therefore nullities or no ordinances truth is no lesse truth because a weake scholler taketh unsafe mediums to confirme or prove the same Yet I adde two things 1. That the authors urged by Antipaedobaptists use like language and argument Justine calleth it new birth and saith wee bring them to the water and they are New-borne as wee are that is baptized and per hoc lavacrum remissionem peccatorum praeteritorum adipiscamur fiamus filii scientiae and that wee become the sonnes of knowledge and obtaine remission of sinnes past by baptisme c. Clemens Alexandrinus calls it a washing whereby wee wipe away our sinnes grace whereby the punishments due to our sinnes are forgiven paedag l. 1. Gregory Nazianzen calls it baptisme because sinne is buried in the water so he calls it the key of heaven the casting away of the flesh the loosing of our bonds the taking away of slavery c. in his 40. orat de baptismo So Basil yea these authors use like grounds for baptisme Justine useth that from the necessitie of it from John 3. 5. and this hee speaking of baptisme addes Rationem ejus rei hanc accepimus ab Apostolis Quoniam prima nativitas c. Wee have received from the Apostles this as a reason of this thing because that our first nativity scil native corruption commeth upon us neither knowing nor willing it from the fellowship of our parents and from their seed c. Justine and those with him lived not in the Apostles times yet he received this he saith from them that is delivered by them to others after them and from those others to them And what reason is that delivered thus as a ground of baptisme even that native estate of children in their parents What is this but in effect what the author of those homilies on the Romans urgeth speaking of Davids being conceived in sinne c. Propter hoc ecclesia traditionem ab apostolis accepit parvulis baptismum dare c. and the same is used by Origen hom 14. on Luke by Cyprian Epistle ad Fidum by Austin Jerom Ambrose The same used by Gregory orat de baptismo thou scil art to hast to baptisme as being in danger if not more but from hence being borne onely in corruption or in sinne The same urgeth the Milevitan Councell Tertullian de baptismo urgeth John 3. 5. for baptisme also So as Austin and others urge it upon the ground of danger to unbaptized persons so doth Gregory Nazianzen orat 40. not to stay to Christs yeares because of danger of mortality Yea better Infants bee sealed without sense thereof then die without the seale And hee also as well as Austin makes the case of Infants dying without baptisme to bee punished with paena damni albeit not with paena sensus ibid. Basil in his exhortation to hast to baptisme useth the same argument taken from the danger of death without baptisme yet in them any naevi in this way are overlooked and their testimonies not therefore invalid 2 I say that albeit that Austin and others for Paedobaptisme used some unsafe grounds yet others they used were to us solid as that from circumcision l. 4. cont Donat. c. 23 24. and Epist 108. Seleucianae l. 2. de peccat merit remiss c. 25. that of their parents faith whence notwithstanding want of faith in themselves it became a beneficial ordinance Serm. 14. upon verb. Apostoli that of their interest in the Covenant which Christ came to fulfill in the flesh hence that in the Epistle of the Carthaginian Councell in Austins time unto Innocent the first Nos quia credimus parvulos in peccato nasci c. praeterea quia credimus filium dei pure ex illibata virgine natum ad implendas confirmandasque dei promissiones quae Infantes non excludant a salute sed in faedere includunt deo eos baptizandos esse contendimus This that I have here recited may serve further to evince the guile of the treatise quoting this Epistle Proposition 7. adding the words much rather thus but much rather includeth Infants which is manifest injury likewise it appeares by * Lib. de Bap. ad finem Tertullians answer in way of glosse upon Matth. 19. 13 14. Let them come to mee c. that that was of old held forth as a ground of Paedobaptisme In a word the command mind and institution of Christ and his Apostles was also held out of old by Austin and others as the ground thereof which they meane when they say the Church received it from the Apostles Homil. in Rom. 5. Austin contr Donat. lib. 4. cap. 23 24. Milevitan Councel Can. 2. and Austin de Genesi ad literam lib. 10. cap. 23. saith else it were not to bee credited or received if it were not an Apostolicall tradition So hee saith againe in his third Epistle ad Volus Therefore then they baptized persons because to them it was an Apostolicall Tradition That is it which was without all doubt delivered by the Lord and by his Apostles As Austin further openeth himselfe lib de pec merit remiss cap. 26. Charitie then I think should over looke other their more unsound tenents or arguments touching Paedobaptisme But to return to Cyprians Epistle and adde one word more for Mr. B. and others satisfaction Let him looke upon Erasmus his owne edition of Cyprian Anno 1541. and hee shall see that Erasmus who was very Eagle eyed to espy spurious writings or passages of the Ancients and there excepteth against many things going under Cyprians name yet no word of his against Cyprians 59. Epist ad Fidum No more doth Mr. Perkins in his Problemes nor Rivet in his sacred Critick nor any critick which they quote except against it And here I might end these Annotations upon the 7th Proposition in this Treatise SECT IIII. BUt I meet with an old Threadbare objection to the same purpose as if Paedobaptisme was first ordained by Higinus Bishop of Rome who lived about the yeare 1444. but all I can find in Authors is a certaine decree ascribed to him at least that Infants comming to Baptisme need not have but one god-father or god-mother as they call them And so much witnesseth Fasciculus Temporum and Nauclerus vol. 1. Generat 6. besides what I find quoted out of Gratian but none say that he first ordained that children should bee baptized A like Decretall is ascribed to Vrban Bishop of Rome touching Childrens confirmation about the yeere 227. Nauclerus but not of their Baptisme yet if they made any such Canons it rather confirmes what wee say then weakneth our cause scil That Infants baptisme was in those times of use in Rome and elsewhere why else any orders about their Susceptors or their Confirmations CHAP. IX THe Treatise hath but one lie more to shake out of its Budget and it 's a merry one if I may so call it if the Reader spare a little more patience hee shall heare
of a true visible Church which are according to Mr. B's profession and the initiatory seale of the covenant then circumcision now baptisme and so Mr. B. his ninth argument is answered his second third fourth sixth and eight argument hath been elsewhere answered his seventh argument from a mistaken exposition of Acts 19 is elsewhere answered in what is briefly spoken to that place his tenth argument from the taking up of Paedobaptisme from corrupt principles is abundantly answered in the whole discourse wherein better principles are held forth and if any hold it out upon weake and unwarrantable grounds it weakens not a good cause in it selfe that it is ill handled His last argument from universall practise to the contrary is elsewhere answered and amongst others the practise in baptizing Lydia's house is one exception nor doth that which Mr. B. would pretend as an argument to the contrary evince what hee would have they are not said to bee the brethren of the house which Paul there comforted Acts 16. ult doth Mr. B. which would make all the jaylors houshold to bee actually beleevers thinke that they attended not Paul and Silas from prison for hee was now to depart the citie and hasted out of the jaylors house by the comming of the Magistrates thither for that end vers 39. so that there was no opportunitie before to utter what they had to say at parting but another house as that of Lydia in their way out of the citie is a fitter place for that purpose there therefore they make a little pause for that end after which they departed SECT XIIII ANd to adde here to consideration of 1 Cor. 10. 1 2. which to mee hath been long of validitie to prove this practise of Paedobaptisme as then in use nor can I yet bee removed from those thoughts the Apostles scope there was to take downe their pride in priviledges and resting secure in ordinances c. by shewing them the hazard to which they lay open notwithstanding if they provoked God by an argument from a like example of Church members interested not meerely in ordinary but extraordinary priviledges yet by reason of such provocation comming to a sad end and thus lyeth the Apostles argument Where there are like priviledges of grace there if abused will bee like punishments inflicted but with you and with them of old are like priviledges of grace ergo if alike abused there will follow like punishments And because they might glory in those peculiar Church ordinances of the seales which yet they were so apt to abuse hee singles out parallels to them and therein doth not take instance from the ordinary Sacraments of the Jewes but from two extraordinary ones wherein if in any thing they might seeme to bee priviledged above others Now if there were no parallel in that materiall businesse of the childrens baptisme in Corinth Church a great part of the Apostles scope of urging them from a ground of paritie of priviledges failed nay this had been a good argument to have taken downe their pride another way scil that the members of that Church had their children with them in a glorious manner baptized in the cloud and sea yet God dealt so with them in his judgements and you Corinthians that have nothing any way parallel to such a baptisme of your children doe you thinke to escape Object 1. But you will say there is no proportion betwixt them in that this was no Sacrament at all but an extraordinary providence Answ An ordinary Sacrament it was not but a Sacrament it was though extraordinary SECT XV. FIrst in that the other of the Manna and rock was not else spirituall meat and drinke and Christ to many of them really it was then Sacramentally so or no way to them Secondly why else doth the Apostle single out but these two to the one giving the name of baptisme to the other of spirituall meat and drinke and Christ agreeable to that mentioned in the end of this argument vers 16 17. Thirdly why else doth hee having mentioned their being under the cloud vers 1. come over it againe vers 2. and adde the name of baptisme to it It were a tautology if intending it of a bare providence Fourthly else the Apostle had much failed in his scope of deterring the members of this Church considered as such from Church sinnes and wantonnesse under and against Church priviledges Fiftly else why is not the same ascribed to all the rest to the mixt multitude which were with them yea to the very beasts for all shared in this as a providence all passed thorough the Sea with them c. yet none but the Church have this ascribed to them All our fathers were under the cloud and baptized c. the Church fathers to Paul and Gentile Church members as such were those Jew Church members whether parents or children the very babes as then yet in respect of after ages of the Church to whom afterwards they were Instruments to convey Church truths and blessings they were fathers Paul spake this to the brethren of the Church yet not excluding the sisters but including them in his admonition and argument but it 's usuall that Church admonitions and Epistles doe runne in the name of the brethren as being principall actors in all Church matters and hence also albeit the females of the Jew Church as such bee by proportion included in this matter of Church priviledge yet hee nameth onely the males but onely members of the Church did share in it in that respect Sixtly hence also the phrase baptized into Moses not personally but ministerially considered in his doctrine hee gave them from God both a precept for it and a promise encouraging to it or into Moses typically considered as a type of Christ Act. 3. 