he might sanctifie every age so that here Irenaeus speakes not of being borne againe by Baptisme for it is said who are borne againe by him that is by Christ. Not as if he had baptized infants but because he was an infant that by the example or vertue of his age he might sanctifie infants as the whole context will shew which is this Magister ergo existens Magistri quoque habebat aetatem non reprobans nec supergrediens hominem neque solvens suam legâ—m in se humani generis sed omnemâ—tatem sanctificans per illam quae ad ipsum erat similitudinem Omnes enim venit per seipsum salvare omnes inquam qui per eum renascuntur in Deum Infantes parvulos pueros juvenes seniores Ideo per omnem venit aetatem infantibus infans factus sanctificans infantes in parvuliâ— parvuluâ— sanctificans hanc ipsam habentes aetatem simul exemplum illis pietatis effectus justitiae subjectionis In Iuvenibus Iuvenis exemplum Iuvenibus fiens Sanctificans Domino sic et senior in senioribus ut sit perfectus Magister non solum secundum expositionem veritatis sed secundum aetatem sanctificans simul seniores exemplum ipsis quoque fiens deinde usque ad mortem pervenit ut sit primogenitus ex mortuis ipse primatum tenens in omnibus princeps vitae prior omnium et praecedens omnes Which he confirmes by the testimony of Iohn the Apostle from whom he saith those that conversed with him related that Christ lived about fifty yeares which all sorts of writers doe reckon among Irenaeus his blemishes and thereby shew how little credit is to be given to the too much entertained Apostolicall traditions THe next Greeke Author is Origen who you say lived in the beginning of the third Century Perkins and Vsher place him at the yeare 230. but for his works as of old they were counted full of errours and dangerous to be reade so as now they are we can hardly tell in some of them what is Origens What not for the originall being lost we have only the Latine translation which being performed in many of his works and particularly the Homilies on Leviticus and the Epistle to the Romanes by Ruffinus it appeares by his owne confâ—ssion that he added many things of his own insomuch that Erasmus in his censure of the Homilies on Leviticus saith that a man cannot be certaine whether he reades Ruffinus or Origen and Perkins puts among Origens Counterfeit works his Comentary on the Epistle to the Romans as being not faithfully translated by Ruffinus the like is the judgement of Rivet and others and I suppose did you reade the passages themselves you cite and consider how they are brought in and how plaine the expressions are against the Pelagians you would quickly conceive that those passages were put in after the Pelagien heresie was confuted by Hierom and Augustine who often tells us that the Fathers afore that controversie arose did not speake plainly against the Pelagiens and of all others Origen is most taxed as Pelagianizing Wherefore Vossius in the place aforenamed though he cite him for company yet addes sed de Origene minus laborabimus quia quae citabamus Graece non extant But what saith the supposed Origen In one place that the Church received this tradition of baptizing infants from the Apostles in another according to the observance of the Church baptisme is granted to infants you adde as foreseeing that this passage would prove that then it was held but a tradition that then the greatest points of faith were ordinarily called traditions received from the Apostles and you cite 2 Thes. 2.15 To which I reply true it is that they did call the greatest points of faith though written traditions Apostolicall as conceiving they might best learne what to hold in points of faith from the Bishops of those Churches where the Apostles preached and therefore in prescriptions against Heretickes Tertullian Irenaeus and others direct persons to go to the Churches where the Apostles sate specially the Romane Church which seemes to have beene the seed of Appeals to Rome and the ground of the conceit which was had of the Popes unerring Chaire But it is tâ—ue also they called Apostolicall traditions any thing though unwriâ—ten which was reported to have come from the Apostles as the time of keeping Easter and many more which was the fountaine of all corruptions in discipline and worship And that in those places you cite is meant an unwritten tradition not only the not citing any Scripture for Baptizing of Infants but also the very Phrases Pro hoc et Ecclesia ab Apostolis traditionem suscepit Secundum Ecclesiae observantiam are sufficient proofe to them who are acquainted with the Ancients writings of those times So that yet you have not proved that the baptisme of Infants was time out of minde that it had beene received in the Church or was delivered over to the Church in Origens time and was of ancient use in the Church afore his time But these passages prove that in the time when the framer of those passages wrote it was accounted but an Apostolicall tradition according to the observance of the Church Like speeches to which are found in Pseudo-Dyonisius in the end of his Hierachy and Augustin lib. 10. de Genesi ad literam c. 23. and elsewhere which argue that it was held as an Ecclesiasticall tradition in those times THe fourth and last of the Greeke Church you name is Gregory Nazianzen who is by Perkins placed at the yeare 380. by Vsher 370. much short of 1500 yeares and upwards you say that Orat. 40. in Baptismum he calls baptisme signaculum vita cursum in euntibus and commands Children to be baptized though afterwards he seemed to restraine it to the case of necessity But doth he seeme onely to restraine it to the case of necessity the words are plaine that he gives the reason why Infants in danger of death should be baptized 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that they might not misse of the common grace but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he gives his opinion of others that they should stay longer that they might be instructed and so their minds and bodyes might be Sanctified and these are all you bring of the Greek Church By the examination of which you may perceive how well you have proved that it is manifest out of most of the Records that we have of antiquitie both in the Greeke and Latine Church that the Christian Church hath beene in possession of the priviledge of baptizing the infants of beleivers for the space of 1500. yeares and upwards Whereas the highest is but a bastard Treatise and yet comes not so high if it were genuine the next without a glosse which agrees not with the text speakes nothing to the purpose the third is of very doubtfull credit the fourth which was
to that which the Apostle asserts that we are compleat in Christ alone because in him is the fulnesse of all that was shadowed in the ordinances of the Jews 2. It is very dangerous because the same reason that will conclude that we are not compleat without a succession of some ordinance in stead of Circumcision will conclude we are not compleat without a succession of something in stead of sacrifices Temple Priest Altar c. and so after the Popish manner all Jewish Rites may be reduced under new names which would overthrow Christianitie As for our compleatnesse in Christ without outward ordinances like to the Jewes I distinguish of a twofold compleatnesse First in all the will of God Colos. 4.12 And thus we are compleat without such ordinances we may do all the will of God believing in Christ without observing any of those ordinances Secondly of means in ordine ad finem in order to the end that is to the knowledge of God and obtaining salvation And so we are more compleat then the Jews without those outward ordinances or any answerable to them First because they had Christ only promised and assured we have â—hrist exhibited and fulfilling all things And surely they that have a promise accomplished are compleater then they that have it only assured let it be assured never so firmly Secondly because they had Christ under shadows we the body Colos. 2.17 he is the true Shecinah or Divine Majesty in whom the fulnesse of the glory of God dwelt Col. 2.9 he was circumcision sacrifices all And the woman is more compleat that enjoyes her husband in person then in a picture messenger c. that represent him The Jews were compleat in Christ as we quoad rem in respect of the thing but not quoad modum mensuram rei in respect of the manner and measure thereof So that in the Argument these Propositions are to be denied 1. That Colos. 2.11 12. speaks of compleatnesse with respect to Ordinances in the new Testament 2. That it could not be true unlesse Baptisme were to Believers children as Circumcision was of old 3. That Colos. 2.11 12. cannot be understood of the compleatnesse that Believers have in Christ for salvation 4. In some sense it is to be denied that the Jews had a token of the Covenant to their children 5. In what sense it is to be granted that the Jews had a token of the Covenant to their children in that sense the consequence is to be denied that we must have a token of the Covenant of Grace for our children now FINIS Latin passages Enâ—lished in the second Treatise PArt 1. pag. 2. Achilles the champion of the Greeks proverbially put for the strongest argument Pag. 5. Christ came to save by himself all all I say who by him are born again unto God infants and little ones and boyes Pag. 6. That Baptisme is undeâ—stood under the name of new-birth in our Lords and the Apostles phrase openly confirming the Apostolique tradition of the baptisme of little infants against Anabaptisticall impiety Onely I would have the younger who shall light on the works of Irenaeusâ—dmonished â—dmonished that they beware of those editions which that most impudent Monke Feuardentius a man of large boldnesse and of no faith hath foully corrupted in many things and bespattered with impious and lying annotations Are born again Therefore being a master he had also the age of a master not rejecting nor going beyond a man nor loosing the law of humane kind in himself but sanctifying every age by that likenesse which was to him For he came to save all men by himself all men I say who by him are new born unto Gâ—d infants and little ones and boyes and young men and elder men Therefore he went through every age and was made an infant sanctifying infants among little ones a little one sanctifying them that have this age being also made an example to them of piety and justice and subjection Among young men being made an example to young men and sanctifying them to the Lord so also an elder to the elder that he might be a perfect mâ—ster not onely according to the exposition of the truth but also according to age sanctifying also the elder being made also an example to them And then he went even unto death that he might be the first-bâ—rn from the dead holding the primacy in all things the Prince of life before all and preceding all Pag. 7. But we shall the lesse trouble our selves concerning Origen because the things we cited are not extant in Greek In the margin If therefore any man before Pelagius was born or before Arius arose be shaâ—p and vehement against the errours of Pelagians and vexing them professedly although the name of the heretiques be suppressed it is not probable that such a writing is the Authors whose name it 〈…〉 Pag. 8. For this also the Church hath received a tradition from the Apâ—stles and according to the observance of the Church The seal to them that enter into a course of life In the margin Notwithstanding the custome of our mother the Church in baptizing little ones is not to be despised nor by any means to be accounted superfluous nor at all to be beleeved unlesse it had been an Apostolicall tradition Pag. 11. That infants are presently to be baptized that they perish not because mercy is not to be denyed them Pag. 13. Lest little ones should perish if they should die without the remedie of the grace of regeneration they determined that they were to be baptized for the remission of sins Which also St. Augustine shews in his book of the baptisme of little ones and the African Councels witnesse and many documents of other Fathers But the father or mother ought not to stand for their own childe at the Font that there may be a difference between spirituall begetting and carnall But if it happen by chance they shall have after that no fellâ—wship of carnall copulation who have undertaken the spirituall bond of co-fatherhood in a common son What say you to these things Lo I have not brought out of Augustine but out of the Gospel which sith ye say ye chiefly beleeve either yeeld ye at length that by the faith of others others may be saved or deny if ye can those things which I have laid down to be of the Gospel Pag. 14. in the margin And I was signed with the signe of his crosse and I was seasoned with his salt from the wombe of my mother who much hoped in thee Pag. 15. in the margin Augustine adjudgeth to eternall flames the Infants that die without baptisme Likewise whosoever shall say that even the little ones shall be made alive in Christ who go out of this life without the participation of his Sacrament he truly goeth both against the Apostles preaching and condemns the whole Churcb The most strong and founded faith in which the Church of Christ beleeves that no not
2. 38 39. Luk 19.9 Annot. on the Bible edit 1645. on Acts 2.36 The promise is unto you Christ is promised both to Iewes and Gentiles but the Iewes had the first place §. 7. Of the text Rom. 11.16 So also the new Annot. on Rom. 11.16 Arminius l. 1. Antiperk p 3. Sect. 6. Infantes in parentibuâ— avis abavis atavis tritavis Evangelii gratiam repudiarunt quo actu meruerunt ut a Deo desererentur velim enim mihi c. Perpetua enim est foederis Dei ratio quod filii in parentibâ—â— comprehendantur censeantur Cui opponit Tuissus ibidem Nec us piam in sacris literis significatur Deum ejusmodi foedus cum homine lapso pepigisse ut si crederet adipisceretur gratiam sibi posteris contra si non crederet sibi posteris suis gratiam amitteret cujusmodifoedus sub conditione obedientiae cum Adamo initum fuisse omnes Theologi agnoscunt §. 8. Of the Text 1 Cor. 7.14 Tertul. lib. 2. ad uxorem cap. 3. Fideles Gentilium matrimonia subcuntes stupri reos esse constat arcendos ab omni communicatione fraternitatis ex literis Apostoli dicentis cum ejusmodi nâ—c cibum sumendum Grot. annot in Mat. 19 5. nulla autem arctior amiâ—itia quaÌ„ mariti uxoris quae communionem requirit affectuum corporis prolis vitae denique totius quam rem esse vere sacram id est non humaniâ—us sed divinitus repertam magno consensu gâ—ntes â—â—ed derunt Grâ—t annot in Maâ— 5.8 So ent pro eodem usurpari 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 §. 9. Of the succession of Baptisme into the place room and use of Circumcision §. 10 Of the notion under which the reasons for which persons were circumcised shewing that all persons that were circumcised were not in the covenant of Grace §. 11. Of the priviledges of Believers under the Gospel and whether the want of Infant-Baptisme be want of a priviledge of the covenant of Grace which the Jews had §. 12. That the command to circumcise male Infants is not virtually a command to baptize Infants §. 13. That Mat. 28. is not a Command to baptize Infants but contrary to it Master Balâ—y A diswasion from the error of the times ch 8. p. 175. argues from this very text in like manner to prove that only Ministers have power to preach the Word ordinarily §. 14. Of examples in Scripture of Infants Baptisme particularly of baptizing of housholds §. 15. Of an infants capacity of inward grace the Text Mat. 19.14 and of the inconsequence of Paedobaptisme thereon Grot. annot ad Mat. 9.18 notum erat Judaeis solere Deum Prophetis hunc exhibere honorem ut in alios dona sua conferret ad prophetarum preces quarum symbolum erat manuum impositio Ad Mat. 19.13 pro pueris etiam eo ritu preces concipi solitas manifestum est ex Gen. 48.14 15. Exinde Hebraeis semper observatum ut ad eos qui sanctimonia praestare caeteris crederentur pucros deserrent ipsorum precibus Deo commendandos 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 qui mos bodie apud ipsos manet Hunc autem morem Christus probans ostendit isti etiam aetati prâ—desse aliorum fidem ac preces §. 1. Of the first objectioÌ„ from institution Mat. 28.19 and the practise of John Baptist and the Apostles Cotton in his way of the Churches of Christ in New-England Chap 4. sect 6. And indeed the Commission which Christ gave his Apostles holdeth it forth that they were by preaching to make disciples before they baptized them and their children Mat. 28.19 Now a disciple is a Scholler in Christs schoole and therefore when the Apostles were directed to make disciples before they did baptize them they were not onely to coÌ„vert them to the faith but also to gather them as disciples or schollers into a schoole of Christ. Cotton The way of the Churches of Christ in New-England Chap. 1. sect 1. prop. 4. In the times of John the Baptist such as were received into baptisme they did first make confession of their sins and therewith of their repentance and of their faith also in him who was to come after him Mat. 3.13 Act. 19.4 5. And in the times of the Apostles Philip received â—he Eunuch unto baptisme not untill he had made professioÌ„ of his faith in Christ Jesus Act 8.37 Cham. Panstr Cath. tom 4. l. 5. c. 15. §. 19. Hiritus omnes professionis fidei c. ab ipsae baptismi institutione habuerunt originem nec debeÌ„t omitti tantum proaetatis ratione dispensari §. 2. Of the second objection and therein of the condition prerequisite to Baptisme Videatur Chamierus Panstr Cath. tom 4. li. 5. c. 15. Grot. annot on Mat. 28.19 §. 3. Of the third so called objection and therein of the knowledge requisite concerning the person to be baptized §. 4. Of the fourth Objection therein of the stipulation of Baptisme Cotton The way of the Churches of Christ in New-England ch 4. Sect. 5. The Word of God receiveth none to the fellowship of the seals of the covenant but such as professe their takâ—ng hold of the covenant §. 5. Of the fifth Objection and therein of the benefit that comes by Infant-Baptismâ— Dr. Twisse The doctrine of the Synod of Dort Arles c Part 2. § 3. p. 121. I willingly confesse that the Sacrament of Baptisme is the seale of the righteousnesse of faith unto us Christians as Circumcision was unâ—o the Jews Rom. 4. which is as much aâ— to say that it assures us of the remission of our sins as many as believe and I conceive it to be a visible signe of invisible grace and that not of justification only unto them that believe but of the grace of regeneration also but how not at that instant collatae but suo tempore conferendâ— to wit when God shall effectually call a man and it is very strange unto me that regeneration should go before vocation Sâ—e more to the same purpose in the same Author part 3. §. 6. §. 6. Of the sixth objection and therein of Infant-coÌ„munion by vertue of their being in the Covenant the Lords Supper succâ—eding the Passeover Cotton The way of the Churches of Christ in New-England Chap. 1. sect 2. To the Passeover all Jewes were admitted young and old unlesse defiled with some pollution §. 7. Of the first use and the Anabaptists supposed bloudy sentence §. 8. The Epilogue containing some expressions and motions of the Author Mr Stalhams Epistle before a Conference at Terling in Essex
