 28. Act. 8. 36. and Rom. 10. 10. to prove that faith is required to baptisme and that without faith the Sacraments profit not but hurt rather the receivers and Proposition 3. hee is quoted againe in his book of the Civill Magistrates as speaking like words and saying wherefore wee hold our selves to the words of Christ He that beleeves and is baptized So that before or else even then present when baptisme is administred there must needs bee faith or else there is contempt of the Divine majesty who offers present grace when as there 's none receive it And Proposition 5. Luther upon giving and receiving the Sacrament Tom. 3. is said to write that in times past it was thus that the Sacrament was administred to none except it were to those which acknowledged and confessed their faith and knew how to receive the same c. and Proposition 7. in his booke of Anabaptisme hee is said to acknowledge that it cannot bee proved by Scripture that childrens baptisme was instituted by Christ or begun by the first Christians after the Apostles for a 1000. yeares since it came to bee in use in the Church and was established by Pope Innocentius This place also doth A. R. quote in his second part of childish baptisme pag. 8. And Proposition 8. Luther is againe quoted as speaking thus in his Postils Young children heare not nor understand the Word of God out of which faith commeth and therefore if so be that commandment of Christ bee followed children ought not to bee baptized Now as for these testimonies of Luther I not having nor being able to procure neare hand the sight of all his Tomes I shall not bee so able to discover the legerdemaine which I verily suspect in citing his testimonies as well as those of some others Yet Luthers meaning in the words mentioned Proposition 1. may well bee expounded by that mentioned Proposition 3. and so according to his judgement rather establishing Paedobaptisme then weakning it for hee holdeth that God at present when they are baptized worketh faith in them and therefore the rather such are to bee baptized Luther in his 4th Tome expounding that Hos 12. 3. Hee tooke his brother by the heele in the wombe scil by a secret instinct and moving of the Spirit as John also by the same moved in the wombe upon Christs approach of which hee giveth this reason because God is not onely the God of growne ones but even of such babes And what wonder is it saith hee that the Spirit is efficacious in Infants in a way we understand not as having also flesh and bones in the wombe as wee have but yet not nourished as wee are And therefore that tenent of Anabaptists is impious and odious who therefore deny baptisme to Infants because they want sense and understanding nor doe they know what is done about them To us they understand not by us they are judged to want sense and understanding but it 's not so to God whose worke they are for God as hee nourisheth them otherwise then hee doth us so doth hee otherwise move their hearts c. Another answer of his see in his second Tome lib. de captiv Babyl title of baptisme Hee saith having spoken before of faith as requisite to the application of the promise opponetur forsan iis c. It may bee to the things before spoken the baptisme of Infants will bee opposed which receive the promise and yet cannot have the faith of baptisme and therefore either faith is not required or Infants baptisme is null Here saith hee I say that which all say that Infants are helped by the faith of others even of them which offer them For as the Word of God is forcible whilst uttered to change the heart of a wicked man which is not lesse deafe and uncapable then any little one so by the Prayer of the Church offering and beleeving even a little one having faith infused is changed cleansed and renewed by him to whom all things are possible For conformation whereof hee brings that example Marke 2. 3 4 5. And in his 7th Tome in his Homily of baptisme hee reckons that erroneous interpretation of Marke 16. 16. is the ground of that dispute against Paedobaptisme because if baptized say some when an Infant and not beleeving then not rightly baptized and so that baptisme is nothing to which saith Luther this is nothing else then if it should bee said if thou beleevest not when thou partakest of the Word or Sacrament it is nothing And so they onely that truely beleeve are truely baptized and others baptized which doe not beleeve they are againe to bee baptized when they doe beleeve scil albeit growne ones when baptized if then hypocrites As for Luthers other two speeches mentioned Proposition 7. and 8. I somewhat wonder if hee should utter them as here expressed that in that booke stiled Lutheri Antilutherana opera fratris Joan. Apobolymaei alias Findeling Minoritae they are not mentioned the scope of the booke being to gather up all Luthers seeming contradictions And hee instanceth in the other de captiv Babyl before mentioned it 's strange that hee misseth those if thus written since it 's evident both by that expression in Luthers greater Catechisme Tom. 3. when hee saith After the same manner doe wee when wee give baptisme to little ones Wee bring the child to the Minister of the Church with this mind and hope that verily it may beleeve But wee doe not baptize it for those things but rather because God hath commandâ—d us so to doe So in that famous story of the concord betweene Luther and the Divines which followed him and
such persons was deferred through corruption in the persons whom it concerned Some out of groundlesse supposals of a necessitie to conforme to Christs baptisme who was baptized at 30. yeers old Whence it is that Gregory Nazianzen refuteth that ground of deferring baptisme Others thought it might bee some defilement yea defacing to their childrens baptisme as well as their owne if they sinned after baptisme and therefore thought it good to bee deferred Others had a superstitious conceipt of an excellency of being baptized in Jordans waters above others which occasioned Constantius deferring his Baptisme Euseb lib. 4. de vita Constantini Theodoret lib. 1. Hist Eccles c. 35. some parents were discouraged from bringing their children to baptisme through the covetousnesse of the Ministers requiring as then the use was so much for an offering from and for any persons which were baptized which occasioned delayes in many Whence that Canon of the Councell of Ellâ—bertinum cited in Trecius his Decretalls that every Bishop should looke to it throughout the Churches that those which bring their Infants to Baptisme if they offer any thing freely of their owne accord it should bee received of them But if otherwise through povertie they have nothing to offer the Priest should not violently take any pawnes of them because many of the poorer sort fearing the same did withhold their children from Baptisme SECT V. BEsides many other causes mentioned by Gregory Nazianzen in his 40th Oration de baptismo where hee blameth not onely the deferring of elder persons that are at their owne dispose but the deferring of the baptisme of children by their Parents and because Gregories testimony is made use of by the Treatise in confirmation of the fourth Proposition It s meet it should bee cleared whether hee bee more ours or yours I deny not but hee giveth his advise out of case of danger of death the childrens baptisme bee deferred till they are three yeers old this was his peculiar fancy in this particular but yet this is not to speake for the Anabaptists tenent which say a man must first bee of yeares of discretion able to hold forth his knowledge in Articles of Religion besides his faith in Christ and repentance of his sinnes c. this a child of three yeeres old is not able to doe wee say that unripe children before capable of professing their knowledge faith and repentance are to bee baptized and such a one is a child also of three yeers old And I wonder our adversaries urge not a speech of his in that oration speaking of persons that cannot receive baptisme hee reckons as some growne ones that cannot through some suddaine exigent albeit they desire it so others which cannot by reason of their Infancy but hee intends that of such as cannot come of themselves unlesse by others helpe and especially Infants which cannot come meerely in their owne right And he speakes of persons who if not baptized they themselves are exempted from guilt of neglect or contempt albeit not of losse by it as his words evidence speaking of them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which being unsealed or unbaptized are without sinne although they suffer losse or hurt but doe not act it unlesse they are not without originall sinne that is not his meaning but they themselves sinne not therein personally in neglect or contempt of Gods Ordinance and therefore albeit he had inveyed so much against the sinne of those whose baptisme was deferred hee hereby cleareth them from that blame but hee accounteth that even those babes are sufferers in this omission and at a losse that in others right and by others helpe they are not brought to baptism albeit by reason of Infancy they cannot of themselves receive baptisme and that this is his meaning let his words declare ibid. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Hast thou an Infant Let not wickednesse take occasion scil to cause a deferring of it's baptisme let it bee sanctified from Infancy and consecrated to the spirit from its tenderest age yea but by reason of the weakednesse of its age thou art affraid to have it sealed how art thou a mother of a feeble mind and of a very little faith where he toucheth upon another cause why Christian Parents sometimes deferred their childrens baptisme scil a distrustfull feare of hazzarding their babes health if dipped as amongst many the use then was in baptisme so then hee chargeth the matter not upon the child but upon the parent in point of guilt if not baptized and observe hee accounteth it a wickednesse not thus to devote them from their tenderest yeeres their first birth ab ipsis unguiculis as the word is unto the Lord in baptisme and that sinne taketh occasion to put it selfe forth very much in case of Infants whence Parents are tempted to deferre their childrens baptisme and imputeth it to the weakenesse of their faith which if stronger might arme Christian parents against any seeming discouragements hee maketh the practise of Infants baptisme a matter of faith in Christian parents if they had faith enough they would not deferre the same and ibid. answering the query about Infants baptisme that it were better they should bee sealed without knowledge then die without baptisme hee giveth his reason from circumcision which was wont to bee administred the eighth day after the childs birth and in the same Oration hee said that albeit other things had their definite seasons yet all times were fit for washing or baptisme because no time was free from hazzard of death and that the time of our salvation was at all times to bee attended 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 every season is a time for thy baptisme and speaking of pretences to put off baptisme hee addeth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it reacheth all degrees of ages all kinds of life it armes one against assaults which may bee occasioned by any of them scil by Satan and ibid. speaking in answer to such as pretend Christs age when baptized hee was pure in and of himselfe and needed not purging as thou dost there was no danger to him in the delay of baptisme but no little hazard impendeth over thee if but from hence that thou art borne onely in sinne and being not immortall must die Hence his description of baptisme under divers notions calling it a gift because saith hee its given to them which have contributed nothing before hand thereto grace because it s bestowed on such as are indebted baptisme because sinne is buried in the water scil Sacramentally and now let all judge to which side Gregory Nazianzen most propendeth hee himselfe was baptized at above 30. yea but he approveth not of it as lawfull in any case to deferre it to above three yeeres and in some cases scil of hazard of life to be administred before surely if hee had thought baptisme of a very babe unlawfull as Anabaptists doe hee could not bee ignorant that upon no pretence of any hazards of life any sinne was to bee committed
and severall learne of the Priest Credo in Deum c. to which the former answer sufficeth Trecius in his Decretalls urgeth as much ex secundo Concilio Bracharensi yet the same councell also ratifieth Paedobaptism ordering Canone septimo that each Bishop should in all the Churches take care about the baptizing of Infants brought to baptism c. The like answer sufficeth to that quotation of the fourth Carthage councel in confirmation of the fifth Proposition those that are to be baptized are to give in their names after long abstinence from wine and flesh and frequent examinations with laying on of hands they are to be baptized It is the 75th Canon Now that the Councell never intended as if Infants baptisme were not valid and warrantable which could not bee thus examined see the 48th Canon of the third Carthage Councell which according to Isiodore in his summe of the Decretals was the yeare before this wherein the Councell doth ratifie even the Baptisme of children by Donatists for so the Canon is expounded in Caranza his summe of the Decretals and in Albignanus tertius his edition of the Decretalls this sinne being rather in the parents not that they offered them to baptisme but to offer them to be baptized by such Heretiques the fifth Carthage councell which according to Isiodore was two yeers after the 4th councell but according to Johannes Wolfius de rebus memorabilibus centur quarta both the fourth and fifth Carthage councell was kept the same yeere scil Anno 399. wherein there were 74. Bishops as in the other there were 97. Bishops Aurelius Bishop of Carthage being President in which councell Canon 6. they ratifie Paedobaptisme as this treatise also mentioneth Proposition 7. It 's not then imaginable that the councell that the other day if our Authors guesse right was against Paedobaptisme and yet presently bee so quite altered as to establish it yea but Mr. Blackwood in his preface to storming the two Garrisons of Antichrist would seeme to make an argument against paedobaptisme as then in use from the 14. Can. Concil Nic. and Can. 4. and 6. Concil Ancyran in which Canons the Assemblies were divided into hearers Catechumeni and Offerers or persons in full communion till cut off by death on censure yet hee cannot tell hee saith whether this division were in use before the first Nicene Counsell probably its thought since the Apostles time so that to conclude that according to his exposition of the Offerers children being not of that sort nor of the Catechumeni they must bee of the third sort of the profane rabble of hearers this is farre fetched and hee suspecteth the foundation of it scil that division whether so ancient as from the Apostles so that hee can build nothing thereupon nay by his leave hee must thrust out Infants little children not capable of being called Auditors in the Language of the ancient which hee cannot bee ignorant understand it of adult persons nor of being Catechumens if not amongst the third sort of Offerers where are they then Surely no part of the Congregation when yet in Joel 2. Assemble the Congregation gather such as suck the breasts c. children then are upon Scripture grounds as well as common reason parts of the Church Assemblies nay hath not Mr. B. made a rod for his owne back since the Assembly being divided onely into those three parts and Scripture and reason making little ones part of the Assembly and yet neither hearers nor Catechumens as reason will tell him therefore they must needs bee of the third sort scil Offerers in those times they were then in full communion witnesse Cyprian as some urge it to enseeble Cyprians testimony for Paedobaptisme and Cyprian was above 70. yeeres before the first Nicene councell yea children were Offerers too in respect of that which was offered at their baptisme witnesse the Canon of the Elebertine councell as the little ones of old were said to bring an offering in their hand when their parents onely did it for them Deut. 16. but Mr. Blackwood urgeth the seventh Canon of the Councell at Constantinople declaring how they Catechise them they are to baptize hee telleth us not what Councell it was but saith it was in Theodosius his time so it might bee and yet wee not know by what Character which it was divers of them being then called there Wolfius puts Theodosius at Anno 383. and Anno 382. the third Constantinople Councell Anno 383. the fourth Anno 402. the fifth the same yeere that the Milevitan councell was and Anno 403. the 6 7 8. now the 6th councell of Constantinople provideth that none should have chrisme and baptisme administred to them unlesse it bee such as firmely hold forth the Lords Prayer and the Creed c. excepting such who by reason of age cannot speake and provideth Can. 7. that such as bee witnesses to Infants in Baptisme should bee sound in the faith Councells use not to bee crosse to themselves in so little space as to order contrary things that onely adult persons should bee baptized and no Infants as Mr. B. expounds them and yet againe not onely adult but Infants shall bee baptized that is not square dealings And I wonder that Mr. B. foreseeing the ratifying of the 46. Canon of that Laodicean Councell before mentioned by that at Trullo which was the Emperours Palace at Constantinople where the Councell used to sit in Justinians time Can. 78. a Councels that was for Paedobaptisme expresly would enfeeble his argument from thence in that a Councell of such Fathers judge that Canons establishing both this and that scil catechising before baptisme and baptisme before catechising are not contraries that hee which holdeth the one denyeth the other but subordinate which may both stand together according as the persons to bee baptized are either adult or Infants This Mr. B. foreseeing maketh him its likely frame such a poore excuse as that its like upon some abuse or neglect it was reestablished by that Councell of Trullo but its like not rather if it were any thing of the controversie Yea but some object the Covenant of Theodor Balsamon and Zonaras upon the sixth Canon of that Grecian councell at Neocesarea Anno. 315. concerning a woman with child that shee ought to bee illuminated or baptized when shee desireth it because in that matter scil of baptisme shee that brings forth hath nothing in common with the babe which is brought forth which may bee shewed in confession that it is proprium uniuscujusque institutum ac propositum which they are brought in as so expounding or rather inferring thence that an Infant might not bee baptized because it hath not power to choose the confession of divine Baptisme Zonaras I have not but I looked upon that Patriarch of Antioch Theodor Balsamon who hath these words in his Scholia upon that Canon Some in the councell said that women with child which came from the Infidels to joyn with the
and second booke of the Epistles of Zwinglius and Oecolampadius they give grounds from Scripture to the contrary See l. 1. Epist Zwingl ad dilectos fratres I will now tell you from what grounds of Scripture I judge Infants to bee baptized c. and l. 2. in his Epist Bercktold and Francis Preachers at Berne hee saith peremptorily contra Scripturas ergo fecissent Apostoli si Infantibus negavissent baptismum the Apostles therefore had done contrary to Scriptures if they had denied baptisme to Infants See more of Oecolampadius his mind too herein in his Epist to Zwinglius and in that to the Preachers at Berne here therefore are two more witnesses abused in this Treatise CHAP. VI. HEre the Authors forget and mistake their owne witnesses names they are in such a hurry they bring in proofes that the Teachers according to the ancient Fathers right did so and so making the Fathers and those Teachers distinct as persons of whom the testimony is brought and as witnesses by whom and yet in the proofes the ancient Fathers themselves are the witnesses of what was done by those Teachers after them as Hilary Tertullian Arnobius Ambrose c. these might say what was in their time but cannot say what Teachers after them will doe or practise unlesse the Authors can by a spell play the Witch of Endors trick to fetch up old Samuel in his likenesse to speake after he was dead SECT I. BUt let us heare what any of them say if wee have not heard it before Hilary As for Hilaries testimony of his owne baptisme it 's not materiall wee mentioned him among the Authors instances of Adult persons baptized Proposition 3. as for his interpretation of baptizing in or upon the name that is upon confession of the beginners it 's as easily rejected as urged unlesse his grounds were shewed or were Scripture proofe SECT II. Ambrose THe next witnesse is Ambrose de spiritu Sancto l. 2. in our Sacrament there are three questions propounded and three confessions made without which three questions no man can bee washed if Mr. B's answer bee good to that part of Tertullian in the beginning of his booke de baptismo mentioning that a man without cost or pompe is let down into the water Observe saith Mr. B. that hee speakes of a man not of an Infant so I might as well say here hee speakes of a mans baptisme not of an Infants which then also was in use but that I feare some body would sit upon my skirts presently and aske mee whether an Infant be not sub genere isto subalterno hominis whether an Infant bee not homo and I ever thought before Mr. B. helped me with that distinction that when the Scripture saith it 's appointed to all men once to die c. Heb. 9. that Infants also were there counted men to die as well as others not to mention other places of Scripture or authors for the use of the word that way and I wonder Mr. B. when hee supposeth Rom. 5. 18. makes for his fancy of generall redemption of children whether of Pagans or Christians then Infants are men on whom the free gift commeth and yet here homo demissus in aquam in Tertullian must bee onely a growne man not Infants as if Infants now were not homo but this answer must bee better grounded or else I shall keepe my opinion that as an Infant is homo so Tertullians testimony there speaking indefinitely of any baptized person man or woman Infants youths or riper persons c. hee doth beare implicite testimony in that very place to Paedobaptisme as in his time But to returne to Ambrose I say that in Ambrose his time such confessions and questions were and Infants were baptized too that corruption being then in use of adding to Infants baptisme interrogations to them that brought them to baptisme which answered in their names and made confession in their stead For others were baptized in Ambrose his time and before then such as could personally answer or make confession yea and that it was Ambrose his judgement that it was the mind of God that others should bee baptized then could make such confessions witnesse that among other places of Ambrose which hee hath in his 5th Tom. in his Homilies upon Luke Jordan was turned back signifying the future mysteries of salvation in baptisme by which little ones in their Infancy are cleansed from the wickednesse of their natures namely in a Sacramentall way SECT III. BUt it will bee here objected that that custome of susceptors in Infants baptisme and the interrogations and questions that were put to them or others in their stead doth shew that of old none but growne persons were baptized upon confession of faith for that when Infants are baptized they must also make confession by others I answer if the very use of susceptors in baptisme were an argument of force against Infants baptisme of old it might as well bee of force against the baptisme of adult persons too upon the same ground as then in use since they also had of old their susceptors when Pagans desired to be baptized they had those which instructed them before hand and when they were baptized they presented them to baptisme and undertooke for them also Stories are plentifull in instances that after that corrupt custome of susceptors in baptisme came up adult persons had susceptors as well as Infants Epidophorus at Carthage of the Church of Fausty had the Deacon of the Church to bee his susceptor Magdeb. hist cent 5. c. 6. Justinian the Emperour was surety for Gethes King of the Herulians when baptized and divers others the Centurists mention as do other Historian nor doth it follow because such confessions and answers were made by such as brought Infants to bee baptized that therefore it argues onely adults used to bee of old baptized rather it argues that of old it was the doctrine of the Church that Infants were baptized principally in others right which offered them to baptisme namely their godly parents or such as tooke them as their owne adopted children to bring them up in Gods feare Hence even after the corrupt and abusive practise of susceptors came up Stories are not wanting to tell us of Christian parents which were susceptors to their owne children witnesse the Story mentioned by Fabian in his 5th book c. 114. Andovera wife to Chilpericus having a little daughter born in her husbands absence did by the perswasions of the Bishop Fredegrand become witnesse to it her self at its baptisme The Centurists mention the same Story out of Ganguinus Hence also Austin in his 14th Sermon upon the words of the Apostle speaking of Infants Baptisme saith if baptisme profit the baptized I demand whom it benefiteth the beleeving or the unbeleeving but God forbid I should say that Infants are not beleeving I have but now disputed it before Hee beleeveth in another which sinneth in another scil in the parents which
alone convey sinne to the Infant It beleeveth then and it's baptisme is valid and it 's joyned to the faithfull formerly baptized This the authoritie of the Church our mother holdeth This doth the sure Canon or rule of truth obtaine Thus far forth then it was looked at as a doctrine not onely which the Church had in it but which the Scripture the rule of truth contained in it that in the businesse of Baptisme at least the faith of such as conveyed sinne to the child even of the parents was in stead of its owne personall faith so farre as to make its baptisme valid and beneficiall to it SECT IIII. Arnobius THe next witnesse is Arnobius upon the Psalmes which Perkins putteth at the yeere 290. but because Perkins in Praepar ad Demon. Probl. and Rivet in his Crit. sac makes it a spacious booke as mentioning on Psal 119. the Pelagian heresie which came up above sixscore yeeres after Arnobius his time I shall not attempt to fight against a shadow Albeit the place being of the way of Adults Baptisme concludeth nothing against what wee maintaine Lâ—do Vives Ludovicus Vives is the next who in his notes upon Austin de Civitate Dei l. 1. cap. 26. saith the Treatise but it 's rather cap. 27 as Hen. Den. more truely quoteth it affirmeth that in times past no man was brought to bee baptized but those that were come to their full growth who having learned what it concerned desired the same But whether hee that lived but in Henry the eighths dayes or Austin whom hee expounds which lived above twelve hundred yeares agoe had better reason to know what was done of old let any sober minde judge Strabo To the same purpose Walefrid Strabo who lived about the yeare 800. seemeth to speake but Origen who was in the yeare 201. according to Osiander or 230. according to Perkins and Vsher hee mentions Paedobaptisme as from the Apostles as well as Austin doth Melivitan And so doth the Milevitan councell in the yeare 402. according to Wolfius say as much that the Catholique Church hath alwayes understood Infants to bee defiled with Adams sinne and according to the rule of faith to bee on that ground namely amongst others for it 's knowne sundry other gounds were of old urged for Paedobaptisme as that Matth. 19. 13 14 15. Suffer c. For of such c. urged in Tertullians time 200. yeares before as appeares by his assaying to take off that ground in his booke De Baptismo before mentioned baptized See the 1. Tome of Councells SECT V. Bucer THe next witnesse is Bucer in his Annotat. upon the 4th of John set out Anno 28. So much as in the Apostolicall writings are written of baptisme is apparent that baptisme was administred to none by the Apostles but to those of whom concerning their regeneration they made no doubt c. I have looked that very booke and a booke distinct from his greater booke on the Evangelists and there is no such words It 's a meere forgery Bucer is againe cited Proposion 6th saying that Christ hath no where plainly commanded that children should bee baptized If the speech had been just thus yet it 's evident his Intent was not that children ought not to bee baptized by vertue of Gods command which is the direct conclusion subscribed to in the explication of it at Wittenberg by him and others as before but that the command was not in so many words expressed but by necessary consequence to bee concluded His booke intituled The groundworke and cause I have not though like testimonies have been answered before SECT VI. Ruffinus THe next is Ruffinus in his exposition upon the Symbol that those at Rome and Aquila that were to bee baptized must first acknowledge and confesse the 12. Articles of the Creed Here Ruffinus is as one against Paedobaptisme By others when Origens authoritie is urged upon Rom. 5. for Paedobaptisme then it is spurious and the words of Ruffinus Now how should one behave himselfe amidst this contradiction of the antipartie Well wee shall ward off both Blowes as they come God willing As for this testimony as much is in the Treatise and the same place brought out of Austin in his 8th Booke of Confessions that albeit the Authors conceale the name of the place where Victorinus was to have made confession of the faith as the custome was namely at Rome Yea but how then saith Austin lib. 4 cont Donat. cap. 13. 14. that it was ever the use of the Churches and that delivered from the Apostles to baptize Infants Verily both are subordinates and not contraries According to the subjects mentioned if speaking of Adults then the former is true if of Infants then the latter is as true Albeit it 's as true after the custome then in use in Ruffinus his time that Infants did make confession by their sureties as according to God they did and doe now confesse their faith so farre as concerneth their baptisme in their parents even as every man Deut. 16. 17. giving as hee was able their males which personally there appeared came not before the Lord empty not any of them but gave scil in their parents offering for them CHAP. VII SECT I. HIs proofes out of Popish writers as Eckius mentioned in proofe of that and of the 7th Proposition Rossensis Cocletus Ennusius and Staphylus to which some adde Bellarmine I doe not much regard because they can play Legerdemaine fast and loose with a trick that they have If they dispute against Calvinists about the sufficiency of Scripture or validitie of humane traditions then Paedobaptisme is a tradition of the Church If against Anabaptists then Eckius in his Enchiridion here cited hath his foure Scripture arguments to prove it to bee of Scripturall authoritie and foundation For Bellarmine hee hath in his book of Baptisme cap. 8. 3 arguments from Scripture for it And although saith hee wee doe not find it commanded expresly that wee should baptize Infants Tamen id colligitur satis aperte ex scripturis ut supra ostendimus Yet it is to bee gathered plainly enough from Scriptures saith Bellarmine as wee have before shewed Wherefore of such if I may say as hee bluntly once spake to his companion If they can with the same breath blow hot and cold let them even eate porridge with the devill if they will I like not their falshood SECT II. OF Lutherans Pomeranus is quoted whose booke of children unborne I cannot meet with and so cannot trace my Authors here And in such a case as they say Travailers and Souldiers may lie by authoritie when none can contradict them But yet what sayes Dr. Pomeranus that for the space of 1200. yeares men erred concerning children the which wee cannot yet willingly would baptize what his intent is by these words of his cannot well bee gathered If hee intend it of all sorts of children that it is an errour to baptize
