whether that signified Baptisme or no which by the usuall language of the Grecians I have made good against your exception and so I passe from your examen of this Author and follow you to the next In the third place you come to sift Origens testimony Where first you question the authority of the booke secondly you say if it be Origens yet hee calls Paedo-baptisme but an Apostolicall tradition and from thence you draw forth some conclusions In all which I hope to manifest your mistakings and so to discover the weaknesse of your premises that they shall not in any indifferent man his judgement be able to draw these conclusions after them First you question the authority of these passages cited out of Origen whether they are his or no and you call the Author of them supposed Origen It had been your part before you had so branded them first to have made it manifest by some undenyable evidence or other that they were not Origens you question but prove not and I am not the first that hath produced these testimonies to prove Infant-Baptisme many learned men handling this question have done the same before me You seek also to weaken the authority of these testimonies by the Censures of two judicious men Erasmus and Perkins the former of them who was vir emunctae naris in giving judgement of the writings of the Ancients saith that when a man reads his Homilies on Leviticus and on the Epistle to Romans translated by Ruffinus hee cannot be certaine whether he reads Ruffinus or Origen Yet Erasmus saith not that these Homilies set forth under his name were Ruffinus his Homilies and not Origens If Ruffinus had wronged Origen in that point now in question why should not that have been laid in his dish by some of the Antients discoursing on this question who no doubt would have been forward enough to have taken notice of it to Ruffinus his prejudice as well as other things which they object against him To this you adde Reverend Perkins his testimony who puts his commentary on the Romans amongst his counterfeit works as being not faithfully translated by Ruffinus It may be Origen might suffer by his Translators for Translations are various some affect in their Translations to follow their Author 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to trace the very footsteps of the words they translate other Translations are metaphrasticall or by way of paraphrase they expound as they translate thus severall men have their severall fancies though they adhere to the Author which they translate even when they keep not in all things to his words Hierom gives instance in the Septuagint Translators whose testimony I need not name to you Ruffinus acknowledges in translating Origens Homilies on Leviticus that hee added some things to what Origen said and what they were hee expresses ea quae ab Origene in auditorio Ecclesiae ex tempore non tam explanationis quam aedificationis intentione perorata sunt the things which were spoken by Origen to his auditory he translated them by way of explanation or did more fully lay them forth in a popular way and therein Ruffinus dealt candidly telling us what were the things hee added in this Erasmus acknowledges his faire dealing But as for his Commentary on the Romans Ruffinus confesseth se hoc opus totum ad dimidium traxisse there was no addition of Ruffinus Erasmus here blames him for cutting off what Origen delivered more at large but neither doth Ruffinus confesse nor Erasmus challenge him here for any addition to what Origen said I shall onely desire the Reader to take notice that none of the testimonies by me cited out of Origen are denyed by Erasmus to be Origens neither can they be conceived to bee any of the additions mentioned before by Ruffinus therefore your exception is not proved by Erasmus nor Perkins testimony You adde in the passages which I cite there are plaine expressions in them against Pelagians which makes you thinke they were put in after the Pelagian heresie was confuted by Hierome and Augustine though they make against the Pelagians yet who can necessarily inferre that all these Homilies in which these passages occurre were written after the Pelagian Heresie was broached Iust Martyr maintaines the Divinitie of Jesus Christ yet we know hee lived long before Arius the ring-leader of that cursed Sect which denied it can any man conclude that Iust Martyr did not beare witnesse to the divine Nature of Christ because hee lived before Arius started up Then you tell us Origen calls Infant-baptizing an Apostolicall tradition according to the observance of the Church This cavill I prevented when I quoted the testimony which seemes to have some weight in it for you grant what I said about Traditions which is warrant enough to me to adde no more to justifie it otherwise besides the testimony of Scripture which I named in 2 Thess 2. 