remissione ad Marcellinum in which he maintains baptisme of Infants and Infant-communion as necessary to salvation and the certainty of regeneration and salvation to Infants that are baptized and receive the Lords supper So that the same answer is to be given concerning Hierom which is to be given concerning Augustine The last you alleadge is Ambrose who lived about the same time though he be placed some yeares before Augustine and Hierom And it is confessed that he was of the same judgement and many other of thâ— Ancients of the same time and in after-ages but nothing comparable to those already named and therefore adding no more weight to the cause NOw these you say you relate not to prove the truth of the thing but only the practise of it It is well you added this that you might disclaime the validity of these tâ—stimonies for proof for the truth is they rather prove the thing to be an error than a truth which was held upon such erroneous ground as they taught and practised it to wit the necessity of Baptisme to salvation Joh. 3.5 The certainty of remission of originall sin by baptisme The denying of Gods grace to none And the perishing of those to whom Baptisme was not given Whether you have any better pâ—oofs I shall consider hereafter in the mean time this I adde 1. That concerning the practise your testimonies prove not that it was in practise buâ— in case of supposed nâ—cessity 2. That there was still in use a constant course of baptizing not only the converted from infidelity but also the grown children of professed believers when they were at full age 3. That they did alike conceive a necessâ—ry of and accordingly practise the giving of the Lords supper to Infants 4. That they made no distinction between the Infants of believers and unbelievers being brought to them 5. That your ancientest testimonie for practise according to any Rule determined is Cyprian neer 300 yeeres after Christ. 6. Lastly there are many evidences that do as strongly prove as proofs are usually taken in such matters That it was not so from the beginning As particularly 1. The continued propounding of the ordinary questions even to Infants concerning their faith repentance and obedience afore they were baptized which in the School-men was still held necessary and therefore Sureties thought necessary to answer for them yea even in Reformed Churches unto this day which as it was conceived by Strabo and Vives in his Comment on Aug. lib. 1. de civit Dei c. 27. a cleare evidence so I conceive any reasonable man will think it to be a manifest proof that at first none were baptized but such as understood the faith of Christ. 2 The examples before mentioned of the baptizing Gregory Nazianzen Chrysostom Augustine Constantine the great c. being children of professors of Christianity is a manifest proof they did not then baptize Infants ordinarily but extraordinarily in case of necessity 3. Specially if we joyn hereto the disswasions of Tertullian and Gregory Nazianzen forementioned 4. The plain testimony of the Councel of Neo-Caesarea agaiâ—st it before mentioned 5. The silence of the chiefe writers Eusebius c. concerning it 6. The many passages in Augustine and others referring it only to Apostolicall tradition and that usually proved by no higher testimony than Cyprian that brought in upon erroneous grounds is a strong evidence it came not from the Apostles To all which I may add the testimony of Hugo Grotius before recited concerning the Greek Church the testimony of Ludovicus Vives Comment in August de civit Dei l. 1. c. 27. affirming that he heard the old use continued in some Cities of Italy of not baptizing till the party baptized did desire it Which it seems Bellarmine an Italian when he mentions that speech of Vives did not deny More testimonies and â—vidences might be brought out of sundry authors but these are enough to me and I think to any that search into Antiquity to prove that the custome of baptizing Infants was not from the beginning and therâ—fore is but an Innovation especially that your tenet and practise accordingly is a very late innovation That Baptisme is to be given to Infants of Believers only because of supposed Covenant-holinesse not elder then Zuinglius and so not much above one hundred yeares old so far as I can find Antipaedobaptisme hath no ill influence on Church or Common-wealth PART II. Concerning the prejudices against Antipaedobaptists from their miscarriages HAving examined the first part of that you produce for baptizing of infants I proceede to the second taken from the noveltie and miscarriages of the opposers of it And here I wish you had remembred the order of the Areopagites mentioned by Smectymnuus that in pleading causes before them prefaces should be avoyded as tending to create prejudice in the Judges For to what end serves this your Narration of your adversaries but to beget an Odium hatred or prejudice at least in your Auditors which if it had come after other arguments might have been more excusable but placed as it is neither suites with serenity of minde fit for judging in you or your Auditors Unto which give me leave to adde that the courses taken by too many as namely by the Author of the Frontispice to Doctor Featlies booke which is light and immodest by Mr. Edwards in his prejudices agâ—inst the persons of his opposites as that none that ever maintained Antipaedobaptisme lived and died with repute in the Church of God the historie of the Anabaptists the Anabaptists Catechisme with the invectives against this as an heresie everting the Fundamentals as leading into all heresie over-throwing all government used in Sermons every where to make Antipaedobaptists odious and to forestall men with prejudice though for the present they serve like Medusaes head to astonish men specially the more unlearned yet are they not right courses but Artifices serving only to prevent impartiall discussing of things which is necessary that truth may appeare and perhaps when truth shâ—ll appeare will returne on the head of the Authors of â—hem But I resolve to follow your steps YOu begin thus And indeed although some in those times questioned as Augustine grants in his Sermons de verbis Apostol yet the first that ever made a head against it or a division in the Church about it was Baltazar Pacommitanus in Germany in Luthers time about the yeare 1527. You say in those times some questioned as August grants in his Sermons de verbis Apostol But you doe not tell us who those some were nor in which Sermons which might have been requisite for your Reader Upon search I finde the 14. Sermon De verbis Apostol om 10. intituled de baptismo parvulorum contra Pelagianos but it is plaine out of that Sermon and out of Augustines bookes of Heresies ad Quod vult Deum Tom. 6. Heres 88. and else where that the Pelagians did
inseâ—tatione et perditione digni videantur How unlike is Mr. Vines his speech to the Lord Mâ—jor City of London to these words of Cassander a Papist to the D. of Clevâ—â—â—â—pist â—â—pist And for those in these dayes that deny or question Paedo-baptisme as I know them not or very few of them so I cannot say what they do or hold as being not privy to their tenets or proceedings onely undeâ—standing by one of your assembly that there was a little book puâ— forth intitled the compassionate Samaritane upon perusall I found that that Author who ever he were accounts it a calumny to charge thâ— Anabaptists with opposing Magistracy But concerning this the confession of faith lately put forth in the name of 7 Churches of them Artic. 48 49. will give best information But if you meane not this but some other error depending on the opinion of Antipaedobaptisme when I meete with them in your Sermon I shall in their proper place consider whether they do depend on it or no and for the opinion it selfe I say if it be not truth the spreading of it is unhappy if it be truth the more it spreads the more happy it is for the Kingdome YOu say further And so the worke of reformation without Gods mercy likely to be much hindered by it Sir you now touch upon a very tender point in which it concerned you and it in like mannâ—r concernes me and all that have any love to Iesus Christ or his people to be very considerate in what we say I have entred into Covenant to endeavour a reformation as well as you and though I have not had the happines as indeed wanting ability to be imployed in that eminent manner you have beene in the promoting of it in which I rejoyce yet have I in my affâ—ctions sincerely dâ—sired it in my intentions truely aimed at it in my prayers heaâ—tily sought it in my studies constantly minded it in my indeavours seriously prosecuted it for the promoting of it greatly suffered as having as deepe in interest in it as other men Now bâ—gging this Postulatum or demand that Paedobaptisme is a corruption of Christs institution which upon the reading of my answer and the 12 reasons of my doubts formerly mentioned will appeare not to be a mere Petitio principii begging that which is to be proved I say this being granted I humbly conceive that Paedobaptisme is a Mother-Corruption that hath in her wombe most of those abuses in discipline and manners and some of those errors in doctrine that doe dâ—file the reformed Churches and therefore that the reformation will be so far from being hindred by removing it that indeed it is the only way to further reformation to begin in a regular way at the purging of that ordinance of Iesus Christ to wit Baptisme without which experience shewes how insufficient after-Catechizing Excommunication Confirmation Vnio reformata solemne Covenant Separation the New Church-Covenant invented or used to supply the want of it are to heale the great abuses about the admitting visible professors into the priviledge of the Church from whence spring a great part if not all the abuses in discipline receiving the Lords Supper and manners of Christian people And therefore I earnestly beseech in the bowels of Iesus Christ both you and all others that ingage themselves for God to take this matter into deepe consideration I am sensible how inconsiderable a person I am and how inconsiderable a number there be that are affâ—cted with this motion I do consider how much against the streame of the Râ—formed Churches such a reformation would be Yet when I consider how far fetched the reasons for Paedobaptisme are how cleare the institution of Christ is against it how happily truthes opposed with as much pâ—â—jâ—dice as this have beene in processe of time vindicâ—ted of whaâ— moment the knowledge of this point is to every conscience how exact a râ—formation our solemne Covenant binds us to endeavour I do not despaire but that this truth also may take place upon second thoughts â—here it hath beene rejected at the first nor doe I doubt buâ— in time Gods people will consider what an influence baptisme had of old into the comfort and obligation of conscienâ—es and how litâ—le it hâ—th now And truely Sir though it may be but my weaknes yet I suppose it can doe you no hurt to tell it I feare you want much of that blessing which was hoped for by your Assembly in that you do waste so much time about inconsiderable things comparatively and hastily passe over or exclude from examination this which deserves most to be examined but rather seeke to stop the bringing of it to any tryall But having told you thus much I follow you in your Sermon You say I shall God-willing handle this question more largely then I have done any other in this place and the rather because of three other great mischeifes which go along with it First I see that all that reject the baptizing of Infants do must upon the same grounds reject the religious observation of the Lords day or the Christian Sabbath viz. because there is not say they an expresse institution or command in the New Testament Give me leave to take up the words of him in the Poet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 What a word hath gotten out of the hedge of your teeth They doe They must Though I doubt not of your will yet I see you want some skil in pleading for the Lords day that others have the truth is that it is neither so nor so They neither doe nor must reject upon the same ground the Lords day That they doe not I can speake for one and your owne words delivered after with more caution Verily I have hardly either knowne or read or heard intimate that though few yet you cannot say but you have heard or read or knowne of some that have not with baptizing of Infants rejected the Lords day but you have I presume heard or read of whole and those reformed Churches that have upon such a ground rejected the Lords day as not of divine institution who yet are zealous for paedobaptisme Nor must they And to make that good let us consider their ground as you mention it Their ground you say is because there is not an expresse institution or command in the New Testament this then is their principle that what hath not an expresse institution or command in the New Testament is to be rejected But give me leave to tell you that you leave out two explications that are needefull to be taken in First that when they say so they meane it of positive instituted worship consisting in outward rites such as Circumcision Baptisme and the Lords Supper are which have nothing morall or naturall in them but are in whole and in part Ceremoniall For that which is naturall or morall in worship they allow an institution or command in the old Testament as obligatory
to Christians and such doe they conceive a Sabbath to be as being of the Law of nature that outward worship being due to God dayes are due to God to that end and therefore even in Paradise appointed from the creation and in all nations in all ages observed enough to prove so much to be of the Law of nature and therefore the fourth Commandement justly put amongst the Morals and if a seventh day indefinitely be commanded there as some of your Assembly have indeavourd to make good I shall not gainsay though in that point of the quota pars temporis which is moral I do yet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 suspend my judgement Now Circumcision hath nothing moral in it it is meerely positive neither from the beginning nor observed by all nations in all ages nor in the Decalogue and therefore a Sabbath may stand though it fall 2. The other explication is that when they require expresse institution or command in the New Testament they doe not meane that in positive worship there must be a command totidem verbis in so many words in forme of a precepâ— but they conceive that Apostolicall example which hath not a meere temporary reason is enough to prove an institution from God to which that practise doth relate And in this after some evidences in the Scripture of the New Testament they ascribe much to the constant practise of the Church in all ages Now then if it be considered that when Paul was at Troas Acts. 20.7 the Disciples came together to breake bread and Paul preached upon the first day of the weeke and Paul 1 Cor. 16.1.2 as he had appointed in the Churches of Galatia so he appoints at Corinth collections for the poore the first day of the week Revel 1.10 it hath the Elogium or title of the Lords day and it was so Sacred among Christians that it was made the question of inquisitors of Christianity Dominicum servasti Hast thou kept the Lords day to which was answered Christianus sum intermittere non possum I am a Christian I may not omit it it is cleare evidence to me that either Christ or the Apostles having abrogated the old Sabbath Col. 2.16 subrogated the first day of the weeke instead of it Now if a moity of this could be brought for Paedobaptisme in the stead of Circumcision of infants I should subscribe to it with you But Paedobaptisme not consisting with the order of Christ in the institution being contrary to the usage of it by John the Baptist the Apostles there being no foote-steps of it till the erroneous conceit grew of giving Gods grace by it and the necessity of it to save an infant from perishing some hundreds of yeares after Christs incarnation I dare not assent to the practise of it upon a supposed analogy equity or reason of the rule of Circumcision and imaginary confederation with the beleiving parent in the Covenant of grace For to me it is a dangerous principle upon which they go that so argue to wit that in meere positive things such as Circumcision and Baptism are we may frame an addition to Gods worship from analogy or resemblance conceived by us betweene two ordinances whereof one is quite taken away without any institution gathered by precept or Apostolicall example For if we may doe it in one thing why not in a nother where shall we stay They that read the Popish expositors of their Rituals doe know that this very principle hath brought in Surplice Purification of women c. that I mention not greater matters I desire any learned man to set me downe a rule from Gods Word how far I may go in my conceived parity of reason equity or analogy and where I must stay when it will be superstition and will worship when not when my conscience may be satisfied when noâ— That which Christ and his Apostles have taken from the Jewes and appointed to us we receive as they have appointed buâ— if any other man if a Pope or Occumenicall Councel take upon them to appoint to mens Consciences any rite in whole or in part upon his owne conceived reason from supposed analogy with the Jewish ceremonies it is an high presumption in such against Christ and against the Apostles command to yeeld to it Col. 2.20 though it hath a shew of wisedome v. 23 And the Apostles example Gal. 2.3.4 5. binds us to oppose it when it is likely to bring us into bondage And for the other pillar upon which at this day paedobaptisme is built it is to me very dangerous viz. That the Covenant of Evangelicall grace is made to beleivers and their seede that the children are confederates with the Parents in the Covenant of grace Which without such restrictions or explications as agree not with the common use of the words which in the plaine sense import this that God in his Covenant of grace by Christ hath promised not only to justifie and save beleiving Parents but also their children is in my apprehension plainly against the Apostles determination Rom. 9.6 7 8. makes an addition to the Gospell mentioned Gal. 3.8 9. and drawes with it many dangerous consequences which I abhorre You adde Now God hath so blessed the religious observation of the Lords day in this Kingdome above other Churches and Kingdomes that such as indeavour to overthrow it deserve justly to be abhorred by us Upon occasion of which passage I only desire to intimate to you that from happy events it s not safe to conclude that a thing pleaseth God You know it is the way the Monks and Prelates use to inferre that their institution is of God because their Orders have yeelded so many pious Confessors Martyrs and Saints it too much countenanceth the way of arguing for Independency by which it hath prevailed in Letters from abroad and suggestions at home still harping on this string that it is the way of God because they that are in that way thrive grow more spirituall then others And if this arguing be good It prospers therefore it pleaseth God then it will follow on the contrary It prospers not therefore it pleaseth not God And if so we might inferre Infant baptisme is of men not of God sith if conscience and experience may speake there are but few Christians that have tasted the sweete comfort of their baptisme as Mr. Shepard in his Epistle before Philips vind of infant-bap The other note is this that when you say that such as indeavour to overthrow the religious observation of the Lords day deserve justly to be abhorred by us it must be taken cum grano salis with cauâ—ion of such as doe it against cleare light with a malitious spirit Otherwise your words reach to forraigne reformed Churches their teachers yea in a sort to your selfe who may be said interpretatively to indeavour to overthrow it while you build it on the same ground with paedobaptisme But I proceede YOu say