22. Object 2. Was not this onely a type of saving preservation from sinne c. Answ All the Corinthians had no antitype thereof in their baptisme really no more then many of them and in a Sacramentall way that baptisme to them was as that to the Corinthians a visible seale of salvation Object 3. Doth hee not speake of a samenesse therein betwixt the Jewes themselves and not in reference to the members of the Church of Corinth Answ The scope of the Apostle being what was mentioned will not beare other sense then of comparing them with the Jewes in like priviledge for substance to deterre them from like sinnes lest they incurre like punishments Object 4. By this argument wee set up nationall Churches now Answ No more followeth hence ex natura rei but as onely Church members according to their severall capacities were so priviledged and not others so onely Church members now are to partake of Church Ordinances wee are to consider it herein quà Church which is continuing and not quà nationall Church wherein was some circumstantiall peculiaritie which vanished Object 5. You may then pleade for Infants comming to the Lords Supper since all our Fathers did
alone convey sinne to the Infant It beleeveth then and it's baptisme is valid and it 's joyned to the faithfull formerly baptized This the authoritie of the Church our mother holdeth This doth the sure Canon or rule of truth obtaine Thus far forth then it was looked at as a doctrine not onely which the Church had in it but which the Scripture the rule of truth contained in it that in the businesse of Baptisme at least the faith of such as conveyed sinne to the child even of the parents was in stead of its owne personall faith so farre as to make its baptisme valid and beneficiall to it SECT IIII. Arnobius THe next witnesse is Arnobius upon the Psalmes which Perkins putteth at the yeere 290. but because Perkins in Praepar ad Demon. Probl. and Rivet in his Crit. sac makes it a spacious booke as mentioning on Psal 119. the Pelagian heresie which came up above sixscore yeeres after Arnobius his time I shall not attempt to fight against a shadow Albeit the place being of the way of Adults Baptisme concludeth nothing against what wee maintaine Lâ—do Vives Ludovicus Vives is the next who in his notes upon Austin de Civitate Dei l. 1. cap. 26. saith the Treatise but it 's rather cap. 27 as Hen. Den. more truely quoteth it affirmeth that in times past no man was brought to bee baptized but those that were come to their full growth who having learned what it concerned desired the same But whether hee that lived but in Henry the eighths dayes or Austin whom hee expounds which lived above twelve hundred yeares agoe had better reason to know what was done of old let any sober minde judge Strabo To the same purpose Walefrid Strabo who lived about the yeare 800. seemeth to speake but Origen who was in the yeare 201. according to Osiander or 230. according to Perkins and Vsher hee mentions Paedobaptisme as from the Apostles as well as Austin doth Melivitan And so doth the Milevitan councell in the yeare 402. according to Wolfius say as much that the Catholique Church hath alwayes understood Infants to bee defiled with Adams sinne and according to the rule of faith to bee on that ground namely amongst others for it 's knowne sundry other gounds were of old urged for Paedobaptisme as that Matth. 19. 13 14 15. Suffer c. For of such c. urged in Tertullians time 200. yeares before as appeares by his assaying to take off that ground in his booke De Baptismo before mentioned baptized See the 1. Tome of Councells SECT V. Bucer THe next witnesse is Bucer in his Annotat. upon the 4th of John set out Anno 28. So much as in the Apostolicall writings are written of baptisme is apparent that baptisme was administred to none by the Apostles but to those of whom concerning their regeneration they made no doubt c. I have looked that very booke and a booke distinct from his greater booke on the Evangelists and there is no such words It 's a meere forgery Bucer is againe cited Proposion 6th saying that Christ hath no where plainly commanded that children should bee baptized If the speech had been just thus yet it 's evident his Intent was not that children ought not to bee baptized by vertue of Gods command which is the direct conclusion subscribed to in the explication of it at Wittenberg by him and others as before but that the command was not in so many words expressed but by necessary consequence to bee concluded His booke intituled The groundworke and cause I have not though like testimonies have been answered before SECT VI. Ruffinus THe next is Ruffinus in his exposition upon the Symbol that those at Rome and Aquila that were to bee baptized must first acknowledge and confesse the 12. Articles of the Creed Here Ruffinus is as one against Paedobaptisme By others when Origens authoritie is urged upon Rom. 5. for Paedobaptisme then it is spurious and the words of Ruffinus Now how should one behave himselfe amidst this contradiction of the antipartie Well wee shall ward off both Blowes as they come God willing As for this testimony as much is in the Treatise and the same place brought out of Austin in his 8th Booke of Confessions that albeit the Authors conceale the name of the place where Victorinus was to have made confession of the faith as the custome was namely at Rome Yea but how then saith Austin lib. 4 cont Donat. cap. 13. 14. that it was ever the use of the Churches and that delivered from the Apostles to baptize Infants Verily both are subordinates and not contraries According to the subjects mentioned if speaking of Adults then the former is true if of Infants then the latter is as true Albeit it 's as true after the custome then in use in Ruffinus his time that Infants did make confession by their sureties as according to God they did and doe now confesse their faith so farre as concerneth their baptisme in their parents even as every man Deut. 16. 17. giving as hee was able their males which personally there appeared came not before the Lord empty not any of them but gave scil in their parents offering for them CHAP. VII SECT I. HIs proofes out of Popish writers as Eckius mentioned in proofe of that and of the 7th Proposition Rossensis Cocletus Ennusius and Staphylus to which some adde Bellarmine I doe not much regard because they can play Legerdemaine fast and loose with a trick that they have If they dispute against Calvinists about the sufficiency of Scripture or validitie of humane traditions then Paedobaptisme is a tradition of the Church If against Anabaptists then Eckius in his Enchiridion here cited hath his foure Scripture arguments to prove it to bee of Scripturall authoritie and foundation For Bellarmine hee hath in his book of Baptisme cap. 8. 3 arguments from Scripture for it And although saith hee wee doe not find it commanded expresly that wee should baptize Infants Tamen id colligitur satis aperte ex scripturis ut supra ostendimus Yet it is to bee gathered plainly enough from Scriptures saith Bellarmine as wee have before shewed Wherefore of such if I may say as hee bluntly once spake to his companion If they can with the same breath blow hot and cold let them even eate porridge with the devill if they will I like not their falshood SECT II. OF Lutherans Pomeranus is quoted whose booke of children unborne I cannot meet with and so cannot trace my Authors here And in such a case as they say Travailers and Souldiers may lie by authoritie when none can contradict them But yet what sayes Dr. Pomeranus that for the space of 1200. yeares men erred concerning children the which wee cannot yet willingly would baptize what his intent is by these words of his cannot well bee gathered If hee intend it of all sorts of children that it is an errour to baptize
growne part yet the Infant part were in that account of an holy people c. and as much may bee conceived of 1 Pet. 2. 9. SECT VI. AGainst what is usually brought from 1 Cor. 7. 14. That is objected that children of parents not sanctified by faith in their matrimoniall fellowship as Pharez and Zarah of Judah and Thamar Jepthah of Gilead and many others were within the Covenant both of saving grace and Church-priviledge Therefore faith sanctifying of the use of the marriage bed is not such a cause of sanctifying of the children Federally and Ecclesiastically so as that unlesse that bee the children are uncleane in that respect Ans This objection may seeme to make a faire flourish against such as give the Apostles meaning as onely such But mee it hurts not who make the maine spring of the holinesse of the children not to be the sanctifying of the unbeleeving yoke-fellow to the beleeving but the grace of the Covenant to the beleever and his seed even the sanctification of the beleeving yoke-fellow springeth from the grace of the Covenant sanctifying beleevers seed by vertue whereof the infidelitie of the yoke-fellow becomes no overpowering let thereunto and so in part by vertue of that Covenant as well as faith in it such a yoke-fellow is sanctified so farre forth nor is the Apostles influence from the cause to the effect of that communion but rather from a like effect of the Covenant and faith in another relation of a beleever as a parent to children unto that in that relation of an yoke-fellow that if the influence of the Covenant and faith bee wholly denyed in the one it may well bee wholly denyed in the other and that hee makes account was an absurditie in the sight of all Concerning the assertion that Bastards were Interested in the Covenant of saving grace I will not now dispute it but reason ex suppositis That Covenant interest of those bastard-Infants it was not from the parents faith sanctifying of that communion Whence was it It could not be from any actuall faith of the babes they had it not it was surely from the force of Abrahams Covenant at least as invested with Church-Covenant from which the parents being not cut off by Gods hand nor cast out by the Churches power their Covenant relation still stood so far in force that is they were interessed externally therein and so their seed with them and thus in foro Ecclesiae the force of the Covenant took off even that impediment according to that position of the objectors and how much more doth the same force of the Covenant take off any impediment of a Pagan parents infidelitie in the Texts case of lawfull conjugall followship so that such children of a Gentile Corinthian Church-members have an interest at least externall in the saving Covenant of Grace and Church-priviledge Obj. Whether the parents beleeve or not the children may bee in the Covenant and regenerate therefore that 's no cause thereof Ans Wee speake not of the inherent holinesse of the child as regenerate that is immediatly from God but of holinesse Federall and Ecclesiasticall which may bee applyable to persons unregenerate as Psal 50. 