his instruments that dirt wash it off who can Plateolus Abbas Cluviacensis and others traded this way concerning Berengarius and his followers Dr. Vsher de successione statu Ecclesiarum Christianarum Cap. 7. pa. 207. quoteth Tbuanus accusing him and them thereof but evinceth the contrary both in that In all the Summons of Berengarius before the Synod wee never read hee was charged with Anabaptisme and that hee rather denyed baptisme to profit Infants to salvation ex opere operato for which hee quoteth Alanus in his first booke against the Heretiques of his times as saying that baptisme had no efficacy either in Infant or grown persons c. and in p. 195. citeth Serarius in Triharesio as saying qui hodie sunt Calvinisti olim dicti fuerunt Berengariani qui hodie Protestantes dicuntur Johanni Wendelstino praefat in Cod. Canonum novi sunt Waldenses They then acknowledge their and our doctrine to bee the same and therefore no Antipaedobaptists and Gretzer prolegom in Script edit contra Waldenses cap. 1. citeth this as one of their Articles of confession credimus etiam quâ—d non salvatur quis nisi qui baptizatur viz. ordinarily and parvulos salvari per baptismum and wee beleeve that little children are saved by baptisme and so in the same cap. 8. doth Dr. Vsher cleare Peter de Brucis and his followers from all such aspersions They were accused too for rejecting the Old-Testament and Evangelists yet by Gretzer and others they are cleared as those that translated and taught the same and Reiner the Inquisitour said they were so well acquainted with the old and new Testament as that they could say much thereof by heart the history of the Waldenses mentioneth this accusation of them as if denying Paedobaptisme but citeth a booke of the Waldenses intituled the spirituall Almanack fol. 45. to the contrary ordering that though no time or day bee set yet the charitie and edification of the Church must serve for a rule therein and therefore they to whom the children were nearest allied brought their Infants to bee baptized as their parents or any other whom God had made charitable in that kind True it is saith the Author of that story scil John Paul Peruin of Lyons l. 1. c. 4. they being forced by the Popish Priest to bring their children would delay their baptisme out of detestation of the superstitious addition and their owne Ministers cald Barbes being very often and sometimes very long upon the Churches service they would deferre their childrens baptisme to their returne which delayes of theirs being observed by the Popish Priests they thence raised that report and charged them with that imposture they appealed to the Greeke Church not as denying Paedobaptisme for they held and practised it as before was shewed but as to a Church that was not so corrupt in dispensing it as not using Chrisme crossing and exorcising as the Latin Church did in baptizing any See Flaccus Illiricus Catalogo testium veritatis pag. 434. Waldenses semper baptizarunt Infantes c. the Waldenses ever used to baptize their Infants nor doe they now hold against it they spake not against baptisme of Infants simply but as not administred by those of Rome in the vulgar tongue nor doth Aeveas Sylvius in his Bohemian Story of the Waldensian tenents although hee bee an exact sifter into the supposed errours of the Waldenses charge them with Antipaedobaptisme SECT IIII. BUt to returne to that first consideration let it bee weighed â—hat as Austin long agoe said of it Nullus Christianorum c. No Christians orthodox and godly had ever denyed Paedobaptisme l. 4. Con. Donat. c. 13. Secondly adde also this that if it had been any way justly suspicious why did not the Messalians wholly deny it and the Pelagians also what need had they to use that shift of Infants to bee baptized to the kingdome of God but not to the remission of sinnes this argument Austin useth Serm. 14. de verb. Apost Yea but they were affraid of the authoritie of the Church being great therein that is strange that Heretiques that regarded not so directly to goe against in their opinions as well expresse letter of Scripture as the doctrine of the Church in fundamentall matters should yet bee affraid of the Church in a matter circa fundamentalia and not so expresse in so many words as Paedobaptisme was who will imagine such an unlikelihood A have done with this dispute for present onely I could advise that Mr. Blackwood and others would bee more sparing of such printed blaspheming of the name and tabernacle of the Lord as to stile this which to all the Saints in a manner of old and to the most that now live is of precious esteeme and use an Antichristian Garrison and the doctrine of the man of sinne or of Antichrist Mr. Blackwood I am sure doth know what is the judgement of all Orthodox Divines touching Antichrist and who or what it is that is so and where hee hath his seat and when hee had his rise And cannot bee ignorant wholly that Paedobaptisme was of universall esteeme and use in a manner long before those prophesyings and pointings out of Antichrist by many of the ancients the Greeke Church which had not what doctrine and worship they had and held from the Latin Church but the Latine Church had it rather from them as in the Councell of Trent was before acknowledged and which was averse from Romish customes yet they held Paedobaptisme as before was proved It is dangerous speaking a word against the Sonne much more writing albeit not so irrecoverably as to speake against the Holy Ghost hee had need bee on good sure and cleare grounds if it were supposable hee could bee so that assayes to charge God foolishly with the reasons of his covenantings or dispensations and so palpably as to deny that God made a Covenant of Grace with Abraham Gen. 17. and such like inaudita It 's dangerous pretending an imaginary Garrison and in fighting against that as a supposed Garrison of Antichrist whereon a man hazards the name and doth the worke of one which will bee found a fighter against God wee know who would not bring a rayling accusation against the Devill and how dare any so boldly revile such a received and ratified truth as that of Gods exhibition and dispensation of his grace in a preventing way to those whose seed after them in Scripture Language are counted blessed The Saints of old were very tender of speaking any thing in such a sort as tended to the condemnation of the just CHAP. XI Vse 1. TO winde up all in a word of Use to all 1. in way of instruction 1. See the riches of Gods grace which thus is enlarged to all the sorts of the sons of men younger and elder if God would amplifie grace hee sets it out as extended to his people as in the case of an helplesse and despicable babe Esay 49. 14 15.
Hos 10. 1. 3. especially Ezek. 16. 6 7 8. and what hath Satan here to object Psal 8. 1. 2. when even that sort of persons are made presidents not onely of electing but calling in way of Covenant and promise grace Rom. 9. 7 8 9 10. To all hee is rich and free hence all enterers into the kingdome must here take patterne Luke 18. 17. how plentifull is that sap that fills such twigs that liquor that fills all sort of vessells of greater and lesser capacitie how strong is that pin on whom all are hung 2. See what honour God puts on his Saints thus to intaile the visible ordinary administration of his grace on them and theirs 2 Sam. 23. 4 5. 3. See how cruell unbeleevers are to themselves and theirs in excluding themselves and theirs of the ordinary meanes of their welfare even covenant grace administred 4. See their desperate ingratitude that being children of such hopes despise and sell their birthright with Esau these doe vex their father most Deut. 32. 19 20. 5. See the danger and detestablenesse of Anabaptisticall tenents giving God and Christ in part the lie vayling the glory of his preventing grace of Covenant Numb 11. 18. giving such a Covenant call before we knew or sought it Esay 65. 1 2. framing a Covenant of God with beleeving parents which hee never made scil a Covenant not respecting their children denying the ordinary dispensation of the fruit of Christs death to the Infant part of his Church Ephes 5. 25 26. making the Churches opposite to Christ in their administrations to those of his in their charitie to that of his as if hee were looser in his charitie to owne such babes as of his kingdome which his Church will not may not doe condemning the judgement and practise of former Churches Jewes and Gentiles Act. 2. 38. 39. Rom. 5. 14 15. and 11. 16 17 18 19. Ephes 2. 11 12 13. 1 Cor. 7. 14. and 10. 1 2. as preached all over Mark 16. 15 Rom. 10. 6 7 8. and Deut. 29. 29. with 30. 6. 10. 12 13 14. compared see Austin l. 4. contr Don. cap. 23 24. undermining the validitie of all which God hath done by vertue of his Covenant to babes or to any of the Saints occasioning from the initiatory seale thereof Ephes 5. 26. evacuating all that Red-Sea-like triumphant Incouragement thence unto Gods baptized Israel against their spirituall Aegyptian enemies pursuit of them and that Cloud-like Influence of their baptisme in scorching temptations and Arke-like succour thereof in drowning times David did not more effectually make use of his circumcision which hee long before received even when an Infant against that insulting Philistim whence that 1 Sam. 17. this uncircumcised Philistim is come c. then many of Gods faithfull ones have of that preventing grace of God sealed to them in baptisme when very babes in their spirituall conflicts But all such spirituall workings either in parents or in the Churches of the Saints where children have beene offered to baptisme which have beene occasioned by the administration of Baptisme to Infants are made here by delusions God not using in such sort so generally commonly and constantly to breath in Antichristian inventions Yea all their prayers are thereby made so many profanations of Gods name and taking the same in vaine as oft as powred out upon occasion of baptizing of Infants whence that prophane trick of some to turne their back upon the Churches at such time as if all their persons and prayers and fellowship were uncleane whence the stiling of it Antichristian c. what is this but to blaspheme the name and tabernacle and Saints of God Rev. 13. And how doth such doctrine undermine all the Churches of the Saints which differ from them witnesse their new foundings of their Churches in renouncing their former baptisme as antichristian and receiving another baptisme yea how doe such cast stumbling blocks unto the comming of the Jewes by undermining of Abrahams Covenant in the latitude of it and the binding force of the old Testament which they stick to as if all were invalid unlesse come over againe in the new Testament which they reject and when ever dealt withall doubtlesse old Testament principles will bee the choyce instrumentall wayes and meanes of getting within them Vse 2. Second Use of direction 1 To Church Officers to looke after the Churches children being children of such hopes 2 To gracious parents 1 Admire much at the bounty of God who is not content to ingage his grace to you but to yours with you you and yours are all Traytors yet his royall word is for your and their acceptance If that called for a Behold Psal 128. 3 4 5. and if that caused in him such holy wondring 2 Sam. 7. 18 19 20. may not this also doe the like 2 Renue your faith in Gods Covenant in the latitude of it upon occasion of the baptisme of others or your owne children in speciall sort 3 Acquaint your children with urge Gods mind of grace upon them as they are capable of Instruction Psal 78. 4 4 5 6 7. 4 To children of pious parents looke you doe not by abuse or contempt forfeit and reject your owne mercy as they did Matth. 8. 11. 12. And such as now feel finde the force of Gods ingaged grace for ever do you adore and admire his preventing mercy and truth Vse 3. Third Use of comfort to beleeving parents 1 If God overflow thus in grace to yours will hee not extend grace to your selves Conclude it that hee will assuredly against all gainesayings of Satan and unbeleefe 2 Bee incouraged to set faith on worke for your children as they did Psal 102. last yea albeit at present vile enough since the force of Gods covenant is such as it can fetch them in even when farre removed by sinne from the Lord witnesse that Ezek. 16 60. 61 62 c. 3 You need not feare then touching divine protection of and provisions for them sutably and seasonably Psal 25. 12. Prov. 20. 7. 4 When you are to die and leave them fatherlesse and friendlesse otherwise yet here is a Covnant Father and friend to whom you may comfortably leave them Gen. 48. 15 16. Tri-uni Deo sit laus in Ecclesia FINIS
nothing is pure to them but their consciences are defiled in the use thereof Tit. 1. 15. Prov. 24. 4. whether the promise give right to such and such blessings or no or whether ever the blessing of the blessings bee pleaded for in prayer or no men may have a lawfull use of their meate and sleep c but such have the holy use or every thing is sanctified to such by the word and prayer which improve the same for that end 1 Tim. 4. 5. for so hee giveth meate to them which feare him as mindfull of his covenant Psal 111. 5. and so hee giveth his beloved sleepe Psal 127. 2. The eighth and last thing premised is that the Apostle in the Argument which hee useth here to confirme that of such yokefellowes being thus sanctified to or by the beleeving parties hee changeth the person from the third to the second as concerning and nearely touching the body of the Church collectively especially such as were parents and had children The case might originally respect some few yea but hee argueth about it not thus Else their children were uncleane c. but else your children were uncleane but now are they holy as extending it to all the children of the Church and to the children of the members of it whether the parents were both fathers and mothers of the Church as it was the case of many or whether the fathers or mothers onely were in the Church which was the case of some SECT III. ANd now to ascend the Watch-Tower Albeit Gigantine Casuists have done worthily yet let a dwarfe on their shoulders mention what roaving fancies he discovers to misse and what explication hee observeth to hold a right and streight course and to weather and directly to fall in with and come up to the point of divine truth circumscribed in the clause mentioned Else your children were uncleane but now they are holy And here but barely to name explications of the words uncleane and holy to which our opposites stick not As when holy is used as opposed to corporally uncleane by actuall lusts as 1 Sam. 21. 5. 1 Thess 4. 4. or holy as actually holy for office Numb 16. 7. or holy for a person borne without sinne and so not inherently uncleane So onely the Child Jesus was not uncleane but holy Act. 3. Prov. 20. Job 23. Albeit grosser Anabaptists some of them have not doubted to affirme this of other children also or holy for one personally holy or truely gratious and godly wee contend not to determine of all beleevers children that they are thus Albeit wee are charitable in our thoughts and hopes this way of this or that particular child or holy for persons elected or saved we doe not positively affirme this neither of all them considered together Albeit we hope the best of the particular children presented to us and yet we judge that a most unsound and uncharitable speech of I. S. in his booke against Infants-Baptisme p. 3. That Infants in respect of their nonage are neither subjects of election nor subjects capable of glory * Me thinks these words do savour much of the Popish Arminian Tenet of foreseen faith Contrary to that Rom. 9. 10 11 12. Esay 65. 20. some beleevers Infants die Infants will any say they are all damned God forbid Yea but if supposed to bee saved then to bee glorified unlesse some Limbus Infantum be imagined which is neither the place of glory nor of damnation And if supposed to come to glory they are capable subjects of it unlesse God order any to glory whom he fitteth not for it If supposed to be sayed then also elected and so subjects of election or persons in whom election is partly subjected unlesse it be supposed either that some reprobates or persons not elected nor capable of being elected are saved or that there is some middle state betwixt Iacob have I loved before he had done good Esau have I hated or rejected before hee had done actually evill Contrary to Rom. 9. And supposing that such Infants dying Infants are elected and glorified it must be concluded that as Infants they were subjects of election and are capable of glory unlesse any will fondly imagine that God in choosing them eyed them as other persons then ever they lived to become or glorified other persons then ever they were in glorifying of them for dying Infants they never came to be other then Infants Nor by holy is meant ceremonially holy of which holinesse the Apostle speaketh as is evident by the mention of the instrumentall meanes of sprinkling of bulls and goats blood Heb. 9. 13. which Mr. B. would seeme to draw as if intended of outward holinesse now visible to the Church when it 's evidently spoken of that branch of Jewish ceremoniall holinesse now abrogated Nor by holy is meant here persons which possibly may be converted but this is but a may bee in respect of all such children whereas the Apostle saith peremptorily they are not they may bee holy Nor by holy is meant persons that may be religiously educated as I doe not remember such use of the word holy in Scripture however it is not here the thing intended for the Apostle positively saith they are not they may be holy whereas many beleevers babes never live to be holy by holy education Others expound it thus in reference to that inhibited separation verse 12 13. that if you stay together the children will bee counted legitimate but if you part they will be accounted bastards This is far-fetcht nor de jure in cases of lawfull divorce for adultery ought the children begot of the divorced Wife in lawfull wedlock before her adulterous pranks and divorce for it bee counted bastards SECT IV. BUt there are three other Expositions of this clause which are more usually urged and pleaded by opposites to Infants federall holinesse First some make this clause Else your children c. to be a reason inforcing that inhibition verse 12 13. and not of the sanctifying of the infidell spouse in the other Thus if you divorce your yoke-fellows you must put away your children also as they did Ezra 10. 44. And Hen. Denne maketh the meaning of your children are holy to be the same with the unbeleeving husband or wife is sanctified scil They are not to be put away Whereas the immediate connection of this clause to that passage vers 14. in way of arguing and not to vers 12 13. sheweth it to be a reason of the former not of the other in vers 12 13. The case of putting away came in question but as a supposed remedy of pollution of conscience by conjugall communion the unlawfulnesse of which remedy being so expresly mentioned vers 12. 13. and confirmed by foure reasons vers 14 15 16 17. there needed no more weight put there But since the feare of pollution of conscience did occasion that case vers 12 13. and that feare is so fully taken off in the first
upon calling and so to their children upon calling and no otherwise of which hee gave a reason before that by the promise to the children was not meant the seed after the flesh the Copie of beleevers being not larger then that of Abraham was in respect of the eternall Covenant which belonged not to his seed after the flesh but after the spirit which hee expounds to bee such as Mark 3. 32. and Mark 16. 16. scil that obey the words of Christ that beleeve and are baptized To like purpose A. R. in his second part hath the same scil that the promise is equally made to them and to their children and to them that are afarre off But those that are afarre off are not in the Covenant by the promise untill they beleeve therefore neither those children which hee further confirmeth that if then they were in Covenant thou had they been also of the Church of the Gospel But that they were not of For it 's said afterwards vers 41. that they were added to the Church as many as beleeved and therefore were not of it before C. B. hath divers sences of it Expounding children to bee men by Mark. 10. 44. John 8. 39. Gal. 4. 19. But the meaning hee makes to be no other promise then of remission of sinnes as the onely salve of guiltie consciences hee maketh it not as others to bee the promise of the Messiah nor as A. R c. in his booke expoundeth the promise it selfe to be meant of that promise cited by Peter as then fulfilled which is mentioned Joel 2. scil of the gifts of the holy Ghost But C. B. maketh it not a promise but a proffer of a promise to persons not actually converted vers 37 38 39 40. And if there were any promise yet being of remission of sinnes it was not to their children since many godly persons children prove wicked and so God must either fall from his promise or they from Grace And that this promise was no more to them that were pricked in their hearts then to those afarre off whether from them as Gentiles or from the promise as unregenerate persons even as many as the Lord our God shall call And in this particular Mr. B. jumpeth with some others mentioned as hee did in that that this was spoken to comfort guiltie consciences cast down Matth. 27. 25. as well in regard of that bloody wish against their children as in respect of other bloody acts against Christ In these different apprehensions it 's hard to reconcile persons either to others of their judgement or else to themselves SECT III. COme wee then to the first opinion touching the words First the promise is to you that is it is fulfilled to you accordingly as made to Abraham for sending of Christ c. here wants Scripture proofe to make this sense of the promise is to you i. e. is fulfilled to you nor yet doth that in Act. 3. 25 26. yee are the children of the promise c. prove this sense Secondly it is sending of Christ or of Christ sent But let it bee considered 1. That the Apostle doth not say the pâ—omise was to you as in reference to the time of making it to the fathers with respect unto them or in reference to Christ who was not now to come but already come as the Apostle proveth from ver 3. to 37. nor is it the use of the Scripture when mentioning promises as fulfilled to expresse it thus in the present tense the promise is to you or to such and such but rather to annex some expression that way which evinceth the same for which let Rom. 15. 8. 1 Joh. 2. 25. Eph. 3. 6. Nehe. 9. 8. 23. 2 Chron. 6. 15. 1 King 8. 56. Act. 2. 16 17. 33. and 13. 32 33. Josh 21. 45. and 23. 14. Matth. 1. 22 23. and 21. 4. Luk. 1. 54 55. 68 69. and Psal 111. 9. Rom. 11. 26 27. be considered 2. They knew already to their cost that Christ indeed was sent amongst them and to bee that Jesus or Saviour of his people from their sinnes Act. 22. 36 37. compared with Matth. 1. 21. And this was cold comfort to them to tell them of that which wounded them unlesse there bee withall some promise annexed and supposed in his being come The promise meerely of Christs comming could not comfort them unlesse also in and by Christ come in the flesh there bee some promise made to them touching the removall of those burdens of guilt which lay upon them 3. The blessing principally propounded to them for their reviving healing succour and support it was not Christs sending nor his being sent but remission of sinnes vers 38. wherefore unlesse the Apostle argue impertinently this may not be excluded but must bee one principall thing intended 4. It is that promise to which Baptisme the seale is annexed now the seale is ever to the Covenant which is not barely to Christs being sent in the flesh but to the benefits contained in promises by his comming The third thing they say it is to those of the dispersion those of the ten Tribes as others have expressed it and why not also of the Gentiles as well since spoken indefinitely of all that were afarre of which the Scripture expresly applyeth to the Gentiles Ephes 2. 11 12. Suppose those other Jewes were as the Gentiles not a people actually in Covenant with God so much as externally as being long divorced from God and his Covenant and Church-liberties yet the Gentiles in the maine of their outlawry condition were as one with them Yea but the conversion of the Gentiles was not yet revealed till Act. 10. in that vision What had not Christ before this Sermon of Peters declared his mind to all his Apostles touching the discipling and In-churching of the Gentiles onely they knew not whether it might be by joyning them first by way of addition as proselytes to the Jewes rather then by gathering them into other distinct Churches 4. It 's affirmed that this promised sending of Christ was to them their children and those afarre off as many as our God should call that they may bee turned from their iniquitie and bee baptized for remission of sinnes and yet also that the promise what ever it bee supposed to bee was to them all with that limitation that they repent or that they be called What is it to as many as the Lord shall call or convert or cause to repent and yet is it that they may bee turned from their iniquitie is it to persons called and yet also to uncalled persons is it to them that they may bee called yet the persons to whom the promise is are as many as are supposed to bee called how can these two bee right yea it 's said it is to them all upon condition that they be called and yet also that it is to them that they may be called Why if it be to them that by Christ they may