Secondly the teachers of this opinion where ever they prevaile take their Proselites wholy off from the Ministery of the Word and Sacraments and all other acts of Christian Communion both publique and private from any but those that are of their owne opinion condemning them all as limbes of Antichrist worshippers and followers of the Beast This is indeed a wicked practise justly to be abhorred the making of sects upon difference of opinion reviling separating from their teachers and brethren otherwise faithfull because there is not the same opinion in disputable points or in cleare truths non-fundamentall is a thing too frequent in all sorts of Dogmatists and yet so contrary to common charity which teacheth us to beare all things to the rules of heathens who could say Non eadem sentire duos de rebus iisdem incolumi licuit semper amicitia It hath bin alwayes allowed that friends should differ in opinion about the same things yet continue fâ—iends much more against that neare concorporation of Christians that I looke upon it as one of the great plagues of Christianity you shal have me joyne with you in shewing my detestation of it Yet neverthelesse First It is to be considered that this is not the evill of Antipaedobaptisme you confesse some are otherwise minded and therefore must be charged on the persons not on the assertion it selfe and about this what they hold you may have now best satisfaction from the confession of faith in the name of seven Churches of them Art 33. and others following Secondly It is fit when such things happen that godly Ministers should looke upon it as their affliction take occasion excutere semetipsos to search themselves whether they have not by their harsh usage of their brethren unjust charging them misreporting their tenents stirring up hatred in Magistrates people against them â—nstead of instructing them unsatisfying handling of doubtfull quâ—stions and by other ways alienated them from them And I make bold to let you understand that among others you have beene one cause at my startling at this point of Paedobaptisme remembring a very moveing passage which is in your Sermon Preached and printed on 2 Chron. 15.2 Concerning the hedge that God hath set about the 2. Commandement that you admire that ever mortal man should dare in Gods worship to meddle any jot further then the Lord himselfâ— hath commanded I Come after you Thirdly this opinion puts all thâ— Infants of all believers into the self-same condition with the Infants of Turkes and Indians And so doth the opinion of Cyprian with his 66. Bishops that would have Gods grace denyed to none And so do the words of the grave confutation of the Brownists put forth by Mr. Rathband Part. 3. pag. 50. Children may be lawfully accounted within Gods Covenant if any of their Ancestors in any generations were faithfull Exod. 20.5 But it may be you do not so I pray you then tell me wherein you make their condition different Possibly if you open your selfe plainly there will be no difference between us I will deale freely with you herein 1. Concerning Gods Election I am not certaine any more concerning the election of a believers Infant then an unbelievers I rest upon Gods words I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy Rom. 9.15.2 For the Covenant or promise of grace that is righteousnesse and life in Christ though I acknowledge a peculiar promise to Abrahams naturall posterity mentioned Rom. 11 27. Yet I know not that God hath made such a covenant to any much lesse to all the naturall seed of any believing Gentile if you can shew me such a Character I shaâ—l count it a treasure but I dare not forge such grants 3. Yet I grant that the present estate of a believers Infants hath a more comfortable likelihood that they are in Gods election then the infants of Turks and Indians both because they have their parents prayers and the Churches for them they have some promises though generall indefinite and coÌ„ditional we find by experience God doth very frequeÌ„tly coÌ„tinue his Church in their posterity though it often happen that the childâ—eÌ„ of godly parents prove very wicked But this I dare not ground upon any promise of free grace made to the child of a believer as such for feare leâ—t I incurre blasphemy by challenging a promise which God doth not keep nor upon any pretended law of friendship lest that objection râ—flect on me Is there unrighteousnesse with God Rom. 9.14 which the Apostle thought best to answer by asserting to God the most absolute liberty v. 15.18 4. That the condition in respect of future hopes of a believers Infant is a thousand times better then of a Turk or Indian because it is born in the bosome of the Church of godly parents who by pâ—ayers instruction example will undoubtedly educate them in the true faith of Christ whereby they are not only as the Turks children in potentia Logica in a Logick possibility or in potentia remota in a remote possibility but in potentia prâ—quînqua in a near possibility to be believers and saved And surely this is a great and certain priviledge enough to satisfie us if we remember the distance between God and us Nor do I feare to be gored by any of the three horns of your Syllogisme of which one you say must unavoidably follow The first is That either all are damned who die in their infancy being without the Covenant of grace having no part in Christ. But this follows not there is no necessity from any thing said before of their condition that all of them should be damned or be without the Covenant of grace having no part in Christ God may choose them all or some take all or some into the covenant of Grace which is I will be thy God and the God of thy seed that is mine Elect Rom. 9.8.11 into communion with Christ who dyed for the Elect Rom. 8.33 34. notwithstanding any thing I have said of their condition The second is Or else all are saved as having no originall sin and consequently needing no Saviour which most of the Anabaptists in the world do owne and therewith bring in also all Pelagianisme universall grace free-will c. This I imagine is the error you conceive depends upon Anti-paedobaptisme I finde Mr. Blake stands much upon this in his Birth-right-priviledge pag. 17. where he saith The Anabaptists in this present age well see that all that joyn in this tenent saile between those rocks either to affirm that infants die in their pollution or perish in their birth-sin or else to deny this originall pollution or any birth-sin at all But for my part I see no reason of this unlesse it be granted that no infant can have sin forgiven unlesse it bâ— baptized May it not be said that some or all infants are saved notwithstanding their birth-sin by the grace of God electing them putting them into Christ uniting
did only contain the covenant of Grace in Christ whereas it is apparent ouâ— of the Text that the Covenant was a mixt Covenant consisting of temporall benefits to wit the multiplying of his seed v. 6. the possâ—ssion of Canaan v. 8. the birth of Isaac v. 16. and the spirituall blessings v. 5 7. Yea Cameron thâ—sibus de triplici foedere Dei thesi 78. saith That circumcision did primarily separate Abrahams seed from other Nations sealed the earthly promise it signified sanctification secondarily And indeed this is so plainly delivered in the Scripture that the Psalmist cals the promise of Canaaâ— the covenant made with Abraham Ps. 105.8 9 10 11. He hath remembred his Covenant for ever the word which he commanded to a thousand generations which Covenant he made with Abraham and his Oath unto Isaac and confirmed the same to Jacob for a Law and to Israel for an everlasting covenant Saying unto thee will I give the Land of Canaan the lot of your inheritance If you should say that these promises were types of spirituâ—ll and heavenly things the reply is that though it be true yet the things promised were but carnall and earthly as the Sacrifices were but carnall things though shadowes of spirituall 2. When you say thus The manner of administration of this Covenant was at first by types and shadowes and sacrifices c. It had been convenient to have named Circumcision that it might not be conceived to belong to the substance of the Covenant But of this there may be more occasion to speak at pag. 35. of your Sermon 3. Whereas pag. 14. you place among the third sort of Abrahams seed Proselytes that were selfe-justitiaries carnall and formall professors it behoved you to shew where in Scripture they are called Abrahams seed which I think you cannot Yea the truth is you herein joyn with Arminius who in his Analysis of the 9. to the Romans makes this as the ground of his wresting that Scripture that there is a seed of Abraham mentioned Romans 4.9 10. and Galat. 3. 4. cap. Qui per opera legis justitiam salutem consequuntur Who follow after righteousnesse and salvation by the works of the Law To whom Baine on Eph. 1.5 p. 139. answers Beside though the sons of the flesh may signifie such who carnally not spiritually conceive of the Law yet the seed of Abraham without any adjoyned is never so taken But it is yet stranger to me that which Mr. Blake hath pag. 9. where he saith That there yet remaines in the bosome of the Church a distinction of the seed of Abraham borne after the flesh and after the spirit And that now by vertue of being born after the flesh some have a Church-interest And applies that of Gal. 4 29. Even so it is now to children born of believing parents after the flesh as having there by title to Church-interest Which passages are very grosse though he makes this the medium of his fourth Argument For first whereas the Apostle by being born after the flesh means not infants born of believing parents but those that are under the covenant of Mount Sinai that is who sought righteousnesse by the law and not by faith Mr. Blake means by being born after the flesh birth by naturall generation of infants born of Christian parents 2. Whereas he saith that such are in the bosome of the Church the Apostle saith they persecute the Church and are cast out 3. Whereas â—e makes such Abrahams seed he therein joyns with Arminius against the truâ—h and against the Apostle for though the Apostle makes Ismael to be the son of Abraham and speaks of him as born after the flesh whom he typically makes to represent legall justitiaries yet doth he not call Abrahams seed simply such justitiaries 4. Whereas the covenant of grace is made the reason of baptizing infants by alleâ—ging this place for baptizing of infants To be born of Hagar that is to be in the covenant of works should give a child interest into the Church of Christ. For my part I can see no other consequence than this of that cloudy argument The rest of your explication of the first Conclusion I let passe without any further animadversions as being unwilling sectare minutias to insist on small things or to stand upon matters of expression where I think you mean right and your words are likely to be so taken YOur second Conclusion is this Ever-since God gathered a distinct number out of the world to be his Kingdom City household in opposition to the rest of the world which is the kingdom city and houshold of Sathan He would have the Infants of all who are taken into Covenant with him to be accounted his to belong to him to his Church and family and not to the Devils This Conclusion you expresse so ambiguously that it is a Cothurnus a buskin that may be put on either legge right or left which should not have been in the main Proposition upon which the whole frame of your Argument hangs You say The Infants of all who are taken into covenant with God are to be accounted his but you tell us not in what sense this is to be understood For whereas persons may be said to be accounted his either before God or in facie Ecclesiae visibilis in the face of the visible Church 1. Before God either in respect of his election from eternity or his promise of grace in Christ congruous to it Or of their present estate of inbeing in Christ or the future estate they shall have 2. In facie Ecclesiae visibilis persons may be said to be accounted God's either as born among his people and so potentially members of the Church as being in a way to be in time actuall members of the Church of Christ or who already enquire after God and professe Christ though they do not well understand the doctrine of Christian Religion such as the Catechumeni of old were or they are to be accounted his in respect of actuall participation of Baptisme and the Lords supper 3. The accounting of them to be God's may be either an act of science or faith or opinion and that grounded on a rule of charity of prudence or probable hope for the future You do not declare distinctly in which of these senses or respects the Infants of all who are taken into covenant with God are to be accounted his so that I am almost at a stand what to deny or grant It cannot be denied but God would have the infants of believers in some sort to be accounted his to belong to him his Church and family and not to the Devils which expression I fear you use in this and other places ad faciendum populum to please the peoplâ— It is true in facie Ecclesiae visibilis the infants of believers are to be accounted Gods to belong to his family and church and not to the Devils as being in a neer possibility of
this for the comfort of parents and such an Odium cast on Anti-paedobaptists for denying it and therefore I see not but your assertion if you do not revoke your plea for paedobaptisme must be conceived thus That God hath made a Covenant or promise of saving grace in Christ not only to believers but also to their seed whom you baptize for this reason The Author of the little book intituled Infants baptizing proved lawfull by Scripture pag. 3 4 5. Intâ—rprâ—ts the Covenant I will be thy God and the God of thy seed thus I will be the God of every believer and the God of every believers seed in respect of outward Church-priviledges to be members of the visible Church partakers of baptisme c. to the naturall seed in respect of inward and meerly spirituall to none but true Saints in whom the new creature is formed But I say againe Abraham or thee in that Covenant is put only for Abraham and not for evâ—ry believer For sith the Apostle plainly interprets believers to be Abrahams seed Rom. 4.13 16. Gal. 3.29 to say Abraham is put for any believer makes the speech to have an inept tautology I will be the God of Abraham that is of every believer according to that Authors sense and I will be the God of thy seed that is of every believer according to the Apostles sense And that in that Covenant should be a promise to us believing Gentiles That to our seed should be conferred visible Church-priviledges to be members of the visible Church partakers of baptisme c. is but a dream the Scripture no where explaining it so and being so understood were not true there being many of the seed of believers that neither de facto in event nor de jure of right have those visible Church privilâ—dges to be members of the visible Church partakers of bapâ—isme c. and if there were such a promise God could not take away the Candlestick from the posterity of believers which he threatens Rev. 2.5 George Philips vind of Infant bapt p. 37. Cals the Covenant an offer to become their God and all along supposeth infants under the Covenant because grace was offered in circumcision and they sealed because it was offâ—red But the Covenant is not an offer but a promise nor is a man under the Covenant of grace or in the Covenant of grace because an offer is made for then refusers might be said to be under the Covenant but because God hath promised or performed to them And if infants are to be bapâ—ized which is his ground because the Covenant is offered to them in baptisme then in effect it is to argue they are to be baptizâ—d because they are to be baptized which iâ— nugatory I hâ—ve discussed this matter more fully that I may shew you how doubtfull your speeches are and give you the reason why I set down this as your conclusion to be denyed by me That the Covenant of saving grace in Christ expressed Gen. 17.7 In thâ—se words I will be thy God and the God of thy seed is made to believers and their naturall seed Now I will shew you the reason why I take this to be an error and that very dangerous MY first reason is taken from the Apostle Rom. 9 6. c. in which place this very Text that is now the apple of our contention was brought into question Beza thus expresseth the question Qui fieri possit ut rejectus sit Israel quin simul â—onstituendum videatur irritum esse pactum Dei cum Abrahamo ejus semine sancitum I deny not but there was also some other promise included in that objection to wit some