5. 16. 17. Of which more afterwards The parents visibly beleeving and Inchurched are instrumentall causes of that holinesse of their children yea whether beleevers in veritie or onely visibilitie It sufficeth thereunto nor are little ones thus in Covenant with God and his Church without either the visibilitie of faith in the parents past or present personall holinesse consisteth not with living in knowne sinnes but Federall holinesse may Ezek. 16. Obj. The Text is a reason of the question which was not about Federall holinesse but living together Ans The former part of the Text is a reason of that and none pleades for the Infidell spouses Federall holinesse but the latter part is a confirmation of that reason from another ground And Mr. B. knoweth in proofe of conclusions we take divers mediums Obj. Yea but if the child bee Federally holy then the Infidell wife is holy with covenant sanctification Ans It followeth not The word sanctified in and to another and being holy differ and signifie different things as before said Obj. If Federally holy then Abrahams seed and then they have faith Gal. 3. Ans Wee shall in due place I hope prove that they are Abrahams seed without actuall personall faith of their owne and so as Abrahams seed federally holy Obj. The Apostle speakes of an outward holinesse common to reprobates also Heb. 9. 15. and not of holinesse knowne to the Church for which persons ought to bee baptized and it 's either inward holinesse which the Church deales not with or outward of which Baptisme is not a signe Ans Outward holinesse scil that which is visible to the Church is seal'd in Baptisme The Church deales not with inward holinesse therefore with outward unlesse there is an holinesse which is neither invisible nor visible Hebr. 9. is of Ceremoniall holinesse This of Federall and Church-holinesse knowne to the Church and holinesse visible or knowne to the Church is common to Reprobates unlesse any will say the Churches judgement erres not and confound visibilitie and infallibilitie CHAP. II. Sect. I. Touching the Explication of Act. 1. 38 39. ANother Scripture confirming the Doctrine of Federall holinesse of children of In-churched parents as approved and held forth by the Apostles is that Act. 2. 38 39 where Peter directing his speech chiefly to the Jewes vers 22. and 36. saith the promise is to you and to your children not was to you c. as intending any legall blessing but a promise then in force after Christs ascension to effect some chiefe promised blessing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 used to signifie the free promise or Covenant of Grace to which they had visible right SECT II. THe promise here I. S. conceiveth to bee meant onely of the Messiah which was the promise to be sent and by children to be meant allegoricall children which others inlarging expresse these two wayes 1. That the promise made unto Abraham was then fulfilled Act. 2. in sending Christ to them and to their children and to all that are afarre off namely those of the dispersion as many as the Lord our God shall call that they may bee turned from their iniquitie and bee baptized into his name for the remission of their sinnes Secondly supposing the promise to bee of a saving grace of Christ sent of the outward ordinance of baptisme of the extraordinary gifts of the holy Ghost c. It is none of these wayes true but with that limitation scil If they repent For neither God promised saving grace nor outward ordinances nor extraordinary gifts nor sent Christ to them their children or all that were afarre off without calling them and every of them Hen. Den speaketh to like purpose as this second particular hath first the promise is to you upon calling to them that are afarre of
them and therefore pleaded there for that end vers 18 19. that covenant which God made in Bethel Gen. 35. 9. to 16. hee spake it not barely to but with them or covenanted it with them in Hoseahs time which were of the posteritie of Jacob Hos 12. 4. God found him in Bethel and there hee spake with us As much might be said of that 2 Sam. 23. 4 5. the covenant was made with David the father yet in reference to his house or children whence it was that his faith as a beleeving father of his family was the evidence of things not seene Hee beleeveth that whatever his house bee at present yet it shall excell in grace both of Gods feare and justice Vers 3. as in the glory of government c. nor was this other then a covenant of grace here mentioned since it had not else been to him as all his desire and salvation whence it was that in saddest times this covenant was pleaded by the Prophets in behalfe of Davids posteritie Psal 89. vers 38 39. 49. 50. see more vers 20. 28. and so on if the parents and the children both may thus act forth and must in the covenant so made it 's a signe parents and children were joyntly interested therein And so I come to instance as well in such as de facto have done so as to shew de jure they should doe it to let passe Davids example here the instance of our grandmother Eve is past exception her sonne Cain being discovenanted and discharged hee and his and Abel slaine shee beleeved the promise of God Gen. 3. 15. at first made to her and when infant Seth was borne shee beleeved that God had for his covenant sake lookt on her in that covenant babe and therefore as soone as borne she calls his name Seth for saith shee God hath appointed mee another seed in stead of Abel whom Cain slew Gen. 4. 25. shee spake not thus in reference to him as a meere naturall babe borne of her as a sinfull woman but as of a Covenant and Church seed therefore comparing him to Abel not to Cain and calls him by such a name as signified her faith touching the Covenant estate of this babe even whilst a very babe nor did shee faile in her faith therein as appeares by the sequell vers 26. whence the Church seed continued in his loynes externally at least albeit much degenerating as that distinction of sonnes of God and daughters of men doth shew Gen. 6. 1 2. And as Eve beleeved this way so did Lamech Gen. 5. 28 29. as soone as Noah was borne hee from saith in that promise of God Gen. 3. 15. * See Geneva Bible notes on the place gave the babe that name of Noah beleeved that that child should bee a root as it were to the Church albeit that corrupt world were to bee destroyed Another example of the Saints faith touching their childrens federall estate see in Psal 102. 25 26 27. with Heb. 1. 10 11 12. which referred unto Christ as in whom they pleaded and expected this touching their children And it 's evident that those Saints did expresse their faith in Christ touching their children and seeds being established before him nor did they exercise their faith touching the vanishing temporall good of their children barely vers 25 26. but in reference to induring mercies of Christ to them lasting when heaven and earth should dissolve Now did they take the rise of this their faith from possibilities of election or redemption without foothold from the covenant verily no they ought not to ground their faith on any thing but God his revealed will touching themselves or theirs Deut. 29. 29. the Covenant and promise is that which faith in its acts of beleeving doth build and rest upon and faith albeit it must goe as farre yet no further that way then the word of faith Rom. 10. 8. secrets of possibilities of election and redemption of the children would not might not have caused in them such a conclusive apprehension of faith but the revealed covenant and testament and will of Gods grace in Christ election and redemption though things which faith beleeveth yet not grounds in themselves considered without reference to the covenant revealed of any mans faith touching himselfe or others as being secrets It 's not the election of faith but the word of faith nor beleefe of election as such for as such it 's a secreâ— act of God hid within himselfe but the beleefe of the truth or revealed promise Another argument of the federall interest of beleevers Infants to bee Gospell and therefore of perpetuall validitie now as well as at any time may be in that it was held forth as Gospel in the beginning of the world and so will bee in the purer times of the Gospell towards the very end of the world and therefore it 's Gospell to us now The consequence is evident both from the everlastingnesse of the Gospell and covenant of grace of which this was and will bee made a branch which covenant of grace is Gospell Heb. 13. 20. Revel 14. 6. and from the essentiall samenesse and onenesse of the covenant of grace from the beginning of the world to the end for so farre forth as any thing partaketh of everlastingnesse it partaketh so farre of immutabilitie Now the covenant is not in nature the same if the covenant the confederate persons are not specifically the same the covenant in the nature of it supposing God as one partie and such or such a sort of persons as other parties betwixt whom that covenant is drawn and made if it were supposable that there were not the same God covenanting with man or not the same sorts of persons specifically accepted of by God into termes of covenant grace with him the covenant were not in nature the same Albeit it bee not shut up in families as of old in Adams Seths Enoshes Kenans Mahaleels Jareds Enochs Methuselahs Lamechs Noahs c. or in the posteritie of Abraham Isaac Jacob in respect of Church interest in and administration of it but inlarged to all the families of Gospeld persons yet if the persons admitted to covenant bee not specifically the same even that sort of inadult as well as adult persons whether male or female bond or free then is not the covenant in nature the same Now to prove the proposition in both its branches and first that it was held forth as Gospell that the species of the Infants of beleevers in Church-estate were taken into the verge of the covenant of grace Gen. 3. 15. sheweth Adam and Eve were eyed by God as a seminall visible Church by whom as well the Church as the world was to bee built up and God that he might especially glorifie his grace even in the weakest mentioneth Eve as one touching whom hee first expressed his revealed minde of grace to her and her seed not intending meerely the principall seed Christ in and by whom