so that their bleeding wound is unstanched 2. The Apostles which as yet preached not for the abolishing even of Mosaicall rites would much lesse at that time so publiquely hold forth implicitely at least the exclusion of the Jewes babes from Abrahams Covenant Gen. 17. 7. And verily the Apostles which so long after were so tender of the better and more pliable part of the Jewes that they would have Paul to take off that aspersion as if hee should as yet lay a necessitie upon the Jewes not to circumcise their children Acts 21. 20. 22 23 24. would much lesse give such manifest and just offence to them as to hold forth an exclusion of their babes from right in that Covenant of Abraham it selfe whereof Circumcision was a visible seale as the places quoted in Gen. 17. 11. 13. and Acts 7. 8. declare 3. If Peter should intend by that clause such an exclusion at present of the Jewes babes from that externall interest in the Covenant of grace it were to bee crosse to Pauls doctrine Rom. 15. 8. who makes it Christs end not to evacuate undermine or abolish by his comming the promises indefinitely made to the fathers whether in Gen. 17. 7. or Deut. 30 6. or the like as respecting parents or children but to confirme the same Ibid. But some will yeeld the case as verified in those Jewish children as being never before denied to bee visibly in Abrahams Covenant but what is this to our childrens federall interest in the dayes of the Gospel An. Yes it 's very much 1 It proveth that by the Apostles since Christs ascension this tenent of the children of visible members of the Church are visibly interested in the Covenant of grace is of divine authoritie and is no humane invention 2. These Jewes are eyed by the Apostles as persons to partake of priviledges of a Church of Christians as was baptisme and therefore what extent of federal right priviledge is granted by the Apostles to them and theirs in that way is equally belonging to Gentiles in a like way 3. To suppose God by Apostolical ratification to allow to children of Jewish parents comming on to Christ c. a larger priviledge then to Gentile parents as came on to Christ c. is to make God a respecter of persons 4. The force of the words seeme to carry it that the same promise which was to those Jewes actually in Church and Covenant estate was intentionally to those afarre off which were strangers actually from a like estate whether those of the ten tribes or rather those of the Gentiles and should be actually to them when they came to bee called actually into the fellowship of that Covenant and Church estate Now what promise was that Verily a promise which carried with it a partiall reference unto their children The promise is to you and to your children And the same is unto them afar off whom God shall call scil in reference to their children also CHAP. III. Sect. I. The Explication of Gen. 17. 7 c. ANother Scripture holding forth the former doctrine of the Federall holinesse of such children is Gen. 17. 7. a place that in these later dayes hath been through mens distempers like Isaacs well an Esek for contention about the waters in it Touching which and so the whole doctrine of Federall holinesse propounded let us make use of a few distinctions and then set downe some few conclusions and withall take off what is brought to the contrary The Covenant of grace is considered either nakedly or as invested with a visible politicall Church-covenant if not explicite yet implicit Wee are to consider this place Gen. 17. not so much in the former as in the later sense God making of it with reference to the Church which was to remaine in the posteritie of Isaac vers 18 19 20 21. albeit at present it bee to bee contained in Abrahams owne family whence also hee ordaineth an initiatory seale and way of restipulation to which they submitting together as one selected body collectively and as members thereof distributively they did implicitly make confession and promise to God and bind themselves in a nearer religious tie one unto another Hence often renued Deut. 29. 2 Chro. 15. and 30. and 34. Nehem. 10. Ezek. 16. 8. Againe that Covenant of grace is considered either in it selfe or in its administration to which purpose circumcision is called the Covenant partly because it was the signe and seale of the Covenant of grace Gen. 17. 11 12 13. Partly too because it was the Covenant of grace in the administration of it Jer. 13. 11. and Esay 24. 5. and Zach. 11. 10. hath reference to the Covenant of grace both as invested with Church-covenant and in respect of Church-administration thereof Concerning persons being in covenant some are said to bee in the covenant intentionally so children of the Church which are yet unborne Deut. 29. 15. so those afarre off the promise was to them at that time Acts 2. 39. so the Jewes also which yet were to come in were in Pauls time holy Federally Rom. 11. 15 16. or actually so were the Jewes holy which were not cut off in Pauls time Ibid. so Deut. 29. 14. we attend rather to the later then the former in this discourse Persons actually in covenant are either internally and savingly in covenant as are all true beleevers and their children which belong to Gods election and as were many of those included in that phrase Rom. 11. 16. and as were Isaac and Jacob which were not onely children of the promise intentionally before they were borne Rom. 9. 9 10 11. but actually as soone as borne God revealing his mind of covenant-grace in such sort as never reversing the same after they were actually borne hence that Gal. 4. 23. 28. compared albeit many of the Galatians were but such in point of visibilitie as appeareth Or they are such as are onely externally in the covenant thus even Ishmael was for circumcision was even to him also Gods covenant or visible seale thereof This distinction is the Apostles Rom. 9. 4. hee speakes of some to whom the promises belonged scil onely externally and of others to whom they belonged in respect of the saving efficacy thereof Vers 6 7 8. Such as are externally in covenant are either such as are so upon their owne personall right meerely as many proselytes Exod. 12. 44 45. Deut. 29. 10 11. even those Gibeonites so were the soules in Abrahams house which hee gained to his religion according to Ainsworth Gen. 12. 5. such as hee had commanded to feare God Gen. 19. 19. as appeares by their free submission to that ridiculous painefull ordinance to flesh and blood Genesis 17. 27. Or such as withall are externally in Covenant so considered as invested with Church-covenant in their parents right as the Jewes and Proselytes Children Deut. 29. 10 11. God accepting the actuall owning of his Covenant by the grown part and parents instead of
of grace albeit invested with Church-covenant as appeares in that vers 60. that God for that his covenant sake considered as his will deale so gratiously with them after all their provocations as vers 62 63. Albeit hee did not thus properly for the sake of that investure of his covenant annexed scil Thy covenant the Churches covenant abstractively considered vers 61. see more Ezek. 36. from vers 17. to the Chapters end There is an externall being in the covenant of grace as there is an externall being in Christ John 15. 2. and partaking of Christ hence that of Heb. 13. 14. An externall belonging to Christ hence those Jewish refusers to beleeve in Christ yet called his owne John 1. 11. As there is an externall being called Matth. 22. 14. an externall being sanctified by the blood of the Covenant Heb. 10. 29. an externall being purged from sinne 2 Pet. 1. 9. an externall being purchased by Christ 2 Pet. 2. 1. an externall Saintship Deut. 33. 3. And therefore both are joyned being Saints and making a Covenant with God Psal 50. 5. and such as had Gods covenant made with them to glory of verse 16. yet what persons many of them were that Psalme doth declare There are those invisible Churches which are as Isaac was children of the promise Gal. 3. 28. children of the Gospel Church verse 31. and 26. this must bee verified in all the members of the Galatian Churches unto whom Paul wrote that Epistle Gal. 1. 2. for hee spake this of them all Jerusalem which is the mother of us all verse 26 27 28. compared They then were all such either effectually and savingly And then there were some particular visible Churches in which were no hypocrites Contrary to the very scope of the parable of the Tares and Net and Virgins and Wedding and varietie of vessels in the Church visible as an house of God 1 Tim. 3. 15. compared with 2 Tim. 2. 20. Yea then there should bee a possibilitie that such as are savingly interessed in the covenant of grace should end in the flesh Gal. 3. 3. suffer many things in vaine verse 4. have Apostolicall labour bestowed on them in vaine Gal. 4. 11. fall from grace and have no profit to salvation by Christ Gal. 5. 2. 4. for if there were not a possibilitie of some such members and cases to bee found in the Galatian Churches why doth the Apostle speake such things as there are mentioned but there is no possibilitie of fatall seducing the elect one savingly interested in the covenant and Church 2 Tim. 2. 16. 19 20. 1 John 2. 19. Matth. 24. 24. So then it must needs follow that according to God some were such indeed but externally and according to men all were children of the promise In which sense the promise of grace and glory may bee to one as ones legacy or portion externally and according to men of the saving good whereof it is possible one may fall short Heb. 4. 1. 4. When Antipaedobaptists admit any to the seales of Church and covenant fellowship is it not possible that some false brethren may creepe in unawares Jude 4. some wolves enter in and of their owne selves some turne seducers Act. 20. 29 30. can it be otherwise but that in visible Churches with us or them there will bee some unapproved ones to God 1 Cor. 11. 18 19. yet you admit them to the fellowship of covenant but without ground unlesse to them they are in covenant Will you ordinarily put seales to blankes and the seale must follow the covenant Gen. 17. 7. 9 10 11. 13. Acts 2. 38 39. 1 Cor. 11. 25. You will surely say they appeared to us to bee in the covenant of grace wee judged them to bee in it else wee had not admitted them So then according to your selves persons may bee externally and quoad homines in the Covenant of grace which are not savingly so I plead for no more wee are then thus farre agreed I yeeld no more advantage to Arminius nor undermine perseverance in grace nor the Polemicall doctrine of our choyse Divines more then you doe nor then Amesius Chamier Luther Calvin Beza and then your owne Tertullian as you count him doth who in his booke De Anima Chap. 21 22. urgeth that Text 1 Cor. 7. 14. for a peculiar cleannesse of beleevers children by priviledge of seed as the rest which I have named to whom Pareus Peter Martyr Bucer Melancton Mr. Philpot besides many others might bee added who pleading for Infants baptisme urge it from their interest in the Covenant As many of the ancients Cyprian Gregory Nazianzen Jerome Austine and others which plead for Paedobaptisme from the argument of circumcision must need implicitly if not expresly maintaine Infants Covenant estate to which the baptisme of the one as the circumcision of the other was ex natura rei a sacramentall signe Gen. 17. 11. And yet they held not that all such were infallibly saved and therefore must maintaine with mee an externall inbeing of some in covenant which possibly may never be saved But leaving humane authorities to returne to Scripture proofe of this third conclusion let our opposites consider of Gods breaking that gratious Covenant which hee had made with his people of old which was as his staffe of beautie Zach. 11 10 whether it can be verified of a legall covenant of workes and not rather of his covenant of grace in respect at least of the externall administration thereof amongst them as verse 9. and their externall right in that his covenant And whence else is there any supposall of some interested in that same covenant of God wherein the upright are faithfull stable and perminent but others are false treacherous and apostatising Psal 44. 17. Dan. 11. 30 31 32 33. If they were never in this holy covenant how came they to forsake it to deale falsely in it or was this Covenant wherein they together with those true beleevers were interested in communion other then the covenant of grace If it were not that from Sion was it that from mount Sinai which are the Apostles membra dividentia of the covenant Gal. 4. 24. If so then beleevers which as beleevers must necessarily be in the free covenant of life and grace yet also at the same time are under a contrary covenant of bondage and death and curse if this covenant in which they were with true beleevers were a covenant of grace as is evident then were hypocrites externally in it for internally and efficaciously they were not and whence else were they charged with breaking the everlasting covenant catâ—exochen if they were never in that bond And if in it it was but externally else had they never so fatally broken this covenant which is thus plainely described by the old periphrasis of Abrahams covenant Gen. 17. 7. 13. and whence also are some charged with not beleeving the faith or ingaged truth the covenant of God Rom. 7. 3. if it were not plighted with
If this therfore bee not the rule of Church administration of the Initiatory injoyned seale of the Covenant then the other of visibility of interest is that which wee must goe by therein Which may suffice for answer to what A. R. suggested to the contrary And I say visibility of the parties interest in the Covenant I say not meere visibilitie of faith or repentance The Initiatory seale is not primarily and properly the seale of mans faith or repentance or obedience but of Gods Covenant rather the seale is to the covenant even Abrahams Circumcision was not primarily a seale to his faith of righteousnesse but to the righteousnesse of faith exhibited and offered in the covenant yea to the Covenant it selfe or promise which hee had beleeved unto righteousnesse hence the covenant of grace is called the righteousnesse of faith Rom. 10. 6 7 8. The righteousnesse of faith speaketh on this wise verse 8. and it 's called the word of faith hence albeit Abraham must walke before God who is now about to enlarge the Covenant to his as well as to make it to him in a Church reference Gen. 17. 1. c. yet the Initiatory seale in his as well as in their flesh is Gods Covenant verse 13. or a Sacramentall signe firstly and expresly of Gods Covenant Verse 11. and 7. compared albeit it implicitly oblige him and them to other duties formerly mentioned Hence Act. 2. 38 39. the seale of baptisme is put to the promise as the choyse matter and foundation in view and as that was a ground of repentance it selfe Repent and bee baptized for the promise is to you Not for you have repented as if that were the thing to bee firstly sealed by baptisme but the promise rather and when wee speake of visibilitie of Covenant right as such a rule to goe by wee exclude not the lowest and least degree of visibilitie since degrees doe not vary the species of any thing if we propound a higher degree where shall wee stay and pitch Why not a higher degree as well as that wee must looke to it that not the least of Gods Covenant little ones bee left out unfolded in the Church visible Wee were better seeme to bee remisse in respect of Church care of 99. which are but seemingly just ones then neglect any and leave out any which possibly is savingly as well as seemingly of the flock of the covenant Church the least of Gods visible family or Church must have their portion as of the family if Ministers bee faithful in their office the least visible measure of grace must occasion our judgement of charitie to judge them gratious so the least degree of visibilitie of covenant right may challenge the like charitie not in word and in tongue but in deed and act of expression Wee put a difference betwixt those in Heb. 6. 4. and Infants in degrees of visibilitie of this right but in the nature of the visibilitie wee say they are all one all are visibly in covenant albeit that visibilitie in point of degree bee not in all equall God putteth a difference in point of degree of faith in justifyed persons but in his act of justifying of persons hee puts no difference the least sparke in Flax is enough that way For if it were more it would flame as well as make a smoake and yet if but so much it 's not sleighted by the Lord. I might apply the same in point of degrees of visibilitie of Covenant right in reference to the Churches act of approbation It 's a higher degree indeed of visibility of interest in the Covenant to make personall profession and confession of faith in the Covenant as it is in Adultis then to have onely the visible testimony of God in his word of Covenant expressing his mind of grace touching the seed of Abraham to bee a God to them And to adde theâ—…â—…sible testimony of his providence that these children are of thâ—… race and parentage to which also Abraham and other inchurched parents by visible owning of the covenant in the Latitude upon the termes of it and as now Christian Parents doe make profession of their parentall faith in the Covenant as made to them and their children and this profession of theirs may not bee possibly sincere yet it 's visibly a federall confession and such an avouching of God to bee their Covenant God as taketh in their children as that did Deut. 26. 17. and that Deut. 29. 10 11 12 c. And this is to the Church a degree of their childrens visibilitie of covenant right and Church right albeit not so high as the former and not varying the species of visibilitie it sufficeth not to vary the species of Church admission to fellowship of the initiatory Church-seale Judgement of charitie reacheth further then to judge of persons estates by their own personall words or workes Charitie beleeveth all things in way of testimony if they give any testimony as that of God who testifyeth more absolutely for that species of beleevers children that they are such as hee doth covenant to bee a God to them And the parents testifie alsâ— for them in the profession of their faith in that covenant of God for their seed The Churches also owne them as visibly such leaving secrets to God which particular Infant is not the elect seed principally intended here charitie as it beleeveth all things witnessed so it hopeth all things of the particular persons which are themselves dumbe but are included in the testimony of others mouths opened for them nothing being of counter-force to the contrary touching this point of visibilitie of their covenant and Church interest And I the more wonder that any which confesse that it 's not to be denyed that God would have Infants of beleevers in some sense to bee accounted his to belong to his Church and family and not to the devills as true in facie ecclesiâ—… visibilis c. yet doe oppose us in this particular now in question SECT VI. Conclus 5. THat Christ is in Scripture considered as head of the visible Church in which are many members of Christ the head in that respect which prove unsound as well as in other respects hee is considered as head of the visible Church wherein are none but elect ones And when Gal. 3. 16. it 's said to Abraham and to his seed which is Christ were the promises made it 's not meant of Christ personall as if the promises as that of pardon of sinne c. were made to Christ personally considered or the promises were first made to Abraham and unto Christ personall as the Text hath it Promises were made to Abraham and to his seed Christ Nay Christ personally considered is rather Abrahams seed not to but in which the promises are confirmed Gal. 3. 17. with 16. But rather of Christ with his body the Church whether of Gentiles or Jewes Gal. 3. 14. which though many personally yet make but one seed and
meane it of effectuall calling he if invisible Church fellowship will come under that absurditie too unlesse hee could wholly exclude hypocrites from visible Churches or suppose such a Church where neither are nor can come any false brethren If hee intendeth it of externall calling so visible beleevers and in churched parents Infants are with and in their parents call to the externall fellowship of Church-covenant implicitely called with them As before they were a farre off together from covenant and Church so now are they made nigh together thâ—s farre Of the like nature is that imaginary absurditie of entailing grace to generation not to regeneration or of upholding a nationall Church hee knowes wee in New-England which hold the one yet doe not maintaine the other in the usuall sense of a nationall Church And this which hath been here said also may answer that of I. S. that Infants have not union with Christ as not having faith and therefore may not have any communion in Church-ordinances if hee intend it of saving faith his sequele is weake since many which doe not savingly beleeve are in respect of their in-being in the visible Church to which also Christ is head in Christ as the head of that body in which they are visible members whence also that John 15. 2. But to speake to the proposition it selfe I say Infants without actuall faith are of Christs body the Church of which more afterwards and so in Christ as the head of the visible Church Their parents professed application of the covenant with reference to them as well as to themselves they are together with themselves Ecclesiastically one with Christ as the head of the visible Church SECT VII Conclus 6. THat the body of the Jewish Church to old was under the covenant of grace as invested with Church covenant in respect of externall interest therein It was not as some say that they onely had a covenant of grace among them which was made to some choyce ones among them but that which was made with and dispensed to the body of the Jewes was a covenant of works and not of grace for the contrary appeareth 1. In that the covenant was made with Abraham Isaac and Iacob in reference to their whole seed at least in respect of externall and ecclesiasticall right as before wee proved And hence God appointed them all to receive the visible seale thereof see Gen. 17. 7 8 9 10 11 12 13. and 26. 3 4 5. and 28. 12 13 14. either then these covenant fathers receiving the covenant in reference to their children had a contrary covenant of life and death grace and works made with them and so at one and the same time were externally under the blessing and curse of God and so were not one root to their seed nor first fruits of one sort but as their branches and lumpe in the body of them are supposed to have the covenant of workes dispensed to them so are they to them as a legall root and first-fruits of that sort yet sundry of the branches being elect ones to them they are an Evangelicall roote and first-fruits of another sort contrary to that letter of the Text Rom. 11. 16. or if not both then either receiving a covenant of workes alone in reference to them all elected or not or it must be granted that they received the covenant of grace with Ecclesiasticall respect to them all 2. The very substance of the covenant made and enjoyned to be sealed upon all the children of those fathers Acts 7. 8. with Gen. 17. 7 8 9 10. was as hath been proved not a Legall but an Evangelicall covenant It was not Doe this and live or else bee accursed Gal. 3. 10 11 12. but I will bee a God to thy seed not to Isaac of Abraham alone nor to Jacob of Isaac alone in that Church-right and way but to thy seede in their generations It was their covenant-right to have the Tabernacle of God or Ordinances as their priviledge yea and his presence therein Hence that Exod. 40. 34 35. 38. and Num. 6. 6. 9. and Levit. 9. 14. hence that filling of their Temple with smoak with the glory of God 1 King 8. 10 11. so Isa 6. 1 2 3 4. hence that same testifying of the presence of God in the Churches after Christs ascension in a way of mercy to his people and for their sakes in a way of justicâ— against his and their enemies Revel 15. 8. Hence the frequent answers made to them and for them by Oracle from Gods mercy-seate Exod. 23. 21 22. see Deut. 4. 7. Christ himselfe went with them whither soever they went 1 Cor. 10. 4. whence they are said to tempt him verse 9. see Exod. 33. 15 16. besides those extraordinary Sacraments in which they shared as spirituall things 1 Cor. 1 2 3 4. onely those fathers so partaking of them which to Egyptians and beasts were not of that nature It was their covenant-right to have such deliverances flowing thence as that from Egypt Exod. 6. 7. albeit afterward too God continued in other respects as well as that their covenant God Exod. 29. 45 46. Levit. 26. 11 12. so in and after that Babylonish deliverance Ier. 24. 7. which deliverances of theirs were not of any common nature to other people but by vertue of Christ the Anointing the Mediator virtually of that coveâ—… Isa 10. 27. see Ier. 24. 7. and 15. 17 18 19 20. see more Deut. 29. with 30. 6. Acts 2. 38 39. hence that Rom. 3. 29 30. see Heb. 4. 1 2. Acts 3. 25. Rom. 9. 4. not meaning the Law or two Tables of it but distinguishing those promises from the other nor was Canaan all which God promised them as some have said For First it was promised them as an everlasting possession when yet many even the best of them never enjoyed it constantly if at all Heb. 11. 9 10. Num. 20. 12. the promise of Canaan was ratified in Christ as are other temporall blessings to us now 1 Cor. 3. 21 22. hence Christ's said to drive out their enemies thence from them Exod. 23. 20 21. hence called Immanuels land Esay 8. 8. hence sundry of them excluded thence for that Gospel sin of unbeliefe Heb. 3. last compared with Chap. 42. Hence God promised to bee a God to them and as one branch thereof instanceth in giving them Canaan Gen. 17. 7. 8. yet to shew that was not all hee promised hee againe addeth after that And I will be a God to them Hence those expectations of faith beyond the same Heb. 11. 9 10. Ps 142. 5. Secondly the Proselyted strangers were to have Abrahams covenant sealed to them and theirs by Circumcision Gen. 17. 7 8 9 â—0 11 12 13. yet they might not have lots there nor keepe them â—…t returne them at the Jubilee Iosh 13. 6. Numb 36. 2. and â—… 53 Thirdly Christ was the mediator of that covenant of Abraham made with them and so held out to
it was ratified and fulfilled but her Church seed whom the same promise also did comprehend togegether with Eve in whose hearing God uttered these things to the Serpent And hence Eve by faith did thus interpret the scope of that promise as made in refernce to her Infant Church seed as was Seth as before wee proved Gen. 4. 25 26. And the opposition sheweth what kind of seed the promise reached scil Infant as well as adult seed the Serpents seed being as well the least Snake c. as the most venemous and overgrowne and the antipathie being naturall and forcible betweene even little children and any sort of Serpents as is evident this then was held out as Gospel even in the beginning of the visible Church and world hence also in the beginning of the renewed world as I may call it after the flood the same doctrine is implicitely held forth Gen. 9. in the opposition of the servill condition of Canaan or 25 26. to the future Church estate of Japhet vers 27. the one accursed parent and child to servitude so that Chams babes as soone as borne were to bee slaves but Japhet parent and child are prophetically devoted to Church estate in Sems Tents so that inchurched Japhets babes are actually within Sems tents so soone as borne As God would accurse collective Canaan Noah prophesieth that God would inlarge or cause collective Japhet to turne into the Tents of Sem which interpreters expound of the joyning of the Gentiles unto the visible Church Now visible Church estate supposeth visible covenant estate as is evident The like opposition was allegorically made in the primitive times after Christs ascension Gal. 4. 23 24. betweene collective naturall Ishmael of the bond-woman in type and collective legall Ishmael in antitype And collective naturall Isaac in type and collective Evangelicall Isaac in antitype In the types the opposition is undeniably verified that Ishmael with his children are expunged and cast out from a civill family priviledge and portion in Abrahams house and onely Isaac and his children are to have that civill and naturall priviledge of inheritance therein The sonne of the bondwoman shall not bee heire with my son Isaac Gen. 21. 10. And in the antitype even persons formerly in Gods family the Church if rejecting Christ and the covenant in him and imbracing and adhering obstinately to any thing in a way inconsistent with him such are cast out and dischurched they and theirs as was verified in that legall Ierusalem and her children even the body of the Jewes adult and Infant Thus far à typo ad veritatem the argument is undeniable and what reason then to make the other branch of the allegory dissonant onely that there à typo ad veritatem the argument holdeth not that all inchurched persons which are gospelled hold forth the free covenant in reference to Gospel Church estate are as Isaac and his posteritie visibly priviledged and instated in the Church heritage of the Lords family the visible politicall Gospell Church As in Isaac Abrahams seed naturall is called in point of civill heritage all of them and as in the same Isaac not Ishmael Abrahams Church seed was called and so all of them called to the externall fellowship of covenant and Church and as in a restrained sense Abrahams elect seed were called not in Ishmael but Isaac Rom. 9. 7. so in the Ecclesiasticall Isaac as I may say in these dayes the Church seed are counted and not in pagans without the Church and according to ordinary dispensation and in mans count in the same line are Gods elect seed counted all the individuall children in the former that species of Church children and none other in the sense mentioned are of the latter account But to hasten to the latter branch that the same doctrine is held forth as Gospell to bee dispensed and fulfilled in the purer times of the Gospell towards the latter end of the world that Esay 56. 20. is a promise referring to the purer times of the Gospel Church and probably to the times of the comming in of the Jewes vers 17 18 19. when albeit there may bee some accursed ones yet the Churches children though Infants of dayes not allegoricall Infants in humilitie or by imitation of beleevers c. that sort of persons too dying in Infancie yet God promiseth they shall die in a holy maturitie of covenant grace and blisse as if elder by many yeeres When elder ones some die ripened for the cause of God the like singular account doth the Lord expresly make as of parents in his Church so of their off-spring vers 13. see Esay 61. 9. God promiseth not onely that the growne persons should bee had in account but their seed and off-spring not meaning it of allegoricall seed amongst the Gentiles for it 's not said they shall bee knowne to convert Gentiles c. but their seed shall bee knowne among the Gentiles yet not meaning pagan Gentiles but rather inchurched Gospelled Gentiles the Hebrew word for knowing being used to signifie speciall owning of persons either by God Jer. 24. 5. or by men Psal 142. 5. Ruth 2. 10. 19. Deut. 21. 17. and 1. 17. Prov. 24. 23. now none will say the worser part of the Gentiles would thus owne the members of the Church or their children with such choyce respect but the better part rather of the Gentiles they are then the persons acknowledging the seed not the allegoricall seed acknowledged so Ezek. 37. 20 21. 27. when all the scattered of the Tribes of Israel and Judah shall become as the two sticks joyned in one in Ecclesiasticall respects at least under the discipline of Christ God in reference to that time reâ—… the old Charter of Abrahams covenant to bee a God to thâ—… 〈◊〉 which promise hee includeth their children they being aâ—… their parents scattered among the heathen vers 21. and to bee gathered to their Land and parts of the nations and kingdomes as of old to bee then joyned yea vers 25. expresly their children and childrens children are by covenant put under Christ as their Prince with them is the covenant of peace made and that of no temporall but of an everlasting nature and all this in reference to Church estate and administration whence that branch of the old Charter now actually renewed of setting his Tabernacle and Sanctuary in the midst of them vers 26 27. and that in a very glorious and perspicuous manner as persons thereto ex confesso to the very heathen sanctified and sequestred by the Lord vers 28. the very same they which shall dwell in the Land are children with their parents their Prince will David or Christ bee with them is that everlasting covenant of peace vers 26. amongst them will Gods Sanctuary and Tabernacle by vertue of covenant be placed vers 26 27. their God will God bee and they shall bee his people or hee their covenant God and they his covenant people vers 27. and all this