15. many other out of Antiquitie may be added where Tradition is taken in that sense Epiphanius calls Baptisme and other mysteries observed in the Church which are brought forth out of the Gospell and setled by Apostolique authority 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 where by the way you may see that hee grounds the Baptisme then in use in the Church and even then Infants were Baptized on the Scriptures and authoritie of the Apostles as well as other mysteries of the Christian Religion But I follow you Because say you in neither of these places taken notice of by mee Origen cites any Scripture for baptizing Infants therefore it must bee understood of an unwritten Traedition had it appeared as a new notion not heard of in the Church before then had it been fit he should have confirmed what he said but it being a position which as he sayes the Church observed hee needed not to prove it Ignatius presses upon Hiero to attend to reading and exhortation and cals those things 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 traditions yet addes no Scripture to confirm what he sayes because they were things well known to the Church to bee consonant to the Scripture So Origen tells us Infant-Baptisme was generally observed by the Church and had any appeared to plead against the lawfulnesse of it he would no doubt by Scripture have maintained it as well as affirmed it to come from the Apostles which he did These are your premises which now being answered your conclusions infer'd from thence of themselves must fall to the ground for if Infant-baptisme came from the Apostles and was generally observed in the Church in Origens time then you have no reason to challenge it as a thing not known before his time nor delivered over to the Church in his time albeit he exprest it under the name of an Apostolicall Tradition The last Greek Author alledged by me was Gregory Nazianzen who cals Baptism signaculum vitae cursum ineuntibus against which testimony you have nothing to object onely whereas I
answer that Anabaptist I should answer him silentio contemptu for why should I not since in that very place of my Sacraments part 1. p. 78 79. where I confute those Schismaticks he snatches my words from their own defence My words are I confesse my selfe unconvinced by any demonstration of Scripture for Paedo-Baptisme meaning by any positive Text what is that to helpe him Except I thought there were no other arguments to evince it Now what I thinke of that my next words shew pag. 77. lin 4 5 6 7. I need not transcribe them In a mord this I say though I know 〈◊〉 yet that is no argument for the non-Baptizing of Infants since so many Scriptures are sufficiently convincing for it Therefore this want of a positive Text must no more exclude Insants c. then the like reason should disanull a Christian Sabbath or Women-kind not to be partakers of the Supper The quoting of mine own Text were enough 6. If Mr. Ball cut the sinewes of the Argument from Circumcision to Baptisme himself was very much mistaken in his owne meaning and intentions who in the very same place alledged by you uses the same Argument makes the parallel to lie in the same things which my Sermon doth you might have done well to have informed the Reader so much when you used his authority to overthrow that Argument his words are these Circumcision and Baptisme are both Sacraments of Divine institution and so they argree in the substance of the things signified the Persons to whom they are to be administred and the order of administration if the right proportion be observed as Circumcision sealed the entrance into the Covenant the righteousnesse of Faith and Circumcision of the heart so doth Baptisme much more clearly as Abraham and his Houshold and the Infants of beleeving Jewes were to bee Circumcised so the faithfull their families and their seed are to be baptized Circumcision was to bee but once applyed by Gods appointment and the same holds in Baptisme according to the will and good pleasure of God Seventhly I perceive you glory much that Musculus hath deserted 1 Cor. 7. 14. as an impertinent proofe for baptizing of Infants and you repeat it at least three or foure times in your book and I observe through out your whole Treatise that when any Authour joynes with you in any particular you improve his authority to the utmost which makes me conceive that it would be a great glory to you to be able to prove a consent of Learned men to concur with you in your way And therefore I cannot but wonder that you should so much slight and undervalue the Judgements of Fathers and Councells Harmonies and Confessions of whole Churches when they differ from you As for Musculus whether he changed his Judgement upon 1 Cor. 7. on good grounds shall be examined in due place In the meane time I informe the Reader that in the same place Musculus acknowledges that there are Arguments enough and sufficiently strong to prove baptizing of Infants though this 1 Cor. 7. be left out And if Musculus Opinion sway in the one I hope it 's not to bee rejected in the other Eightly whether Dignum tanto tulit hic promissor hiatn whether your roast be answerable to