goe so farre in this case To the saving interest and efficacy of Baptisme it is required that one savingly belong to Christ and bee a Disciple savingly in that sense but to the externall and Church interest in the use of the seale it 's not of necessitie for then none ought to bee baptized but such as are in a saving estate which to us is a secret and so no ordinary proceeding in mans Court yea the very place speakes of the case as one that giveth drinke to another because to him and in his judgement hee is a Disciple for infallibly hee doth not know him but taketh him rather to bee such a one and therefore refresheth him The major therefore of the Syllogisme is in substance the very Text the minor is evident such as externally belong to the Church of which Christ is the the head they doe externally belong to Christ c. hence to bee in his Church by externall profession and to bee in him are put for one John 15. 2 now that such Infants belong to that Church wee formerly proved in proving both that they belonged to Christs visible Church and kingdome and that he was head thereof also Mr. B. frameth two answers to a like objection hence his first wee have already disproved scil that Infants also belong to Christ in respect of visible and Church constitution which hee denyeth His second is as impertinent hee saith Christ speakes in Matthew and Marke of Adult persons true I never intended to urge it otherwise but my argument runs that the signification and reason of the name of Disciple there given though to growne persons yet since what is there in that Scripture applied to such is also appliable to such Infants also therefore they are Scripture Disciples So Acts 11. 26. the name Disciples and Christians are made Synomyna in way of distinction from Pagans not of the Church alike to what is here intended for distinction sake from the rest of the Pagan world amongst which since the breaking down of the partition wall I hope Anabaptists will advise better how they place beleeving Gentiles Babes unlesse they will leave a piece of the old wall standing Discipled persons in the Text as in reference to baptizing implyeth persons externally in the Covenant of grace unlesse our opposites thinke other then such should bee baptized Also persons in the visible Church are baptized unlesse they thinke persons out of any visible Church fellowship may bee in ordinary dispensation baptized for which extraordinary calls and cases our times meddle not nor have not as of old there were some which yet impeach not our rule of the Church seales given to the Church for her use and by her preaching Elders to bee dispensed he then is discipled for Baptisme which is inchurched which is in the Schoole of Christ and in peculiar fellowship with the other Schollers there and in speciall relation to Christ the Teacher of his Church yea such as to whom in some sense hee preacheth Gospell as to those Babes in Luke and howsoever hee teacheth the lowest formes as I may call them that sort of persons in his Church that is some such he so promiseth to teach them inwardly that hee doth so appeare in saved Church children yea so hee may teach Indian Papouses now too I answer if wee speake of his absolute power hee can doe more then he ever will as to make many other worlds c. but to speake of his ordinate and regulate power so hee can doe but what hee willeth to doe what his secret will is not for us Deut. 29. but according to his revealed will wee may say that those children being estranged actually from the Covenant and Church they are actually without God and Christ and hope but beleevers Infants externall estate is ecclesiastically of another nature So much for clearing Matth. 28. and confirmation of Paedobaptisme thence SECT V. A Second Argument is this All those which are the Church seed of Abraham they are to bee baptized Infants of inchurched beleevers are the Church seed of Abraham ergo are to bee baptized The major is not denied I thinke by our opposites but if it bee Gal. 3. 16 17. 27 28 29. proveth that all such were baptized in Apostolicall Churches and therefore are to bee in ours The minor hath beene formerly proved in the conclusions touching federall interest and is evident by the Apostles argument if Christs then Abrahams seed Whence I argue All such as are Christs or belong to Christ they are Abrahams seed Such Infants belong to Christ ergo they are Abrahams seed The Major is true both waies such as savingly and efficaciously belong to Christ they are so farre also Abrahams elect seed such as ecclesiastically are Christs in which sense the Apostle here speakes of it as hath been proved they are so farre also Abrahams Church seed The Minor is true of the species of such Infants if taken in an efficacious way of saving interest that sort of persons as well as the other of adult persons are such else none of them could ever bee saved unlesse some are saved which neither belong to Christ nor are elect either of which would bee absurd to affirme but that is a secret wee are to looke to visibilitie thereof as the rule of dispensation of Church ordinances If therefore taken in an ecclesiasticall sense as here it is as was proved so all such Infants doe belong to Christ as hath beene proved and consequently are ecclesiastically Abrahams Church seed SECT VI. A Third argument is taken from Acts 2. 38 39. thus Those to whom appertaineth any principall ground upon which any of the Apostles have moved and encouraged growne ones to bee baptized they are according to Apostolicall encouragement virtually given to bee baptized But to the Infants mentioned doth appertaine the forenamed ground therefore there is virtually an Apostolicall encouragement for them also to bee baptized The Major is undeniable unlesse any suppose that any of the Apostles as Apostles as here Peter is considered should give an insufficient ground to any thing unto which they encouraged others For to give a chiefe ground of encouraging and putting any upon this or that which will not universally hold where the same ground was to bee found it is to give an insufficient ground If a Pastor ministerially urge a member thus Brother looke you watch over your brethren c. for you are a brother if this bee not cogent with any other brother as a brother unto the like watch it is an insufficient principle and groundworke so here in the case mentioned none will doubt but it was a sufficient groundworke to enforce the former as a dutie scil their repentance to whom hee spake and why not of the like force in the other yea and so you will say it is where both are joyned Nay verily it must bee of force if sufficient to enforce either apart if both bee distinct duties as reason will evince
and this be the common enforcing reason to both it must hold as well in either of them considered apart as in both of them joyntly taken And I would know if the Apostle had from such a ground of the promise urged one already baptized to repent onely had it not beene sufficient or suppose hee had to deale with one that in his judgement had repented already urging him onely to bee baptized because the promise belonged to him had not this been of sufficient force thereunto no rationall person I thinke will deny it The minor will appeare by declaring the groundwork upon which the Apostle urged them to bee baptized Now this was the onely ground upon which Peter urged them as to the former dutie of repenting so to the later of being baptized For the promise is or belongs to you scil the promise of grace of remission of sinnes c. as before was cleared Yea but repentance is called so too from them on this ground and that Infants are not capable of To this wee have formerly answered why it was meete to require as we doe some testimony of repentance in offensive members of a corrupt Church albeit a true visible Church as was that of the Jewes if they will bee fixed members of purer Churches as was that Church of Christians vers 41. and as members thereof partake of the seales yet wee doe not expect the same of their children too under no such actuall scandall but baptize them in their confessing parents right also Besides it appeareth before that it was a sufficient ground on which to urge the baptisme of such or such a person as considered in it selfe apart Now that the groundworke scil interest externall at least was that interest of those persons not yet savingly wrought upon in the promise of grace that appertaineth to such Infants of inchurched and externally covenant parents it appeareth in this very Scripture the persons spoken to were members of that true visible Church of the Jewes visibly in the covenant as wee proved the persons spoken of also were their owne naturall children as was likewise proved and of them also Peter avoweth even after Christs ascension and in reference to participation in the seale of baptisme in a Church of Christians That the promise is to your children so that the conclusion followeth that the baptisme of such children is virtually called upon as well as of adult persons SECT VII Object YEa but the Jewes children were not then baptized Acts 2. Answ It 's more then such as so speake can prove from the Text. No will some say but it is not For they that gladly received the word saith the Text were baptized vers 41. And they continued in the Apostles Doctrine and fellowship and breaking of bread and prayers vers 42. and 44. All that beleeved had all things common 44. and sold their possessions c. vers 45. and continued daily in the Temple c. vers 46. which are not appliable to Infants And what then therefore other things there mentioned were not so too non sequitur what more usuall in Scripture then to speake of things in a collective way of persons which are not all and each of them appliable to all and each particular person of that company but by a Synecdoche some things are spoken of the whole wholly but others are onely appliable to some parts of that whole It 's said in this place all that beleeved were together and had all thing common and sold their possessions vers 44 45. will any take this of the whole company in all the parts of it all were not capable of such an act applied to all as not all having possessions to sell for some were