promise made to Israel or the house of Israel probably that Jer. 31.33 36.37 for so the words ver 6. They are not all Israel which are of Israel do intimate But without question the promise made to Abraham Gen. 17.7 was one which was included in that objection Beza Twisse Ames and others answering Arminius call it the Covenant of God with Abraham which was that Gen. 17.7 and the very phrase of Abrahams seed In Isaac shall thy seed be called ver 7. The children of the promise are counted for the seed ver 8. Sarah shall have a son ver 9. do evidently shew that the promise objected to prove that if the Jews were rejected from being Gods people then God failed in making good his word was that promise to Abraham I will be thy God and the God of thy seed Whereto I may adde that the Answerers of Arminius and the cited Remonstrants to wit Baine and Ames do say It was the word of promise not of the Law as Arminius conceived for the word of promise saith Ames Animadv in Remonstran script Synod de praedest cap. 8. Sect. 4. Is distinguished and opposed to the words of the Law Gal. 3.17 18. Now the word of the promise there is to Abraham and his seed ver 16. and this is there called by him verbum foederis the word of the Covenant Now let us consider how the Apostle answers it He denies that Gods word made to Abraham did fall though the Jews were rejected because that promise I will be thy God and the God of thy seed as it coÌ„prehended saving grace was never meant by God of all Abrahams posterity or of any barely as they were descended from Abraham by natural generation but of the Elect whether descended by natural generation from Abraham or not And this is apparent both from the words v. 7. Neither because they are the seed of Abraham are they all children but in Isaac shall thy seed be called c. v. 8. It is expounded thus That is they which are the children of the flesh these are not the childâ—en of God but the children of the promise are counted for the seed Whence it is apparent that the same are not alwayes the seed by calling which are the seed of Abraham by naturall generation and that the children of the flesh are not the same with the children of promise and that the Apostle conceived this the right way of answering those that objected the falling of Gods word upon the rejâ—ction of the Jews by restraining the promise of being God to Abrahams seed only to the Elect whether of Abrahams naturall posterity or not with so little respect to any birth-right priviledge that he not only rejected Ismael and took Isaac but also loved Jacob and hated Esau by prophesie declaring his minde the elder shall serve the younger and in this the Apostle acquits God from unrighteousnesse in that He hath mercy on whom he will have mercy and whom he will he hardens notwithstanding his promise made to Abraham and Israel or any birth-right priviledge they could claime That I may not be thought to go alone in this I will recite some others concurring with me in this Dr. Twisse vind Grat. l. 1. part 3. digr 2. ArgumentuÌ„ Apostoli ad probanduÌ„
of grace and to be elect and to persevere in grace are meant of the same persons according to the Apostles doctrine Rom. 9.7 8. c. and the common doctrine of the Contra-Remonstrants And on the contrary Bertius in his book de Apostasia sanctorum pag. 79. among other absurdities which he reckons as consequent on their opinion that deny Apostasie of Saints puts this as the seventh Baptismum non obsignare certo in omnibus liberis fidelium gratiam Dei quum inter illos quidam sint etiam antecedente decreto Dei ab aeterno absolute reprobati ac proinde dubitandum esse fidelibus de veritate foederis divini Ego sum Deus tuus seminis tui post te And when this was urged by the Author of the Synod of Doâ—t and Arles reduced to the practise Part. 3. Sect. 6. in these words For to every person whom they baptize they apply the promises of the Covenant of grace clean contrary to their own doctrine which saith that they nothing belong to the Reprobates of the world Dr. Twisse answers that however in the judgement of charity they take all Infants brought to be baptized to be elect yet the promises of the Covenant of grace do indeed belong only to the Elâ—ct which he proves at large by shewing that there are promises of the Covenant of grace as of regeneration circumcising the heart writing the Law in their hearts Jer. 31.33 which must needs be absolute For no condition can be assigned of performing these promises but that it will follow That grace is given to wit the grace of faith according to mens workes which is plaine Pelagianisme Whence he concludes Now then who are they on whom God should bestow faith and regeneration but Gods Elect And accordingly Baptisme as it is a Seale and assurance of performing this promise of Justification and salvation unto them that believe so it is a seale and assurance of the promise of circumcising the heart and regeneration only to Gods Elect. And after pag. 192. VVe are ready to maintaine that all who are under the covenant of grace are such as over whom sin shall not have the dominion Rom. 6.14 Besides he that shall heare you preach that the children of believers are in the Covenant of grace and that they that are in the Covenant of grace cannot fall away may be apt to conceive himselfe within the Covenant of grace without repentance and faith and that he shall be saved without obedience and so lay a ground-work for Antinomianisme and consequently Libertinisme And may not on the other side believing Parents when they see their children vicious and ungodly doubt whether they themselves be true believers because they see not their châ—ldren in the Covenant of grace and so while you think to comfort parents about their children you may create great discomfort concerning themselves Lastly if this were true that the Covenant of grace is a birth-right priviledge then the children of believers are children of grace by nature for that which is a birth-right priviledge is a priviledge by nature and if as Mr. Blakâ— saith pag. 6. of his book Christianity is hereditary that as the childe of a Noble man is Noble the childe of a freeman is free the childe of a Turke is a Turke of a Jew a Iew the childe of a Christian is a Christian then Christians are born Christians not made Christians and how are they then children of wrath by nature which whether they may not advantage Pelagians and denyers of Originall sin it concernes those that use such speeches to consider But the Author of the writing entituled Infants baptizing proved lawfull by Scripture mentions other promises besides that Gen. 17.7 to wit Deu. 28.4 Deut. 30.2.6 Isa. 44.3 Isa. 59.21 Exod. 20.6 Psal. 112.2 and such like To all which the answer is plaine if men would conceive it 1. That according to the Apostles own determination Ro. 9 7 8. these promises as they contain such things as accompany salvation must be restrained to the Elect whose children soever they be by naturall generation and this is agreeable to our Saviours applying the promise Isa. 54.13 to them that are given of his Father Iohn 6.45 And thus are we to understand Deut. 30.6 Isa. 44.3 2. That the text Isa. 59.21 is plainly applied to the time of the calling of the Jews Rom. 11.27 and therefore cannot be applied rightly to the posterity of any believers at any time indefinitely 3. Thâ—t the promises Deut. 28.4 Psal. 112.2 are expresly meant of outward blessings and therefore cannot prove a covenant of grace in Christ. 4. That Exod. 20.6 doth plainly include a condition of obedience and it is expresly mentioned Psal. 103.17 18. as included in other promises of like kind which condition God doth not undertake for any children of a believer but the elect nor is Christ surety for any but the elect and therefore till it can be proved that the Election of grace belongs to the children of believers it cannot be proved that the Covenant of grace belongs to them by vertue of these promises I Now return to your Sermon You tell us thus As it is in other kingdomes corporations and families the children of all subjects born in a kingdom are born that Princes subjects where the father is a free-man the childe is not born a slave where any are bought to be servants their children born in their masters house are born his servants Thus it is by the Lawes of almost all nations and thus hath the Lord ordained it shall be in his kingdome and family the children follow the Covenant-condition of their parents if he take a father into his covenant he takes the children in with him if he reject the parents out of the covenant the children are east out with them This passage I might have passed over as containing nothing but dictates Yet I think it necessary to observe 1. That you do very carnally imagine the Church of God to be like Civill corporations as if persons were admitted to it by birth whereas in this all is done by free election of grace and according to Gods appointment nor is God tied or doth tie himself in the erecting and propagating his Church to any such carnall respects as descent from men Christianity is no mans birth-right The Apostle knew not that God had so by promise or other ingagement bound himself but he was free as he said to Moses after the promise made to Abraham to have mercy on whom he would Rom. 9.15 Yea to conceive that it is in Gods Church as in other Kingdomes and after the laws of Nations is a seminary of dangerous superstitions and errors Dr. Rainolds in his Conference with Hart hath shewed that hence arose the frame of government by Pâ—triarchs Metropolitans c. And is not this the very reason of Invocation of Saints that I mention not more of the like kind 2. When you say if he take a
father into his covenant he takes the children in with him If he reject the parents out of covenant the children are cast out with them If you mean this taking in and casting out in respect of election and reprobation it is not true neither if you mean it of the Covenant of grace for that is congruous to election and reprobation Nor is it true in respect of outward Ordinances the father may be baptized heare the Word and not the child and on the contrary the father may be deprived and the child may enjoy them Nor is it true in respect of Ecclesiasticall censures the father may be excommunicated and the sonne in the Church and on the contrary And about that which you say there is no certainty in the Paedobaptists determination Rutherford The due right of Presbyterie p. 259. saith The children of Papists and excommunicate Protestants which are borne within our visible Church are baptized if their forefathers have been sound in the faith But others will deny it But it is true as well of Paedobaptists as of Anabaptists that like waves of the Sea they beat one agninst another You tell us That it was without question in the time of the Iews Gen. 17.9 And when any of any other Nation though a Canaanite or Hittite acknowledged Abrahams God to be their God they and their children came into covenant together That when Parents were circumcised the Children were to be circumcised is without questioâ— Gods command is manifest Whether this make any thing for baptizing Infants is to be considered in its place But that which you say It was in the time of the Iews if God did reject the parents out of the covenant the children were cast out with them is not true Parents might be Idolaters Apostates from Judaisme draw up the fore-skin again and yet the children were to be circumcised But in all this there is no Argument THe first Text you dwell upon is that Act. 2.38 39. and thus you speak And so it continues still though the Anabaptists boldly deny it Acts 2.38.39 When Peter exhorted his hearers who were pricked in their hearts to repent and to be baptized for the remission of sins he useth an argument to perswade them taken from the benefit which should come to their posterity For the promise saith he is to you and to your children and to all that are afar off even as many as the Lord our God shall call if once they obey the call of God as Abraham did the promise was made to them and their children VVhether they who obey this call were the present Jews to whom he spake or were afar off whether by afar off you will mean the Gentiles who as yet worshipped afar off or the Jews or any who were yet unborn and so were afar off in time or whether they dwelt in the remotest parts of the world and so were afar off in place The argument holds good to the end of the world Repent and be baptized for the remission of sins and ye shall receive the Holy Ghost for the promise is made to you and your children they shall be made free of Gods city according to Abrahams copy I will be thy God and the God of thy seed It is a very irksome thing to Readers and especially to Answerers when they that handle a controversie give a text for their assertion and make a paraphrase of it but shew not how they conclude from it by which meanes the enemy is more hardly found then vanquished I wish if ever you write any more in this kind you would distinctly expound and then frame your arguments out of the text you produce for the present I shall devorare taedium swallow downe the tediousnes of this defect as well as I can You do not distinctly tell us what that promise was onely I gather it is that which you after expresse calling it Abrahams copy I will be thy God and the God of thy seed But then you do not distinctly tell us under which part you comprehend the promise to them whether under the first part I will be thy God or under the second I will be the God of thy seed It may seem you thus parallel'd them I will be thy God with the promise is unto you and the God of thy seed with that the promise is to your children But I must see better proofe then yet I have seen afore I assent to this construction I wil be thy God that is of every believer though the Author or infants bâ—pâ—izing proved lawfull by scriptures page 4. sâ—ith It is plaine and manifest by the Gramaticall construction of this promise I professe that I neither know rule in Grammar Logicke or Divinity for that interpretation and yet I thinke all the strength of your proofe lies in this imagined parallelisme Nor doe you tell us of what thing this promise was which you parallel with Abrahams copy I will be thy God and the God of thy seed whether it was a promise of saving graces or outward priviledges Onely that which you bring in of Zaccheus to interpret it let him professe the faith of Christ and the covenant of salvation comes to his house seemes to import that you conceive the meaning thus if you once obey the call of God as Abraham did the promise of salvation is to you and your children and sith you answer the second objection which you call a shift by rejecting the limiting of to you and your children with those words as many as the Lord shall call the sense must be this The promise of salvation is to you and your children whether the Lord our God call them or not But this proposition I know you will not stand to though as you handle the matter this is made the Apostles assertion But it may be you mean otherwise thus If you once obey the call of God as Abraham did the promise of outward church-priviledges that is to be members of the visible Church partakers of Baptism c. is to you and your children Now what an uncouth reason is by this made in the Apostles speech that if they did repent and were baptized the promise should be made good to them and to their children I use your own words expressing what you conceive the strength of the argument lies in that you they shal be members of the visible church partakers of baptism c. So that the Apostle is made to say thus If you will repent and be baptized the promise is to you and your children that you they shal be baptized What I conceive is the meaning I will shew afterwards in the mean time because though on the by you alleage that Text which Mr. Tho. Goodwin also at Bow in Cheapside urged and insisted on for this purpose I shall by the way examine what you say You say Let Zaccheus the Publican once receive Christ himself be he a Gentile as some think he was be he