your great boast Whether your Arguments and Answers will make good this high charge that Paedo-Baptisme is an Innovation maintained upon dangerous principles c. we proceed now to examine And first wee shall inquire concerning the Historicall part Whether Paedo-Baptisme as it is now taught be but a late Innovation whether it bee not as anoient as is pretended Because many of the Anabaptists shame not to say That the Ancients especially the Greek Church rejected Infant-Baptisme for many hundred yeares I said in the beginning of my Sermon that the Christian Church hath been in the possession of it for the space of 1500 years and upward and named a few testimonies out of the Greeke and Latine Fathers in little more then one page to make this good no wayes intending to make the weight of the Question to hang in any degree upon humane testimonies or consent of authority but onely upon the evidence of the Word upon this you have bestowed two or three sheets of your book and as if all Antiquity run on your fiâ—e you confidently affirme 1. As much may bee said for Episcopacy keeping of Faster the religious use of the Crosse 2. That my highest Testimonies reach not so high 3. That being rightly weighed they make rather against the present Doctrine and practice then for it 4. That there are many evidences which doe as strongly prove that from the beginning it was not so and therefore is but an Innovation The first of these you suppose so cleare to Scholars that it is needlesse for you to bring any proofe the other three you undertake to make good in your subsequent discourse Truly Sir your undertaking is very high and confident and I shall diligently weigh with what strength you perform it and shall therefore more fully inquire into the practice of Antiquity in this point then else I should have judged convenient to doe As for that which you tooke for granted That there are plaine testimonies for Episcopacy the Religious use of the Crosse c. before any testimonies can be produced for the baptizing of Infants pardon mee that I forbear to beleeve you till you have made it good I have already alledged some and shall now God willing alledge more testimonies to prove that in the Judgement of the Ancients the baptizing of Infants was received in all ages and from the very Apostles as a divine Institution I read no such thing for Episcopacy as a distinct order from Presbytery your selfe may read in Dr. Reynolds his Epistle to Sir Francis Knolls that in the Judgement of Ambrose Chrysostome Augustine Theodoret Theophylact Oecumenius Primasius Sedulius Gregorius and many other that Bishops and Presbyters were all one by divine Institution and that Ecclesiasticall constitution made the difference between them Much lesse doe I read among them that the Religious use of the Crosse was received in all ages and that as a divine Institution If you can make it out that these things were so you will do a very acceptable service to the Papists Anabaptists Prelaticall Party who no doubt will return you hearty thanks if your evidence be correspondent to your confidence If you cannot you should doe well to revoke this bold assertion In the meane time I shall examine your Examen of the Antiquity produced to make good the practice of the Ancient Church in Paedo-Baptisme The first whereof was taken from Justine Martyr Your first exception put in against this testimony is concerning the year in which he lived I said 150 thereupon you charge me with overlashing because I affirmed the Church had been in possession of the priviledge of baptizing Infants 1500 yeares and upwards Yet my
as they were types of spirituall things it may then passe â—um granâ— salis but if by primarily be intended principally that Circumcision did chiefly seale earthly blessings the opinion is too unsavory to be received and whereas he and you with him say that Circumcision did thus primarily seale the earthly part of the Covenant I desire to know of you what Scripture ever made Circumcision a Seale of Canaan wee have expresse Scripture that it sealed the righteousnesse of faith whereby he was justified but I no where read that iâ— sealed the Land of Canaan Whereas you say though the promises were types of spirituall and heavenly things yet the things promised were but carnall and earthly as the sacrifices were but carnall things though shadowes of spirituall I reply all this is true but this belongs to the administration of the Covenant as was said before but makes it never a whit the more a mixt Covenant for the substance of it the Covenant then was more administred by carnall things then it is now and yet the administration of the Covenant even now also hath some carnall promises and priviledges as well as then as the externall ordinances of the Gospell Baptisme and the Lords Supper and wee as well as they have in the Covenant of grace the promise of this life and of that which is to come and so you may if you will call ours also a mixt Covenant consisting both of temporall and spirituall