in need rather of supply from others vers 45. It is therefore a Synecdoche so in the other so all are said to continue in the Apostles doctrine and prayers c. as before this Infants were not capable of and therein it is as in the other Synecdochicall for of other things mentioned they were capable and they were appliable to them they had things in common too and had supplies of clothing or food c. according to their need unlesse any will say that these persons spoken of had no children needing such supplies as well as themselves or else if they had yet their needs were not supplied so when they all eate their meate in severall houses c. what were the children shut out of doores if they had any or had none of those families any children in them Suppose they could not eate meate with such singlenesse of heart yet were they not of them that did eate their meate and were refreshed with them there were doubtlesse some hypocrites in heart amongst them and they could not eate with them with a single heart but were rather spots in their feasts of charitie as Judes phrase is Jude 12. yet by a Synecdoche all did eate with heart singlenesse in that some which were capable of the act doing did so among them all added were such as should bee saved too by a Synecdoche and in a Church sense yea their Infants some of them were such really and all of them in an externall and ecclesiasticall respect of covenant and Church interest they were capable of that adjunct albeit not of some others so were they capable of being added to the visible Church of Christians as they were of that true visible Church of the Jewes before And as all the Infants of covenant and inchurched Parents which stand right in the Church are also in that right inchoatively members of that Church albeit not perfectly And inchoative actuall membership of a true visible Church doth externally inright to the initiatory Church and Covenant seale of baptisme of which two these members children were enrighted as well as others then present And for further clearing of this way of application of some common acts to an assembly where are children which are not appliable to the whole company wholly see Acts 21. 5. bringing on the Apostle and his company is appliable to all those of Ephesus men women and children but that act of praying not so properly appliable to the little ones but rather to the growne persons present Weeping and swearing is applyed to the whole company assembled whereof many were children Ezra 10. 1. 5. compared yet proper to the growne part albeit the other of being assembled before the house of God c. were common as that sinne confessed on the behalfe of the whole assembly vers 2. was understood of the whole figuratively In respect of that part of the assembly which had so sinned which were not the children as is evident no nor all the growne ones but some onely amongst them as vers 18. 23 24 25. declare so Deut. 31. 11 12. men women and children must bee all gathered to have the Law read in their hearing that they may heare and learne and feare the Lord and observe all the words
as is evident The next is Beza who is also quoted Proposition 7. in his annotations upon Matth. 28. 19. Baptize them in the name of the Father that is in calling upon the name of the Father or rather the name of the Father c. being called upon for they are Beza's words Invocato nomine Patris c. And these Translators should have done well to have rendred the Latine properly But all is in the meaning of the words The authors of the Treatise urge it for a proofe of the persons bapzed calling actually upon the name of God when they are baptized according to Christs institution bring Beza for their proofe Quaeritur therefore whether ever Beza intended that in his words Surely no for it 's known well that Beza stoutly maintaineth Paedobaptisme as an ordinance of Christ Now Infants when they are baptized cannot actually call upon the name of God therefore if Beza say the former that the rule of Christ requireth it of all that are to be baptized according to his mind that they should call upon God at the time of their Baptisme he must affirme the later against his owne light and conscience which to doe with so much deliberation as hee that writeth things upon studie must doe were a crime of a very high nature and God forbid any should charge so worthy a light in the Church with that SECT V. BEza is againe cited for confirmation of the third Proposition in his Annotations upon Matth. 3. 6. John taught those that were to bee baptized this clause is not in my Beza upon the place and admitted none to Baptisme but those that gave testimony that they beleeved the forgivenesse of their sinnes In my Beza's Notes it's rather thus that John admitted not others to his Baptisme then those which seriously professed that they did imbrace the doctrine of free remission of sinnes which how different from that of these translators let others judge It followeth in the booke Such confession was also required of the Catechumens in the primitive Church before Baptisme for in that the Sacraments are seales it is requisite that doctrine or instruction should goe before the use of those things by which the doctrine it selfe is to bee sealed Those words before Baptisme and that reason annexed for in that the Sacraments c. is not in my booke scil Beza's Annotationes majores in N. Test Printed Anno. 1594. But to returne to the testimony Beza intended that John baptized no other of that species of persons Adult then such as made that confession but not simply the Baptisme of any other persons of another sort scil babes hee that is so carefull that any should take advantage to deny that children are not rightly baptized because not dived wholly under water that hee the rather as hee saith upon Matth. 3. 11. doth note such things about the particle In omitted Luke 3. 16. surely hee intended not by affirming such things in reference to Johns hearers thereby to exclude childrens Baptisme Hence that added that such confession was required of the Catechumens in the ancient Church Now then what manner of persons they were which hee affirmeth made such confession of old such like persons for age he here intendeth And no more doth he intend exclusion of Infants from Baptisme by affirming the necessitie of confession in Johns hearers unto Baptisme then by affirming that the same was required of those Catechumens mentioned Let us then see Beza's mind further therein which wee may readily doe in the third place of Beza quoted in this Treatise Proposition 4. where Beza upon 1 Cor. 7. 14. But now your children are holy he is thus cited as saying Out of this contradictors of the truth are revealed As first all those that make Baptisme to be the first entrance to salvation and secondly those that permit all children to bee baptized which was unheard of in the primitive times whereas every one ought to bee instructâ—d in the faith before hee were admitted to baptisme And this testimony is brought to prove the Proposition that in the primitive Church the children both of the faithfull and else scil and of Pagans or Jewes were commonly first instructed c. and then baptized so that Beza's mind in that clause whereas every one ought to bee instructed c. is made and every child whether of the faithfull or Infidell should bee first instructed before hee be baptized and in that sense his second errour he blames of such which permit all children to bee baptized is as much as if hee should intend it as an errour to permit any children at all whether of faithfull or infidell persons to bee baptized before instructed So that Beza is by this made a direct Andipedobaptist as they terme it now for modesty sake But you shall not have Beza thus on your side before wee heare him in his owne words who having before spoken touching the cause why wee admit the Saints children to baptisme scil because they are comprehended in the Covenant c. he addeth Now from hence are confuted not onely Catabaptists which doe reject Infants from baptisme as uncleane but those which make baptisme the first entrance to salvation and so exclude all from salvation which are unbaptized and also those which admit all Infants whatsoever to baptisme scil whether of visible Saints or Infidels as appeares by what hee said before and by what followeth which thing scil such promiscuous baptizing of all sorts hand over head was not heard of in the ancient Church As this at least doth declare in that all adult Infidells were first to bee Catechumens before they were baptized Beza refuteth three things from that clause mentioned and explained now your children are holy and one of them is this fourth Proposition of the Authors and yet by the Authors he is brought to refute onely two things First hee refuteth Catabaptists denying baptisme to beleevers children Secondly he from the same ground refuteth them which maintaine the baptisme of all children whatsoever scil that are not children of visible Saints for if they bee such children hee counteth it rather an errour to deny their baptisme Againe in citing the last part of Beza's words the Authors craftily make it as an opposite sentence to that before Thus secondly those that permit all children to bee baptized c. whereas every one c. as if it were a contrary speech to the former permitting all children c. whereas none at all were to bee baptized of old but such as were Catechumens when Beza maketh this later a reason of the former as before wee shewed Besides the Authors shamefully change and mutilate the last words whereas every one ought c. intending every particular person Infant or Aged when Beza's words are expresly in that all adult Infidells ought first to bee Catachumens before they were to bee baptized Now who is there which doth not even feele this palpable guile and falseshood in the setters forth