the same graffing into the true Olive which the Jews formerly had But you must remember your own distinction pag. 10. of the substance of the Covenant and the administration of it It is certain that in respect of the substance of the Covenant we have the same graffing into the Olive the Church of the faithfull of which Abraham is the root that the Jews had We by faith are partakers of the root and fatnesse of the Olive tree ver 17. or in plainer termes as the Apostle â—lâ—gantly Ephes. 3.6 that the Gentiles should be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Fellow-heirs and of the same body and partakers of his promise in Christ through the Gospel In respect of which all believing Gentiles are Abrahams seed the Israel of God one in Christ Jesus But if you mean it of the outward administration of this ingraffing by Circumcision Baptisme c. nothing is more false For indeed the outward administration is utteâ—ly taken away as separating the Jews from the Gentiles of very purpose that the enmity betwixt Jews and Gentiles may be removed and they made one in Christ by his death Eph. 2.14 15 16. and if you mean this when you say we have the same graffing in with the Jews which your whole arguing tends to and your expression in those words for these outward â—ispensations import you mean it you evacuate the blood of Châ—ist in this particular You say Our present graffing in is answerable to their present casting out It is true our present graffing in is anâ—wâ—rable to their or rather for their casting out that is God would supply in his Olive tree the Church the casting away of the Jews by the calling of the Gentiles so much the Apostle saith v. 17. Thou being a wilde Olive 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is in ramorum defrâ—ctorum locum into the place of the branches broken off as rightly Beza if you mean it in this sense I grant it You adde And their taking in though more gloriously as ours is now It is true their taking in will be by faith as ours is now concerning other particulars as I doubt not but it will be more gloriously as you say so for the manner I must confesse I am at a stand I look upon it as a mystery as the Apostle cals it Rom. 11.25 You go on Now all know that when they were taken in they and their children were taken in when they were broken off they and their children were broken off when they shall be takâ—n in in the latter end of the world they and their children shall be taken in I grant it they were taken in and broken off togethâ—r in respect of Gods election and reprobation and when they shall be taken in in the latter end of the world they and their children shall be taken in Yea I thinke that as at the calling of the Gentiles there was a fuller taking in of the children of the Gentiles then ever was of the children of the Jewes afore Châ—ists comming according to thâ—t Heb. 8.11 So at the calling of the Jâ—ws there shall be a more full taking in of the children of the Jâ—ws then is now of the Gentiles according to that Rom. 11.26 and so all Israel shall be saved But all this proves not that God would have either all Infants of believers counted his as elect persons or in the Covenant of grace in Christ or in the face of the visible Church admitted to baptisme which was to be proved by you You go on And that because the root is holy that is Gods Covenant with Abraham Isaac and Jacob extends yet unto them when their unbeliefe shall be taken away and then after an illustration from Nebuchadnezzars dreame Dan. 4.14 15. you say of the Jews their present Nation like this tree is cut down and this holy root the Covenant made with their forefathers is suspended bound with an Iron barre of unbeliefe blindnesse being come upon them till the fulnesse of the Gentiles be come in and then all Israel shall be saved In this passage you somewhat alter the Apostles resemblance who doth not make the Jewish Nation to answer the tree but the branches nor doth he say the tree is cut down but the branches broken off and here you make the Covenant the root but a little after your words import when you say a holinesse derived from their ancestors c. that by the root you mean their Ancestors And you say The Covenant made with their forefathers is suspended which in some sense may be true that is thus the effects of Gods love to Israel are for the present suspended from those generations and so in our apprehension the Covenant is suspended but in exact speech it cannot be true sith Gods Covenant according to his intention and meaning cannot be suspended or stayed but doth alwayes take effect irresistibly In that wherein you alter the resemblance of the Apostle by putting in the cutting down of the tree instead of breaking off thâ— branches you much pervert the Apostles meaning who makes the tree that is the Church of believers still standing and some branches broken off and others graffed in And for that of the root it is true it is variously conceived by Interpreters some understanding with you the Covenant some Christ some Abraham Isaac and Jacob and some Abraham only which last I conceive to be genuine for the expressions of some branches 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to nature and others 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 besides nature Some naturall some ingraffed our not bearing the root but the root bearing us are plain evidences to me that by the root Abraham is meant Nor know I how to make the resemblance right but by this Exposition Now to say the root that is Abraham is bound with an Iron band of unbeliefe cannot have any handsome construction But you tell us And marke that in all this discourse the holinesse of the branches there spoken of is not meant of a personall inherent holinesse Then Master Thomas Goodwin is answered who in urging 1 Cor. 7.14 for Paedobaptisme saith in the New Testament there is no other holinesse spoken of but personall or reall by regeneration about the which he challenged all the world to shew the contrary whereas here is according to you a holinesse which is not personall or as Mr. Blake speakes qualitative and inherent But to go on You say But a derivative holinesse a holinesse derived to them from their Ancestors the first fruit is holy the lump holy the root holy the branches holy that is the Fathers holy accepted in Covenant with God the children beloved for their Fathers sake and when the vail of unbeliefe shall be taken away the children their posterity shall be taken in again bâ—cause beloved for their fathers sake Now then if our graffing in be answerable to theirs in any or all of these three particulars we and our children are graffed in together Object
Nehemiahs time the children who were born of such marriages were accounted a mungrell kinde whom Nehemiah cursed Now hereupon these Corinthians doubted whether their children as well as their wives were not to be accounted unclean and so to be put away according to thâ—se examples You declared rightly the scope before but the doubt is not rightly put by you The Corinthians had no doubt whether their children were unclean and to be put away for the Apostle argues from the uncleanesâ—e of their children as a thing that appeared absurd to them they tooke it as a common received principle that their childrâ—n werâ— holy as rightly Master Thomas Goodwin at bow-Bow-church And for the occasion of the doubt though I deny not but the Corinthians might know that fact of Ezra 9. and 10. yet that the reading of it was the cause of their doubt I see no evidence oâ— likelihood though Master Blake pag. 12. takes it as granted joyning with the relations Ezra 9. and 10. that resolution Hag. 2.12.13 as the occasion of the doubt and Mr. Thomas Goodwin seemed confident of it that it could be no other upon a supposed agreement of matter and phrase But for matter I see very little agreement the cases being fâ—r different of two persons not under the Law maâ—rying in unbeliefe and of two persons under the Law the one a Iew by profâ—ssion the other a stranger And for phrases excâ—pt the word holy I observe no other phrase used in Ezra which is used by the Apostâ—e not the phrase of unbelieving husband or wife or sanctified to in or by the wife or husband nor the phrase of unclean children and for the tearm holy the Apostle doth not use the phrase holy seed as Ezra doth In my apprersion it is farre more likely that â—â—e â—oubt arose from the Epistle he wrote before to them mentioned 1 Cor. 5.9 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 â— 10 Not to keep company with Fornicators or Idolaters which might occasion the question whether they were then to continue with their unbelieving Yoke fellows But let us examine the Apostles resolution you say To which the Apostle answers no they were not to be put away upon what speciall reason soever that law was in force to thâ— Jews believing Châ—â—stians were not in that condition The unbelieving wife was sanctified in the believing husband quoad hoc so far as to bring forth a holy seed Were it with them as when both of them were unbelievers so that nâ—ither of thâ—m had a prerogative to intitle their children to the covenant of grace thier children would be an unclean progeny Or were the children to bâ— reckoned in the condition of the worser parent so that the unbeliever could contribute more to Paganisme than the believer to Christianity it were so likewise But the case is otherwise the believing husband hath by Gods ordinance a sanctified use of his unbeliâ—ving wife so as by Gods speciall promise made to believers and their seed they were invested in and to the most spirituall end of marriage the continuance of a holy seed wherein the Church is to be propagated to the worlds end And the case is heâ—e in relation to posterity for spirituall priviledges as in other marriages for civill priviledges as suppose a Prince or Noble man marry with a woman of base and mean birth though in generall it be true that the children of those that be base are born base as well as the children of Nobles are borâ— noble yet here the issue hath hâ—nour from the father and it is not accounted base by the basenes of the mother This I take to be the plain meaning of the Apostles answer And must your Readers thinke you take it on your word without shewing that the tearms are so used else where or connexion of the words or the analysis of the text lead you to it But it is necessary that I discusse this matter more fully then by returning a bare denyall to a bare affirmation Concerning the answer verse 13. there is no difference all the diffâ—rence is concerning the reason of the resolution delivered ver 14. and the meaning of it There are these terms doubtfull 1. What is meant by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the wife and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the husband 2. What is meant by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is sanctified 3. What is meant by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 unclean 4. What by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 holy It is agreed that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may be read in to or by It is agreed that to be sanctified hath many senses and tâ—at the sense wherein sanctification is taken for renovation of mind is not here meant for so an unbeliever is not sanctified and the speech is in sensu composito in a compound sense to be understood An unbeliever though an unbeliever is sanctified Nor is it true of any kind of Ceremoniall sanctification or sanctification for enjoying religious ordinances for such could not agree to an unbeliever Therefore there remain only two senses the one of an instrumentall sanctification as Mr. Goodwin cals it for the begetting a holy seed The other of matrimoniall sanctification whereby the one is enjoyed as a chaste yoke-fellow by another without fornication The former of these your words intimate you imbrace when you say the unbelieving wife was sanctified in the believing husband quoad hoc so far as to bring forth a holy seed But against this are these reasons 1. This could not have resolved the doubt in the case of those who by age could not be sanctified to this end or by reason of accidentall inability for generation they might depart each from other notwithstanding this reason whereas the Apostles resolution is of all husbands and wives The unbelieving husband is sanctified that is every unbelieving husband is sanctified If meant of Instrumentall sanctification it were true only of those that are apt for generation yea that do actuâ—lly generate whereas the Apostles determination is concerning any husband or wife that were of different religion 2. If the Apostle by being sanctified meant instrumentally sanctified to beget a holy seed then the reason had been thus You may live together for you may beget a holy seed And so their consciences should have been resolved of their present lawfull living together from a future event which was uncertain It had been taken from a thing contingent that might be or not be whereas the resolution is by a reason taken from a thing certain a thing present or past and therefore he useth the preterperfect tense 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hath been sanctified yea in probability he speaks of a sanctification even when both were unbelievers for he saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 twice in the preterperfect tense and he mentions the unbelieving distinctly but the believer without the expression of his or her faith under the title of husband or wife and saith your children indiscriminatim without difference as well
a people in Jobs and Lots families who were not circumcised nor to be circumcised and there may be a people of God whâ—â—re not baptiâ—ed as the thief on the crosse the Catechumeni dying aâ—oâ—e baptisme many martyrs and others that have dyed without Baptisme And in the signes themselves there is a great difference both in the acting of them the one of them was with blood the other without the one took away a part of the body the other not and after the acting the one was a permanent signe the other left no impression or footsteps of it that did remain The third agreement is both of them the way and means of solemn entrance and admission into the Church which may be granted yet in the solemnity there was a great difference the one to be done in a private house by a private person the other openly by the Minister thereto appointed The fourth agreement is both of them to be administred but once which I conceive true thus to wit that there is no necessity of administring either of them above once but a demonstrative Argument to prove it an heresie or unlawfull in it self to rebaptize I yet expect Yet this parity hath its disparity For Baptisme is not restrained to any set day but Circumcision was limited to the eighth day in its institution Your fifth And none might be received into the communion of the Church of the Jewes untill they were circumcised nor into the communion of the Church of the Christians untill they be baptized If you mean by Communion to be accounted members of the Church of the Jews I cannot assent unto you For not only the children were accounted in that Church who were not eight dayes old but also all the uncircumcised in the time of the travell through the Wildernesse untill they camâ— to Gilgal and all the females were members though they were not to be circumcised The reason was because God would have all within that Church that were within the families of Israel and therefore he would have the servants born in the house and that were bought with money of any stranger that were not of Abrahams seed circumcised And if you mean by the communion of the Church of Christians the accounting of them as visible members it is not true that none might be received into the communion of the Church of the Christians untill they be baptized unlesse you will with Bellarmine deny the Catechumeni to be actuall members of the Church and oppose Whitaker and others of the Protestant Divines herein The last agreement is that none but the circumcised might eat of the Paschâ—â— Lâ—mbe which is true of those that ought to be circumcised but it â—s not true simply taken for the females were to eat though not circumcised On the other side you say none may but those who are baptized be admitted to eat the Lords Supper This you affirm but you bring no other proof for it but the Analogie conceived by you between Circumcision and the Passeover and Baptisme and the Lordâ— Supper which can make but a Topick argument and that à simili which iâ— of all other the weakest Place to prove by proportions are weak probation saith Râ—â—therfuâ—d Due right of Presbyteries Ch. 2. Sect. 2. p. 37. 'T is true we find persons ordinarily upon their fiâ—st call were baptized and then after received the Lords Supper and it is true that 1 Cor. 10.2 3 4. and 1 Cor. 12.13 baptizing is put before eating and drinking and therefore thers is ground enough for ordering it so yet I make question whether if a person that professeth the faith of Christ sincerely and is not yet baptized suppose for want of a Minister or out of scruple at the way of baptizing only allowed or because the custome is not to baptize but at Easter or Whitsuntide as it was of old or the like reason should come to a Congregation of Christians receiving the Lords Supper and there receive it with love to Christ whether he should sin because not baptized as the Jews should sin that did eat the Passeover not circumcised For in the Jewes case a command is broken not here and so no transgression If he come without examination of himself not discerning the Lords body he sins he breaks the command 1 Cor. 11.28 But where is the command that he must be baptized first And for the same reason I question whether a Minister can justifiâ— it before God if he reject such a Christian from the Lords Supper because not baptized for the aforesaid reasons By this which I have said you may perceive how uncertain your agreements are and how many disagreements there are between Circumcision and Baptisme and therefore how poor a proof or rather none at all may be drawn from the supposed agreements you make between Circumcision and Baptisme for the making a command to circumcise Infants a command to baptize Infants without the Holy Ghost declaring Gods minde to be so All these agreements yâ—a if there were an hâ—ndrâ—d more cannot make it any other than an humane invention if the Holy Ghost do not shew that they agree in this particular But to make the weaknesse of this Argument the more apparent let me parallel the Priests of the Law with the Ministers of the Gospel as you do Circumcision with Baptisme As God appointed Aergâ—s and his sons to Minisâ—eâ— in the time of the Law so the Ministery of the Gospel now the Apostle makes the Analogy expresly 1 Cor. 9.13 14. and far more plainly then the Text you bring for the succession of Baptisme to Circumcision and they agree in many things As the Priests lips should preserve knowledge Mat. 2.7 Deut. 33.10 so must the Bishop be apt to teach 1 Tim. 3.2 As the Priest by offering the sacrifices held forth Christ to them Heb. 9. so the Minister by preaching Gal. 3.1 As the Priest was for the people of God so the Minister of the Gospel As the High Priest was to have the people on his breast so the Minister in his heart as the one was to blesse so the other was to pray for them As the Priest had a consecration so the Minister is to have an ordination As none was to thrust himself into the one without a calling so neither in the other And many more such agreements might be assigned will it therefore follow that a command to a Priest to offer a sacrifice propitiatory is a command to a Minister to offer a sacrifice propitiatory or a command for a Priest to wear a linen Ephod should be a command to a Minister to wear a Surplice as the Papists do just in your manner argue from Analogy or resemblance or that therefore tythes are due to Ministers jure divino by divine appointment as Bishop Carleton Dr. Sclater and others from Analogy of Melchisedecs and Aarons Priesthood would infer or that ordination may be by the people because the children of Israel laid hands on the Levites
