to account Infants of believers by an act of opinion according to a rule of prudence by which the Sacraments are to be administred to belong to God in facie Ecclâ—siae visibilis in respect of outward profession as the Catechumeni or participation of baptisme and the Lords Supper as compleat Christians And as for being accounted by an act of opinion according to a rule of charity to belong to God it hath no place in this matter For judging of mens present estate by a rule of charity is when men judge of others the best that their words and works may be interpreted to signifie according to that of the Apostle 1 Cor. 13.7 Charity believes all things But infants do not shew any thing by words or works that may signifie their thoughts and therefore in respect of them whether they be good or bad we can have no judgement but must only suspend our act of judging them But if by judgement of chariry be meant as some expresse it conceiving a thing to be so because we know nothing to the contrary then are we to conceive all infants to belong to God yea almost all men in the world by the judgement of charity because for ought we know to the contrary all may be elected Wherefore I must either here stop or else gather your meaning by your expressions in other parts of your Sermon and the expressions of those with whom I conceive you concurre in opinion and therefore if I should not exactly light on your meaning you are to thank your selfe but not to blame me This is then that which I conceive you meane That in the promise which God made to Abraham That he would be his God and the God of his seed as this promise comprehends Evangelicall blessings the infants of believers are comprehended and therefore they are foederati taken into Covenant with their Parents And yet I am at a stand whether when you say they are taken into Covenant with their Parents and that the promise I will be thy God and the God of thy seed belongs to them in respect of Evangelicall blessings you mean it in respect of saving graces or the priviledge of outward Ordinances though the latter is no more true then the former yet it is lesse dangerous and sometimes your expressions incline me to think you mean no more especially that which you say pag. 13. Secondly All true believers are Abrahams seed Gal. 3.29 These only are made partakers of the spirituall part of the Covenant neverthelesse because the most of your expressions carry it thus that you conceive that God hath promised according to the Covenant with Abraham I will be thy God and the God of thy seed to be the God of the naturall seed of believers in respect of the saving benefits of the Covenant of grace in Christ and your proofes tend that way I shall oppose that assertion But that I may not be thought to wrong you or cum larvis luctari to fight with a vizour the reasons why I conceive you mean or at least your readers are likely to take your meaning so are these you say pa. 8. My first argument is They are within the Covenant of grace belonging to Christs body kingdome family therefore are to partake of the seal of his Covenant or the distinguishing badge between them who are under the Covenant of grace and them who are not Pag. 9. You expresse your second conclusion thus God will have the Infants of such as enter into Covenant with him to be accounted his as well as their Parents You set downe the substance of the Covenant of Grace pag. 10. to consist in those benefits and then you often say The children are in the Covenant of grace with their believing Parents and pag. 31. You reject the asserting to the Infants of believers priviledges peculiar to some and assert the priviledges belonging to the Covenant of grace which all that are in Covenant may claime which you say God made to Abraham and all his seed Besides your Texts you produce tend to prove that as Acts 2.39 c. and you say pag. 15. They shall be made free of Gods City according to Abrahams Copy I will bee thy God and the God of thy seed which in respect of us Gentiles can have no other meaning then in respect of justification sanctification and salvation p. 16. speaking of Zacheus you say Let him professe the faith of Christ and the Covenant of salvation comes to his house for now he is made a son of Abraham that is Abrahams promise now reacheth him And pag. 26. The proving of the two first conclusions gains the whole cause if the Covenant bâ— the same and children belong to it then they are to be owned as Covâ—nanters pag. 37. 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 unto Abraham and the Apostles were to baptize them that is to administer baptisme as a seal of the Covenant to all those who received the Covenant And Master Vines in his Sermon pag. 19. cals them confederates with their believing parents and Mr. Blake pag. 16. God promisâ—s to be a God in Covenant to his and their seed which people in Covenant have also a promise from him of the Spirit Nor do I doubt but that your meaning is agreeable to the Directory which directs the Minister at Baptisme to teach That the promise is made to believers and their seed which promiâ—e what it is appears by the words following make this baptisme to the infant a seal of adoption remission of sins regeneration and eternall life and of all other promises of tht Covenant of grace And the truth is although in some passages especially Mr. Blake you speak more warily as if you would avow onlâ— a Covenant for outward priviledges as when Mr. Blake saith pag. 14. This birth-right intitles only to outward priviledges yet in applying thosâ— Texts Gâ—n 17.7 Act. 2.39 Mat. 19.14 and others you are inforced to expresse your selves as if you meant the Covenant whereby salvation is promised by Christ as knowing that those Texts you produce do otherwise speak nothing to the purpose bring plâ—inly meant of saving grâ—câ—s and the Covenant now of the Gospel is not of outward priviledges as the mixt Covenant made with Abraham waâ— and therefore if there be not a promise of saving graces to Infants they are not now under an Evangelicall Covenant of free grace and that baptism seals only the promise of saving grace remission of sins c. and therefore if there be not a promise of saving grace to infants in vain are they baptized the seal is put to a blank as some use to speak And if that there be no covenant of saving grace to no end is so much weight laid on
