this for the comfort of parents and such an Odium cast on Anti-paedobaptists for denying it and therefore I see not but your assertion if you do not revoke your plea for paedobaptisme must be conceived thus That God hath made a Covenant or promise of saving grace in Christ not only to believers but also to their seed whom you baptize for this reason The Author of the little book intituled Infants baptizing proved lawfull by Scripture pag. 3 4 5. Intâ—rprâ—ts the Covenant I will be thy God and the God of thy seed thus I will be the God of every believer and the God of every believers seed in respect of outward Church-priviledges to be members of the visible Church partakers of baptisme c. to the naturall seed in respect of inward and meerly spirituall to none but true Saints in whom the new creature is formed But I say againe Abraham or thee in that Covenant is put only for Abraham and not for evâ—ry believer For sith the Apostle plainly interprets believers to be Abrahams seed Rom. 4.13 16. Gal. 3.29 to say Abraham is put for any believer makes the speech to have an inept tautology I will be the God of Abraham that is of every believer according to that Authors sense and I will be the God of thy seed that is of every believer according to the Apostles sense And that in that Covenant should be a promise to us believing Gentiles That to our seed should be conferred visible Church-priviledges to be members of the visible Church partakers of baptisme c. is but a dream the Scripture no where explaining it so and being so understood were not true there being many of the seed of believers that neither de facto in event nor de jure of right have those visible Church privilâ—dges to be members of the visible Church partakers of bapâ—isme c. and if there were such a promise God could not take away the Candlestick from the posterity of believers which he threatens Rev. 2.5 George Philips vind of Infant bapt p. 37. Cals the Covenant an offer to become their God and all along supposeth infants under the Covenant because grace was offered in circumcision and they sealed because it was offâ—red But the Covenant is not an offer but a promise nor is a man under the Covenant of grace or in the Covenant of grace because an offer is made for then refusers might be said to be under the Covenant but because God hath promised or performed to them And if infants are to be bapâ—ized which is his ground because the Covenant is offered to them in baptisme then in effect it is to argue they are to be baptizâ—d because they are to be baptized which iâ— nugatory I hâ—ve discussed this matter more fully that I may shew you how doubtfull your speeches are and give you the reason why I set down this as your conclusion to be denyed by me That the Covenant of saving grace in Christ expressed Gen. 17.7 In thâ—se words I will be thy God and the God of thy seed is made to believers and their naturall seed Now I will shew you the reason why I take this to be an error and that very dangerous MY first reason is taken from the Apostle Rom. 9 6. c. in which place this very Text that is now the apple of our contention was brought into question Beza thus expresseth the question Qui fieri possit ut rejectus sit Israel quin simul â—onstituendum videatur irritum esse pactum Dei cum Abrahamo ejus semine sancitum I deny not but there was also some other promise included in that objection to wit some promise made to Israel or the house of Israel probably that Jer. 31.33 36.37 for so the words ver 6. They are not all Israel which are of Israel do intimate But without question the promise made to Abraham Gen. 17.7 was one which was included in that objection Beza Twisse Ames and others answering Arminius call it the Covenant of God with Abraham which was that Gen. 17.7 and the very phrase of Abrahams seed In Isaac shall thy seed be called ver 7. The children of the promise are counted for the seed ver 8. Sarah shall have a son ver 9. do evidently shew that the promise objected to prove that if the Jews were rejected from being Gods people then God failed in making good his word was that promise to Abraham I will be thy God and the God of thy seed Whereto I may adde that the Answerers of Arminius and the cited Remonstrants to wit Baine and Ames do say It was the word of promise not of the Law as Arminius conceived for the word of promise saith Ames Animadv in Remonstran script Synod de praedest cap. 8. Sect. 4. Is distinguished and opposed to the words of the Law Gal. 3.17 18. Now the word of the promise there is to Abraham and his seed ver 16. and this is there called by him verbum foederis the word of the Covenant Now let us consider how the