I do not say the Sacrament of Baptisme was a concomitant of Circumcision if not ancienter For it is well known that Baptisme was in use among the Jews in the initiating of Proselytes for many yeers together with circumcision as may be seen in Selden de jure naturali gentium juxta discipl Heb. lib. 2. cap. 2 3 4. Ainsworth Annot. on Gen. 17. There is much of this in many Authors beside But I suppose you cannot be ignorant of what Mr. Lightfoot hath in his Sermon entituled Elias Redivivus pag. 11. where he makes it as ancient as Jacob. Gratius Annot. in Mat. 3.6 hath these words Cum verò peregrini abluti non circumcisi solis legibus tenerentur quos Deus toti hominum generi dederat intellectu facile est ablutionem hanc fuisse inter vetera instituta orta ut arbitror post magnum diluvium in memoriam purgati mundi unde illud celebre apud Graecos 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 certe baptismum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 esse diluvio etiam in Petri Epistola legimus But it may be the Sacrament of Baptisme came after neither is that in exactnesse of speech true sith Circumcision was a great while in force after John began to baptize which you will not deny to be the same Sacrament with ours But let it be granted it succeeds that is comes after Circumcision sith it continues now circumcision is taken away yet the sense in which you can rightly make it succeed into the room place and use of Circumcision will be brought into a narrow room too strait to settle Baptisme of Infants in it Room and place are properly either the same or differ only as locus communis proprius common place and proper so Baptisme which is an action hath no place or room properly If you mean by the room and place the subjects to be baptized or baptizing it is not true except in part some of the baptized and baptizers only were circumcised and to be circumcised some that were not to be circumcised as women were to be baptized If you mean by the room and place the society into which both persons were to be initiated it is not true For by the Sacrament of Baptisme persons were to be baptized into the Christian Church by Circumcision into the Jewish as your own Conclusion saith If you mean it of the commandment upon which both are seated neither is that true the commandement of Circumcision was many ageâ— before Baptisme was instituted as a Sacrament And for the succession into the use of Circumcision that is yet more untrue Your self say a few lines after The use of Circumcision engaged men to the use of the rest of the Jewish Ceremonies And page 29. It is true indeed that circumcision bound them who received it to confâ—rm to that manner of administration of the Covenant c. And if you had not confessed it it might have been proved out of Gal. 5.2 3. Acts 15.10 from the custome in circumcising Proselytes to bind them to the Lawes not only common to all the Noachidae but also to all the Laws of the Jews as Selden ubi supra Ainsworth on Gen. 17. But I hope you will not dare to say that Baptisme succeeds Circumcision in this use if it do then are we still bound to keep the Law of Moses Another use of Circumcision was to signifie Christ to come out of Abrahams family I think you will not deny it if you should I might plead against you Col. 2.17 Gal. 3.23 c. the institution of it to be in the males only of Abrahams family by whom the Genealogy was to be reckoned in the member for generation the expressions of the Covenant confirmed by it and the consent of innumerable learned men both of the Jewes and Christians And I think you will not say Baptisme succeeds into this use of Circumcision Another use of it was to be a partition wall between the Jews and Gentiles to distinguish and divide them whence the one were counted unclean as uncircumcised the other clean Eph. 2.11.14 but you will not say that Baptisme succeeds into this use sith the use of Baptisme is to the contraâ—y Gal. 3.26 27 28. and surely these were the main uses of it But you will say there was use of circumcision for initiation into the Church of the Jews and so of Baptisme But then though Baptisme do initiate as Circumcision yet not into the same Church For Circumcision did not initiate into any Church but into the Church of the Jews or rather into the family of Abraham but so doth not Baptisme If it be said that the one confirms the Covenant and so doth the other still I answer that Baptisme doth not confirm the same Covenant in every part that circumcision did For the Covenant was a mixt Covenant a great part whereof Baptisme doth not confirm This is all that can be said that they agree in that as circumcision did confirm the spirituall part of the Covenant to wit righteousnesse by faith Rom. 4.11 and signified holinesse of heart so doth also Baptisme the like whereof did the Cloud Sea Manna the water out of the Rock 1 Cor. 10.2 3 4. the Deluge or Ark 1 Pet. 3.21 the sprinkling of the blood of the Sacrifices and the same are confirmed by the Lords Supper and why then should we not say that Baptisme succeeds the flood sprinkling of blood as well as Circumcision and that the Lords Supper succeeds Circumcision as well as Baptisme Wherefore I conceive your Proposition so generally delivered That the Sacrament of Baptisme succeeds into the room place and use of Circumcision erroneous and very dangerous But how ever you think the thing is plainly delivered Col. 2.8 9 10 11 12. let us examine that Text then You say thus Where the Apostles scope is to disswade the believing Christians from the rudiments of the world and Jewish ceremonies and observations upon this ground that we are compleat in Christ and that in him as in the head the Church hath all perfections All this is very right and the thing very well expressed by Beza Addendum fuit istud ut non tantum sibi in sese sed in nostrum etiam usum statuatur Christus esse talis tantus ut nihil in ipso desideretur in eo uno omnia nanciscamur ad veram salvificam Dei notitiam requisita Coâ—plementum igitur in Christo adeptis quorsum vel humana sapientia vel vanis hominum commentis vel ceremoniis ullo denique extra Christum ascito sit opus Annot. in Col. 2.10 where mark that Beza rightly makes us so compleat in Christ that there is no need of any thing added out of Christ in stead of those ceremonies You go on and because he would take them wholly off from Circumcision the use whereof engaged them to the use of the rest of Jewish ceremonies he tells them that in Christ we are circumcised with
have the promise therefore they have the seal in Abraham though they never are nor may be sealed in their own persons You go on and the Jewes received it not as a Nation but as a Church as a people separated from the world and taken into covenant with God If you take as with reduplication it is true that neither the Jewes received circumcision as a Nation for then every nation should receive it nor as a Church or people separated from the world and taken into covenant with God for then every Church or people separated from the world and taken into covenant with God should receive circumcision which is false but they received it as appointed them from God under this formall reason and no other But what is all this to the answering the objection That it was not the seal of the spirituall part of the Covenant of Grace to all circumcised persons and that circumcision was appointed to persons not under the Covenant of Grace and that the reason why persons were circumcised was not because they were under the covenant of Grace but only Gods appointment But you yet adde It is true indeed that circumcision bound them who received it to conform to that manner of administration of the covenant which was carried much by a way of temporall blessings and punishments they being types of spirituall things It is right which you grant that circumcision bound them who received it to conform to that manner of administration of the covenant but then it is to be considered that circumcision was a part of this administration and that though temporall blessings as of the land of Canaan and rest in it were shadows of the rest of Gods people and so in a sort of administrations of the covenant of Grace yet they were also part of the things promised in the covenant made to Abraham and when you say circumcision bound them who received it to conform to that manner of administration of the covenant which was carried much by a way of temporall blessings and punishments it is hard to shew in what sense they were bound to conform to temporall blessings and punishments they were bound to conform to the sacrifices and offerings and washings c. For these were their acts to be done by them but how they were bound to conform to the administration by temporall blessings and punishments it is hard to understand sith they were Gods acts not theirs You adde but no man can ever shew that any were to receive the Sacrament of Circumcision in relation to those outward things only or to them at all further then they were administrations of the Covenant of Grace The truth is no man was to receive the Sacrament of Circumcision in relation to these outward things only or to them at all either as they were temporall blessings or types of spirituall things and so as you speak administrations of the covenant of Grace but in this respect only and for this reason and no other because God had so commanded though I deny not circumcised persons were by faith to look on the covenant of Grace through these administrations yet the reason of being circumcised was barely Gods command so that if you abstract Gods command notwithstanding the covenant or any other administration of it they were not to be circumcised You go on Sure I am the proselytes and their children could not be circumcised in any relation at all to the temporall blessings of the land of Canaan as they were temporall because notwithstanding their circumcision they were not capable of receiving or purchasing any inheritance at all in the land sojourne they might as other strangers also did but the inheritance of the land no not one foot of it could ever be alienated from the severall Tribes to whom it was distributed as their Possession by the most High For all the land was divided into twelve Tribes and they were not any one of them allowed to sell their lands longer then till the yeer of Jubilee Lev. 25. v. 3. c. Yea I mâ—y boldly sâ—y that their circumcision was so far from sealing to them the outward good things of the land that it occasioned and tyed them to a greater expence of their temporall blessings by their long and frequent and chargeable journyes to worship at Jerusalem This which you say may be granted and the thing which you would prove by it That they which received circumcision did not receive it in relation only to these outward things yet this overthrows not this Proposition That the covenant made with Abraham had promises of temporall blessings and that some were to be circumcised who had no part in the covenant of Grace You adde And as for what was alledged concerning Ishmael the Answer is easie God indeed there declares that Isaac should be the Type of Christ and that the covenant of Grace should be established and continue in his family yet both Ishmael and the rest of Abrahams family were really taken into covenant untill afterwards by apostasie they discovenanted themselves as also did Esau afterwards though he were the son of Isaac in whose family God had promised the covenant should continue When you say that Ishmael was really taken into the covenant meaning of Grace mentioned in a few words before you oppose both the Apostle Rom. 9.7 8. Gal. 4.28 29. as I have shewed before and Gods own speech Gen. 17.19 20. To which I may adde that Isaac and Jacob only are said to be coheirs with Abraham of the same promise Heb. 11.9 And when you say that he and Esau were discovenanted by apostasie you plainly deliver apostasie from the covenant of Grace which I will not call in you Arminianisme but in others it would and that justly be so censured But you will say you mean that Ishmael and Esau were Abrahams seed by profession and outward cleaving to the covenant as you speak pag. 14. But this is not to be taken into the covenant of Grace really as you speak for taking really into the covenant of Grace is Gods act either of election or promise or some act executing either of these but profession and outward cleaving to the covenant is mans act and therefore how to salve your speech I know not As for the objection I see not that you have answered it but that still it stands good that persons were to be circumcised who were not in the covenant of Grace that Ishmael was appointed to be circumcised though it were declared Gods covenant did not belong to him and therefore the reason of circumcising persons was not the covenant of Grace but only the will and command of God to have it so Your fifth Conclusion followes FIfthly and lastly the priviledges of Believers under this last and best administration of the covenant of Grace are many wayes inlarged made more honourable and comfortable then ever they were in the time of the Jews administration This Conclusion with its Explication and
they are grown men nor any example where ever that was done will any man therefore say that Christian women are not to be partakers of the Lords Supper I think none will be so absurd as to affirm it If it be said though these things be not expresly and in terminis in the new Testament yet they are there virtually and by undeniable consequence I confesse it is true You do in this perioch give two instances of practice warranted by command or example gathered by consequence in the new Testament in the positive worship of the Sacraments to wit womens receiving the Lords Supper and the baptizing of children of Believers when grown persons which you grant are virtually and by undeniable consequence in the new Testament though not expresly and in terminis in terms Now this thing you need not have proved I readily grant it that what ever in positive worship is commanded in the new Testament though it be not in formall terms commanded yet if it may be gathered by virtuall consequence ought to be done Neverthelesse I observe First that you do well expresse the institution of Christ Matth. 28.19 when you say expresse command there is that they should teach the Heathen and the Jews and make them Disciples and then baptize them of which I may make further use afterwards Secondly that when you say there is no expresse command no example in all the new Testament where women received the Sacrament of the Lords Supper you imply there is for males Now herein you Mr. Vines and Mr. Blake and generally others follow Zwinglius whose conceit this was if he were not the first inventor And Mr. Blake expresseth himself thus pag. 22. No particular president more then for this of Infant-baptisme But I pray you tell me is not that 1 Cor. 11.28 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Let a man examine himself and so let him eat of that bread and drink of that cup an expresse command in formall terms And doth not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 comprehend both Sexes When the Apostle sayes vers 23. I delivered unto you that which I received from the Lord was not that a command and that to the whole Church women as well as men when he saith 1 Cor. 10.17 We being many are one bread and one body for we are all partakers of that one bread and are not women as well of the body as men And if so here is an expresse example in formall terms for womens receiving the Lords Supper The like may be said of 1 Cor. 12.13 Acts 20.7 unlesse you will say that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 himself all Disciples comprehend not women because they are of the Masculine Gender which from you that have learned that Logica non curat sexum Logick regards not sex and that hundreds of places there be where the Masculine Gender is put the matter so requiring it for both Sexes I do not suspect And for your other instance as I do not remember any brings it but your self so it is as little to the purpose as the other For that which you say that there is no expresse command that the children of Believers should be baptized when they are grown men It is true except they professe the faith but there is an expresse command as your self grant to baptize Disciples and so to baptize the childe of a Believer that professeth the faith not otherwise so that these your instances are brought to prove that which is not denied and yet the instances are impertinent to prove it You say further So have we virtually and by undenyable consequence sufficient evidence for the baptizing of children both commands and examples This assertion is full if you mean by children Infant-children of Believers prove this and you need prove no more But your fetching such a compasse about makes me imagine your attempt will prove but a Parturiunt montes the mountains bring forth especially when your proof is but from Analogy concerning which the rule holds as Mr. Bowles in his Sermon on Joh. 2.17 Allegorica Theologia unlesse the Lord himself make the application non est argumentativa Allegoricall Divinity is not argumentative but it is fit you should be heard You say For first you have Gods command to Abraham as he was the father of all covenanters that he should seal his children with the seal of the covenant I grant we have Gods command to Abraham who is indeed called the Father of the faithfull no where that I know the father of all covenanters to circumcise his males of eight dayes old and I deny not but that this was a seal that is a confirming signe of the covenant God made with Abraham whence Gods covenant was said to be in their flesh Gen. 17.13 and 't is called the covenant of circumcision Act. 7.8 But you have need of the Philosophers stone to turn this into a command to baptize Infants of Believers which you thus attempt You tell us Now this truth all our Divines defend against the Papists that all Gods commands and institutions about the Sacraments of the Jews binde us as much as they did them in all things which belong to the substance of the Covenant and were not accidentall unto them This is your foundation for your undeniable consequence it had need then be very undeniable and so you conceive it because it is a truâ—h all our Divines defend against the Papists But this is no undeniable Axiome that what all the Protestant Divines defend against the Papists must be truth undeniable I do not think all the Divines in the Assembly will subscribe to it I for my part do disclaim it I give that honour only to the Holy Scripture and have learned from Art 21. of the Church of England that Generall Councels have erred and may erre and consequently all the Divines in the world And one Paphnutius is to be heard against a whole Oecumenicall Councel sometimes And for this which you call a truth all our Divines defend against the Papists I marvell how you can averre it unlesse you had read them all which I think neither you nor any one else hath and for this Maxime I question whether any one leading Author have delivered that which you charge all our Divines with because you direct not where they deliver it it is in vain for me to make search it were to seek a needle in a bottle of hay but I will examine whether it be truth or no. You suppose that there are commâ—nds of God about the Sacraments of the Jews which is granted But then let me tell you I do not assent to this that Circumcision and the Passeover are all the ordinary Sacraments of the Jews I do approve of the words of R. C. that is as I learn from Mr. Selden de anno civili veter Judae c. 2. Mr. Ralph Cudworth of Cambridge whom he there commends in that book of his which is of the true notion of the Lords Supper chap.