blessings and as among them some who were in Covenant did partake onely of the temporall part and never were partakers of the spirituall others of them were partakers of the spirituall part also even so now some partake of the externall and carnall part onely whilst others partake of both this you must grant to be true unlesse you will maintaine that none are now members of the visible Church but onely Elect and true beleevers Secondly you except against mee that when I said the manner of administration of this Covenant was first by types shadowes and sacrifices c. it had beene convenient to have named Circumcision that it might not be conceived to belong to the substance of the Covenant I reply first this is a very small quarrell I added c. which supplies both Circumcision and other things Secondly you know the Covenant of grace was administred by sacrifices and other types before Circumcision was instituted Thirdly whereas I said there were some Proselytes in the Jewish Church who were but selfe-justiciaries carnall and formall professors who are yet in the Scripture called Abrahams seed you answer I call them so without the warrant of Scripture as you conceive to which I reply my words were that there was another sort of Abrahams seed who were onely circumcised in the flesh and not in the heart who though they were borne of Abrahams seed or professed Abrahams faith and so were Iewes facti though not nati yet they never made Abrahams God their portion but rested in somewhat which was not Christ c. and so were to perish with the uncircumcised This you doe not here deny to bee true onely you would have me shew where the Proselytes were called Abrahams seed I reply had I mentioned no proselytes at all but onely said there were some in the Church of the Iewes who were visible members and partakers of outward Church-priviledges and yet were not inwardly godly nor partakers of the spirituall part and that these were called Abrahams seed as well as others it had been enough for my purpose I named not Proselytes to adde any strength to the argument and because they are called Gods people I feared not to call them Abrahams children by profession and never expected to have met with a quarrell for calling them who joyned to the Church of Israel by that common name whereby the Church members were called viz. the seede of Abraham or the children of Israel and could no place of Scripture be produced where proselytes are expresly called by this name the matter were not tanti But if it were a thing of any moment it would be no hard matter to produce evidence sufficient to prove that proselytes were called Israelites and the seed of Abraham as Acts 2. 10. and 22. compared Act. 13. 26. compared with Verse 43. but I forbeare You go on and accuse me that herein I joyne with Arminius who saith there is a seed of Abraham mentioned Rom. 4. 9. 10. Gal. 3. Gal. 4. who seeke justification and salvation by the workes of the Law and that hee makes this the ground of wresting that Scripture and that Mr. Bayne upon Ephes 1. sayes that the seed of Abraham without any adjoyned is never so taken I reply you give an high charge but a weake proofe I said there was a sort of proselytes who were the seed of Abraham by profession onely or outward cleaving to the Covenant who though they professed Abrahams faith yet did not place their happinesse in Christ or make choyce of Abrahams God for their all-sufficient portion Sir is this to joyne with Arminius in his interpretation of the ninth to the Romans 1. How doe you prove that Arminius meanes the words which you cite of Jewish Proselytes Nulli filii carnis censentur in semine saith Arminius doth hee meane that no proselytes were the seed of Abraham according to the flesh if so I beleeve acute Mr. Bayne would have been more wary then to have opposed him in that point Nay Mr. Bayne in the very selfe same page which you quote having set downe Arminius his two conclusions 1. The children of the promise are reckoned for the seed 2. The children of the flesh are not reckoned for the seed passes his judgement upon them in these words Page 140. The Conclusions are true but not pertinent to this sense for the children of the flesh here are those onely who in course of nature came from Abraham But you very wisely mention neither of these Conclusions of Arminius you thought it more for your advantage to fasten upon some other proposition laid downe by Arminius and as you set it downe it runs thus There is a seed of Abraham qui per opera legis justitiam salutem consequuntur I was much amused at the words I know Arminius saith Deus ex promisse ac debito dat vitam aeternam operanti but he meanes it not of the workes of the Law and therefore I wondered to see opera legis in your proposition but the word which puzled me most was consequuntur Sir let me intreat you to correct your booke there is no such word as consequuntur in Arminius his exposition and it doth not agree with your own exposition for consequuntur justitiam is by you translated Follow after righteousnesse I have perused Arminius with whom you say I joyn and Mr. Bayne from whom you say I say I differ and I shall give an account of both to the reader First for Arminius his words