in reference to Church administrations of Sanctuary and Tabernacle ordinances as they are capable thereof by which they shall become a visible Church or sanctified and sequestred people in the very view of the heathen which cannot nor doe not attend to gratious efficacies but externall administrations and dispensations and priviledges and the like see vers 28. other places to like purpose might bee quoted but I forbeare 3. Argument if the Infants and little ones of visibly beleeving parents in church estate before they can make any personall confession or profession of faith in the Covenant yet then are Abrahams Church seed then is it Gospell that the promises belong to them but the former is true Ergo the latter The major is in substance the Apostles Gal. 3. 16. to Abraham and his seed are the promises made the minor is proved 1. In those of Abrahams loynes in the elect seed I should thinke it should not bee questioned but yet it hath by some that Infants while Infants and till beleevers are not in the covenant c. and by such other speeches of our adversaries in this point the covenant right not only of the individuall Infants of beleevers but the covenant estates of that species and sort of persons is wholly denied and so since it 's evident and acknowledged that some are elected of that sort yet it 's denied that they have part in the word of Gods Covenant so that if they die in Infancie as many of the choyce seed of Abraham and Isaac and Jacob did c. yet that ordinary meanes of saving efficacie in all the saved elect is denyed them contrary to that principle Rom. 9. 6. but more hereof anon but Rom. 9. 7 8 9 10 11. is so cleare for it I wonder any deny it Isaac and Jacob are made precedentiall instances of interest not onely of election but of Gods calling unto the fellowship of his free covenant without respect either to their desire or indeavour of it personally vers 16. It was that God might shew not barely in the act of his choosing of them in his secret counsell but in the act of his covenanting grace likewise that it was not of their workes but of him that called them unto that covenant estate in the example of Jacob most fully when God would shew the rise of that his covenant grace to him the younger that hee should have the preheminence vers 12. hee vers 11. instanceth in the time when that was revealed with so personall a reference to Jacob even whilst in the wombe and expresseth the forenamed cause as the reason why and so God expresly mentioneth his covenant as to bee established with Isaac in Infancy or with Isaac to bee borne the next yeare of Sarah Gen. 17. 21. And hence when Isaac was growen and was actually a beleever hee hath indeed then more actuall benefit of his owne improvement of the covenant by faith but hee did not then first enter into covenant but hee had interest in the covenant before made to his father with reference to him that being to be minded in covenant expressions uttered the persons spoken unto and understanding what is spoken are not the onely covenanters ingaged but aswell the persons spoken of with covenant reference in the declaring of the covenant so in Gen. 17. 7. 21. and 21. 12. and 26. 3 4. and 20. 13 14. and Deut. 29. 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 c. Now that Isaac had such a former covenant interest appeareth in that Gen. 26. 3. when God spake so expresly to him touching his covenant hee saith not I now make a covenant with thee or sweare to do such and such things for thee but I will performe the oath which I sware to Abraham thy father hee referreth him to a former grant and ingagement of grace to him see verse 4 5. hee doth not retract any thing but confirmeth in solemne wise the validitie of the former bond and the like might bee said of all the rest of the elect seed if all the elect seed were not involved in that covenant Gen. 7. 7. then the Apostles reasoning should bee undermined Rom. 9. 6 7 8. who is so farre from denying the elect seed to bee these choyce children of the promise Gen. 17. 7. and 21. 12. that he maketh that choyce company of the children of the promise to bee the onely elect seed now if all the elect seed bee included in that Gen. 17. 7. and 21. 12. then since some of Abrahams and Isaacs seed died in Infancie either none of those were elect and saved which none dare avow or if some bee supposed to bee saved and elect then were they in Infancie and as Infants of Abraham and Isaac children of the promise Sith the promise and covenant runs to them as Abrahams seed not as elect also supposing they were circumcised before they died that was no seale to a blanke albeit they being Infants had no actuall faith c. but rather a seale of the covenant of grace or promise of which they most properly were children Yea to all the rest which were in an Ecclesiasticall respect children of the covenant that injoyned circumcision was to be that his covenant or the visible Sacramentall signe and seale of the righteousnesse of faith or the covenant of God holding the same forth Gen. 17. 7 8 9 10 11 12 13. Rom. 4. 11. and 10. 6 7 8. and Deut. 29. and 30. 6. 11. 12 13 14. compared And what is true of them of Abrahams and Isaacs loynes as Infants of Abraham and Isaac considered as beleeving and inchurched is true of the Infants of others as beleevers and in church estate the formalis natio of the interest of the Infants of the former as such is as valid in those of the latter the formalis natio being the same in both as also the covenant of grace in the essentialls thereof is the same and therefore Abram had then first his name changed to Abraham and then first was called a father of nations in reference to this covenant of grace to bee made with him and his in this politicall Church way and latitude of Church interest and dispensation thereof as Gen. 17. 4 5 6 7 c. compared and then first propounded as a father and exemplar to other beleevers of other nations Rom. 4. And albeit it were a name given him before hee was actually circumcised yet it was not to intimate that there was no need of a visible seale to his children and seed whether of his loynes or otherwise for hee was a father aswell of those of the circumcision Rom. 4. 11 12. But to shew that hee was not a father to those which were bound to bee circumcised onely but withall a father to the Gentiles albeit neither circumcised by actuall taking away of the flesh of their foreskinne nor yet bound thereto vers 12. It was not then spoken to evacuate the force of reasoning from right to the
any promise neither in respect of internall and saving no nor so much as in respect of externall right therein I conclude then that such children are Abrahams spirituall seed and that therefore the promises belong to them at least externally And so much for proofe of this seventh conclusion wherein I have been the longer in that it is the very hinge of the controversie It is not then the Gospell of any mortall man deriving its rise from Zwinglius or any such sinfull sonne of man albeit pretious in the sight of God and his Saints nor is it any other Gospel which may bee anathematized I should feare to bee anathematized of God if I said so It 's Gospel that beleevers are Abrahams seed Gal. 3. 6 7 8 9 c. true but that is not all and onely the Gospell this part of the Gospell their childrens covenant estate at least ecclesiastically this is Gospell too Rom. 10. 6 7 8 compared with Deut. 29. and 30. as before yea the rather is this Gospell because the other is one dependeth and followeth upon the other as hath beene shewed SECT XI 1 Object BY what hath been now said answer is ready to what I. S. objecteth That if Infants be visibly in the covenant of grace then at one and the same time one may be visibly under grace and yet as Ephes 2. under wrath by nature and so by nature bee under two contrary covenants of workes and of grace Mr. B. also hath a like objection I answer they are not under two such contrary estates by nature taken in the same sense but by nature taken in a diverse sense they may take nature for corrupt sinfull nature and so Paul a Jew and all other Jewes or Gentiles Wee saith Paul are by nature children of wrath But take nature for a birth estate of covenant-Ancestors and so Paul and others of Abraham Isaac and Jacob were not sinners or strangers from the covenant of grace as were those of the Gentiles but they were Jewes by nature inchurched persons And in their confessing parents confessors and professors as the word Jew is used Rom. 2. 9. 28. and Est 8. 17. Rev. 3. 7. they became Jewes that is joyned in a Church estate c. sinners they were in that sense they had by sinfull nature sinne in them but sinners in opposition to a Jew or Church and covenant estate at least externally they were not not Jewes barely scil persons of that nation without further Ecclesiasticall respect to the administration of the covenant for then the notion of sinners of the Gentiles had been unsuitably added It had sufficed to have said wee that are Jewes by nature and not Gentiles but Jewes by nature rather as above the elect seed of Abraham of which yet many died in infancy they were the choyce children of that promise Gen. 17. 7. with Rom. 9. 7 8 9. yet they were also by nature children of wrath Isaac was visibly the child of the promise in Infancy borne by promise interested in the promise expresly made with reference to him as soone as borne actually as before intentionally yet also by nature as a sonne of Adam a child of wrath but as a sonne of covenant Abraham a child of promise The like may be said of David in the former sense conceived in sinne Psal 51. in the latter a child of promise So of the other Infants of their loynes whence injoyned whilst Infants to bee sealed with the seale of Abrahams covenant Yea some of our opposites grant yea urge it as a reason against the exposition of 1 Cor. 7. 14. which some give thereof that children of parents whereof one was not matrimonially sanctified to the other but came together unchastly as Pharez and Zara of Judah and Thamar Jephtah of Gilead and many others were within the covenant of saving grace and Church priviledges Now the author intended not this thus that they came into the covenant of grace when they were growne and came actually to beleeve for then there were no colour of argument against Paedobaptists reasoning from 1 Cor. 7. touching such Infants covenant estate and that annexed that they were in the covenant of saving grace and Church priviledges sheweth that to bee his meaning since all confesse that the Jewes children did whilst Infants partake of the initiatory Church seale of circumcision which the author elsewhere counteth their priviledge saying that they had that priviledge to bee reckones in the outward administrations as branches of the Olive by their birth by vertue of God his appointment c. albeit the author I suppose forgate himselfe speaking of branches by nature saith that it seemeth to him to import not that the Jewes were in the covenant of grace by nature but that they had this priviledge to bee reckoned in the outward administration as branches of the Olive by their birth c. when yet even those illegitimately born of Jewes mentioned are confessed to bee in the covenant of saving grace as well as Church priviledges which as was said must bee spoken of them as Infants borne of such parents or else it is not any argument against them which plead for birth federall holinesse from 1 Cor. 7. 14. So then here are persons by nature children of wrath but by priviledged nature and birth in the covenant of saving grace 2 Object If Infants saith I. S. be in the covenant of grace and borne so then such Infants were borne in the covenant and never out And besides Gods covenant of saving grace being absolute and undertaking to give saving grace to such as are in covenant with him all such must bee saved unlesse God faile of his truth Answ 1. That covenant of grace as I. S. acknowledgeth it to bee mentioned Deut. 29. it was made with little ones then unborne intentionally vers 14 15. as well as with those then present actually So that when they were borne they were born in that covenant and never out as much may bee said of the Infant elect seed or children of the promise dying Infants they were borne so and never out of that estate after they were actually existent yea the rest were all girded in the covenant Jer. 13. 2. Gods covenant did not barely offer or promise to covenant but made a covenant a covenant and an oath with them that day Deut. 29. 12 13 14 15. and amongst other promises ingaged himselfe to circumcise their heart Chap. 36. 6. yet were not all in heart circumcised and yet the promise of God failed not being in the generall propounded to them conditionally and not as it is said here absolutely at least as it had reference to them all in common The word of promise tooke not effect in as many of the Jewes to whom the covenant promises externally belonged yet it followed not that therefore it took no effect at all and that God was unfaithfull for it tooke effect in others Rom. 3. 3. and 9. 6 7 8. so here 3.
This argument supposeth that one cannot bee within the covenant of saving grace externally but they must bee in a saving estate the contrary whereto appeareth Conclus 3. And it 's said of sundry illegitimate Jewish children that they were within the covenant of saving grace namely externally for the author cannot meane other And yet of all such who will say they were all in a saving estate even Esaus birthright was more then right to Isaacs temporall estate as borne of Isaac why else doth the Apostle apply Esaus example of selling his birthright in such sort as Heb. 12. 15 16 17. hee propoundeth his example to deterre the Hebrewes which were in Church estate Heb. 10. 25. and 12. 17 18. from the mischiefe of falling short of the grace of God not of meere temporall blessings nay expresly the thing hee fell short of as his birth heritage as Isaacs first borne is said to bee the blessing indefinitely even Abrahams blessing to his seed the same blessing whereof hee rejecting his externall right Jacob his younger brother came to possesse which was a Church blessing as well as naturall and civill Gen. 28. 3 4. as for temporall blessings he had store of them notwithstanding nor was Isaacs trembling when hee saw how strangely God had ordered the blessing of the first borne to Jacob the younger sonne Gen. 27. occasioned from a bare disappointing him of the externall right to temporalls but withall to spiritualls and ecclesiasticall good also whence the Apostle calleth him for his contempt a prophane person Heb. 12. 3 Object But saith I. S. the covenant of grace being a covenant there must be mutuall agreement betwixt the covenanters and so knowledge and consideration of the termes thereof and restipulation as in mens covenants Hen. Den a little differently maketh a necessitie of the persons entring into covenant with God scil by faith unto covenant right and not meerely Gods entring into covenant with the creature for so hee entred into covenant with the beasts c. Gen. 9. 10. Answ To which I answer the covenant of grace is as well a testament 1 Cor. 11. Heb. 9. Now a testament may bee and useth to bee made in reference to little ones without knowledge nor doe any use to deny a childs right in the testators will because it was taken in amongst other legacies in the bequeathed legacies before it understood the same nor will it bee denyed in the case of the elect seed the choyce parties in Gods covenant Gen. 17. that they many of them dying Infants without actuall knowledge were not therefore children of the promises or that that solemne covenant Deut. 29. 9 10 11 12 13 14 15. and 30. 6 7 8 9 10 c. with that people wherein conditions also were propounded on their parts that therefore the covenant was not made betwixt the little ones there present because they neither understood nor could actually subscribe to the conditions the contrary being there expressed no rather it sufficed that the childrens covenant estate being the parents priviledge whence the incouragement to Abraham to walke with God Gen. 17. 1 c. From that amongst other incouragements that God would become his seeds God also c. vers 7. and so Deut. 29. and 30. amongst other incouragements to the parents that is one vers 6. that God will doe thus for their seed also yea the children being reckoned as in their parents as Levi payd tithes in Abraham c. yea the externall avouching in a covenant way of God being owned as the childrens Deut. 26. 16 17. yea the childrens circumcision being as well the covenant dutie Whence called the covenant or the covenant parties covenant part or dutie as well as the token of Gods covenant Gen. 9. 7. 9 10 11. they restipulate in their parents knowing acceptance of the covenant and professed owning of it upon the covenant termes as well on their childrens part as their owne and they restipulate in a passive reception of the covenant condition and bond to after imitation of their father Abrahams faith and obedience to which purpose I. S. confessed circumcision was annexed to the covenant Yea the bastard children of Iudah and Gilead and others are acknowledged to bee in the covenant of saving grace which yet could not personally restipulate in a way of actuall knowledge or faith or the like 4 Obj. Your doctrine would make God the author of sin partly in causing persons to beleeve untruths partly in promising life to the wicked and so keeping of him from returning I.S. C.B. I.S.C.B. C.B. Besides it will make every beleever an Abraham and make Christs body to consist of dead members and even confound the world and the Church as if one Answ To the first wee require the parents in reference to the Church and covenant estate of their children to make confession of their faith in the covenant of God as made with them and their seed indefinitely according as the termes of the covenant are and being the termes of the covenant it 's no untruth or sinne to beleeve it in foro dei or confesse that faith in foro Ecclesiae which of the beleevers children is elect or saved or not it 's to us a secret and our doctrine requireth them to beleeve revealed things as are those indefinite words of the covenant leaving secrets to the Lord and no other was Moses doctrine having propounded the covenant of God as with parents and children and being yet further to inlarge hee joyneth the former and latter part of his speech with that item that secret things belong to God but things revealed scil touching this his mind of grace indefinitely these are for us and for our children And for further taking off of this cavill together with the second I answer when some say that even bastard children were in the covenant of saving grace and even I. S. which objecteth the same confesseth that God promiseth to bee a God or to fulfill his promises even such as Luke 1. 74 75 c. and gave them circumcision to confirme the same on both seeds requiring them to walke in the footsteps of Abrahams faith c. I demand were the carnall seed saved I. S. will not say so yet God promised and gave circumcision as a seale to that end that hee would bee their God requiring them to beleeve c. did not then God faile in his promise or in requiring them to beleeve an untruth surely no so when they were on that ground according to I. S. to walke in the footsteps of Abrahams obedience and circumcision of heart was required of them did not this rather further then hinder their repentance is it not the Apostles argument to the Jewes to prevaile with them to repent Repent for the promise is to you c. Act. 2. 38 39. Nay doth not our doctrine holding forth the interest at least externall of such in covenant thereby hold forth as well an externall interest in that
when they are to come in they denying the new Testament to bee valid see Acts 18. 26. Seventhly the primitive converts and disciples thought not so touching such was of old testament Scripture proofe Acts 17. 11. by Scriptures meaning those of the old Tastament as those places John 5. 39. and 10. 35. and 7. 38. and 2. 22. Gal. 3. 8. 22. and 4. 30. Rom. 9. 17. and 10 11. and 11. 2. and here let mee not forget what A. R. in his second part of Vanitie of childish baptisme bringeth crosse to what wee have said hee saith that no beleevers are fathers scil in such covenant and Church respects to their children which wee have mentioned but Abraham onely and hee maketh Abraham rather a patterne father in other respects to beleevers quoting Scriptures to that end But doth A. R. indeed thinke that no others were covenant and Church-fathers but Abraham onely the Apostle calleth all those inchurched Jewes of old our fathers fathers to him and to the Gentiles Corinthian members 1 Cor. 10. 1 c. Yea will hee say that Isaac and Jacob c. were not such fathers to their seed also as was Abraham in covenant and Church respects because that was neither said to Isaac or to Jacob I have made thee a father of nations how then are the Jewes said to be beloved for their fathers sakes surely it was not for their sakes as men and naturall fathers but as spirituall and covenant fathers Rom. 11. 16. 28. compared of which more hereafter yea the covenant is expresly made in those termes to Isaac and to his seed to Jacob and to his seed Gen. 26. 3 4 5. and 28. 13. 14. In respect therefore to their seed they are covenant fathers yet in respect to Abraham they themselves were Abrahams covenant and Church seed to whom together with their father the covenant was made even with a Church reference Gen. 17. and so are gentiles inchurched beleevers fathers as such to their children yet seed also in reference to Abraham nor is it more contradiction to say thus that the same persons may bee Abrahams seed and yet fathers in divers respects then to say the same man may bee a sonne and yet a father in divers respects a sonne in respect of his father and a father in relation to his child Nor can I perceive otherwise but that A. R. himselfe layeth in the same place a groundworke crosse to his owne assertion this way the covenant saith he was not made with Abraham and with his seed meerely for his being a faithfull man but for his being such a faithfull man whom the Lord pleased to choose to make a patterne to all beleevers hence to me it seemeth that Abraham is considered in a threefold respect First as a faithfull man having seed Secondly as a faithfull man having the covenant made with him and his seed Thirdly as one with whom and with his seed the covenant is made not meerely as a faithfull man but as a patterne to all beleevers which to me undeniably seemeth to bee an unwilling grant that as Abrahams seed in covenant with him admit a distinct consideration from all actuall beleevers as such whether Jewes or Gentiles So that Abraham in that consideration of such a faithfull man with whom the covenant was made and with his seed so distinguished from all beleevers whether of Jewes or Gentiles was therein a patterne to all beleevers actually whether of Jews or Gentiles yea that he was especially in such sort a patterne to them all and had the covenant so made with him and with that his seed that hee might bee or because hee should bee therein a patterne to all beleevers whether Jewes or Gentiles and this is the very truth which wee affirme that Abraham in the essentialls of the covenant was a patterne of interest of beleevers and their children in the covenant of grace at least externally and ecclesiastically but this is crosse to A. R. elsewhere yea in the same place as followeth Object All beleevers and onely beleevers are Abrahams seed in that as Rom. 4. 16. it is affirmed that the promise is sure to all the seed and so all the seed are saved Answ But suppose that Abrahams seed intended in the promise were all saved and so no others but they the seed yet will it not follow from what the Apostle saith that the promise is sure to all the seed that therefore all actuall beleevers and onely such are saved wee have before proved from Rom. 9. 6 7 8. that all in whom the force of the covenant tooke so as that they were saved were the choyce intended children of the promise or all elect Israel which came of Abraham Isaac and Jacobs loynes yet did not all those live to become actuall beleevers many such elect ones dying in Infancie But to come to A. R's assertion it selfe I demand whether the members of the visible Church of which A R. is officer or member be all and each of them Abrahams seed for if not I urge his owne plea against us what right have they to the seale of the covenant made to Abrahams seed if they be all Abrahams seed then by A. R's ground they must needs be all each of them saved it is not possible there should bee any reprobates and hypocrites in a particular visible Church which to affirme is ridiculous but let him quit himselfe thereof from his owne principle if hee can the Apostle saith of the Galatian Churches and members thereof to whom hee wrote Gal. 1. 1 2. that they were children of the promise and of the free woman and that Jerusalem above was the mother of him and them all Gal. 4. 26. 28. 31. and that they were Abrahams seed Gal. 3. 29. now then I demand whether wee must not conclude of them all that they were in a sure estate and infallibly saved according to A. R's ground comparing Rom. 4. 16. and Heb. 6. 16 17. with Gal. 3. 29. Yea but why then doth Paul feare and question so much the estate of persons so sure and infallible if so it were because called all Abrahams seed for hee feareth lest hee had bestowed his labour in vaine Gal. 4. 11. and that any saving worke in many of them at least was not so much as yet begun that hee must bee faine to travaile againe with them in birth till Christ bee formed in them vers 19. yea why doth he suppose any possibilitie of their suffering in vaine of their ending in the flesh Gal. 3. 3 4 5. of Christs becomming of none effect to them Chap. 5. 4. many of them being of such spirits and way whom he there intended as appeares by Gal. 1. 6 7 8. and 3. 1. and 23. 4 5. and 4. 21 How will A. R. salve it not by saying hee spake thus in a collective sense onely understanding the former of the elect part and the latter of others Yea but why then doth hee mention their being baptized