you thus expresse ANother you shall finde Mat. 28. where our Saviour bids them goe and teach all Nations baptizing them in the Name of the Father of the Sonne and of the Holy Ghost Where you have two things first what they were to doe Secondly to whom they were to doe it they were to preach and teach all things which he had Commanded them that is they were to Preach the whole Gospel Mark 16.15 The whole Covenant of grace containing all the promises whereof this is one viz. That God will be the God of Believers and of their seed that the seed of Believers are taken into Covenant with their Parents this is a part of the Gospel preached to Abraham The Gospel which was preached to Abraham is delivered Galat. 3.8 9. And the Scripture foreseeing that God would justifie the heathen through faith preached before the Gospel to Abraham saying In thee shall all Nations be blessed so then they which be of faith are blessed with faithfull Abraham And Rom. 1.16 17. I am not ashamed of the Gospel of Christ for it is the power of God to salvation to every one that beleeveth to the Jew first and also to the Greeke For therein is the righteousnesse of God revealed from faith to faith as it is written the just shall live by faith The like may be proved out of Rom. 10. and elsewhere but it is no wrong to say it that it is a new Gospel to affirme that this is one of the Promises of the Covenant of grace that God will be the God of Believers and of their seed that the seed of Believers are taken into Covenant with their Parents I cannot derive it's pedegree higher then Zuinglius But you goe on And they were to baptize them that is to administer Baptisme as a seale of the Covenant to all who received the Covenant this is a dark Paraphrase you expresse it clearer pag. 35. Expresse Command is there that they should teach the heathen and the Jewes and make them Disciples and then baptize them If your meaning be the same in both places I am content you should Comment on your own words you goe on Secondly Wee have the persons to whom they were to do this all Nations whereas before the Church was tyed to one Nation one Nation onely were Disciples now their Commission was extended to make all Nations Disciples every Nation which should receive the faith should be to him now as the peculiar Nation of the Jewes had been in time past In a word Nations here are opposed to the one Nation before I grant that Nations are opposed to one Nation and that thâ— Commission was extended to all Nations which you expresse well pag. 44. Whereas before they were to goe to the lost sheepe of the house of Isâ—ael now they were to goe unto all the world But what sense those woâ—ds may carry Every Nation which should receive the faith should be to him now as the peculiar Nation of the Jewes had been in time past is doubtfull For either it may have this sense Every Nation that receives the faith that is Believers of every Nation shall be to mee a peculiar people as the Jewes were in the sense that Peter speaks 1 Pet. 2.9 and so the sense is good or thus When a Nation shall receive the faith that is a great or eminent part the Governours and chief Cities representative body shall receive the faith that Nation shall in like manner have all their little ones capable of Baptisme and counted visible members of the Church as the posteritie of the Jewes were in the time of that Church administration This I guesse is the businesse that is now upon the anvill by observing â—undry passages in latter Writers with whom your Sermon agrees as if it came out of the same forge Mr Blake pag. 20. hath these words In the same sense and latitude as Nation was taken in respect of the Covenant of God when the Covenant and Covenant-initiating-Sacrament was restrained to that one onely Nation where their Commission was first limited in the same sense it is to be taken unlesse the Text expresse the contrary now this Commission is enlarged This cannot be denied of any that will have the Apostles able to know Christs meaning by his words in this enlarged Commission But Nation then as is confessed did comprehend all in the Nation in respect of the Covenant and nothing is expressed in the Text to the contrary therefore it is to be taken in that latitude to comprehend Infants Mr Rutherfurd in his peaceable and temperate plea Ch. 12. Concl. 1. Arg. 7. hath these words Seeing God hath chosen the race and nation of the Gentiles and is become a God to us and to our seede the seede must be holy with holinesse of the chosen Nation and holinesse externall of the Covenant notwithstâ—â—â—ing the father and mother were as wicked as the Jewes who slew the Lord of glory And indeed those Paedobaptists are forced to say so who justifie the practise of baptizing foundlings infants of Papists excommunicate persons Apostates if they be borne within their Parish thereby directly crossing their own tenent That this is the priviledge of a believer from the Covenant of grace I will be the God of a believer and his seed And the Apostles words 1 Cor. 7.14 according to their own exposition which is that the children whereof one of the parents is not sanctified by the faith of the other are federally uncleane nor considering that this practise of baptizing all in the Parish arose not from any conceit of the federall holinesse of a Nation but from the conceit of Cyprian with his 66 Bishops that the grace of God is to be denied to none that are borne of men upon which ground and the necessitie of baptisme to save a childe from perishing as of old so still among the common people and officiating Priests children are baptized without any relation to Covenant-holinesse particular or nationall But I leave this to the Independents to agitate who have in this point the advantage and returne to the Text Mat. 28.19 Concerning which the question is what 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or them refers to in our Saviours words whether all Nations must be the substantive to it without any other circumscription or the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 men and women as the Author of infants baptizing proved lawfull by Scriptures or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Disciples included in the verbe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which may be translated make Disciples That Author denies not but that the verbe may signifie to make Disciples yet by the subject matter which it is here taken and used to expresse it must be taken for to teach and not to make Disciples because to mâ—ke Disciples was not in the power of the Apostles upon whom the command lay it being the peculiar of God to frame the heart to submit unto and embrace the Apostles teaching and to
baptize into the name of the Father Son and Holy Spirit that is with invocation of the name of the Lord as Acts 22.16 Paul is bid arise and be baptized and wash away his sinnes calling on the name of the Lord. Which infants cannot doe with devoting themselves to the service and adherence of the Father Son and holy Spirit which may be gathered from this that Paul said 1 Cor. 13.15 he had baptized none into his name that is he had not caused them in their baptisme to devote or addict themselves to him as their Master but infants cannot so devote themselves to Christ therefore they are not to be baptized according to this institution 4. Christ bids the Apostles presently after baptisme teach them to observe what â—ver he commanded them but infants cannot doe this therefore they are not to be baptized Likewise baptizing infants doth not agree with the primitive practise of John Baptist and the Apostles who required expressions of repentance and faith afore Baptisme Mat. 3.6 Mark 1.5 Luk. 3.10 Acts 2.38 8.12 13.37 9.18 10.47 11.17 18. 16.15.31 32 33. 18.8 19.5.8.22.16 in which places profession of repentance and faith is still made the antecedent to Baptisme but this doth not agree to infants therefore they are not to be baptized Of these arguments you answer onely to the two first from institution and to the last from example to the first from institution you answered before and there I examined your answer part 3. sect 12 13. To the second from institution and to the last from example you make some answer here not denying that the order appointed by Christ is first to teach and then to baptize for that is so manifest that your selfe page 35. doe so paraphrase the words when you say expresse command there is that they should teach the heathen and the Jewes and make them disciples and then baptize them nor by denying that John Baptist and the Apostles required expressions of faith and repentance afore Baptisme nor by denying that the institution of Christ and the Apostles example are our rule in the administring the Sacraments so as that we cannot vary from them without will-worship and prophaning the worship of God by our inventions for that is so confessed a truth that there hath been a great while scarce a Sermon before the Parliament but hath asserted that rule and pressed it on the Parliament and our solemne Covenant supposeth it the Churches of Scotland New-England c. The Sermons in the Citie continually a vow it and urge it and upon this ground former and later reformations are urged But you have two miserable evasions You say I answer First that of Mat. 28. is not the institution of baptisme it was instituted long before to be the seale of the Covenant it 's only an inlargement of their commission whereas before they were onely to goe to the lost sheepe of the house of Israel now they are to goe unto all the world Whereunto I reply 1. If this be not the first institution of baptisme yet it is an institution and the institution of baptisme to us Gentiles and therefore the rule by which Ministers are to baptize there being no other institution that I know of to regulate our practise by but such as is gathered from John Baptist the Apostles practise and sayings 2. If institution or appointment of God must warrant our practise in Gods worship which you once held in the Sermon cited before part 2. sect 9. then you must shew another institution else you cannot acquit paedobaptisme from will-worship and your selfe from breaking the hedge God hath set about the second Commandement But you adde further And beside it is no where said that none were baptized but such as were first taught and what reason wee have to believe the contrary you have before seene Your selfe say presently in the next words It is said indeed that they taught and baptized and no expresse mention of any other then of the baptisme of persons taught and you assigne a reason of it And page 35. your selfe paraphrase the institution Mat. 28.19 Expresse command there is that they should teach the heathen and the Jewes and make them disciples and then baptize them and consequently there is no expresse command for any other and for the reason you have to beleeve that others are to be baptized which are not taught it hath been examined in the weighing your virtuall consequence which is grounded upon such a principle as in time you may see to be a dangerous precipice how ever for the present the great consent of Doctors in the reformed Churches dazzles your eyes for my part I cannot yet discerne but that your grounds for paedobaptisme are worse then the Papists and Ancients who build it on Joh. 3.5 Rom. 5.12 But you yet adde Secondly it is said indeed that they taught and baptized and no expresse mention made of any other but the reason is plaine there was a new Church to be constituted all the Jewes who should receive Christ were to come under another administration You say right therefore none other were to be baptized but taught persons because though the invisible Church of the Gentiles were joyned to the invisible of the Jewes Rom. 11.17 Ephes. 2.14 15 16. by faith of the Gospel as Ephes. 3.6 it is expounded yet the outward estate of the Church is new and as you say even the Jewes who should receive Christ were to come under a new administration even those who were Jewes by nature and not proselytes were to be baptized as uncleane persons contrary to their former administration in which they were onely circumcised and this is a plaine evidence that the administration of Circumcision is not the administration under which wee are now but that it did belong to that administration which is now abolished which is enough to overthrow all your virtuall consequence from circumcision to baptisme and consequently all the former dispute of your first argument in which circumcision of infants is indeed the alone prop of baptizing infants As for that which you adde And their infants were to come in onely in their right This overthrows your second argument for that is grounded upon this that infants of believers and particularly infants of believing Jewes such as those are supposed to be Mark 10.14 were partakers of the inward grace of baptisme and if so they came in by their own right But that one mans right to baptisme should give another right to baptisme is a position that the Scripture doth not deliver and inwraps sundry errors which I now omit because it comes in onely upon the by But you goe on And the heathen nations who were to be converted to Christ were yet without the covenant of grace and their children could have no right untill themselves were brought in and therefore no marvaile though both John and Christs disciples and Apostles did teach before they baptized
because then no other were capable of baptisme In this perioch you grant many things which doe yeeld the cause for 1. you say that both John and Christs disciples and the Apostles did teach before they baptized because then no other were capable of baptisme now by this reason you confesse 1. that baptizing of infants is not according to Johns and Christs disciples and Apostles practise 2. you say then no other were capable of baptisme Now this is true either because then there were no children of believers that might be baptized but that is absurd that in all the time of Johns and the disciples and Apostles ministery believers had no children to be baptized and contrary to the allegation of Mark. 10.14 and other Texts or because they had no Commission I cannot conceive how else your speech can be true But if John the disciples and Apostles had no Commission to baptize infants neither have we and so to doe it neither have our Ministers any commission for we have no other commission to baptize then they had But you thinke to salve it thus But when once themselves were instructed and baptized then their children were capable of it by vertue of the covenant Upon which I observe 1. If the children were capable when once parents were instructed and baptized then they were capable in Johns and the disciples and Apostles times and so this speech overthrowes that before that then no other but taught persons were capable of baptisme 2. When you say the children were capable by vertue of the covenant it seems you could produce no institution in the new administration but the institution of circumcision the validitie of which hath been considered before Besides the covenant being the same at all times as your Conclus 1. holds the children of believers were as capable in Johns time as after So that your words plainly enterfere But you put a case to be resolved If any in the Jewish Church had received commission to goe and make other Cities proselytes to them their commission must have run thus Goe teach and circumcise would it therefore have followed that none might be circumcised but such as were first taught To this I answer in this commission the precept of circumcising should have had reference in the execution of it either to the old institution of circumcision Gen. 17. and then they had been appointed to circumcise males at eight dayes old not taught or to a new institution and then it would have been told more plainly what they were to circumcise and whom and so they might have resolved themselves But what this makes for baptisme of infants I see not unlesse it be supposed that baptisme and circumcision are all one which like the string in the Lampry is an errour that runs along through your whole Sermon THe next objection you thus expresse But it is expresly said That he that believes and is baptized shall bâ— saved faith in Christ is the condition upon which men may be baptized and this is the most common objection among the Anabaptists unbelievers may not be baptized children are unbelievers therefore they may not be baptized wee have say they cleare evidence that faith is a condition required in those that are to be baptized no evidence of any other condition that makes them capable of baptisme Others of them adde that under an affirmative command the negative is to be included believing is the affirmative unbelieving is the negative therefore where believers are commanded to be baptized unbelievers are forbidden to be baptized this objection they much glory in and some of them dare all the world to answer it The objection framed in this later way I own not and consequently I may well let passe the answer for the truth is Mark 16.16 is not a command but an enuntiation onely that text with others specially that Acts 8. 