wife by the husband let them bee what they will which cannot be spoken truly when the Scripture plainely sayes Nothing is pure or holy to the unbeleever as Beza well observes upon this place and though the word beleever be not in the Text yet it is necessarily implyed and therefore some Copies have it in the Margin not onely one old Copy and a Copy of Clermont and the Vulgar Latine so reade it but Augustine also in his book wherein hee expounds the Sermon on the Mount and Tertullian in libro secundo ad uxâ—rem for as Beza rightly observes the question is concerning a beleever what he is to doe with an unbeleever and when he sayes the unbeleeving party is sanctified in or by the other party it plainly implyes the one party sanctifies the other viz. the beleever sanctifies the unbeleever not retro which needed not be said of matrimoniall sanctification as you call it for in that sense both parties were sanctified in themselves not in or by one another marriage being honourable among all and the bed the coitus undefiled Besides there are words which plainly denotate it a little before a brother or sister which are taken for beleevers ver 12. if a brother have an unbeleeving or infidel wife ver 15. a brother or a sister is not in bondage in such a case And if you should say the beleeving party sanctifies the unbeleever not qua beleever but by the Word and prayer I answer this would make the Argument stronger for it is therefore such a sanctification as heathens are not capable of My Third Argument was the Apostles argument had had no strength in it supposing the text were to be interpreted as these men would have it their doubt say they was their marriage was an unlawfull wedlock and so consequently their children bastards and they make the Apostles answer to be were you not lawfull man and wife your children were bastards which kinde of Argument said I were but idem per idem Your answer to this is such a one as I know not what to make of it you say I doe not rightly set downe my Adversaries explication of the Apostle the doubt say you was onely whether they might live in conjugall use but there was no question of their children whether they were legitimate or not they were assured their children were not bastards but legitimate and this the Apostle uses as his medium to prove they might lawfully live together To which I Reply take this for granted which you say and if I want not common sense you plainely and fully answer your selfe for if they were out of all doubt that their children were not bastards then it was not possible for them to doubt whether their owne marriage were lawfull take this to be his Argument your children are legitimate this you all grant Ergo your marriage is lawfull of which you doubt Risum teneatis amici they received the one as a supposed principle that their children were lawfully begotten which could not be but in a lawfull wedlock yet had not light enough to know that their wedlock was a lawfull wedlock if they doubted not of the latter how could they of the former My Fourth Argument was according to this interpretation the Apostles answer could no way have reached to the quiâ—ting of their consciences their doubt was whether they were not to put away their wives and children as not belonging to God as being a seed whom God would not owne among his people and this answer could never have quieted their consciences to tell them their marriage was lawfull and their children legitimate To which you answer this Argument is grounded on a mistake the question was not say you about putting away of their Wives and children as not belonging to God but something else I Reply but if it be not grounded upon a mistake and that as Beza sayes Paut is not here arguing about civill policy but arguing a case of conscience Whether because of the idolatry of the wife or husband Religion did not require they should be put away because God would not have his holy seed mingled with them then by your owne confession the Argument stands good which whether it will not be made out shall God willing by and by appeare These foure Arguments I used before and whether the first three be not already vindicated let the Reader judge the fourth comes to be made good afterward when I come to confirme the interpretation which I made of it I shall briefly adde foure other Arguments to shew that this Text cannot be interpreted as you would have it First you say The unbeleeving husband is sanctified by the wife and sanctification you here take for chastity which is a most incongruous speech to say that the one party makes the other chaste if he or she were not unchast how are they made chaste by the husband or wife and if they bee unchaste how doth this make them chaste marriage is then honourable or chaste when the bed is undefiled this Argument is onely from the unseemlinesse of the expression Secondly my second I take from your own words pag. 73. Where you say The sanctification of the unbeleever here is such a sanctification as is parallel with that 1 Tim. 4. 