forme of the Church giving Church being to persons therein interested nor is it likely that these children were other then such being either proselytes children joyned to the Jewish Church or children of Jewes either of them formerly circumcised and in facie ecclesiae of the Church the Apostles which used to bee questioning any thing obscure which they understood not or seemed to them strange would in likelihood have inquired after satisfaction therein of Christ as their manner was if it had not been very cleare convincing approved received doctrine which Christ urged as his reason of reproofe of their act in hindring the little ones approach to him hee which himselfe forbad them Matth. 10. to goe into the way of the Gentiles no not into Samaria and when himselfe tooke up the Gentile Canaanite in such sort at first albeit she a beleever Matth. 15. 22. if these had beene other then visible beleeving inchurched persons yea though Gentiles yet inchurched proselytes which brought these children hee would not have so roundly and sharpely taken up his Disciples for assaying to hinder them from him when the Apostle 1 Cor. 7. 14. speaketh thus to the Church and not to the citie as such which writ to him and to whom hee writ this back againe hee saith else their children as appropriating externall adoption as well as formerly to others of that sort Rom. 9. 1 2 3 4. they were the children of that Spouse of Christ 2 Cor. 11. 2. 3. as those were formerly of that Church Ezek. 16. 20 21. she brought forth other children by the ministry Psal 87. 5. albeit not so many as now and hereafter Esa 54. 5. but that way also did the Church beare children to the Lord. And are purer Gentiles Churches wombes in that respect shut up or doth the Lord lesse affect communion with his Church in that expression of his love now then hee did to the Church of old surely no the Corinthian members as a Church body had their Church children and seed also the Apostle taketh order with the women 1 Cor. 14. Let your women keepe silence in the Churches but why your what because they were the members wives onely no verily since some such were Pagans and without the Church and hee protesteth against any Church dealing with such 1 Cor. 5. end what have wee to doe with them from any Church care or respect but rather your women as being of the Church and so here not your children holy scil barely of your members in a common naturall way but yours in a Church relation rather And let the Apostles division bee further attended 1 Cor. 5. placing all persons as either within or without the visible Church For if his division be regular as who will say otherwise of the wisest dictates of the holy Ghost then these membra dividentia take up the whole division and there is no middle or neutrall estate actually of persons And albeit the persons chiefly intended bee adult persons yet it must hold as well of others or else it is not a compleat division So then the little ones which are borne of inchurched persons they are either actually within the Church or actually without at present onely some possibilities as some suppose of their being actuall members afterward at most but at present their actuall estate must bee the one or the other if actually within the Church I have what I seeke if onely potentially such as may come in but yet actually without 1. then the children of the Church in primitive times were such as the Apostles as extraordinary and now Elders as ordinary officers in the Church were not nor are to take any speciall Church care of since the tie of that Church care as such dependeth upon covenant and Church relation either extraordinary as that of the Apostles to all the Churches or ordinary as that of the officers of this or that Church 2. Then Churches and their officers are not to deale with any such children more then with pagans in any Church way of instruction or admonition when growne up 3. Then are such so farre forth to bee left as persons without actually to the more immediate judgement of God what have wee to doe with such God judgeth them and the phrase of Gods judging them how sad a case it noteth see Heb. 3. 4. and 10. 29 30 31. 4. Then such children being actually without they are actually and at present amongst the number of such persons of whom is little hope as Marke 4. 11 12. to them without if hardned persons in parables so Revel 22. without are dogs The persons left out of Church fellowship by the new Jerusalem are of the worst sort â—…vel 22. 15. 5. Then the Jewish Church is supposed to have a larger share in the charitie of God and his people so that their children in relation to Church estate are called and counted God and his Churches children purer Gentile Churches have no such charitie allowed towards the members children which absurdities if any will swallow let them enjoy their conceipts SECT II. ANd thus farre of the dispensing kingdome of God as it seemes to bee included and intended in the first expression Of such is the kingdome of God which may serve to answer the scruples of some as if such an assertion of children of beleevers to bee of Gods kingdome should crosse the course of providence many proving wicked For this hinders not but they belong to the visible Church no more then Christs assertion of all the Jewes to be the children of the kingdome of heaven into which the Gentiles from all parts should come after the rejection of the Jews Matth. 8. 11 12. nor is this any more crosse to Rom. 9. 6 7 8. then that is yea suppose the Kingdome of heaven bee taken for that of glory yet in that covenant and Church estate is theirs so far also is glory theirs scil in foro ecclesiae And wee have before proved that Christ spake this as man not meerely as God as hee said before of the Jewes Matth. 8. 11 12. and after this spake to like purpose Matth. 21. 43. they were as externally adopted Rom. 9. 4. externally inrighted to that promise of glory the promises indefinitely being thus far theirs that promised heritage being thus far theirs If they had not Gods kingdome in respect of this estating of theirs in it and right to it how came they to have it taken from them was not that in respect of any externall Church right actually theirs unto or to the dispensation of the covenant holding the same forth they were all heires albeit under tutors Gal. 4. 1 2 3. but to mee the former sense is rather most unquestionable that of such is the kingdome of God or of heaven scil the visible Church as before was proved and this may also satisfie that which is objected that hee might speake this in reference to the future that is that they were elect ones and should
in time bee of Gods kingdome that is beleevers or in that they were such as God would blesse For Christs words are not Of such may will or shall bee the kingdome of God nor that they were of his kingdome because such as hee would blesse but rather that they should not bee hindred from being blessed of him because of such is the kingdome of God as the context and force of that reason in reference to the occasion sheweth and as for that assertion of their being all elect the improbabilitie thereof hath before appeared nor doth Christ seeme to speal of the kingdome of God as taken for the invisible Church of actuall beleevers but of visible members of the visible Church as before was shewed Hee affirmeth that those little ones de praesenti were of the kingdome of God yet were not they actually beleevers hee asserteth as much of the Jews to be rejected afterward that yet at present they were the children of that very kingdome of heaven whereinto the Gentiles even the very best of them come to sit the Church estate in both was the same in the essentialls and the covenant estate the same essentially the externall right to grace and glory the very same essentially and so the reason of the grant here and assertion is the same in reference to the little ones of other visible beleevers as of these which brought their children to Christ unlesse God should bee made a respecter of persons their Infants must come to Christ and not bee hindred because they were Federally and Ecclesiastically priviledged or because of such is Gods kingdome the same is valid now since as adult persons externally in covenant and Church estate must not according to our opposites mindes bee hindred from Christ because such like as these little ones so neither beleevers little ones being also such like as well they may not bee hindred from any such way of initiatory approach to Christ as they are capable of as is externall baptizing in the name or fellowship as of the Father so of Christ the Sonne and also of the holy Spirit to which purpose I suppose our Divines had reference in urging this place for Paedobaptisme nor was this an affirming of Infants being saved by their parents faith but an assenting of their externall Church right by vertue of the latitude of Gods covenant applyed by the parents and by occasion of their holding forth of that faith which did foro ecclesiae unite them and their little ones to Christ as head of the visible Church in which may by externall adoption and insition are interested which are not saved as before wee shewed nor will that take off what it seemeth some worthy Divines have lately urged from hence for Paedobaptisme that if Christs mind had beene that Infants should have been baptized hee would have commanded these little ones to have beene baptized for an example for according to the principles of C. B. and others Christ did love these little ones with his everlasting love they received heaven of free gift as all that will bee saved must doe theirs was the kingdome of glory really and Christ as God and as an extraordinary Prophet of the Church knew all this c. now why should not or were not these Infants at least baptized C. B. will answer Infants of beleevers may die in their Infancy and they may live to commit actuall sinnes c. and wee not knowing which will live or die cannot baptize them what then according to C. B. it seemes the uncertainty of Infants deaths whilst young or living to growne yeares is an impediment to their baptisme Where did C. B. here or ever read in Scripture or of such a just barre to Infants baptisme but suppose it were so to us which know not this yet C. B. will not say but Christ knew all herein how matters would prove therefore that was no just hinderance in the nature of it thereto for then hee to whom this could bee no hinderance touching these children about whom C. B. saith hee revealed his Fathers eternall live and good will hee had caused at least these little ones to have been baptized Yea I demand upon the grant of those things mentioned whether C. B. or others opposing Paedobaptisme would deny that such as Christ receiveth and blesseth and alloweth the kingdome of heaven in their sense that is that of glory to be theirs if growne ones should not therefore bee baptized Now if this will not be denied as I suppose why supposing the like case of any little ones and Infants shall the same bee denyed where there is the same ground of baptisme in both sorts Nay suppose that by extraordinary revelation C. B. and others of his minde did know as much as here is mentioned in Marke 10. and Luke 16. that such and such children were Gods chosen ones that they were received and blessed of Christ not in any common way but as the very heires of glory as these Infants are by them supposed to bee and so were actually blessed with the spirit of grace c. would not they baptize these Infants I suppose the more judicious would and have said that in that case they would doe it because such an extraordinary revelation would suffice to warrant the act of baptizing such Infants without profession of faith and because of Peters principle Act. 10. 47. Can any forbid that these should bee bapzed which have received the holy Ghost as well as wee and the institution of baptizing Disciples would in this case beare it out such sanctified persons being Disciples c. Nor indeed could it bee denyed by them rationally since in this case Infants are not meerely supposed to bee capable thereof but really to have received the sublime things visibly sealed in baptisme even the spirit of grace love and blessing of Christ the promise of grace and glory c. And therefore not to bee denied baptisme especially seeing this their receiving of the thing signified is also manifested so all usuall occasions that way removed Now then to come to apply what here is granted First then persons may come under the notion of Disciples which were never outwardly taught and cannot personally hold out actuall faith which our opposites elsewhere deny Secondly that it is not contrary to Christs minde and to the rule that persons without personall profession of faith should bee baptized For as the former notion of Disciples if natura rei it were not otherwise applyable then as not ordinarily so neither extraordinarily and whether ordinarily or extraordinarily if applyable so it is not simply to bee denyed so I say in the latter albeit extraordinary things done besides rule crosse not ordinary rule yet neither extraordinarily nor ordinarily is any thing to be done which is in it self contrary to rule It was beside rule for a Priest to kill Zimri and Cosbi but not a breach of rule or any thing contrary to rule Thirdly that there
was an example as they apprehended tending to trouble Christ more then ordinary to meddle with poore shiftlesse babes Fourthly if they had been little ones which could goe yet it sufficeth to prove what Anabaptists deny that before persons could actually hold forth personall Faith or repentance may be actually in covenant with God and inrighted to the initiatory seale of it and that albeit Christ did not actually cause these babes then to be baptized that they had therefore no right to bee baptized it followeth not But I. S. hee acknowledgeth those children to bee of that kingdome or members of that Jewish Church and therefore have right as well as others to temporall blessings and that these children were brought to Christ for cure producing some Scriptures for that end where prayer and imposition of hands was used upon that occasion but doth the Text say of such or such like was that kingdome no verily but indefinitely of such is the kingdome of God and what though those children were of that Church since Christ inlargeth his speech as wee shewed to such like persons and so to other babes of like condition with those and had the Jewes and their babes onely right to temporall blessings will I. S. say when that Abrahams covenant of God his being a God to them scil to fulfill his promises instancing in that Luke 1. 73 74 75. as one is acknowledged by I. S. elsewhere to bee by circumcision visibly sealed upon both seeds as hee termeth them True it is that as 2 King 5. 11. Matth. 8. 3. and 9. 18. Luke 4. 3◠40. one way of healing was putting on of hands and prayer but is all here meant the Lord blessed them scil in way of cure onely or the like other Scriptures mention imposition of hands and prayer in that way of curing true but here is no mention either of the diseases or of the cure of the little ones following upon Christs imposition of hands as there is in the other Scriptures in other cases no nor is here prayer mentioned the parents desired him to pray Matth. 19. but hee blessed them saith Marke whether in prayer way it 's not said yea since the Scriptures mention these acts of blessing and imposition of hands in way of ratification of covenant right and priviledges of the covenant of grace as externally at least the heritage of such and such witnesse that Gen. 27. 17. and 28. 1. 3 4. and 48. 14 15 16. why should not wee on better grounds look at this as comprehended in this act of Christ and why is I. S. so uncharitable to limit the requests of these pious persons intreating Christ to pray indefinitely for the little ones that this was onely to move him to desire temporall things for them Christ doth not seeme to make any such interpretation of their request when hee blessed them as Marke saith what was that onely in regard of temporals who would limit Christs blessing within so short a compasse nor was it the Disciples use to hinder but further the cure of persons children brought for that end as the instances in Marke 9. Matth. 15. shew Object But if you make Infants of inchurched beleevers to bee actuall members of a visible Church doe you not destroy the usuall definition of a visible Church given by Divines that it 's a company of persons professing the faith c. Answ Musculus Aretius Melancton Calvin Beza Bucer Dr. Ames Mr. Cotton Dr. Whittaker Peter Martyr generally all our Divines which define a visible Church severally but in substance to like purpose they yet make that no undermining of their owne doctrine de ecclesia or of the descriptions visibilis ecclesiae which they doe give when the same authors maintaine from Scripture grounds that such Infants are actually members of the visible Church and externally in the covenant of grace and such as are to bee baptized yea such Infants being of the Church It is not therefore not a company of professors of the faith since Infants are fideles as they are rationalls as some say scil actu primo non secundo yea they confesse and avouch the Lord in their parents avouching of him as they did of old Deut. 26. 16 17 18. and 29. 9 10 11 12 13 14. they promised to stand to those conditions in their parents promise made with respect to them Object But if they are of the Church and in the covenant and have right to the Seale then to both as well as to one to the Lords Supper as well as Baptisme Answ We do not say they are compleat members of the Church but incompleat as Ames speaketh to this purpose in his Medullâ having interest in the Church and covenant wee say they have right to the initiatory Seale but not therefore to all memberly priviledges of voting in Church censures elections admonitions c. even growne persons that are with us as transient members by communion with other Churches yet are not reckoned as in full Church communion with us in all Churches priviledges as in chusing officers censuring offenders c. Nor will Mr. B. his paralleling of Baptisme and the Lords Supper prove that if to bee admitted by Church interest unto the one then also unto the other for suppose one and the same thing bee sealed yet not by one and the same way the former onely being the initiatory seale of covenant and Church interest not the latter nor is it true that the same preparations is required to the former as to the latter since no where spoken so exclusively of persons to bee baptized as to come to the Lords Supper Let a man examine himself and so no otherwise let him eate nor doth it follow that because there is but one excommunication there is but one communion excommunication being properly of persons in full communion of all Church priviledges in this or that Church where the offence is committed For to instance in no other case but in that of a brother in another Church which is in Church communion in Mr. B's Church by vertue of communion of Churches yet not in compleat membership full communion of all Church priviledges there he offendeth will Mr. Blackwood now put him out of Church communion with his Church by actuall censure from his Church I suppose not in that the partie hath not personally submitted yet to the Churches power but they will withdraw communion rather this then is a different way of discommunicating and by Mr. B's grounds ergo argueth a different communion and so not the same which was that hee assayed to prove nor doe his proofes evince but that others were baptized then did partake of the Lords Supper Object Before wee passe further let mee remove another objection which I meet with scil that if wee make Infants members of a visible Church which doe nothing from whence to denominate the same but are meerely passive It will follow that there may bee a visible Church
consisting onely of Infants of beleevers For a number of visible members make a visible Church Answ This followeth not since the maine force of such denomination lyeth in the growne Citizens of God which use in all Citie acts publike to carry it personally and not from the children which yet are free Deuisons As for a Church of onely Infants it 's not supposable their Church right depending upon inchurched parents nor are the Infants such perfect members of the Church as others nor do a number of beleevers regularly make a visible politicall Church but in such a way of actuall combining together either explicitly or implicitely as in all other bodies politique Whence a more peculiar relation one to another and a peculiar ground of memberly care for power one over another in a brotherly way to watch over or seasonably to admonish each other and the like SECT III. TO conclude let such as oppose us in this doctrine of the faederall and Church holinesse of inchurched beleevers little ones consider of the absurdities which their opposite Doctrine exposeth them unto As first the deniall of any ordinary way or meanes of the salvation of beleevers Infants as being neither actually in the visible Church out of which ordinarily there is no salvation nor being actually any of them in the covenant of grace so much as externally and so excluded from any ordinary meanes or way or estate of salvation as before in part wee shewed The promises being made to the Church and the covenant being the Spirits instrument by which to convey good unto such as ordinarily partake of it Even before the world was God ordered all good to bee conveyed to us in a way and by virtue of his covenant therefore also called the everlasting covenant and Gospel Heb. 13. 20. Revel 14. 6. hence God was said to bee in Christ reconciling the world to himselfe 2 Cor. 5. 19. hence eternall life said to bee promised before the world was Tit. 1. 2. Hence that Ephes 3. 8 9. even Christ himselfe is his people 's no otherwise then in way of covenant Esay 42. 6. and 49. 6 7 8. his blood is the blood of the everlasting covenant no interest in it nor in himselfe but by way of covenant with it seales as that wherein and whereby salvation is ingaged Heb. 13. 20. mans salvation is onely in his name Act. 4. 12. and reconciliation in his blood Colos 1. 19 20 21. and that blood is the blood of the covenant as before see Zach. 9. 11. hee is a mediator of the new covenant and Testament Heb. 9. 15. Heb. 12. 24. if beleevers Infants have not interest in that covenant no interest in him as Mediator for hee is no other Mediator but of such a covenant his businesse as Mediator is to confirme a covenant to such to whom hee is a Mediator Deut. 9. 24. Rom. 15. 8. none can partake of the Spirit nor any influence of it but by the promises 2 Pet. 1. 4. nor of a glorious resurrection but by virtue of I am their God Luke 20. 36 37. nor of glory but by virtue of the same Heb. 11. 16. see of both Act. 26. 6 7. if therefore that species or sort of persons covenant inchurched parents Infants are excluded from right in the covenant unlesse they come actually and personally to beleeve therein actum est de salute eorum they are given for lost irrecoverably and all the individuall Infants of such persons are left in as bad a case Secondly that sort of growne gentiles being supposed onely to bee made nigh by the blood of Christ in covenant and Church respects actually it will argue that that sort onely were actually strangers before not their children with them not only individually but specifically considered since the same sorts at least of Gentiles formerly strangers are made nigh Eph. 21. 11 22 13. compared Thirdly then is it supposed that Christ tooke downe the partition wall which stood betweene growne Jewes and adult Gentiles but as for the beleeving Gentiles Infants either there was no such partition wall betwixt them and their parallels the Jewish Infants inchurched or if there were it so farre remaines untaken downe as concerning that sort of Infants Fourthly then Divine justice is supposed to have a larger latitude in involving the little ones of such as respect the Covenant under the expressions and visible dispensations of divine displeasure as in Caines Ishmaels Esau's the Jewes rejection together with their little ones then divine grace hath in the expressions and dispensations thereof unto the little ones of such as tooke hold thereof contrary to all former examples how long did God continue externall adoption and son-ship in Seths line Gen. 6. 1. how long in Abrahams Isaacs and Jacobs Rom. 9. 4. and not rejecting them till rebelling universally and fatally Fiftly then it 's supposed that there are two covenants of grace one with them of old another with us now essentially different which is absurd as before was shewed and may bee further evinced in that baptisme that new way of initiatory sealing of the covenant when first instituted it was instituted precisely with sole respects to the Jewes John 1. 33. Matth. 3. 1 2 3 4 5. John 4. 1. compared with Matth. 10. 5 6. to shew that there was no other covenant to be sealed by baptisme then that which was made with the Jewes in the substance of it Luke 24. 44 45 46 47. Act. 2. 38 39. the same promise first sealed by baptisme to them before was to them afarre off and no other to them afarre off to bee sealed by baptisme then that promise which was to them and to their children now if one covenant essentially then either the Jewes children were not in covenant no not so much as externally contrary to what wee shewed before from Acts 2. and in the conclusions laid downe or if they were it was meerely ceremonious now supposing ceremony in the way of sealing by circumcising of the flesh of their foreskin yet what ceremony was in the principall part of the covenant it selfe I will bee a God to thee and to thy seed after thee in their generations or if it were one part of the covenant then but is now abolished by Christ then it seemes Christ by his comming hath abolished one materiall part of the covenant of grace without any other thing equivalent to parents as covenant parents in stead thereof Sixtly then God is made a respector of persons looking at Jewes with theirs in covenant respects but not so eying covenant inchurched Gentiles Yea hee is made to speake things at large to bee a God to all the families of the earth Jer. 31. 1. yet when it commeth to bee Analysed he is not a covenant God to any more then perticular persons actually beleeving onely no covenant respect is had so much as externally no not so much as to the choycest part and prop of the families scil children Seventhly then
is all former distinction ever used to bee so carefully observed and held forth and mentioned laid aside Seed of the woman and of the Serpent in the younglings of both are confounded no distinction of sonnes of God and of men of seed of Isaac and Ishmael in the Infant part thereof No Church distinction of children cleane or incleane Albeit that wee mentioned not to the State but Church at Corinth as a Church to whom the contrary was noted as absurd else even the children were as Pagans uncleane but now they are holy So Acts 2. To you and your children not to others as afterwards actually to others with theirs Some onely were nigh in covenant and politicall Church respects the rest farre off nay doe not C. B. Hen. Den and some others ground upon Rom. 5. 18. whereby to put beleevers children in the same estate without any difference as such from any others children Nay C. B. would know why Turkes and beleevers Infants being alike free from actuall sinne and guilt of originall that they may not partake of the same benefit of free grace and albeit in them there bee something worthy of damnation yet it appeares not from Scripture that any were damned for originall sinne onely and would know why wee should not thinke as much of Infants in generall dying infants as was said of Davids child 2 Sam. 12. 23. thought by Divines to bee saved bringing Rom. 5. 18. for a proofe of such generall redemption of dying Infants Strange charitie beyond all bounds of regular judgement to all Infants dying and none to beleevers Infants in generall so much as of their externall interest in the covenant but doth Mr. B. expound deaths reigne over Infants Rom. 5. 14. to bee onely restrained to that of the first death or might Babylons little ones bee accursed if not under wrath as such doth Mr. B. imagine that all the Infants destroyed in the flood in Sodom and Gomorrah in the last destruction of Jerusalem c. that it is so much as probable they that were saved are all by nature the children of wrath and yet all dying in that estate and under no covenant of grace so much as externally it is so much as probable that all such are saved Is there any Mediation of Christ but as a Mediator of a covenant and are Turkes Infants under the covenant when as their parents are not were all Gentiles of old yong and old being strangers from the covenants of promise and of the Church without God and Christ and hope and now the case is so altered that the chrildren of strangers from the covenant are to bee judged hopefull Doth Mr. B. startle at 1 Cor. 7. 14. that the children of beleevers yea though dying Infants yet as beleevers children they are no more but civilly cleane and in covenant respects as profane yet are Pagans children cleane in respect of Covenant mercy for else how can they bee saved as before wee proved as for Rom. 5. 18. our Divines have used to answer Arminians that all is taken for many as before vers 15. But here Mr. B. in the case of dying Infants will have it universall and if universally true of dying Infants why not so of all living Infants why not of all men simply where will there bee a restraint If all men simply in one sort of persons dying bee understood and not all men that is many whereas wee are used to bee upbraided with the absurditie of universall redemption I feare Mr. B's doctrine rather And so much of the first part of this discourse touching the covenant and Church estate and right of Church members children PART II. CHAP. I. Sect. I. Touching Childrens Baptismall right HAving discoursed of the doctrine of the Federall and Ecclesiasticall holinesse of the Children of visible beleeving and inchurched parents and cleared the same let us addresse our selves a while to consider of the externall Church right of such little ones unto the initiatory seale of such covenant Church right which followeth thence The initiatory seale followeth the covenant wee speake not of an extraordinary time of the Church when either it hath no particular expresse initiatory seale distinct from another sealing ordinance as before that solemne covenanting of God in reference to the Church in Isaacs race Gen. 17. 7 8 9 c. with 19. so there is some peculiar state of the time not appliable to the ordinary time and way of a visible politicall Church and its administrations as then also were family Churches as that in Melchisedecs and Jobs family which not being successively to continue were not so immediatly eyed in point of solemne institution and Church lawes as was this of Abraham Isaac and Jacobs race wherein the visible Church was to bee continued such extraordinary cases and times are very impertinently urged by some to infringe the force of ordinary rules and principles they know an extraordinary case of eating shewbread by such as were not Priests of plucking eares of corne on the Sabbath day of a private Disciple's baptizing upon an extraordinary and immediate call as did Ananias Acts 9. of Zipporah's circumcising and these doe not nullifie and invalidate ordinary rules and principles touching circumcision or baptisme or the sanctification of the Sabbath c. This proposition then I shall lay downe for further proofe that in ordinary times and cases respecting the politicall visible Church and its administrations such little ones as are of parents in such visible Church estate they have externall right unto the injoyned initiatory visible seale of which they are outwardly capable and ought not to bee denyed the use and benefit thereof ordinary times then and not extraordinary are here considered let none object then children of members of an ordinary politicall visible Church are here considered let none object an extraordinary case of Johs or Melchisedecks family a visible seale enjoyned not a case wherein actually any such seale is not injoyned is here also considered but either actually injoyned or at least in view at the present making of the covenant with Church reference as in the case Gen. 17. 7 8 9 c. let none object Adam and Noahs time and cases against our thesis externall right in such a Church seale is propounded let none confound this with internall and saving right which is visible to God and not to meere men the initiatory visible seale is propounded not all the seales or Church priviledges as choyse of officers and voting in other Church occasions c. A male child of eight dayes old might bee circumcised but was never intended to bee injoyned personall appearance at the solemne celebration of the passeover there to goe up and not to bee carried or to have others appeare in their stead Deut. 16. 16 17. all the males which were to bee at that feast were as well to bee at the feast of tabernacles Ibid. where such as kept that feast were to carry boughes to make