37. where when the Eunuch asked Philip What letteth me to be baptized Philip answered if thou believest in the Lord Jesus with all thy heart thou mayest and thereby intimated that faith professed is a prerequisite to baptisme and the defect of it an hindrance confirme the objection as it is the first way formed which may be further strengthned from the baptisme of Lydia the Jaylor Crispus c. and is confirmed in that in the subsequent practise of baptizing a Confession of faith was made by the person baptized as appeares out of plaine passages in the Ancients Justin Martyr Tertullian Cyprian and Augustine lib. 8. confes c. 2. where speaking of one Victorinus who was to be baptized Denique ut ventum est ad horam profitendae fidei quae verbis certis retentisque memoriter de loco eminentiore in conspectu populi fidelis Romae reddi solet ab iis qui accessuri sunt ad gratiam tuam c. Lastly when it was come to the houre of professing the faith which is wont in certaine words and gotten by heart to be rendered from an higher place in the sight of the faithfull people at Rome by those that shall have accesse in thy grace and when it was offered him by the Presbyters that if he would he might then make his confession more secretly he refused it and made his confession publiquely with great acclamation But this is a thing confessed by you pag. 47. and it is usually answered that this was onely in the baptisme of growne men but infants might be baptized without such a confession I reply this answer might serve turne if either by institution or practise primitive there could be proved any other baptisme then of confessors of faith in the meane time till that be done the argument is good sith primum in unoquoque genere est mensura reliquorum The first in each kinde is the measure of the rest and this was a prerequisite condition in the first practise therefore it ought to be so still especially considering that God in his providence hath still preserved in all ages an image of the first practise in the interrogatories propounded to the baptized even to infants and thought necessary to be answered by some one for them and the altering of it hath been a great cause of many corruptions in the Church of God that so men might see what evils have followed the swerving from the rule and might be directed what is necessary to be reformed And so I passe to the third as you call it objection which you thus expresse BVt suppose they are capable of the inward grace of baptisme and that God doth effectually worke in some of the infants of believers is that sufficient warrant for us to baptize all the infants of beleevers if wee knew in what infants the Lord did worke then we might baptize those infants say some of them but that he doth not make knowne to us wee cannot know of any one infant by any ordinary way of knowledge that they are inwardly baptized with the holy Ghost and therefore
wee may not baptize any of them but waite to see when and in whom God will worke the thing signified and then apply the signe to them This that you here put among the objections is rather an exception to your second argument grounded on Act. 10.47 11.17 In answer to which it is granted that those who have the inward grace meaning it actually are not to be debarred of baptisme for then they are believers and disciples But then it is rightly added that this can make no ordinary rule for baptizing the infants of believers indifferently sith there is no certainty that any one infant of a believer now existent hath the inward grace of baptisme and it is certain that all have not and experience sheweth very many have not when they come to age nor can it be known who have and who have not but by extraordinary revelation which if given would be sufficient authoritie to baptize those infants though the ordinary rule be not to baptize infants of believers indifferently As the extraordinary spirit of Elijah and Phinehas and Peter in killing Ananias and Sapphira were sufficient authoritie to them to doe those things which agree not with ordinary rule And this I grant to Mr Blake that those that are thus intituled through want of an institution are not to be excluded for according to this supposition in this case the institution is cleare for them for they are sanctified persons and so believers and disciples of Christ and besides the extraordinary revelation for that end would be an institution of that particular act But the thing that he and you would infer from this concession is that we may then make it an ordinary rule to baptize infants But that can never be for extraordinarium non facit regulam communem That which is extraordinary makes not a common rule If it did James and John might call for fire from heaven as Elijah did a man in his zeale might kill a wicked man without a legall triall as did Phinehas But let us heare what reply you make to this concession you say thus Our knowledge that God hath effectually wrought the thing signified is not the condition upon which we are to apply the signe God no where required that wee should know that they are inwardly and certainly converted whom we admit to the Sacrament of Baptisme the Apostles themselves were not required to know this of those whom they baptized if they were they sinned in baptizing Simon Magus Alexander Hymeneus Ananias and Sapphira with others wee are indeed to know that they have in them the condition which must warrant us to administer the signe not that which makes them possest of the thing signified fallible conjectures are not to be our rule in adminisâ—ring Sacraments either to infants or growne men but a knowne rule of the Word out of which rule wee must be able to make up such a judgement that our administration may be of faith as well as out of charity In baptizing of grown men the Apostles and Ministers of Christ administred the signe not because they conjectured that the parties were inwardly sanctified but because they made that profession of faith and holinesse of which they were sure that whoever had the thing in truth were received by Christ into inward communion with himself and that whoever thus made it that Christ would have them received into the communion of his Church though possibly for want of the inward work they were never received into the inward communion with Jesus Christ. Indeed when such a confession was made Christian charity which alwayes hopeth the best and thinketh no evill bound them to receive them and think of them and converse with them as with men in whom the inward work was wrought untill they gave signes to the contrary But this their charity or charitable conjecture was not the ground of admitting them to the Ordinance but the profession and confession of the party made according to the Word which they were bound to rest in yea I greatly question whether in case Peter or Paul could by the Spirit of revelation have known that Ananias or Alexander would have proved no better then hypocrites whether they either would or ought to have refused them from Baptisme whilest they made that publique profession and confession upon which others were admitted who in the event proved no better then those were so that I conclude not our knowledge of their inward sanctification is requisite to the admitting of any to Baptisme but our knowledge of the will of Christ that such who are in such and such a condition should by us be received into the communion of the Church To the assertion here delivered I assent that not our knowledge that the person to be baptized hath inward grace is necessary but our knowledge of the will of Christ and the person to be baptized his having the condition which is the profession of faith and holiness is sufficient warrant to baptize him And I agree that a judgement of charity is not that a Minister is to proceed by in this case but a judgement of faith as you speak and of ministeriall prudence For a Minister in this case is to act as a Steward who is to deal according to his Lords will not his own minde otherwise his own understanding or affection which are but a Lesbian rule should be his rule which would be intolerable Thus far I agree with you only whereas in the case by you framed your resolution inclines to the negative I rather incline to the affirmative and conceive they would have refused them and that they ought because I conceive the end of such an extraordinary revelation would be to warne them not to admit such persons and so equivalent to a prohibition and in that case the baptizing them would be a plain prophaning the Ordinance which is not to be given to Dogs and Swine And I conceive that which Chamier tom 4. panstra Cath. lib. 5. c. 15. Sect. 13. speaks in justification of the scrutiny heretofore made in examining the competentes so strictly confirms this resolution But to keep to the present businesse that which is granted doth neither prove that upon extraordinary revelation of the present inward sanctification of an Infant that Infant may not be baptized without staying for its profession For though it be true that we are not to stay from baptizing them that professe the faith because we have not a spirit of discerning to know them to be reall Believers yet we may having a spirit of discerning that an Infant that cannot professe the faith yet hath true faith or is inwardly sanctified baptize that Infant without staying for his profession partly because of the principle used by Peter Acts 10.47 and partly because the revelation of the faith of that Infant to that end doth authorize that act Nor doth this concession advantage you to prove baptizing of Infants by ordinary rule which is the thing
little ones most lately born can be freed from damnation unlesse by the grace of the name of Christ which he hath commended in his Sacraments Pag. 16. Neither let that move thee that some do not bring little ones to receive baptisme with that faith that they may be regenerated by spirituall grace unto life eternall but because they think that by this remedy they keep or receive temporall health For not therefore are they not regenerate because they are not offered by them with this intention For necessarie ministeries are celebrated by them It is answered he doth beleeve by reason of the Sacrament of faith Pag. 18. in the margin Lastly who seeth not that this was the manner of that time when scarce the thousandth person was baptized afore he was of grown age and diligently exercised among the catechized Part. 2. Pag. 21. These to the rest of the errours which they borrowed from the Manichees and Priscillianists added this over and above that they said that the baptisme of little ones was unprofitable inasmuch as it could profit none who could not both himself beleeve and by himself ask the Sacrament of baptisme of which kind we read not that the Manichees and Priscillianists taught any thing They mock us because we baptize infants because we pray for the dead because we ask the suffrages of the Saints They beleeve not that Purgatory fire remains after death but that the soul loosed from the body doth presently passe either to rest or to damnation But now they who acknowledge not the Church it is no marvell if they detract from the orders of the Church if they receive not their appointments if they despise Sacraments if they obey not commands Because he took away Festivals Sacraments Temples Priests because the life of Christ is shut up from the little ones of Christians while the grace of baptisme is denied nor are they suffered to draw neer to salvation Pag. 23. We perceive in the man dexterity and a study of mediocrity But in that man I desire to be deceived I have seemed to my self to have found nothing but immoderate thirst of wealth and glory A fanatique man and grosse Anabaptist Pag. 24. They would seem studious of truth Pag. 25. The word of the Lord. From the staffe to the corner A proverbiall speech in Schools when one thing is inferred from another which have no connexion They who all along these places of Belgick and lower Germany are found bordering on this Anabaptisticall heresie are almost all followers of this Mennon whom I have named to whom now this Theodorick hath succeeded In whom for a great part you may perceive tokens of a certain godly mind who being incited by a certain unskilfull zeal out of errour rather then malice of mind have departed from the true sense of Divine Scriptures and the agreeing consent of the whole Church which may be perceived by this that they alwayes resisted the rage of Munster and Batenburgick that followed after stirred up by John Batenburg after the taking of Munster who plotted a certain new restitution of the kingdom of Christ which should be placed in the destruction of the wicked by outward force And they tauâ—ht thâ—t the instauration and propagation of the kingdom of Christ consists in the crosse alone whereby it happens that they which are such mâ—y seem rather worthy of pity and amendment then persecution and perdition Pag. 28. What part of time Pag. 48. Hâ—w it may be that Israel may be rejected but that together the Covenant of God established with Abraham and his seed should seem to be made void In the margin The credit of that promise Gen. 17.7 8. doth presently appear to be brought into danger by the rejecting of the Jews and the exclusion of them out of the Covenant of God sith they are born of Abraham according to the flâ—sh so saith he it appeares to them that look upon the first fâ—ce of things The Apostle shews thâ—t theâ—efâ—re the word of the Covenant and divine promises made to Israel failed not or was made void aâ—though a great part of the Jews were unbelieving because those promises of the Câ—venant are of God not to them properly who were to come from the seed of Abraham according to the flesh but to those who were to be ingraffed into the family of Abraham by vertue of divine promise Pag. 49. The argument of the Apostle to prove the Covenant of God entred into with Abraham doth not comprehend all the posterity of Abraham in its skirt we think should be thus simply framed Esau and Jacob were of the pâ—sterity of Abraham but God did not comprehend both of these in his Covenant with Abraham Therefore not all the posterity of Abraham It is proved that God did not comprehend both in the Covenant of grace because he did not comprehend Esau the elder but Jacob the younger Pag. 50. There are many of the seed of Abraham to whom the word of promise doth not belong as Ismael and Ismaelites But if so there be many of the seed of Abraham to whom the word of promise doth not belong then the rejâ—ction of many Jews who are of the seed of Abraham doth not make void the word of promise In the margin Calvin gathers hence in that any is the seed of Abraham the promise made to Abraham belongs to him but the answer is manifest that promise understood of spirituall blessing pertaines not to the carnall seed of Abraham but to the spirituall as the Apostle himselfe hath interpreted it Rom. 4. 9. For if you understand the carnall seed now that promise will belong to none of the Gentiles but to those alone who are begotten of Abraham and Isaac according to the flesh He teacheth also that the promises of God are not tied to the carnall birth but to belong onely to the believing and spirituall posterity For they are not the sons of Abraham who are of Abraham according to the flesh but who are according to the spirit Pag. 51. In the Margin The inculcation also of the seed sheweth that onely the elect and effectually called are noted the Apostle so interpreting this place Rom. 9.8 Gal. 3.16 4.28 Pag. 52. That baptisme doth not certainly seale in all the children of believers the grace of God sith among them some are absolutely reprobated even by an antecedent decree of God from eternity and therefore believers are to doubt of the truth of Gods Covenant I am thy God and the God of thy seed after thee Pag. 58. To be a son of Abraham doth declare nothing else but to be freely elected Rom. 9.8 and to tread in the steps of the faith of Abraham Rom. 4.12 and to doe the workes of Abraham Joh. 8.39 From which is rightly gathered certain expectation of salvation to come Rom. 8.29 Pag. 69. In the Margin Infants in their parents grandfathers great grandfathers grandfathers grandfathers have refused the grace of the Gospel by which act