of this Treatise in this particular But not to forget what wee noted touching Beza's other testimony on Matth. 3. this place cleareth Beza's intent There speaking of adult persons it may bee affirmed such must bee as the Catechumens of old in point of confession before baptisme and yet the same Author never intend by that assertion to exclude children of such as doe make such confession of faith and repentance from baptisme Beza which holdeth this forth here yet here also refuteth that as errour in Catabaptists to deny Paedobaptisme So that still here is the old fallacie à dicto secundum quid ad simpliciter dictum SECT VI. THe next Author quoted Proposition 1. scil Strigelius upon Acts the 8th as saying that to bee baptized in the name of Jesus is to bee baptized in acknowledging and confessing the name of Jesus I have not and therefore cannot examine the same Albeit this sano sensu hinders not us in that when parents offer their children to baptisme the name of the Lord Jesus is confessed and acknowledged The next testimony is of Luther Proposition 1. whereupon Gen. 48. hee is said to affirme before wee receive the Sacrament of Baptisme and the Lords Supper wee must have faith and in another place as quoting Heb. 2. 4. Rom. 1. 17. Heb. 10. 38. Mark 16. 28. Act. 8. 36. and Rom. 10. 10. to prove that faith is required to baptisme and that without faith the Sacraments profit not but hurt rather the receivers and Proposition 3. hee is quoted againe in his book of the Civill Magistrates as speaking like words and saying wherefore wee hold our selves to the words of Christ He that beleeves and is baptized So that before or else even then present when baptisme is administred there must needs bee faith or else there is contempt of the Divine majesty who offers present grace when as there 's none receive it And Proposition 5. Luther upon giving and receiving the Sacrament Tom. 3. is said to write that in times past it was thus that the Sacrament was administred to none except it were to those which acknowledged and confessed their faith and knew how to receive the same c. and Proposition 7. in his booke of Anabaptisme hee is said to acknowledge that it cannot bee proved by Scripture that childrens baptisme was instituted by Christ or begun by the first Christians after the Apostles for a 1000. yeares since it came to bee in use in the Church and was established by Pope Innocentius This place also doth A. R. quote in his second part of childish baptisme pag. 8. And Proposition 8. Luther is againe quoted as speaking thus in his Postils Young children heare not nor understand the Word of God out of which faith commeth and therefore if so be that commandment of Christ bee followed children ought not to bee baptized Now as for these testimonies of Luther I not having nor being able to procure neare hand the sight of all his Tomes I shall not bee so able to discover the legerdemaine which I verily suspect in citing his testimonies as well as those of some others Yet Luthers meaning in the words mentioned Proposition 1. may well bee expounded by that mentioned Proposition 3. and so according to his judgement rather establishing Paedobaptisme then weakning it for hee holdeth that God at present when they are baptized worketh faith in them and therefore the rather such are to bee baptized Luther in his 4th Tome expounding that Hos 12. 3. Hee tooke his brother by the heele in the wombe scil by a secret instinct and moving of the Spirit as John also by the same moved in the wombe upon Christs approach of which hee giveth this reason because God is not onely the God of growne ones but even of such babes And what wonder is it saith hee that the Spirit is efficacious in Infants in a way we understand not as having also flesh and bones in the wombe as wee have but yet not nourished as wee are And therefore that tenent of Anabaptists is impious and odious who therefore deny baptisme to Infants because they want sense and understanding nor doe they know what is done about them To us they understand not by us they are judged to want sense and understanding but it 's not so to God whose worke they are for God as hee nourisheth them otherwise then hee doth us so doth hee otherwise move their hearts c. Another answer of his see in his second Tome lib. de captiv Babyl title of baptisme Hee saith having spoken before of faith as requisite to the application of the promise opponetur forsan iis c. It may bee to the things before spoken the baptisme of Infants will bee opposed which receive the promise and yet cannot have the faith of baptisme and therefore either faith is not required or Infants baptisme is null Here saith hee I say that which all say that Infants are helped by the faith of others even of them which offer them For as the Word of God is forcible whilst uttered to change the heart of a wicked man which is not lesse deafe and uncapable then any little one so by the Prayer of the Church offering and beleeving even a little one having faith infused is changed cleansed and renewed by him to whom all things are possible For conformation whereof hee brings that example Marke 2. 3 4 5. And in his 7th Tome in his Homily of baptisme hee reckons that erroneous interpretation of Marke 16. 16. is the ground of that dispute against Paedobaptisme because if baptized say some when an Infant and not beleeving then not rightly baptized and so that baptisme is nothing to which saith Luther this is nothing else then if it should bee said if thou beleevest not when thou partakest of the Word or Sacrament it is nothing And so they onely that truely beleeve are truely baptized and others baptized which doe not beleeve they are againe to bee baptized when they doe beleeve scil albeit growne ones when baptized if then hypocrites As for Luthers other two speeches mentioned Proposition 7. and 8. I somewhat wonder if hee should utter them as here expressed that in that booke stiled Lutheri Antilutherana opera fratris Joan. Apobolymaei alias Findeling Minoritae they are not mentioned the scope of the booke being to gather up all Luthers seeming contradictions And hee instanceth in the other de captiv Babyl before mentioned it 's strange that hee misseth those if thus written since it 's evident both by that expression in Luthers greater Catechisme Tom. 3. when hee saith After the same manner doe wee when wee give baptisme to little ones Wee bring the child to the Minister of the Church with this mind and hope that verily it may beleeve But wee doe not baptize it for those things but rather because God hath commandâ—d us so to doe So in that famous story of the concord betweene Luther and the Divines which followed him and
to Tertullian and others of his minde denye it to bee any ground of baptizing any 2 Hee counselleth as the treatise hath it that unmarried folke should have their baptisme also deferred whilest they yet suffer tenttaions the Treatise indeed saith young unmarried virgins but Tertullians word is Innupti unmarried persons of what age soever now how doe Anabaptists like Tertullians counsell herein Suppose a person never marry what must he never bee baptized as never yet suffering this tentation or suppose young persons of 20. or 30. yeares old judged to be beleevers but yet not married they belong to Gods kingdom but have not yet suffered such tentation must their baptisme now be deferred upon this ground of Tertullian because not married or not yet going through such tentations I trow not then Tertullians counsell about delay of baptisme is not good it seemeth 3 Hee counsels delay of baptisme of any to Easter and Pentecost albeit therein hee speaketh not so peremptorily as in the other Was this good counsell to put baptisme to such set times of the yeare when yet no time is set in the Scriptures both John and Christs Disciples and the Apostles baptized at any time of the year I suppose this counsell will not downe with them 4 Hee counsels delay of Infants baptisme for it was but his counsell at the most as it was in the other answering therein that argument which even in his time was used for paedobaptisme not first by Zuinglius scil Suffer little Children to come unto mee and forbid them not c. Yea saith Tertullian let them come indeed but dum Adolescant c. when they are growne up c. hee yeeldeth it to bee a ground of their comming to Christ and that by baptisme as one way of their comming to him but not of their comming so soone but rather when they themselves could aske it c. this is his glosse upon the place but how absurd is this glosse as if Christs intent in rebuking the Disciples for hindring those babes from comming to him were thus Yee do very evill to hinder those babes from comming now to me for my blessing like them in like case because they and others like them should rather come when they are more grown up when they know mee when they themselves and not as now their parents onely can aske and desire it at my hands c. But why then are these Disciples rebuked for seeking to put by their comming so young and not themselves desiring to come nay then verily the Disciples rather were in the right which would have had them staid longer and not Christ which urgeth it as an argument for comming at that time and accordingly at that time fulfilleth the parents desire in blessing of the babes but none herein surely will owne Tertullian Another testimony of Tertullians is urged to confirme the fifth Proposition scil that de corona militis When wee come together to the water and a little before wee doe promise there in the hand of the Minister that wee will renounce the Devill and his pompe and bee ducked three times and say no more thereto then what the Lord commands in the Gospel and as we goe out of the water wherein wee are baptized we eat milke and hony together and refraine that whole weeke from washing and bathing So far in the Treatise but the Authors leave out what followeth ibid. wee make oblations for the dead for our birth-dayes yearely and a little after wee crosse our selves at every step and in every place sitting downe and rising up c. All this proveth what the Adulti did and what was required of them at their baptisme but this disproveth not but that infants baptisme was in use and that they did promise as much by others for why else did Tertullian give his counsell as is supposed against the same Yea that notwithstanding Tertullians argument there baptizing of infants without requiring from them personall confession of faith was a right use of the institution Yea I wonder the Treatise bringeth this Testimony to prove the right use of baptisme according to Christ and his Apostles what were those oblations for the dead by the persons baptized and those superstitious crossings forbearing of washings and speech eating milke and honey c. were these according to the institution of Christ and example of the Apostles Surely no. SECT II. THe next testimony is taken from Counsells and Decretalls either ex concilio Gerundensi concerning the Catechumeni or those that are instructed in the faith saith this Treatise It 's ordained that they should all come at Easter and Pentecost This is the proofe of the fourth Proposition that the children of the faithfull c. as if the Catechumens were onely the children of the faithfull when all adult Pagans were such and say that Adult children too of persons joyned to the Church but formerly Pagans were amongst the Catechumens yet not their babes babes were baptized both before the superstitious limiting or order of limiting the time of baptisme as wee proved and whilst it was in force too as wee proved out of Austin Sermon foure in Octavo paschae ad neophytos yea the concilium Gerundense Can. 3. hath these words de parvulis c. concerning little ones new borne it s ordained that if they bee weake as is usuall and that they desire not to suck that even the same day they are borne they if they bee brought may be baptized so that this is the old trick of concluding à dicto secundum quid ad simpliciter neither is any other conclusion to bee made from the next proof ex concilio Laodicensi The Disciples or Schollers in the faith who are to bee baptized must before learne the faith and then upon the Thursday the last weeke in Lent must acknowledge the same before the Priest or Bishop which is repeated in confirmation of the fifth Proposition and the former answer is full to this objection which was even now mentioned so ex consilio Martini and Nicolai Popes which is againe urged Proposition fifth the Catechumeni must first learne the Creed what is intended to adult Pagans by your counsell is prevented to conclude against the children babes and all contrary to Martins intent who was Anno 646. long after the unquestionable use of Paedobaptisme and Nicolaus was after him No more was intended by that quotation in the Decretalls ex Augustino ad Fortunatum when a Catechumen is baptized he makes confession c. as appeares by Austin in the places formerly quoted Concilium Bracharense is quoted but not which first or second c. nor what words and so concilium Anterse in like fashion but why are not the words mentioned if for their purposes but lest such blind whisperers and items beget suspition it 's likely the authors if they ever saw the Canons intend it of that Canon Concilii Bracharensis primi that 20. dayes before baptisme let the Catechumen all