Church yet they must come by the use of their right in a way of order Object Yea but the Catechumens were in covenant and visible Church estate yet were not presently baptized Answ If they were in covenant and Church estate they had then and thereby right so farre forth to the seale but there might bee some other actuall causes why such adult new commers on from Paganisme might bee suspended a while the use and actuall benefit of their right yet that hinders not but that in covenant Infants in whom there are no such actuall impediments that they should be suspended much lesse wholly denied as by Anabaptists they are either any right or use of their right to Baptisme SECT VII 6. ANd because in this particular some stresse of the maine case is put 1. I shall indeavour yet further to confirme it that covenant interest carryeth a maine stroake in point of application of that seale to persons interested therein and not uncapable thereof in any bodily respect First then it is the ground worke given to the generall Law about an initiatory covenant duty scil application of some injoyned initiatory seale and therefore must bee of like force in the particular branches and wayes of such initiatory sealing as circumcising then and baptizing Secondly the covenant in such sort invested with Church covenant now it is the forme of a politicall visible Church body giving therefore both a Church being as I may say as naturall formes doe a naturall being and withall the priviledge of a member of such a Church body suitable to its memberly estate as is this of the Church initiatory seale even to the least member thereof although they are not yet so perfect in all actuall energy of compleat members and so neither in all actuall priviledges of such compleat members I suppose what ever others deny this way yet our opposites doe not deny that Church covenant explicit or implicit is the forme of a visible politicall Church as such so that till that be they are not so incorporated as to be fit for Church dispensations or acts of peculiar Church power over each other more then over others over whom they can have no power unlesse they had given explicit or implicit consent thereto as reason will evince Thirdly even in doubtfull cases where the extent of the command is questionable yet interest in the covenant casts the scoales As for instance in strangers which proved religious albeit not of their family servants and so under the Law Gen. 17. 12 13. they might bee circumcised if they desired other Church ordinances c. yet were they else free unlesse in such a case of their owne desire that way Exod. 12. end Hence Cornelius a godly Gentile living neare the Jewes yet not circumcised as Acts 10. 1 2 3 4. compared with Chap. 11. 3. 14 15. 18. Yea but if the command bound them why were they at such libertie and if no binding command for their circumcision why were they circumcised suppose Exod. 12. gave some libertie to the Church guides that way for such strangers as more usually dwelt amongst them yet such as 1 Kings 8 41 42 43. which came from farre in a meere transient way for some temporary religious worship at the Temple as that proselyted Eunuch Acts 8. 27. those were surely circumcised else how admitted to temple worship since that was counted an abomination for any other so much as to come there Acts 21 28. and if circumcised at any time by any of the godly Church guides consent what gave them right to it not the commandement Gen. 17. 12 13 14. no nor that Exod. 12. what was that to an Eunuchs case and others which never sojourned with them for any space were they then unlawfully circumcised no verily no whisper of that in Scripture God allowed of that passage in Solomons prayer touching the strangers temple service 1 Kings 8. and 9. explained It was then their externall interest in Gods gratious covenant which gave rise to that application of the seale and not the commandment contrary to what some say that not the covenant but the commandment of God onely was the ground of circumcision Fourthly it appeares from the nature of an initiatory seale of the covenant which must bee as large as the covenant and so reach all the parties comprehended actually by vertue of covenant according as such children are as before declared especially since it is the seale of Gods people and visible Church as before shewed given first for the Church in giving of pastors and teachers onely to the Church which alone can administer the seales in ordinary dispensations Matth. 28. end and giving them withall to the Church as from her to bee dispensed by her officers to such as desire the same Now Gods people are knowne either by actuall personall profession and confession of their owne as adults are or by Gods promise and by parents avouching God as theirs in covenant and their childrens Gen. 17. 9 10. thou shalt doe thus and thus and thy seed also to which he submitteth afterwards and so his also with him and after him besides the maine in the initiatory seale to bee firstly and properly attended as it is a covenant and Church seale is covenant and Church interest Hence called by the name of covenant when yet it is but a Sacramentall signe and seale of it Gen. 17. 13. Acts 7 8. that is first held out and sealed as the convoy of all other desired good 2 Pet. 1. 4. But especially in that initiatory seale the signatum of the covenant is of more considerable weight then the externall Symboll ceremony and circumstance either of cutting or washing absolutely or relatively considered If washing of a person in the name of the Trinitie bee a clearer and easier Symboll then that of cutting the flesh yet not of such weight as is the covenant sealed both by the one and by the other And to shew that the covenant is the maine thing considerable therein hence it is that the covenant is first propounded as the groundworke of the commandement it selfe as of circumcision so of Baptisme and much more of the application of either to any in covenant Gen. 17. 9 10 11. Therefore scil because I have said I will bee your God I command you to doe thus and thus not because I have commanded you that I therefore promise to doe this for you or doe you thus and thus at my command and then on therefore I will doe so and so for you So the Gospell prophesie and promise is prefaced and put in the preamble to that injunction of their Baptisme by John Luke 3. 3 4 5 6 c. Hence the Gospell and so the covenant of grace hâ—ld out as grounding Baptisme Acts 2. 38 39. And childrens covenant right was held out as one branch of that Gospell as wee proved and from the same principle that they were also to bee sealed by Baptisme yea albeit the
Nay they are not onely opposed but the Gentile body is received in instead of the Jew-body broken off vers 17. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in ramorum defractorum locum Beza on Rom. 11. 17. and vers 19. They were broken off saith the collective Gentile that I might bee graffed in The Apostle yeelds this as truth well 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as if hee would say it is true now growne ones among the Jewes were broken off who came in their stead growne Gentiles True but Jewish babes and little ones too amongst other branches and sprigs are broken off that Gentiles might come into covenant and Church estate in their stead What Gentiles growne ones nay roome is made for them in the breach of the growne Jewes Verily then such a like species of Gentiles unto those rejected Jewish sprigs scil Gentile babes and little ones must necessarily bee thus inserted and admitted into that covenant and Church estate out of which the other were broken So then as Jewes were so Gentiles are considered in this Chapters discourse touching communion in federall and Church ordinances and priviledges under the notion of Olive fatnesse c. not in a bare personall way but in reference to people of both kindes and persons of all sorts and species younger or elder which is a strong argument that God never intended to limit the benefit of his covenant grace to growne ones or parents personally but rather extends it to them in a parentall way at least Hence when that commission Matth. 28. 19. was given for this end it is in the old terme and notion of nation a large word and subject God delights to inlarge his grace in these times and his very intent in Matth. 28. is inlargement of Gospel mercies The more crosse are their minds to Gods thoughts who from that very place would conclude a straightning such a Gospell mercy as this mentioned was and is both to parents and children and for which they have nothing equivalent in stead thereof The Apostle it 's confessed bringeth in Rom. 11. 16 17. as an argument to prove the receiving in againe of the Jewes scil unto actuall fruition of all covenant and Church priviledges vers 15. For if the roote bee holy so are the branches vers 16. and so vers 28 29. To the same purpose now if the covenant with godly ancestors bee so forcible to fetch in such Apostates after so grosse and long a time of their desperate revolts from and contempts of covenant grace in Christ is it not much more of force to the receiving in of the babes of next beleeving parents unto the visible fellowship of covenant grace God forbid that any should obstinately gainesay it SECT II. BY roote I. S. saith in that Rom. 11. 16. is meant Christ personall and yet the same author elsewhere would have it meant mystically considered and elsewhere of union and communion with God in ordinances and elsewhere of Abraham in his faith and elsewhere of beleeving parents in part for hee saith not onely beleeving parents are the roote c. not onely in part then such parents are the root But indeed this author refuteth himselfe in that hee knoweth not where to fix Abraham in his faith as latherly and eying the covenant in this latitude as to him and his seed of Isaac by propagation and to the beleeving Gentiles with their seed by proportion thus hee might bee a root in his faith but if Abrahams faith bee considered in a meere personall respect so neither Jewes nor Gentiles are properly said to bee inserted into that but rather into his faith with its object the covenant It is improper to say of the Gentile that they stood in it scil in the root of faith by faith or that the Jew was broken off from Abrahams personall faith by unbeliefe Abrahams faith was a saving faith if this therefore had been in them all or they in it they had not fallen as many Jewes and Gentiles priviledged by externall covenant right did and might or supposing the root to bee meant not of Abraham Isaac and Jacob but of Christ as Mr. B. also affirmeth who is elsewhere called a root Apoc. 22. 16. and 5. 5 c. if they had been in him by any proper and invisible union neither those of the Jewes had been nor so many of Gentiles could have been broken off as they were whole Churches of these are witnes this Church of Rome to which the Apostle wrote this But otherwise if understood of impropper and visible union with Christ scil a visible union with Christ mysticall thus indeed many such may fall away finally as did these Hence that John 15. 2. now in this sense parents and children Inchurched whether Jewes or Gentiles by being in the holy root of those covenant fathers they are visibly in that holy root Christ or Christ mysticall as was shewed I. S. will and doth confesse the first fruits of whom yet the same holy effect is affirmed Rom. 11. 16. to be these fathers and why not then as wel the same fathers to bee the root since the context cleareth it that the Apostle intendeth the same of the selfesame persons under divers Metaphors Either then Christ is the first fruites as well as roote intended or those fathers are the first fruites as well as the root mentioned Verily covenanting Abraham in reference to his seed is called a rock whence that Church as a Church was hewen for in that sense the Prophet speakes to them Esay 51. 1 2. yet is Christ the rock of the Church too in another sense and why is not Abraham then a covenant root to such Church branches as that from whence they in that sense doe spring And what I say of Abraham is as well to bee referred to Isaac and Jacob in the same respect as being other veines making up this one root the Instrumentall meanes and cause of the mercy offered and exhibited both to Jewes and Gentiles in regard that to them all this large covenant was made over in a radicall way see Gen. 17. 2. 7. and 22. 18. compared with Gen. 26. 3 4 5. and 28. 13 14. whence such frequent mention in Scripture of Abraham Isaac and Jacob in reference to covenant blessings yea their names are pleaded in prayer for that end Exod. 32. 13. Deut. 9. 27. see more 2 King 13. 23. and Mich. 7. 20. c. This was not in respect of any personall holinesse of theirs or barely in respect of their personall faith but it was by reason of that large covenant made with them in this reference as the places quoted shew see further for this end Luke 1. 71 72. Rom. 15. 8. Deut. 4. 37. and 10. 15. with other like Scriptures Hence too they are made here a radicall meanes of the Jewes receiving in againe Rom. 11. 15. grounded on this reason vers 16. compared with vers 28. Whence also the Jewes which are called holy branches by vertue of their
holy root vers 16. they are termed naturall branches too scil of that root and Olive tree vers 24. not naturall branches of Christ as the root Our very opposites will say that were improper to affirme nor meerly of Abraham but Isaac and Jacob also nor is it proper to call one Abraham fathers vers 28. or first fruits vers 16. Now as to Jewes so to Gentiles were those covenant fathers and root God saith to Abraham and Jacob distinctly that hee would blesse all nations and families as in their seed so in them Gen. 12. 2 3. In thee Abraham Gen. 22. 28. in thy seed and Gen. 28. 14. in thee Jacob and in thy seed How in them at all distinct from the seed Christ who is the sole author worker and meritorious cause of all covenant blessing Verily in respect of the covenant made with them in reference as to the nation of the Jewes and the families therein so to Gentile nations and the families therein to bee by virtue of that covenant partakers at least visibly of the covenant blessing Hence wee Gentiles are said to come and sit downe with those fathers Matth. 8. 11 12. as inserted branches are in some sense seated and setled in and with the root Hence likewise this root is said to beare the Christian Gentiles collectively taken and for that cause the Gentile is not to boast against the Jew branches branches of what of the root mentioned what root Christ That were improper to affirme but rather of those fathers SECT III. THe Olive tree some take it of the Fathers also in opposition to the other wilde Olive tree out of which the Gentiles were cut vers 24. scil Their wilde ancestors or ancestors estranged from the covenant Ephes 2. 12. The Jewes indeed are cut out of these fathers Abraham Isaac and Jacob as covenanting in respect of any present actuall benefit of the covenant but yet are not cut out of those fathers as begetting as it is evident they are still Abrahams stock which by the way observe against that distinction by which some use to avoid our arguments in this businesse They say Abraham Isaac and Jacob were onely a root to the body of the Jewes as naturall and begetting fathers and not as spirituall and beleeving fathers or fathers by faith imbracing the covenant made with the Jewes also Surely such men would frustrate the ground of the Apostles discourse here supposing so sad an exclusion of the Jewes from a former sweet and sappy Church estate yea such as into which the Gentiles could not come but by a preter-super yea contra-naturall way vers 24. if they were in those fathers as begetting fathers onely so are they still their naturall children and then not cut off from them at all contrary to this expresse Scripture Others would have the Olive tree to bee meant of the visible Church distinguished from the root vers 17. see Jer. 11. 16. spoken of the Jewes in their Church as well as civill relation into which as into their owne Olive by that generall covenant right Rom. 11. 16. 24. they shall bee re-ingraffed in so farre as they are federally holy vers 16. scil intentionally in so farre is a Church right their owne with which latter respect of the Olive I fully close but of this more afterwards By ingraffing into the Olive seemes to bee meant an actuall interesting and instating into the visible Church or into those covenant fathers in reference to the Church whence also ariseth the actuall fruition thereof By Olive fatnesse mentioned vers 17. must needs bee meant such covenant or Church blessings priviledges and ordinances c. whereof all sorts of Church members even such as may bee fatally cut off may partake of as well as others which are not the graces of the Spirit for they flow not immediatly from the Olive the Church nor from any of the best of the sons of men but rather they are the seales and other Church ordinances visibly dispensed to persons according as they are capable of them These are the instrumentall causes of the bright shining at least in visible profession of Christ unto the whole Candlestick and all the greater or lesser branches and parts of it Zach. 4. 2 3. 11 12 14. SECT IIII. TO draw to a Conclusion 1. Then looke how the Jew-branches were set into their Olive and root mentioned so are the Gentiles which come in their stead Rom. 11. 17. 19. But they with all their buds and sprigs scil children as Esay 44. 3. and 18. 5. and 61. 9. and Psal 128. 3. they are called were set thereinto therefore in like sort are the Gentiles with their children inserted Amongst them were three sorts thus inserted 1. Growne ones truely beleeving as were godly proselyted Gentiles 2. Growne ones which did not prove truly beleeving as many of the proselytes 3. The children of Jewes and of both those sorts of proselytes some whereof afterwards made holy improvement thereof others abused and rejected their covenant priviledge and so is it with us now 2. Looke how they were by unbeleefe broken off so are the Gentiles taken in by faith but they both parents and children were broken off through the unbeleeving rejection of the covenant expressed by the wicked parents onely therefore the Gentiles are inserted with their children albeit the parents onely expresse a beleeving embrace of the covenant Gentiles children are not indeed expressed by name in this inserting but yet the Gentile is collectively spoken of as was proved and so must needs include at least the children of such inserted Gentiles as in the cutting off of the Jewes and casting away of them their children are not mentioned except comprehensively here or in Matth. 8. 11. and 21. 42. yet all grant that they were intended and so in this case 3. Looke how the Gentile in case of apostasie is cut off from his Church estate and union and communion in the Olive root and fatnesse and looke as hee is not spared in case of his unbeleefe so was the Gentile graffed in vers 20. 21 22. But in that case of unbeleefe and apostasie the Gentile both parent and child is cut off from federall grace and Church priviledge witnesse the case of those which at first fell off when first the Asian and other Churches as of Rome c. were unchurched Therefore so was the Gentile parent and child graffed in 4. Looke how the better part of the Jewes which did not thus actually obstinately reject the covenant and Gospel of grace Christ the foundation thereof did then when the Apostle wrote this Rom. 11. 17. remaine still in their roote in such sort are the Gentiles with them partakers thereof But those Jewes parents and children abode in that covenant estate Therefore Gentile parents and children so partake with them Of those Jew parents none will make question and of their children is no ground to doubt which being once in covenant in their ancestors yea and
Apostles time but some of the branches were broken off vers 17. And blindnesse did happen to collective Israel but not wholly but in part vers 25. In both which that which is proper to the parts is applyed to the whole of which they are parts by a synecdoche To come then to argument it is true that the Jewes collectively taken for the whole nation containing the choicer part intended they are federally holy scil in respect of that choyce part and yet it followes not that the Jewes distributively taken for those Jewes living at this day supposed to bee a refuse part of that whole should bee properly said to bee federally holy and so neither to have right to Church priviledges so that the instance crosseth not us who speake of persons federally holy as well distributively and not meerely collectively considered There is therefore a fallacy a dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter Rep. Suppose we take this of the whole in respect of the choycer part of the Jewish nation this choyce part then at least is federally holy yet they have not right to Church priviledges as being not yet ingraffed into the olive nor possibly in actuall being in the world Therefore persons may bee federally holy which yet have not right to Church priviledges Answ Wee againe distinguish persons may bee said to be federally holy either seminally preparatively or actually in the former sense persons not yet existing may bee said to bee in covenant with God or such as God makes a covenant with and consequently to bee federally holy Deut. 29. 14 15. neither with you onely doe I make this covenant but with him that standeth here with us before the Lord our God and also with him that is not with us this day Marke it God saith not I will make this covenant in the future but in the present tense I doe make this covenant with him that is not here this day that is with persons unborne these being expresly taken into covenant with God and their covenant right laid up and included therein in such sort as that which in its season should actually bee exerted these persons albeit unborne and not actually existing yet in this seminall and preparatory respect of the covenant they have thus far a covenant right and so farre also a Church right together with it so here in these unborne Jewes as they are federally holy in that seminall respect Hence the Olive or Church here is called their owne Olive Rom. 11. 24. How is the Church now their owne but in respect of this seminall Church right Federall holinesse actually taken is that which is actually subjected and exerted in a person existing whether parent or child in which sense God made his covenant with those Jewes and with their children that were before him that day Deut. 29. 14 15. And in this sense the Apostle speaking of the federall holinesse especially of children actually borne of covenant in-churched parents saith they are holy scil actually 1 Cor. 7. 14. Now therefore to apply the Argument it is defective in the consequence of it thus Persons not in being which are federally holy onely seminally and intentionally they have not actuall Church right nor can actually bee baptized therefore persons existing and living which are federally holy actually they may not bee baptized this followeth not one may as well reason thus Those with whom God made a covenant Deut. 29. 14 15. who were not borne not there that day had not actuall right to circumcision could not be uncircumcised Therefore those children which were there that day with whom also God made his covenant Ibid. they had not actuall right to circumcision might not could not bee circumcised this every rationall man will say is a non sequitur Object 2. This Rom. 11. 16. is spoken of the naturall branches which have an hereditary covenant right as naturall branches of that roote Abraham Isaac and Jacob. And therefore not pertinent to the Gentiles and their children which are not branches of that root Answ Albeit the beleeving Gentiles and their children are not of that root by nature and propagation yet they are in that root by grace and by proportion The Jew-branches were broken off that the Christian collective Gentile might by grace be graffed in scil in their stead Rom. 11. 19. Looke then what covenant and Church right the Jewish parents had for their children in an hereditary way the same hath the inchurched Gentile for his children through grace Repl. This were to make way for all children of Christian Gentile nations to have right to Church priviledges Answ It sufficeth that thus farre it holds that as all and onely Church-members children were ecclesiastically priviledged among the Jewes so all and onely Church-members children are ecclesiastically priviledged among the Gentiles Object 3. The Gentiles are said to bee ingraffed not by a naturall way as being of such parents but by a way contrary to nature and therefore what is this to the federall estate of Gentile Infants as comming of beleeving parents and so in a way of nature Answ It is most true if applied to the first parties amongst any Gentile people which in the Apostles time or since enter into Church estate living formerly in a Pagan estate and not having any of their ancestors other then Pagans or such as were cut out of the wilde Olive tree scil Ancestors pagan or outlawry from all covenant and Church estate Rom. 11. 24. Ephes 2. 12. But if it bee applyed to other which come of such persons so transplanted from that wilde Olive to this good Olive estate as branches or sprigs of such Olive boughs or gratious ancestors then is it not fully verified that these are onely in a way contrary to nature partakers of the fatnesse of the Olive As they are considered together with their gratious ancestors as all of them of other pagan ancestors so they are all ingraffed in a way contrary to nature even meerely by divine Grace but as they and their gratious fathers are considered apart their fathers as nextly descended of pagan ancestors these their children as nextly springing from fathers visibly beleeving and inchurched so their covenant and Church estate comes to them principally by a way of divine grace and instrumentall by birth descent from inchurched ancestors and in this latter respect therefore such children may bee said to bee inserted by a way of nature for looke as the Israelites of old before their cutting off were and others of them hereafter will bee by virtue of their holy root or covenant fathers holy branches as naturall branches scil branches springing naturally from them or borne of them Rom. 11. 16. 24. compared or as those Israelites were not sinners or outlawries from covenant or Church as were those of the Pagan Gentiles but Jewes or ecclesiastically priviledged even by nature or naturall descent of such ancestors inchurched Gal. 2. 15. so must the proportion hold in the