5. where the creatures are sanctified to the pure by the word and prayer therefore there must be more meant then the Heathens are capable of therefore another sanctification then matrimoniall sanctification for that the heathens had if therefore this must be such a sanctification as that place in Timothy meanes it must be a sanctification peculiar onely to beleevers Thirdly yet a third Argument I take from your owne words you have endeavoured though in vaine to shew that bastards may be called uncleane and holy may be called chaste but you doe not and I beleeve you cannot produce out of the Scripture the least shew of a proofe that holinesse signifies legitimation you are holy id est you are lawfully begotten if you can pray let us have it in the next sure I am that place Mal. 2. 15. That man might seeke a holy seed or rather a seed of God will give you no help for though a seed of God in that place might be interpreted as M. Calvin would have it for legitimate because as he sayes that uses to be called Divine which is excellent a legitimate seed is in comparison of spurious yet this is nothing to holinesse The word in the Hebrew there used is not a holy seed but a seed of God an eminent or an excellent seed as all eminent or notable things use to be called great Armies are called the Armies of God great and high hills are called the hills of God great and tall trees are called the trees of God so that take a seed of God in that place for a legitimate seed yet there is nothing to prove that holinesse may signifie legitimation though for
the high way that as Infants are to bee reputed to belong to the Covenant as well as grown visible professors which was the drift of my first Argument so the scope of this is to shew that they are in the same capacitie to partake of the inward grace of the Covenant while they are Infants as there is of grown visible professors and that they are not onely capable of it but many of them are actually partakers of it as well as grown men and consequently that wee have the same ground to look upon and judge Infants of beleevers to bee regenerate as upon grown men by a visible profession there being to â—s no infallible ground of certaintie but of charity for the one noâ— for the other and that their visible right to the Covenant and the many promises of God made to the seed of the faithfull are as good evidences to ground this judgement upon as the externall signes which growne men can give and therefore whereas you say that all the Infants of beleevers or the Infants of beleevers in as much they are the Infants of beleevers are actually partakers of the inward grace of Baptisme else the Argument will not serve for my purpose I utterly deny that this is the Conclusion to be proved or that my argument is not to the purpose unlesse I undertake to prove this for I argue in the like case from grown men who are visible Professors thus All who are partakers of the inward grace of Baptism may and ought to partake of the outward signe and seale but visible Professors are partakers c. This minor is lyable to the same exceptions that the other is for who knows not that many visible Professors have not the invisible grace That many are called when but few are chosen and yet your self doe hold that we may de side out of faith assurance that we do it according to Gods will apply the outward signe to them though we have nothing but charity to make us conceive the inward graces to be in them Neither can we by the judgement of charity think that all visible Professors taken together in a lumpe have the inward grace the Scripture which is the rule of our charity having declared the contrary our charity onely warrants us to judge of every single person when possibly we may know no more against the one then against the other though we know there are some false hearted amongst them The same is to be said for Infants and this I proved out of the Scripture Mark 10. To such belongs the kingdom of God and in my Sermon I vindicated this Text from the glosses which the Anabaptists would put upon it your exceptions against it are such as these it is possible they were not very little ones possibly our Saviour meant not of them but of such as they for the word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of such not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of these possibly horum similium of thâ—se and the like possibly they were not the children of beleevers possibly it is meant onely of elect Infants that these were elect and should in time be called but yet say you grant all and it will not â—ence follow that all Infants of beleevers have right to invisible grace yea it here suits better for confirmation then for baptisme yea that it is rather an evidence