that it came to bee used by the Fathers that lived 300. yeers after the Apostles as much saith A. R. in his Childish baptisme But say Cassander spoke as Proposition 4. hee is said to doe yet that proveth not that children of the faithfull were commonly first instructed ere baptized because some beleevers deferred baptisme or Tertullian and Gregory counselled it much lesse that this was well done according to Christs mind for wee have seene upon what unsound principles they did it and as for the Councell of Tertullian and Gregory it hath been before weighed of what force herein As for the other speech of Cassander that Pedobaptisme came in use by the Fathers 300. yeeres after the Apostles time it maketh mee stand and wonder at the impudent forehead of errour and yet I might wonder the lesse since it 's but just with God that they which hold lies should also tell lies I read Cassander with as much heed as I could to finde out whether there might bee any colour of ground of such a speech of him but could not finde out any like it unlesse that which hee saith bee this way wrested scil that the Apostles in the beginning by the command and charge of the Lord set up their worke and did every where constitute Churches gathered of the Gentiles to the Communion of the Gospel growne ones which consented to the Apostles doctrine after confession of the faith were without any distinction of times or places knit unto the Church of Christ by the Sacrament of Baptisme administred by the Disciples of the Apostles But saith also in the next words although even at that time it is to be beleeved that Infants also and especially sickly ones were offered to bee consecrated by the baptisme of Christ but clearely to evince the falsehood of that speech before cited to confirme Proposition 7. the very title of this booke contradicteth the same George Cassander of Infants baptisme The testimonies of the Ancient Ecclesiasticall writers which flourished within the 300. yeeres from the times of the Apostles that is from the departure of John the Apostles being more then the hundreth yeere from the birth of Christ And according to this his worke that hee propoundeth hee bringeth in very notable testimonies of the antients both Latine and Greeke that lived in that space for the proofe of Paedobaptisme that any that had not sâ—ene authorities before might have been thence well furnished for this purpose and after the testimonies produced Cassander closeth thus These are the testimonies of ancient Fathers which wee suppose are sufficient for the deciding of this controversie of childrens baptisme which hath been raised up by certaine wretched persons for in as much as all these whose testimonies wee have produced in a continued series from the Apostles were Orthodox teachers and guiders of Churches of Christ at severall times and places there is no question but that this Tenent being held forth by them all severally as with one mouth it was the very doctrine of the whole Church which the Church had received from the Apostles and transmitted the same to those in after times and upon the speech of Austin l. 4. contra Donat. c. 13 14. addeth To this Apostolicall doctrine of baptisme of Infants all the Apostolique Churches planted by the Apostles throughout the whole world they doe give testimony c. Who seeth not now the grosnesse of this falshood in fathering that upon Cassander the very contrary whereunto is his businesse there to evince SECT V. Zwinglius THe next testimony is of as grand an adversarie to Anabaptisme as any and that is Zuinglius who is quoted to confirme the 4th and 6th Proposition hee is said to affirme that there is no plaine word in Scripture whereby childrens baptisme is commanded his meaning is no more then thus that it is not in so many words said you shall baptize children as neither the first day of the weeke shall bee to you the Lords day or Christian Sabbath c. but the principall place and for the other two quotations they are to no purpose is that mentioned in his booke of Articles Act. 18. whose words because the treatise is so often tripping wee shall set downe verbatim who there speaking of Confirmation saith although I am not ignorant as it may bee gathered out of the Ancients that of old time Infants were baptized this is rendred otherwise in the Treatise and yet not so common as now it is but the children were alwayes instructed openly and when their faith had made impression upon their hearts and they confessed with their mouthes then they were admitted to baptisme this custome of teaching I wish were used and recalled now namely that baptisme being given to Infants they may bee afterwards taught when they come to age as they are capable of instruction from the Word of God this the Treatise leaveth out Zwinglius his judgment was that the maine in the childs right to baptisme was the Parents Covenant estate whence the child being federally holy which else had been uncleane had its maine title to baptisme so that in case both parents were visibly Pagans or Idolatrous c. they were not to bee baptized when yet in his time many such were baptized And thus I take it is that which hee intendeth that since in Ancient times albeit sometimes every little children of Infidels as may appeare were baptized yet not so commonly as now such like children are baptized promiscuously hand over head for which some as it appeares by Beza upon 1 Cor. 7. 14. have pleaded albeit hee counts it their errour ibid. and since in those times Catechising as it appeareth of children was too little in use Zwinglius maketh that use of the Catechising of children of old both of persons joyned to the Church which were capable of instruction when first their parents joyned in Church estate before their baptisme which was one sort of children so catechised and of the exposititious children of Pagans also those children of their Pagan captive or slaves which were another sort of children catechized before baptisme Zwinglius wisheth that albeit it were not in his time used as neither before baptisme to such like children so neither after the baptisme neither of such children nor of others of visible beleevers which ought in Infancy to bee baptized yet now catechizing of children might bee in more use Assuredly Zwinglius was strong for this that baptisme of Infants was no practise taken up after the Apostles but by the Apostles no bare old custome taken upon humane grounds but his judgement was directly crosse to the Proposition hee is brought as a witnesse to that Christ did not institute Infants baptisme c. witnesse his many arguments from Scripture for it and his judicious answers to the evasions of the adversaries to that truth And as much may bee said of Oecolampadius his companion who is cited to confirme the 6th Proposition whereas in the first
all without regard to their parents Church or covenant estate yet was it an old errour albeit not so old so farre as I can finde But if it should bee taken in reference to children visibly in the covenant I wonder if hee should speake any such thing in that sense having so solemnely subscribed to the contrary in that famous meeting at Wittenberg formerly mentioned SECT III. CAlvin that grand opposer and stigmatizer of Anabaptists is quoted to confirme Proposition 6. and 8th lib. 4. Instit cap. 16. Hee confesseth that it is no where expresly mentioned by the Evangelists that any ones child was by the Apostles hands baptized Now Calvin having said Sect. 8. that there is none which seeth not that Paedobaptisme is not of humane devising which is established by such Scripture approbation brings it in by way of objection that it will bee said it 's no where expresly mentioned where the Apostles baptized children which giving albeit not granting hee saith Bee it so c. yet because neither were they excluded as oft as mention is made of baptized families who unlesse hee bee mad will thence reason that they were not baptized they may as well reason on that ground that women were forbid to receive the Supper when notwithstanding in the Apostles time they were thereunto admitted Yet our Authors are so madde to bring this very place to prove their 6th Proposit that the Apostles never baptized any Infants And upon Matthew Calvin is said to say Christ hath no where commanded to baptize Infants But on what place in Matthew Calvin saith so is not said but this I can say that in the most likely places where that Argument of baptisme is handled Calvin no where speaketh in these words here expressed as farre as I can finde Dathenus in his Colloquie is the next witnesse confessing It 's no where plainely in such words written that Christian children shall in the New Testament bee baptized and yet wee have no expresse commandement of it scil as before in so many words You shall baptize children and that there is no evident or expresse example scil in so many words recorded that the Apostles baptized such or such children and what then therefore Christ never instituted the Apostles never practised Paedobaptism according to the 6th Proposition Non sequitur Here then are three more witnesses abused CHAP. VIII SECT I. ORigen calleth childrens baptisme a ceremony and tradition of the Church Hom. 8. in Levit. and in Rom. 6. lib. 5. What doth Origen say so in both places that is false In the former hee saith baptisme is given to Infants according to the first observation of the Church But if any boggle at that in