objection is But we shun to kisse Infantes as uncleane in the first dayes of their birth to this he answers that to the cleane all things are cleane and we ought not to decline the embracing Gods worke The third objection was the Law of circumcision to this he answers that in Circumcision the eighth day was a figure of the resurrection of Christ Which is now accomplished and we are to account now nothing common or uncleane and therefore we are not to account this an impedinent to obtaine grace by Baptisme Then he addes further if any thing could hinder from obtaining of grace greater sinnes should hinder men of yeares from it now if greater sinnes hinder not men of yeares from it but that they when they beleive obtaine forgivenes grace and Baptisme by how much rather is an Infant not to be forbidden who being newly borne hath not sinned except in that being borne carnally according to Adam he hath contracted the contagion of ancient death in his first Nativity who in this respect comes more easily to receive remission of sinnes because not his owne sinnes but anothers are forgiven him So that whereas you say that Cyprian proves that Infants are to be baptized because they are under Originall sinne they neede pardon You may perceive that the argument is rather thus they have lesser sinnes then others they neede lesse pardon then men of growne yeares and therefore there is lesse hinderance in them to come to Gods grace remission of sinnes and Baptisme thus have I considered that famous resolution of a Councel of 66. Bishops which for the nakednes of it I should more willingly have covered were it not that the truth hath so much suffered by the great esteeme that this absurd Epistle hath had in many Ages YOu adde next to Cyprian Augustine who flourished about the yeare 405. according to Perkins 410. according to Vsher and I follow you to consider him next for though Ambrose and Hierome are reckoned somewhat afore him about 30. or 20. yeares yet they lived at the same time and the Authority of Augustine was it which carryed the Baptisme of Infants in the following ages almost without controule as may appeare out of Walafridus Strabo placed by Vsher at the yeare 840. who in his booke De rebus Ecclesiasticis cap. 26. having said â—hat in the first times the grace of Baptisme was wont to be given to them onely who were come to that integrity of minde and body that they could know and understand what profit was to be gotten in Baptisme what is to be confessed and beleived what lastly is to be observed by them that are new borne in Châ—ist confirmes it by Augustines owne confession of himselfe continuing a Catechumenus long afore Baptized But afterwards Christians understanding Originall sinne c. Ne perirent parvuli si sine remedio regenerationis gratiae defungerentur statuerunt eos baptizari in remissionem peccatorum quod S. Augustinus in libro de baptismo parvulorum ostendit Africana testantur Concilia aliorum Patrum documenta quamplurima And then adds how God-fathers and God-mothers were invented and addes one superstitious and impious consequent on it in these words Non autem debet Pater vel mater de fonte suam suscipere sobolem ut sit discretio inter spiritalem generationem carnalem Quod si casu evenerit non habebunt carnalis copulae deniceps adiuvicem consortium qui in communui filio compaternitatis spiritale vinculum susceperant To which I adde that Petrus Cluniacensis placed by Vsher at the yeare 1150. writing to three Bishops of France against Peter de Bruis who denyed Baptisme of Infants sayes of him that he did reject the Authority of the Latine Doctors being himselfe a Latine ignorant of Greeke and after having said recurrit ergo ad scripturas therefore he runnes to the Scriptures he alleageth the examples in the New Testament of Christs curing of persons at the request of others to prove Infants Baptisme by and then adds Quid vos ad ista Ecce non de Augustino sed de Evangelio protuli cui cum maxime vos credere dicatis aut aliorum fide alios tandem posse salvari concedite aut de Evangelio esse quae posui si potestis negate From these passages I gather that as Petrus Cluniacensis urged for paedo-baptisme the authority of Augustine and the Latine Doctors So Peter de Bruis and Henricus appealed to the Scriptures and the Greeke Church Now the reason of Augustines authority was this the Pelagian heresie being generally condemned and Augustines workes being greatly esteemed as being the hammer of the Pelagians the following refuters of Pelagianisme Prosper Fulgentius c. the Councells that did condemne it as those of Carthage Arles Milevis c. did rest altogether on Augustines arguments and often on his words and Augustine in time was accounted one of the foure Doctors of the Chuâ—ch esteemed like the foure Evangelists so that his â—pâ—nion was the rule of the Churches Judgement and the schooles determination as to the great hurt of Gods Church Luther and others have beene of late Now Augustine did very much insist on this argument to prove originall sinne because Infants were baptized for remission of sinnes and therefore in the Councill of Milevis he was adjudged accursed that did deny it But for my part I value Augustines judgement iust at so much as his proofes and reasons weigh which how light they are you may conceive First In that whereas he makes it so Univeâ—sall a tradition his owne baptisme not till above thirty though educated as a Christian by his mother Monica the Baptisme of his sonne Adeodatus at 15. of his friend Alipius if there were no more were enough to pâ—ove that this custome of baptizing infants was not so received as that the Church thought necessary that all children of Christians by profession should be baptized in their infancy And though I conceive with Grotius annot in Mattâ— 19.14 that baptisme of Infants was much more frequented and with greater opinion of necessity in Africa then in Asia or other parts of the world for saith he in the Councells you cannot finde ancienter mention of that custome then the Councell of Carthage Yet I doe very much question whether they did in Africa even in Augustines time baptize children except in danger of death or for the health of body or such like reason I do not finde that they held that Infants must be baptized out of such cases for it is cleare out of sundry of Augustines Tracts as particularly tract 11 in Johan that the order held of distinguishing the Catechumeni and baptized and the use of Catechizing afore baptisme still continued yea and a great while after insomuch that when Petrus Cluniacensis disputed against Peter de Bruis he said only that therâ— had beene none but infants baptized for 300. yeares or almost 500. yeares in Gallia Spaine Germany
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
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