Christ would not have Infants baptized because he ordered not thâ—se Infants to bee baptized But Sir how many of these things would you have called dictates in another assertions without proof and to how little purpose are all these things brought iâ— your self grant enough to serve my turne you grant that the kingdom of heaven did belong to these Infants and I intended from this instance not to prove that all Infanta of beleevers are made partakers of saving grace but that Infants in their infantile age are capable of inward grace and some of them actually partakers of it this is enough for me and more then this cannot be said of growne men who are visible Professors I added in my Sermon sa one branch of a reason that there is nothing belonging to the initiation and being of a Christian whereof Baptisme is a seale whereof Infants are not capable as well as grown men as receiving the holy Ghost union with Christ pardon of forme regeneration eternall life Your answer is a scoffe out of Horaâ—e Amphora caepit institui c. I should prove say you that all Infants of beleevers are actually partakers and in stead of this I prove they are capable of it Sir this is but one part of my reason and I undertook not to prove that all infants but onely that fome are partakers of it I added and it is further considerable that in the working that inward grace of which baptisme is the signe and seale all who partake of that grace are but meerâ— Patients and therefore Infants are as fit subjects to have it wrought in them as growne men and the most growne men are in no more fitnesse to receive this grace when it is given them in respect either of faith or repentance which they yet bave then a very little child c. You answer by demanding whether I bring all this as a proofe that all infants have it or that they are capable of it or whether I intend it â—s a further argument that baptisme is to be given to those who are capable of the first grace which because Infants are as well as grown men therefore they are to be baptized but then you deny the major for a person is not to be baptized because he may have grace but because he hath it Sir I brought it to prove that which was in hand viz. that Infants are capable of it as well as grown men and that some of them are partakers of it as well as grown men and therefore their Infant-age cannot be pleaded against them as if inward grace could not compâ—tere to their present condition And as for that you adde That baptisme is to be administred not to them who may have grace but to them who have it Then it seemes they are all wrongly baptized who have not inward grace and so according to your owne expression baptisme to such is as a seal set to a blank yet you know even the Apostles themselves baptized many who were in no better condition and your selfe afterward grant That a Minister may defide administer this Sacrament to such as make a visible profession though he be not assured of any inward grace I have often proved that a right to bee reckoned to belong to the visible Church is a sufficient warrant to administer the seal of admission Secondly you much trouble your self to finde out what I meane by the first grace whether the free favour of God or the Covenant of grace whether if I meane the first grace in exceution I pitch upon justification or regeneration or adoption and then
inquire which is the second grace But all this is but seeking a knot in a rush I am perswaded all other Readers understood me to meane by the first grace all that grace which is requifite to the being of a Christian union with Christ forgivenesse of sin the indwelling of the holy Ghost as a principle of a new life and your selfe say more then once that baptisme is the sacrament of our Initiation and that which exhibits us members both of Christ and of his Church and therefore thus needlesly to quarrell about things wherein your self concurre with mee is too too vain Lastly you have somewhat to say to that of our being meerly passive in our first conversion and you tel your reader what the Divines of great Britaine said in the Synods of Dort of some preparations going before conversion and what Mr. Rutherford Dr. Twisse and Dr. Preston have delivered about this point And after a needlesse shewing that you have read these Authors you grant as much as I contend for That the taking away the be art of stone and insusing of a principle of new life is only Gods work and that a new heart faith c. are the effects of converting grace and that in these things wee are passive in summe you are of my judgement in this point that Infants are capable of new life and some of them partakers of it and I likewise consent with you and those above mentioned Reverend Divines that in Gods usuall way of working upon grown men there are some preparations for conversion before conversion it selfe in which preparations men are not meerely passive but in the receiving of the principle of new life all men are meerely passive I know you will owne that