the other place quoted hee telleth you the groundworke of that observation of the Church For this also the Church hath received a tradition from the Apostles to give baptisme even to Infants If it were an Apostolicall tradition then not a bare Church tradition if the Church received it from the Apostles then was not the Church the Author of it but the Apostles rather Yea but others perceiving the force of the Testimony of so early an author in the matter of the practise of Paedobaptisme casheere it as a spurious testimony of some other rather then of Origen Some stumble at the word Tradition when yet it 's no other then what Basil speaking as before quoted of the forme of Baptisme calleth it a tradition and in his 73. Epistle speaking of the Spirit the comforter as placed in equality with the Father and Sonne to bee a thing which they had received as delivered to them So Justin Martyr another author formerly cited maketh the forme of that manner of worship mentioned in his second Apology to bee that which they had received from the Apostles So Gregory Nazianzen another quoted Author here in his first oration against Julian the Apostate hee inveigheth against that abusive imitation of the Church traditions the manner of administration of the ordinances for Pagan uses Clemens Alexandrinus a speciall Author quoted by Mr. B. yet hee counteth it a metamorphosing of a Christian to kick against the tradition of the Church and warpe to opinions of humane heresies lib. 7. Stromaton Hee meanes not bare Popish superstitious Church customes but such as are opposite to meere humane conceits and devices yet calleth them Church traditions Yea but those corrupt exploded Canons are yet called the Apostles Canons They are so by Papists not so by Protestants Such all those orthodox Divines may explode them yet maintaine this as an Apostolicall tradition which is genuine and divine Yea but it may bee said that Erasmus noteth in his Praecognita unto the Booke of Leviticus that hee which readeth this worke scil the Homilies upon Levit. and the Enarration upon the Epistle to the Romans hee is uncertaine whether hee reade Origen or Ruffinus And the peroration of the Translator annexed to the commentary of the Romans saith that hee added something defective whereof yet hee had the fundamentalls from the Author and abbreviated other things too largely expressed in the Commentaries upon the Romans Leviticus Genesis Exodus Joshua and Judges Suppose these additions of things defective by Ruffinus yet hee saith hee had the foundations of what hee added from Origen So that Origen gave such foundations of Paedobaptisme if Ruffinus added that as gave occasion to it but why is not this particular mentioned as Origens rather then Ruffinus his notion Because Origen was somewhat Pelagianisticall and this place touching baptizing Infants in respect of originall sinne was too crosse to Pelagianisme This is new to mee that Origen held that errour albeit hee were not free of others but I have read more said of Ruffinus that way scil that hee was the forerunner of Pelagius If on that ground it was not Origens much lesse was it Ruffinus his owne dictate And Erasmus denieth not but all there mentioned must bee fathered upon either Origen or Ruffinus But to put an end to this dispute the Homilies on Luke are not questioned to bee Origens neither doth Erasmus nor the Translator in the peroration mentioned acknowledge either additions or detractions in setting forth of those Homilies on Luke Yet there Origen affirmeth to the substantiallâ— mentioned in that place of the Romans for in his 2. Tom. Hom. lib. 14. on Luke hee saith parvuli baptizantur c. and little children are baptized unto remission of sins of what sins or when did they sinne or how can there bee any occasion of washing in little children unlesse in that sense of which wee spake a little before None is cleane from blemish no though but a day old in the earth and because the defilement of our Nativitie is put away by baptisme therefore even little children are baptized Nor doe I finde in our Criticks or the Authors quoted by them that these Homilies of Origens on the Romans are doubted of to bee genuine Albeit both Perkins and Rivet doe
for this is it which is said Unlesse being converted ye become as little children cleane indeed in body but holy in soule by abstayning from wicked workes shewing saith Clemens that hee would have us such like as hee hath begot out of the Matrix or wombe of the water 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. for generation meeting with or receiving of or closing with generation scil in baptisme will make us immortall by progresse viz. in good c. I deny not but Clemens alluding to this place of little ones hath sometimes other applications of it not crosse but subordinate to this but I see not how it can otherwise bee understood but that hee maketh a very child here the patterne as cleane in body and holy in soule scil Sacramentally in Baptisme according to that description in washing bodies with pure water and heart sprinkling from an ill conscience scil guilt of sinne Heb. 10. 8. A periphrasis of Baptisme unlesse any say Infants are Innocents cleane from sinne originall and expounding whom hee meanes which here hee sets as the patterne to growne ones hee saith such like as are begotten in or by Baptisme as Gensianus Hervetus on the place noteth comparing Baptisme to the wombe out of which an Infant is borne and so here new borne and so the little one is the pattern to such as will bee saved not as an Infant meerely but as such a little one that is pure in body and soule which here hee further explicateth that is such an one as is begotten againe in Baptisme Hee speaketh not this of adult ones they are the persons that must bee such like they cannot bee both the Patternes and the persons resembling them too the little ones thus holy and thus new borne are the patterne which as soone as borne in a man are new borne Sacramentally in baptisme Their generation and that their new ganeration doe as it were joyne and hang and hand together Concerning Tertullian if his judgement bee in some case for deferring Baptisme yet his glosse upon that ground upon Matth. 19. which according to him requires baptizing of the Persons so invited is absurd and his other expressions de Anima mentioned seeme crosse thereto but for the practise of Paedobaptisme in his time beside◠what Origen about his time testifieth to evince it his own words mentioned before in the beginning of his book de Baptismo and his arguing against the practise of hasting Infants to baptisme doth prove it to bee then in use Cyprian was within this 300. yeers and therefore his testimony may not be slightly put by as before wee shewed his 59. Epistle ad Fidum so opposed in our cause is yet authoritative with some opposites to prove the typicalnesse of the eighth day Amongst the Greeke authors called for that which is recorded to have beene urged in the councell by one of the members of that councell of Neocesarea before mentioned touching the occasion of that Law of baptizing the woman with child come from Paganisme to the faith is of much weight other Greek councells as the 6th councell of Constantinople and Trullo c. are of moment also As for Ignatius his testimony I doe not remember when I read it somewhile since that hee speakes of baptisme of adult or Infants purposely and if hee had so many of the Epistles fathered upon him being spurious and the rest that may bee his being so mixed and corrupted much heed would not bee given to his testimony Eusebius it 's knowne omitted many things of note as where and when Justin was baptized and the story of that famous writer Theognostus of whom and his workes Athanasius makes mention de Synod Nic. decr contra Arrianos quoted by Baronius in his first Tome Anno 330. Of Athanasius Athanasius himself if that Question be his which some have scrupled his testimony quest 125. is full for it for in that we thrice dip the child in water and lift it up againe it signifieth the death of Christ and his rising the third day againe c. the sentence before being the similitude stands thus as Christ died and rose the third day so wee in baptisme die and rise againe for in that c. as before But that is undeniably his owne upon Luke 10. All things are given to mee c. pag. 197. hee makes baptisme to succeed circumcision urging that proofe Col. 2. 12. wherefore saith he when that was come unto which the figure did denote that note and figure ceaseth and resteth for circumcision was the note or figure the laver of regeneration or baptisme is the very thing which was signified this is no other then the Doctrine wee hold forth and whence by Analogy wee deduce the doctrine of Paedobaptism The same also teacheth Epiphanius Anno 396. Of Epiphanius Epiphanius contra haereses contra Epicuraeos there was circumcision of the flesh which served unto the time of the great circumcision scil Baptisme which circumciseth us from our sins and sealeth us into the name of God and contra Corinth Circumcision lasted as a servant for a time untill the greater Circumcision namely the laver of regeneration came in stead and Tom. 2. l. 1. Christ came and fulfilled circumcision having given a perfect circumcision among his mysteries not in one member onely but of the whole body being sealed and circumcised from sinnes and not saving one part of his people that is men onely but the whole people of Christians scil men women and children hee compleateth circumcision by all their circumcising from sinne in baptisme Yea but why then did not Epiphanius use that argument of Paedobaptism against the Collirydians as well as that taken from their interests in Gods Kingdome c. The answer is ready it 's likely that all those heretiques might as well as some others deny Paedobaptisme in a sense if not wholly and what then the argument from Paedobaptisme had been invalid besides it 's not necessary that a man in disproving errour or proving truth should use all the arguments hee hath by him or that it bee concluded hee hath no more arguments that way because hee useth them not Anno 369. What Basil said this way as I finde him quoted by Aretius on Luke 18. I have mentioned formerly I have not time to search him and read him exactly Anno 380. What Gregory Nazianzen hath this way for us yea if strictly expounded how hee is ours we have seene before Anno 405. Of Chrysostome John Chrysostome which Mr. Blackwood makes his owne in his 21. Homil. to the people of Antioch which if not spurious as sundry of them are see Perkins and Rivet yet not understood exclusive And it 's much that Mr. B. that saith pag. 31. hee regards not any authoritie after the first 300. yeares will yet quote the Nicene Councell 325. the Laodicean Councell 308. the Constantinople Councell about 400. Basil 380. and Chrysostome 405. yeers after Christ