children of Gentile in-churched parents Though even this also is of grace that they should naturally descend from such parents Gen. 49. 26. Object 4. The Gentiles come into and abide in Church-estate by faith Rom. 11. 20. But children have not faith Therefore this Scripture concernes not them Answ 1. The Gentiles that so stand by faith are collectively taken as including also their children with them so abiding untill that these their children come to reject as did the children of those godly Jewish ancestors their covenant right And observe it by the way how tender God was of covenant children They were never excluded untill they came after many generations so wholly to degenerate as Rom. 11. 16 17 18 19 20 21 25 28. sheweth and then but not till then they are rejected so is it still God is tender of unchurching and discovenanting any that come of godly ancestors till they grosly and obstinately reject their owne mercy But if they grow up to that obstinacy then they cut off the gratious covenant entailed as from themselves personally so to their children parentally as did those of old Rom. 11. 20. and as those of Rome Corinth and Ephesus c. have done since 2. This faith mentioned is not a bare personall faith respecting this or that particular Gentile but such as is in direct opposition to that unbeleefe of the Jewes by which they were broken off as that opposition Rom. 11. 20. sheweth now it is evident that their unbeleefe was the obstinate rejecting of the covenant of grace as it was held out in Christ to them and theirs joyntly and not as barely made to themselves personally Acts 3. 25 26. and 13. 46 47. Matth. 21. 41. 42 43 44. Rom. 9. 31 32 33. and 10. to the end see Rom. 10. 21. with 11. 1. c. and vers 20. So verily is it in the faith of the Gentile opposed thereunto It is a faith that lookes to Gods covenant as in reference to families and kindreds of the earth so imbracing it and so being quickned and comforted by it That pretious fruit of faith must hold proportion to the nature of the seed thereof scil the words of promise 1 Pet. 1. 23. now the words of promise run not barely in a personall way but in a parentall oeconomicall and plurall way as well Jer. 31. 1. Acts 3. 25 c. our faith is or de jure should bee inlarged according to the latitude of covenant as was before proved Rom. 10. 8 c. By what hath been said their grosse mistakes appeare which say that none are the subjects of this lumpe but elect ones That the branches were such onely which were in Christ by faith and hee in them by his spirit for neither Jew nor Gentile branches many of them were such as appeares by their being broken off nor is that assertion sound but absurd and crosse to the very text that the Jewes owne naturall root and Olive tree whereof they were naturall branches onely by faith was union with God c. since that way of being branches onely by faith is no where called naturall nay in the same verse Rom. 11. 24. speaking of the first growne Gentiles inserting by faith it is said to bee contrary to nature nor is inserting which is onely by faith more naturall to Jewes then it is to Gentiles Neither is that true and sound that no other holinesse inrighteth any in any priviledges of grace if understood of Church priviledges now in question then holinesse of justification or sanctification since many of those naturall branches which as naturall branches of that holy root were holy federally and did partake of the root and fatnesse of the olive before their rejection as well as some better Jewes did afterward yet they were not justified for which compare Rom. 11. 16. 24. 17 18 19. so likewise the Gentiles which came to partake of that Olive fatnesse in their stead ibid. yet were fatally cut off many of them which had never bin if they had been justified and sanctified Object 5. Doth not the Apostle only speake here of the invisible Church under the notion of the Olive which sometimes was amongst the Jewes and therefore called their Olive the Apostle reasoning about the elect remnant Rom. 11. 1 2 3 4 5 6 c. and making the tree to bee the Church of beleevers still standing and some branches broken off and others graffed in and so it might seeme the graffing in to bee inserting into the invisible Church by election and faith Answ I deny not but that the Apostle discourseth about the elect and invisible members of the invisible Church vers 1 2 3. c. and therefore proveth fully enough one principall thing propounded scil that the invisible elect membes of it or the elect seed and branches of Abraham Isaac and Jacob did not could not fall away finally but it will not therefore follow that hee speaketh onely of the invisible Church in the whole chapter or that he discourseth not as well of the visible Church of the Church seed of Abraham Isaac and Jacob. Yea it wil appeare by good reason that in that part of the Chapter where hee discourseth of the Church as an Olive communicating its fatnesse to all the branches of it hee principally intendeth the visible Church as visible For 1. The objection acknowledgeth that it is the Church of beleevers still standing and some branches broken off and others graffed in now none that were in the invisible Church by election and faith could ever bee broken off Yea but they might bee in the Church in appearance or visibly as branches may bee said to bee in Christ and after broken off John 15. 2. Not to answer this with an exposition of that according to some to bee meant of Christ considered with his body the visible Church as 1 Cor. 12. 12 13. here is more said of these scil that others came in their roome and place Rom. 11. 17. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in ramorum defractorum locum as Beza noteth on that particle they had then a reall place there and a reall breach was made neither did the Gentiles come into an imaginary place in the Church but a reall and yet they came into no other place then into the place of the broken branches therefore theirs was a reall not a seeming place in the Olive the Olive then must bee the visible Church where hypocrites may have place and not the invisible Church where they can have none Besides they were such branches of the Olive as did partake of the fatnesse of the Olive not like withered branches seemingly in Christ which are saplesse nor did ever partake of the sap of Christs saving grace as these did of Church sap hence the Gentile is said to partake in common with them Rom. 11. 17. Greeke 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. and thou partakest in common with them in the fatnesse of the Olive What did the collective Christian
persons albeit not all of every kind are included else I cannot see how any Infants can bee saved unlesse either some are saved which are not blessed in Christ or if blessed in Christ yet such as God never promised should bee blessed in Christ and if so they have a mediator of Christ to them but such an one as is not in respect to them a mediator of the new covenant yea and so have Christ a Savour to them to whom hee is not a covenant as Esay phraseth it Chap. 42. and 49. so every man for every sort of men Heb. 2. 9. and all men for all sorts of men Rom. 5. 18. which are not simply all but many rather vers 16. compared so the world for all sorts of persons in it 1 John 2. 2. how usuall an acceptation and why should it here in matters of lesse moment be scrupled Secondly taken from the nature of the commission scil a charge of Church dispensation of the Gospel or dispensing of it with Church reference Marke 16. 15. it is Gospel they are to preach and this being Gospel that children of inchurched covenant parents were to bee with them also taken into the fellowship of the covenant and people of God externally interested in it as was proved before and the initiatory scale being a branch of the Gospel as well as the promise as baptisme is reckoned Luke 3. 34. 5 6. compared with Marke 1. 1 2 3 4. such Infants federall interest in the Church and initiatory Church seale must needs bee included Thirdly from the latitude of the Church reference to which this commission relateth albeit with some different respects had to those times and ages following according as then the Ministers were extraordinary and Apostolicall and those succeeding were to bee ordinary Pastours Teachers and withall with various respects had to the first foundation members strictly considered as such and others now that latitude it appeares was such as tooke in all the visible Churches throughout the world unto the worlds end From which if such Infants bee excluded an actuall and priviledged interest they are excluded as was proved in ordinary course from salvation there being ordinarily none saved but such as are in the visible Church or some visible Churches in the world And if not excluded an actuall interest in some visible Church or other in the earth why are they excluded baptisme which is here given to distinguish the inchurched parts of the world from all other as well as to ratifie and seale up the covenant to them there is no time set now to limit them to such a day as of old to the eighth that that should suspend their jus ad rem which they had as Abrahams seed so soone as borne from being elicited till the injoyned day Fourthly from that latitude of the nation disciple which taketh in such Infants as well as others and consequently they are reached in the commission of being baptized For Disciples are to be baptized as our opposites confesse For proofe of their discipleship I argue thus All those to whom the thing signified by a disciple as explained in any place of Scripture is appliable they are Scipture Disciples but the former is true of such Infants ergo the latter The Major is evident in that in reason significant names cannot bee denied to persons to whom the thing signified is granted And the spirit of wisedome would not in any place expound the name by the thing if that thing it selfe did not give ground worke to bee so named If any reply that it sufficeth not to have the thing signified by the name in one place unlesse withall the pâ—…ty bee qualified with the signified thing in another as for inâ—…ce in many Scriptures it signifieth a beleever c. this must bee 〈◊〉 in too to this I answer â—…irst I speake of significations of the name as explained by the 〈◊〉 Ghost himselfe and if any will refuse that they presume to 〈…〉 holy Ghost to expound his owne words â—…ly if wee may not rest in one or other such a place but 〈…〉 another way why not another to that and so anoâ—… 〈◊〉 â—…arroweth yet more the signification then that did yea why 〈◊〉 â—…ke in all such places where in any sense it is mentioned where 〈◊〉 wee stop and so that exposition of a disciple Luke 14. 26. must bee taken in as requisite to according as Hen. Den. urgeth it aâ—d thâ—n Judas and Demas and divers others which forsooke Christ never hating their owne lives for his sake could not bee his disciples yet they were so and so doth the holy Ghost call Judas and many others John 6. yea many that never beleeved in Christ himselfe but did after a sort approve his doctrine and followed him albeit for base ends c. yet these were disciples and baptized as such John 4. 12. It 's spoken of disciples of Christ in the Pharisees sense scil persons addicted to his doctrine c. as Disciples of John of Moses c. signifie and not of persons beleeving in him or them John 9. When they asked so oft touching Christ as if they pretended to desire to learne of him c. saith the blind man to those Pharisees Will yee also bee his Disciples or Schollers c. vers 27 28. Bee thou his disciple say they c. not meaning that either should beleeve in him those many Disciples never beleeved that heavenly doctrine of his John 6. yet called Disciples vers 66. Yea if the latitude of the signification of a Scripture disciple must all meet in one to make a compleat definition then Disciples must bee Apostles because some were so called which were such The names of the 12. Disciples Matthew 10. 1. and the names of the 12. Apostles vers 2. are one see more Matth. 28. 16. The eleven Disciples i. e. Apostles It is then enough to attribute that name Disciple to any to whom the reason and explication of that name any where in Scripture mentioned is by the Spirit of God applyed wee neede not feare to follow such a leader and speake after him the minor then is to bee proved that such a signified thing by that name Disciple is appliable to such little ones mentioned For proofe hereof I must take up that wherein I perceive I am prevented by others yet shall not desist to speake the same thing in substance with them one to whom drinke or water is given in Matth. 10. 42. in the name of a Disciple is expounded by the Spirit Matth. 9. 41. to be one to whom it is given in the name of one belonging to Christ Whence I argue All such as belong to Christ externally they are externally his Disciples such Infants mentioned belong to Christ externally therefore they are externally Christs Disciples And the same description of a Disciple which shall bee saved holds thus such as savingly belong to Christ are Disciples which shall bee saved but it 's not needfull to
and this be the common enforcing reason to both it must hold as well in either of them considered apart as in both of them joyntly taken And I would know if the Apostle had from such a ground of the promise urged one already baptized to repent onely had it not beene sufficient or suppose hee had to deale with one that in his judgement had repented already urging him onely to bee baptized because the promise belonged to him had not this been of sufficient force thereunto no rationall person I thinke will deny it The minor will appeare by declaring the groundwork upon which the Apostle urged them to bee baptized Now this was the onely ground upon which Peter urged them as to the former dutie of repenting so to the later of being baptized For the promise is or belongs to you scil the promise of grace of remission of sinnes c. as before was cleared Yea but repentance is called so too from them on this ground and that Infants are not capable of To this wee have formerly answered why it was meete to require as we doe some testimony of repentance in offensive members of a corrupt Church albeit a true visible Church as was that of the Jewes if they will bee fixed members of purer Churches as was that Church of Christians vers 41. and as members thereof partake of the seales yet wee doe not expect the same of their children too under no such actuall scandall but baptize them in their confessing parents right also Besides it appeareth before that it was a sufficient ground on which to urge the baptisme of such or such a person as considered in it selfe apart Now that the groundworke scil interest externall at least was that interest of those persons not yet savingly wrought upon in the promise of grace that appertaineth to such Infants of inchurched and externally covenant parents it appeareth in this very Scripture the persons spoken to were members of that true visible Church of the Jewes visibly in the covenant as wee proved the persons spoken of also were their owne naturall children as was likewise proved and of them also Peter avoweth even after Christs ascension and in reference to participation in the seale of baptisme in a Church of Christians That the promise is to your children so that the conclusion followeth that the baptisme of such children is virtually called upon as well as of adult persons SECT VII Object YEa but the Jewes children were not then baptized Acts 2. Answ It 's more then such as so speake can prove from the Text. No will some say but it is not For they that gladly received the word saith the Text were baptized vers 41. And they continued in the Apostles Doctrine and fellowship and breaking of bread and prayers vers 42. and 44. All that beleeved had all things common 44. and sold their possessions c. vers 45. and continued daily in the Temple c. vers 46. which are not appliable to Infants And what then therefore other things there mentioned were not so too non sequitur what more usuall in Scripture then to speake of things in a collective way of persons which are not all and each of them appliable to all and each particular person of that company but by a Synecdoche some things are spoken of the whole wholly but others are onely appliable to some parts of that whole It 's said in this place all that beleeved were together and had all thing common and sold their possessions vers 44 45. will any take this of the whole company in all the parts of it all were not capable of such an act applied to all as not all having possessions to sell for some were in need rather of supply from others vers 45. It is therefore a Synecdoche so in the other so all are said to continue in the Apostles doctrine and prayers c. as before this Infants were not capable of and therein it is as in the other Synecdochicall for of other things mentioned they were capable and they were appliable to them they had things in common too and had supplies of clothing or food c. according to their need unlesse any will say that these persons spoken of had no children needing such supplies as well as themselves or else if they had yet their needs were not supplied so when they all eate their meate in severall houses c. what were the children shut out of doores if they had any or had none of those families any children in them Suppose they could not eate meate with such singlenesse of heart yet were they not of them that did eate their meate and were refreshed with them there were doubtlesse some hypocrites in heart amongst them and they could not eate with them with a single heart but were rather spots in their feasts of charitie as Judes phrase is Jude 12. yet by a Synecdoche all did eate with heart singlenesse in that some which were capable of the act doing did so among them all added were such as should bee saved too by a Synecdoche and in a Church sense yea their Infants some of them were such really and all of them in an externall and ecclesiasticall respect of covenant and Church interest they were capable of that adjunct albeit not of some others so were they capable of being added to the visible Church of Christians as they were of that true visible Church of the Jewes before And as all the Infants of covenant and inchurched Parents which stand right in the Church are also in that right inchoatively members of that Church albeit not perfectly And inchoative actuall membership of a true visible Church doth externally inright to the initiatory Church and Covenant seale of baptisme of which two these members children were enrighted as well as others then present And for further clearing of this way of application of some common acts to an assembly where are children which are not appliable to the whole company wholly see Acts 21. 5. bringing on the Apostle and his company is appliable to all those of Ephesus men women and children but that act of praying not so properly appliable to the little ones but rather to the growne persons present Weeping and swearing is applyed to the whole company assembled whereof many were children Ezra 10. 1. 5. compared yet proper to the growne part albeit the other of being assembled before the house of God c. were common as that sinne confessed on the behalfe of the whole assembly vers 2. was understood of the whole figuratively In respect of that part of the assembly which had so sinned which were not the children as is evident no nor all the growne ones but some onely amongst them as vers 18. 23 24 25. declare so Deut. 31. 11 12. men women and children must bee all gathered to have the Law read in their hearing that they may heare and learne and feare the Lord and observe all the words
compleat in the substantiall and most materiall parts or branches of it had the one a covenant and Church blessing and heritage as to them so to their children so are these compleat that way too if the ratification thereof by a solemne covenant and Church initiatory seale bee the great thing they have to boast of these are compleat in Christ in that respect too Christ hath not left his Churches and the members of them without such covenant priviledges nor without a solemne way of initiatory sealing thereto and ratifying thereof whether as Churches or as members of it in particular or as such members who have children to partake thereof with them doe the false Apostles then urge against them their incompleatnesse without circumcision It 's answered in the generall v. 10. they are compleat in Christ how as fulfilling the types which were in any Jewish ceremonies onely no verily not onely so albeit firstly and principally so for Christ nailed them on his crosse and tooke them away as such by his death And what need then any Church ordinances at all wee have all in Christ might some say as 1 Cor. 1. I am for Christ I care not for Paul nor Apollos nor Cephas nor for their dispensation of the word or seale of the covenant I have enough in Christ such a spawne of our seekers there was in those times v. 12. Yea but the Lord Jesus in wisedome and faithfulfulnesse will have his Church and people to bee graced and perfect as of old they were in substantialls of the same Church ordinances and the like The beautie of the Church was perfect through that Church comelinesse which God did in this respect put upon them Ezek. 16. 14. not a comelinesse of outward possessions in a temporall land in temporall jurisdictions kingdomes cities what had the Church quà Church and as in covenant with God as his covenant Spouse to doe with them nay the heathen might vye with them for as good land as large possessions territories riches honours dominions c. yea but not for Church ordinances hee dealt not so with any nation besides Psal 147. 19 20. Christ had as mediator and as a Priest compleated all ceremonious types yea but as Prophet hee will have it held forth and cleared by that dispensation of the Gospel and as King of the Church hee will have all also exhibited in such a way and by such evangelicall meanes 2 Tim. 1. 10. the Word and the Seales they are parts of the Gospel in the dispensation of them and by them all is brought to light yea by them as by pipes is Christs fulnesse conveyed as head of his visible body the Church outwardly as it is by his spirit to his elect inwardly Zach. 4. 11 12 13 14. Col. 2. 19. hence the Church hath such officers given it whose proper work it is to exhibit and communicate such things as tend to make them every way compleat Ephe. 4. 11 12 13. wee are compleat in Christ as the signatum but yet in baptisme too as the signe Yea but regeneration and sanctification both in respect of mortifying and quickning grace c. signified by circumcision is conferred on us by Christ And so it was of old in him in whom Ezek. 36. 25 26 27. and Deut. 30. 6. was yea and amen 2 Cor. 1. 20. and by his Spirit as hee held all forth then in the ministry of the Prophets of old 1 Pet. 3. 18 19 20. so hee exhibited the same to his elect among them yet then hee had covenant and Church Symbols to confirme the same and instrumentally to convey the same and so now Ephes 5. 25 26. As by the word of covenant as the principall instrument and the Spirit maketh baptisme it selfe to become efficacious so by washing too hee sanctifyeth his Church both as that whereby hee ratifyeth it so to their faith that they have the more strength of hold and influence for that end and as that which he blesseth as one ordinary meane also in respect of the word of promise to which baptismall washing is annexed as the Seale Sanctifying and purging is the signatum and end washing with water through the word is the ordinary Seale and meane whence here in Col. 2. 10. when hee had laid downe that thesis he declareth it by two instances partly in that wee are circumcised by the circumcision of Christ which is the fulfilling of the type v. 11. partly by applying the benefits of the circumcision of Christ to them and theirs by the like or an equall ordinance to that of circumcision which the Jewes injoyed to wit of baptisme else were not the Church and Saints now as compleat as those of old which as they had virtually all fulfilled in Christ to their faith Act. 15. 11. and 26. 6 7. Heb. 13. 8. Revel 13. 8. Heb. 12. 1 2 3. So had they withall sealing ordinances applying the spirituall circumcision of Christ to them and theirs And so Aretius which maketh Christ the perfect organon of our salvation without any other equall externall cause joyned with him in that respect it was by him alone that all was fulfilled Col. 1. 19 20. and by himselfe he did that worke Heb. 1. 3. yet in point of externall application hee denieth not any thing wee say for in the same place in his notes upon Colos 2. within foure or five lines hee addeth it as an observeable thing from the place that baptisme comes in the stead of circumcision as is evident in that the Apostle calleth it the circumcision of Christ scil in a Sacramentall way under the name of the signe in whose stead baptisme is set comprehending the spirituall thing signified by a metonymy as the covenant scil the Sacramentall signe of it Gen. 17. 11. 13. Act. 7. 8. the testament scil the visible seale of it 1 Cor. 11. 25. So his body and blood ibid. the Sacramentall communion of it 1 Cor. 10. 16 17. or communion of it in a Sacramentall sense So that the Apostles answer is full to prove the uselesnesse of circumcision which the false Apostles would have intruded upon them as necessary to the Gentile Churches Gal. 1. 6 7 8 9. and 4. 21. and 5. 11. Acts 15. 24 24. 25. It was a generall false doctrine troubling all the Gentile Churches ibid. but it 's now uselesse in respect of the maine thing signified Christ to come who hath fulfilled it as ceremonious and in respect of the externall signe and meane of application of Christ scil circumcision supplied by baptisme whence Gentile Philippians as well as Paul a Jew are of the circumcision Phil. 3. 3. Abraham Isaac and Jacob were inwardly circumcised so are they at least ecclesiastically judged to bee they were externally circumcised so are they in their baptisme ergo now circumcision is wholly uselesse Yea but what is this to Infants the Apostle directs his speech to growne ones Suppose he did yet this speech is of and reacheth to
baptisme Rom. 2. 25. if any will Idolize circumcision or baptisme to make it ex opere operato availeable to salvation they then legalize it and if that way they looke for life they must keepe the whole Law or else they perish For in this legall sense they urged circumcision Gal. 5. 3. aâ— that by which to bee justified vers 4. As for the essentiall difference supposed by Mr. B. in the covenant Gen. 17. 7. wee have formerly disproved that that also is an imaginary difference of Mr. B. that circumcision gave right to the Church and that of I. S. It brought them into covenant when it confirmed rather a precedaneous right in both and seales of God use not to bee appointed to bee put to blankes but to the covenant and that was with Church reference as before Whence that Gen. 17. 7. 8. 11. nor was this any meere outward covenant sealed but the very covenant of saving grace as some expresse it even that I will bee a God to them or as I. S. hath it fulfill my promise to them naming Luke 1. 73 74 75. and of the nature it was on both the seedes if I may use his phrases even elect or reprobate nor was there no faith required in adultis as Abraham and proselytes Yea all sorts were thereby bound to and called upon to indeavour after faith in Christ a new heart power of godlinesse c. hence Deut. 10. 16. and Jer. 4. 4. and Rom. 2. 25. 29. and 3. 30. Nor doth circumcision as it was given to Abraham belong to another covenant but as it was given by Moses Levit. 12. 3. betweene which Christ distinguisheth John 7. 22. Nor doth the father of the families hand in circumcision when as now it is the minister of the Gospell which baptizeth argue that baptisme belongs to another Priesthood as long as both of them belonged that to the ordinary appointed Minister for this time and this to the ordinary and appointed Minister now Nor will it follow that the forementioned obliging reference had to circumcision will bring on us a yoak insufferable Acts 15. 10. unlesse wee urged circumcision it selfe in the very symbole and manner of administring of it in such sort as urged by those legalists as necessary to salvation and as a worke by which persons are to expect to bee justified Gal. 5. 3 4. which none will challenge us for nay even circumcision it selfe was not that yoake as Gods instituted seale of his covenant even dissenting brethren some of them for such I should call some of them acknowledge as much in effect but to urge it on the Gentiles or on their children as simply necessary to salvation Acts 15. 1. and adding therewith a necessitie to keepe the whole law vers 5. 24. this was that yoake vers 10. without which both the choyce Jews of old those at that time and consequently others of the Gentiles might bee saved as Peter acknowledgeth vers 11. As much may bee said to the objections made against this way of arguing from circumcision as if there may as well follow other analogies of Priests and their garments c. It followeth not unlesse wee make analogy every way parallel which we decry So when it is urged that circumcision don away in Christ is an handwriting is enmity against us is an unprofitable rudiment is a partition wall proper to the Jewes overthroweth Christian libertie is that without which wee are in Christ compleat c. and therefore not binding it is true of circumcision as urged in a legall way hence Gal. 5 1 2 3 4 5 c. and in respect of it ceremoniously considered in the proper way of administring it but if considered in the generall nature of it as an initiatory seale of the covenant of grace so it was not against them nor unprofitable c. and wee Gentiles that are compleat without circumcision in the symboll and circumstantials yet are not so without the substantials of it in baptisme which is of like nature and use so farre forth as before was proved As for the grand objection against this and against the whole doctrine of Paedobaptisme scil That we have no command for baptizing Infants as they had for circumcising of them nor have wee any example of it wee have in the former conclusions given answer thereunto and even in injoyning that initiatory seale of the covenant as made with such persons God did virtually injoyne the application of such an initiatory seale as hee should appoint to seale his covenant to persons externally in it which should bee declared to be of like nature and of like use in the maine as was shewed SECT XII ANd besides former Scriptures opened as Matth. 28. Acts 2. Gal. 3. Act. 16. 14 15 c. wherein this objection is taken off wee may adde other virtuall commands and examples thereunto When God in Acts 10. presents the present outlawry estate of the Gentiles from Covenant and Church according to Eph. 2. 11 12. but now to be eaten or such as were to bee taken into fellowship not barely civill but sacred as the issue of baptizing some of them shewed in the end of the chapter in reference to this Gospel and Covenant or cleansed estate what God hath cleansed speaking of it as already in actuall existence because as sure as if already God calling things which are not as if they were I say in reference to this estate of Gods externall owning of them at least Peter is commanded not to count them uncleane Acts 10. 15. Now to count them uncleane or prophane is to count them strangers from all Covenant-fellowship with the people of God c. All sorts of beasts little and great dogs and whelps gentiles parents and child as the Cannanitish woman and her daughter are called Mat. 7. and Mat. 15. Whom God shall cleanse are not to bee counted common If God therefore make an holy Covenant with such as wee have proved if Christ himselfe affirme such like even such babes as are of such parents and are devoted to Christ to bee of his kingdome or Church if hee take them within his jurisdiction as Prince of his people as was prophesied hee will take the outlawry Jewes c. Ezek. 37. Surely hee so farre forth cleanseth them and severeth them from the rest of the outlawry Pagan world as hee doth the Infants of inchurched beleevers as wee have proved verily the Apostles are charged not to carry it towards the cleansed creatures of this sort as if uncleane by refusing to admit them to such religious priviledged fellowship as they are outwardly capable of and consequently not to refuse them from baptisme the initiatory Seale of that fellowship So Ezek. 47. 22 23. which all will confesse and Scripture evidence will cleare hath reference to these times after Christs incarnation the strangers or proselyted Gentiles with their children where ever they are cast amongst the tribes even the Churches of the Christian Jewes in