expression of Augustine Qnid agit liberum arbitrium sanâ—tur I conclude this argument of baptizing Infants with a speech of Bellarmine there is saith he no impediment why Infants may not bee baptized nec ex parte prohibitionis alicujus divinae c. neither from any divine prohibition nor on the part of the Sacrament administred nor on the part of the Minister administring nor on the Infants part to whom it is to bee administred nor on the Churches part in which it is administred Paedo-baptisme therefore is rightly continued in the Christian Church PART IV. I Proceed now briefly to examine what you have said against that which you are pleased to make the fourth Part of my Sermon though I know no reason of this your Analysis Had I indeed made this an answer of all the objections which I undertooke to answer you might have called it so but you know well enough that I intended here onely to satisfie these Objections which lye most properly against this second argument as before I answered what was most properly objected against the first argument however I shall take it as I finde it and examine what strength you have added to these Objections The first Objection I undertooke to answer was to this purpose Though Infants are capable of these things and that they are wrought by Christ in many Infants yet wee may not baptize them because according to Scripture pattern both of Christs command Matth. 28. in his institution of baptisme and John the Baptist Christs Disciples and Apostles they alwayes taught and made them disciples by teaching before they baptized any And to make this argument the more plausible you adde It is a sin of prophaning that Sacrament when the institution is altered by subtraction or addition and that it was pleaded by the Non-conformists that it is Will-worship to administer the Sacraments by addition of any thing to them but circumstances which are alike requisite to civill actions now the persons to be baptized cannot be conceived a meere circumstance but belongs necessarily to the administration of worship as well as the person baptizing or the persons receiving the Lords Supper I answer I intend not needlesly to multiply words and therefore doe grant that to apply Sacraments to persons to whom they belong not by the Lords appointment is a prophanation of them Now that it is so in this case you goe about to prove out of this 28. Mat. Because the institution appoints onely disciples of all Nations to be baptized and Infants are not such This you have made good as you say Sect. 13. Part 3. You adde Christs order thus appoints it which must be kept in this point as well as in examination before the Lords Supper 1 Cor. 11. 28. c. and that by the institution they are to bee baptized into the name of the Father Son and holy Ghost that is with invocation of the name of the Lord which Infants cannot doe with devoting themselves to the service and adverence of God which Infants cannot doe that presently after baptisme the baptized are to be taught to observe whatsoever Christ commandâ—d them which Infants are not capable of that John Baptist and the Apostles alwayes made profession of repentance and faith an antecedent to Baptism which Infants cannot make To all this I answer First this of Matth. 28. is not the institution of Baptisme it was instituted long before to be the seale of the Covenant it is onely an enlargement of their Commission whereas before they were onely to goe to the lost sheepe of the house of Israel now they were to goe into all the World You reply If it be not the first institution of Baptism yet it is an institution of Baptisme to us Gentiles and therefore the rule by which Ministers are to baptize or if not wee must shew another institution else we cannot acquit it from Will-worship I answer all this is abundantly answered before Sect. 13. Part 3. And I add this inlargement of their Commission is very unfitly called by you an institution of baptism unto us their Commission at the same time was inlarged to preach to the Gentiles will you call that an institution of Preaching and that the method of preaching to us Gentiles must bee fetch'd out of this place I know you will not For the rest of your petty reasons above alledged they resolve severall of them into one and the same Christs order is say you teaching should goe before baptizing is not that the same with this That men must be made disciples by preaching before they be baptized the answer to the one doth fully satisfie the other But your third reason is a strange one They must bee baptized into the name of the Father the Son and the holy Ghost that is say you with invocation of the Name of the Lord then it seems if the party baptized call upon the name of the Lord by prayer that 's all that is intended bâ— baptizing into the name of the Father Son and holy Ghost that the name of God should be invocated at the administration of Baptisme and of Circumcision and of every Sacrament is most true but that baptizing into the name of the Father Son