mischiefe of restrayning baptisme to certaine times of the yeare in cold countries and sundry other sad consequencies of such a course might bee propounded but thus much for the Major The Minor of Mr. Bs. Syllogisme is weake also since some which hold paedobaptisme yet baptize by dipping therefore wee shall thus retort Mr. Bs. Syllogisme Baptisme by dipping is the baptisme of Christ but with sundry Ministers baptisme of Infants is baptisme by dipping therefore with them at least baptisme of Infants is the baptisme of Christ so contradictory are Mr. Bs. reasonings to his own principles And thus much bee spoken from the solid grounds of Scripture to that part of the controverted case touching Infants Baptismall Right PART III. CHAP. I. Sect. I. Generall consideration of the eight Propositions HAving seene before what defensive and offensive weapons the Armory of the Scripture affords us for the just vindication of the controverted Title of the little ones of inchurched visible beleevers unto the Covenant and Baptisme the initiatory seale thereof the globe of contention is againe cast by sundry and a challenge is made that laying by a little those spirituall weapons of our warfare which indeed are mighty through God to cast downe all the specious Logismes reasonings of the sonnes of men against Christ in the doctrine of his free grace and Covenant and initiatory seale thereof wee should try it out at other weapons even humane testimonies and authorities And besides other darings of us this way the Author or Authors of that Pamphlet entitled The plaine and well grounded treatise concerning Baptisme give out great words this way and even conclude the victory before the fight For my owne part I must confesse my selfe a very puny and too too unskilfull at such weapons yet I shall God willing adventure to accept the challenge and make a little tryall of their skill not doubting but when an essay shall bee made albeit by a learner there will bee some able seconds to take up the cause when I have laid it downe But to leave Prefacing and fall to worke The substance of the booke is laid downe in these eight Propositions 1 That Christ commanded his Apostles and servants of the holy Ghost first of all to preach the Gospel and make Disciples and afterwards to baptize those that were instructed in the faith in calling upon and confessing the name of God His proofs out of Scripture are Matth. 28. 19. Mark 16. 15 16. Luke 24. 45. John 4. 1 2. Acts 22. 16. This proposition might passe for the most part as current allowing a latitude in the word Disciples and understanding it of such as were baptized meerely in their owne right and taking that phrase calling upon the name of God as not alwayes the present act of the persons baptized at the instant of their baptisme but rather of the Minister baptizing nor doth the instance of Paul Act. 22. 16. prove this latter It being absurd even in adult persons to suppose it thus in that example of the Samaritan woman that they should in the open face of the Congregation when they were baptized make their personall and particular prayers Acts 8. 12. or that every one of those 3000. baptized that day Acts 2. 41. made their severall prayers for if it werâ— essentiall to the Ordinance to make such personall prayers since there is no stint how long or how much they should utter in calling upon Gods name the Apostles had need to have spoken severally to them that you must not bee long the time is short and if they had taken that paines yet many dayes would have beene needfull to such a worke It was not possible to bee dispatched that very day As for the other Scriptures they have been else-where considered The second Proposition that the Apostles and servants of the Holy Ghost have according to the Commandement of the Lord Jesus Christ first of all taught and then afterwards those that were instructed in the mysteries of the Kingdome of God were baptized upon the confession of their faith Proofes out of Scripture 1 Cor. 1. 17. How this is a Proof I see not for if hee alwayes preached before hee baptized it might easily have been replyed Yes Paul if God sent you to baptize any he sent you also to preach for you are to preach alwayes to all persons that you baptize before you doe baptize them why therefore doe you say you were not sent to baptize but to preach the Gospel since with the one you do the other The other proofs 1 Cor. 3. 6. and 4. 15. are somewhat farre fetched and strained but I will not stick there Heb. 6. 1 2. is as well applyed by Authors Calvin Beza c. as grounds of Paedobaptisme those being the heads of Catechising containing the summe of Christian Doctrin scil profession of faith and repentance of the articles of which Doctrine an account was demanded of adult Pagans and Jewes at the time of their baptisme and therefore called the Doctrine of Baptismes alluding in the plurall word to the many typicall washings in use of old among the Hebrewes or Jewes but from baptized Infants the same was called for when they were solemnely admitted to full Church Communion and declared so to bee by the Elders commending them therein to God by prayer And hence the same Doctrine is called also by the name of the Doctrine of Imposition of hands Amongst which articles of that Doctrin two are singled out as containing the rest scil the resurrection of the flesh and eternall judgement See Calvin and Beza in Locum His next proofe Heb. 10. 22. I let passe In the next proofe Acts 2. 36 38. 41. I observe how craftily the 39th Vers is left out unmentioned wherein the strength of argument on our part doth consist Acts 8. 36 37 38. and 10. 47 48. and 16. 31. to 34. But why is that example of Lydia here left out and her houshold but that it speakes too broadly that albeit the Apostles sometimes required confession of some persons which they baptized yet not alwayes of all sorts of persons as that one example witnesseth His other Scripture is that Acts 18. 8. but of all these consideration is elsewhere had This Proposition with the limitations formerly mentioned may passe supposing it not understood exclusively that such as they baptized were such therefore they baptized none other but such which is a non sequitur 3 Proposition That after the Apostles time by the ancient fathers in the primitive Church who observed and followed the Ordinance of Christ and the example of the Apostle the people were commonly first instructed in the mysteries of faith and after that they were taught they were baptized upon confession of the same This Proposition sano sensu might passe also understanding that that was the Ordinance of Christ and practise of the Apostles so farre as concernes growne persons baptisme but yet that was not all intended in the one nor practised by the
baptisme was ordained by the Apostles and thinke that the same is to be received as the placita Scholasticorum Theologorum which cannot bee proved by Scripture Here the Authors use their old art of substraction and addition His words are thus It is probable that to baptize Infants was instituted by the Apostles and yet they are not to bee condemned which doubt thereof With the same moderation many tenents of Schoole Divines are to bee received which cannot evidently be proved from the Scriptures The first speech of Erasmus is wholly left out which is crosse both to that peremptory if not impudent conclusion expressed in the 6th Proposition and this set downe in the 7th if even Erasmus his judgement bee adhered to for if it bee probable that Paedobaptisme was of Apostolicall institution then it is not so peremptorily and with such plerophory to bee asserted that it was never ordained of Christ or practised by the Apostles but is an ordinance of man And whereas it is rendred and think that the same is to bee received inter placita Scholasticorum c. there is no such connexion or expression But it is a distinct sentence With the same moderation c. many Schoole tenents are to be received c. scil they are also not to bee condemned which doubt of some Schoole tenents which are not so expresse and cleare from Scripture Hee doth not say that Baptisme of of Infants is to bee thought placitum Scholasticorum but speakes of other instances of things probable Nor doth hee speake of bare Schoole Notions which have no bottome at all in Scripture and which cannot at all bee proved from the Scripture as the Treatise saith which cannot bee proved but which cannot evidenter probari per Scripturas True it is Henry Denne hee saith that Bellarmine taxeth Erasmus with that opinion of denying childrens Baptisme but in Erasmus his preface to his Paraphrase on Matthew hee rather condemneth the carelesnesse of Priests in so much that many Christians are in respect of knowledge rather as Pagans and at best are rather in titles customes and ceremonies Christians then indeed And adviseth that children after they have been baptized and come to riper yeeres that they bee well instructed in what their sureties have promised for them and called to account how they profit thereby and whether they doe avouch and owne the promise made by their sureties and if so then at some time or other that they in the open Congregation expressing it bee then with some solemnitie approved And if they reject this motion then to be debarred the Eucharist untill they change their mind So that hee seemeth not to disallow Paedobaptisme but carelesnesse afterwards This I speake that none may bee rendred worse then they are bee they Papists or others Albeit I would not much weigh the expressions of Papists this way to whom bare Church traditions are equivalent to Scripture commands expresse or virtuall SECT IIII. THe next Author is Bullinger in his Decads expounding Matth. â—… 28. Docete omnes Gentes c. make Disciples of all Nations c. What then doth Bullinger intend baptizing Infants as not here enjoyned Nay in the place quoted in his Decades of Sermons Tom. 5. Decad. 5. Serm. 8. hee brings this as an Argument for Paedobaptisme God hath commanded to baptize all Nations and therefore Infants for these are comprehended in the words all Nations Bullinger is againe cited as a Testimony for the proofe of the second Proposition in the same place speaking upon the words of Paul 1 Cor. 1. God hath not sent mee to baptize but to preach the Gospel Hee is quoted to say This must not so slightly be understood as if hee were sent not to baptize at all but that teaching should goe before baptisme For the Lord commanded his Apostles both to preach and to administer the Sacraments Bullingers words are Non quod negaret absolutè which our present translators render this must not so sleightly bee understood Negaret is in their English not to bee understood and absolutè is in their English slightly If they had translated it simply it would have hit it but I thinke sleightly fits them indifferent well se ad baptizandum non esse missum sed quod doctrinam praeferret utrumque enim c. That clause is expounded but that teaching should goe before baptisme c. Here I want my construing booke but I will follow my translators sed quod but that doctrina teaching praeferret should go before Risum teneatis amici But if the translators had learned common rules and read the place they would have clearely discerned Bullingers meaning to bee farre wide from their purpose scil To prove rather the prioritie of the Gospel to baptisme in dignitie and excellency then in order of dispensation For besides that the common Grammer construction of that passage sed quod doctrinam praeferret will beare no sense so well as that mentioned See Bullingers Commentary on 1 Cor. 17. his words immediatly preceding also cleare the same Evangelium majus est baptismo the Gospel is more excellent then Baptisme or greater then Baptisme For Paul said the Lord sent mee not to baptize but to preach the Gospel not that hee denied it absolutely c. Sed quod doctrinam praeferret And it is yet more strange that this which Bullinger brings as his third Argument to prove Paedobaptisme to bee of God the Authors of this Pamphlet bring as a testimony to their purpose against Baptisme for Bullinger subjoynes to the words before That children are received in the Gospel doctrin they are not refused of God who therefore unlesse he were besides himselfe would exclude them from the lesse In Sacraments are considered the thing signified and the signe the former is the more excellent Infants are not excluded from that scil the Gospel the promise who will deny then the signe for truely the Sacraments of God are rather to bee esteemed by the word scil the promise then by the signe As for Bullingers expressions out of Austin contra IulianuÌ„ quoted in the 7th Proposition they prove that the Carthaginian councell did indeed ratifie Baptisme but not that it came in first by that councell Nay the testimony cited of Austin against the Donatists lib. 4. cap. 23 24. useth that as an argument that it was of Divine authoritie because not instituted by any councells And Origens testimony there cited Proposi 7. proveth it to be in his time which was 200. yeeres before that Carthage councell in the time of Innocent the first Yea Origen proveth it to bee at least a Church custome long before from the time of the Apostles Bullingers testimony in his Decads as proving the 7th Proposition scil that Paedobaptisme is an humane ordinance when in that very Sermon of his there quoted in this Treatise hee by many arguments from Scripture proveth it to be of divine authority is also abused and shamefully misconstrued and perverted
Austin Jerom and Ambrose were baptized when grown up men yea but when they better understood the point they disallow neglect of childrens Baptisme as the parents sinne as Jerom in his Epistle to Laeta and Austin frequently and so Ambrose all one for Paedobaptisme as an ordinance of God and so as counting it sinne to neglect it SECT VI. BUt to returne to our stories wee know what Origen and Austin have said what was the use of the Churches from the Apostles time as well as what was done in their time wherefore if wee had no instances of children baptized that would suffice But story will furnish us with instances of children baptized within the compasse of time wherein this Treatise presenteth us with instances Polydore Virgil in his second book of the History of England speaking of King Lucius saith that he Anno salutis 182. regni vero 13. being moved out of a love of Religion dealt with Eleutherius Bishop of Rome by letters that hee would admit him and his people by baptisme unto the number of Christians Upon which Fugatius and Damianus men of eminent pietie were sent into Britaine who baptized the King with his house and his whole people and therefore the Brittish children too unlesse no part of Lucius his people which Johannes Balaeus more fully cleareth in his booke of Brittish writers Centuria prima cap. 27. where hee reciteth the occasion why Lucius sent Eluinus and Meduinus two prime men unto Eleutherius to bee this Anno 170. according to Balaeus others say Anno 173. And Lucius sent thither the more speedily because hee heard that the name of Christians begun every where to be inlarged and that many of the Nobilitie especially at Rome together with their wives and children had sworne unto that Christian faith scil were baptized for that was that hee writ about as before wee had it that hee and his might bee reckoned amongst the number of Christians and baptisme is a solemne obligation of the party baptized unto the Christian faith Afterward when the Pagan Saxons had overrun Brittaine and Religion began to be worne out againe Gregory the first sent over Austin Anno 596. where after he had preached amongst the heathen Saxons hee baptized 1000. men women and children in a River History of Brittaine pag. 214. Inas also King of the West Saxons with his Counsell made Lawes touching the orderly living of Ministers and Infants being baptized within 30. dayes Beda hist l. 3. c. 7. Beza's hist Dr. Vsher also in his booke of the Religion of the ancient Irish cap. 5. saith that the Irish did baptize their Infants without any consecrated Chrisme and that corrupt use of Chrisme wee know was very ancient indeed And before Clodovius King of France was converted whilst hee was yet Pagan his gratious wife Cleotild daughter of the Duke of Burgoine having a sonne by him it was baptized by the same Remigius Bishop of Raines which afterward baptized him being converted as the Treatise saith at which Pagan Clodovius was at first displeased Afterward shee brought forth another sonne which by the Kings consent was in like sort baptized after which Pagan Clodovius being put to the worse by the Almaines vowed if hee got the victory he would imbrace the Christian faith to which his wife had so oft perswaded him and proving conquerour did so and was baptized by Remigius Fabian 1 par of his History c. 97. the Centurie writers give other Instances Cent. 6. cap. 6. mentioning out of Gregorius Turocensis the young sonne of Chilperick also of Theodebert borne to King Childebert as baptized as also Theodorick another child of his baptized also of a young sonne to King Egilolph baptized other instances might bee given out of Nauclerus the authors of this Treatise mention Constantines baptisme when so old but why doe they not mention also his sonne Crispus too which was baptized as well as hee by Sylvester Bishop of Rome saith Nicephorus hist Eccles l. 7. c. 23. the authors mention Clodoneus his Baptisme but not his children and Constantius but not his sons baptisme doe either discover their ignorance or guile SECT VII THe next Authors testimony to the third Proposition is that of Polydor Virgil de Inventoribus rerum li. 4. cap. 4. It was the custome in old time to baptize those for the most part which were come to their full growth apparelling them after baptisme in white which was done at Easter and Pentecost c. yea but before the old time of baptizing grown persons at Easter which was certaine hundred yeeres after Christ ere that custome began children were baptized as is confessed they were in Origens time and before by a Church custome for then it was the custome before this custome came up here mentioned to baptize children And let us heare whether Pollidor Vilgil in the very quoted place will not say as much for hee there expressing his judgement for Paedobaptisme doth quote Cyprian as speaking of it as from the beginning that albeit Infants could not make confession of their faith by reason of age yet others confession should bee instead thereof in baptisme now if that were à principio even from the beginning of the Christian Church Paedobaptisme was ancienter then this old custome and for this also Polydore there citeth Ambrose lib. 2. de vocatione gentium SECT VIII BEatus Rhenanus upon Tertullian is next who is said to write that the old custome was that those that were come to their full growth at Easter c. they leave out the word ferè almost or for that most part c. and the reasons hee gives why it was so scil because thousands of Pagans daily flocked then to the Churches then the Infants being compared to those Pagan parents and children which could conceive of what was taught them yea and those adult Pagans thus flocking in by thousands daily no wonder that it bee said that it was then the use for the most part that those who were baptized were at their full growth and adding the other causes of deferring baptisme no wonder Shamier who yet speaketh of Paedobaptisme speakes of so few children of old baptized CHAP. V. SECT I. TErtullian lib. de baptismo cited also by Mr. Blackwood more amply thus for every persons condition disposition and age the delay of baptisme is more profitable especially about little ones for what need is there if there bee need as some copies have it which Mr. B. leaveth out that sureties should bee hazzarded who by their mortalitie may faile of their promises and bee deceived with the going forward of an evill towardlinesse but herein the treatise dealeth more plainly then Mr. B. who leaveth out that saying cited in Tertullian Suffer little children to come to mee upon which hee glosseth as followeth in Mr. B. Let them come when they are young when able to bee instructed let them become Christians when they know Christ c. Ibid. for no lesse cause are
therefore nullities or no ordinances truth is no lesse truth because a weake scholler taketh unsafe mediums to confirme or prove the same Yet I adde two things 1. That the authors urged by Antipaedobaptists use like language and argument Justine calleth it new birth and saith wee bring them to the water and they are New-borne as wee are that is baptized and per hoc lavacrum remissionem peccatorum praeteritorum adipiscamur fiamus filii scientiae and that wee become the sonnes of knowledge and obtaine remission of sinnes past by baptisme c. Clemens Alexandrinus calls it a washing whereby wee wipe away our sinnes grace whereby the punishments due to our sinnes are forgiven paedag l. 1. Gregory Nazianzen calls it baptisme because sinne is buried in the water so he calls it the key of heaven the casting away of the flesh the loosing of our bonds the taking away of slavery c. in his 40. orat de baptismo So Basil yea these authors use like grounds for baptisme Justine useth that from the necessitie of it from John 3. 5. and this hee speaking of baptisme addes Rationem ejus rei hanc accepimus ab Apostolis Quoniam prima nativitas c. Wee have received from the Apostles this as a reason of this thing because that our first nativity scil native corruption commeth upon us neither knowing nor willing it from the fellowship of our parents and from their seed c. Justine and those with him lived not in the Apostles times yet he received this he saith from them that is delivered by them to others after them and from those others to them And what reason is that delivered thus as a ground of baptisme even that native estate of children in their parents What is this but in effect what the author of those homilies on the Romans urgeth speaking of Davids being conceived in sinne c. Propter hoc ecclesia traditionem ab apostolis accepit parvulis baptismum dare c. and the same is used by Origen hom 14. on Luke by Cyprian Epistle ad Fidum by Austin Jerom Ambrose The same used by Gregory orat de baptismo thou scil art to hast to baptisme as being in danger if not more but from hence being borne onely in corruption or in sinne The same urgeth the Milevitan Councell Tertullian de baptismo urgeth John 3. 5. for baptisme also So as Austin and others urge it upon the ground of danger to unbaptized persons so doth Gregory Nazianzen orat 40. not to stay to Christs yeares because of danger of mortality Yea better Infants bee sealed without sense thereof then die without the seale And hee also as well as Austin makes the case of Infants dying without baptisme to bee punished with paena damni albeit not with paena sensus ibid. Basil in his exhortation to hast to baptisme useth the same argument taken from the danger of death without baptisme yet in them any naevi in this way are overlooked and their testimonies not therefore invalid 2 I say that albeit that Austin and others for Paedobaptisme used some unsafe grounds yet others they used were to us solid as that from circumcision l. 4. cont Donat. c. 23 24. and Epist 108. Seleucianae l. 2. de peccat merit remiss c. 25. that of their parents faith whence notwithstanding want of faith in themselves it became a beneficial ordinance Serm. 14. upon verb. Apostoli that of their interest in the Covenant which Christ came to fulfill in the flesh hence that in the Epistle of the Carthaginian Councell in Austins time unto Innocent the first Nos quia credimus parvulos in peccato nasci c. praeterea quia credimus filium dei pure ex illibata virgine natum ad implendas confirmandasque dei promissiones quae Infantes non excludant a salute sed in faedere includunt deo eos baptizandos esse contendimus This that I have here recited may serve further to evince the guile of the treatise quoting this Epistle Proposition 7. adding the words much rather thus but much rather includeth Infants which is manifest injury likewise it appeares by * Lib. de Bap. ad finem Tertullians answer in way of glosse upon Matth. 19. 13 14. Let them come to mee c. that that was of old held forth as a ground of Paedobaptisme In a word the command mind and institution of Christ and his Apostles was also held out of old by Austin and others as the ground thereof which they meane when they say the Church received it from the Apostles Homil. in Rom. 5. Austin contr Donat. lib. 4. cap. 23 24. Milevitan Councel Can. 2. and Austin de Genesi ad literam lib. 10. cap. 23. saith else it were not to bee credited or received if it were not an Apostolicall tradition So hee saith againe in his third Epistle ad Volus Therefore then they baptized persons because to them it was an Apostolicall Tradition That is it which was without all doubt delivered by the Lord and by his Apostles As Austin further openeth himselfe lib de pec merit remiss cap. 26. Charitie then I think should over looke other their more unsound tenents or arguments touching Paedobaptisme But to return to Cyprians Epistle and adde one word more for Mr. B. and others satisfaction Let him looke upon Erasmus his owne edition of Cyprian Anno 1541. and hee shall see that Erasmus who was very Eagle eyed to espy spurious writings or passages of the Ancients and there excepteth against many things going under Cyprians name yet no word of his against Cyprians 59. Epist ad Fidum No more doth Mr. Perkins in his Problemes nor Rivet in his sacred Critick nor any critick which they quote except against it And here I might end these Annotations upon the 7th Proposition in this Treatise SECT IIII. BUt I meet with an old Threadbare objection to the same purpose as if Paedobaptisme was first ordained by Higinus Bishop of Rome who lived about the yeare 1444. but all I can find in Authors is a certaine decree ascribed to him at least that Infants comming to Baptisme need not have but one god-father or god-mother as they call them And so much witnesseth Fasciculus Temporum and Nauclerus vol. 1. Generat 6. besides what I find quoted out of Gratian but none say that he first ordained that children should bee baptized A like Decretall is ascribed to Vrban Bishop of Rome touching Childrens confirmation about the yeere 227. Nauclerus but not of their Baptisme yet if they made any such Canons it rather confirmes what wee say then weakneth our cause scil That Infants baptisme was in those times of use in Rome and elsewhere why else any orders about their Susceptors or their Confirmations CHAP. IX THe Treatise hath but one lie more to shake out of its Budget and it 's a merry one if I may so call it if the Reader spare a little more patience hee shall heare