Apostle answers it He denies that Gods word made to Abraham did fall though the Jews were rejected because that promise I will be thy God and the God of thy seed as it coÌ„prehended saving grace was never meant by God of all Abrahams posterity or of any barely as they were descended from Abraham by natural generation but of the Elect whether descended by natural generation from Abraham or not And this is apparent both from the words v. 7. Neither because they are the seed of Abraham are they all children but in Isaac shall thy seed be called c. v. 8. It is expounded thus That is they which are the children of the flesh these are not the childâ—en of God but the children of the promise are counted for the seed Whence it is apparent that the same are not alwayes the seed by calling which are the seed of Abraham by naturall generation and that the children of the flesh are not the same with the children of promise and that the Apostle conceived this the right way of answering those that objected the falling of Gods word upon the rejâ—ction of the Jews by restraining the promise of being God to Abrahams seed only to the Elect whether of Abrahams naturall posterity or not with so little respect to any birth-right priviledge that he not only rejected Ismael and took Isaac but also loved Jacob and hated Esau by prophesie declaring his minde the elder shall serve the younger and in this the Apostle acquits God from unrighteousnesse in that He hath mercy on whom he will have mercy and whom he will he hardens notwithstanding his promise made to Abraham and Israel or any birth-right priviledge they could claime That I may not be thought to go alone in this I will recite some others concurring with me in this Dr. Twisse vind Grat. l. 1. part 3. digr 2. ArgumentuÌ„ Apostoli ad probanduÌ„
he might sanctifie every age so that here Irenaeus speakes not of being borne againe by Baptisme for it is said who are borne againe by him that is by Christ. Not as if he had baptized infants but because he was an infant that by the example or vertue of his age he might sanctifie infants as the whole context will shew which is this Magister ergo existens Magistri quoque habebat aetatem non reprobans nec supergrediens hominem neque solvens suam legâ—m in se humani generis sed omnemâ—tatem sanctificans per illam quae ad ipsum erat similitudinem Omnes enim venit per seipsum salvare omnes inquam qui per eum renascuntur in Deum Infantes parvulos pueros juvenes seniores Ideo per omnem venit aetatem infantibus infans factus sanctificans infantes in parvuliâ— parvuluâ— sanctificans hanc ipsam habentes aetatem simul exemplum illis pietatis effectus justitiae subjectionis In Iuvenibus Iuvenis exemplum Iuvenibus fiens Sanctificans Domino sic et senior in senioribus ut sit perfectus Magister non solum secundum expositionem veritatis sed secundum aetatem sanctificans simul seniores exemplum ipsis quoque fiens deinde usque ad mortem pervenit ut sit primogenitus ex mortuis ipse primatum tenens in omnibus princeps vitae prior omnium et praecedens omnes Which he confirmes by the testimony of Iohn the Apostle from whom he saith those that conversed with him related that Christ lived about fifty yeares which all sorts of writers doe reckon among Irenaeus his blemishes and thereby shew how little credit is to be given to the too much entertained Apostolicall traditions THe next Greeke Author is Origen who you say lived in the beginning of the third Century Perkins and Vsher place him at the yeare 230. but for his works as of old they were counted full of errours and dangerous to be reade so as now they are we can hardly tell in some of them what is Origens What not for the originall being lost we have only the Latine translation which being performed in many of his works and particularly the Homilies on Leviticus and the Epistle to the Romanes by Ruffinus it appeares by his owne confâ—ssion that he added many things of his own insomuch that Erasmus in his censure of the Homilies on Leviticus saith that a man cannot be certaine whether he reades Ruffinus or Origen and Perkins puts among Origens Counterfeit works his Comentary on the Epistle to the Romans as being not faithfully translated by Ruffinus the like is the judgement of Rivet and others and I suppose did you reade the passages themselves you cite and consider how they are brought in and how plaine the expressions are against the Pelagians you would quickly conceive that those passages were put in after the Pelagien heresie was confuted by Hierom and Augustine who often tells us that the Fathers afore that controversie arose did not speake plainly against the Pelagiens and of all others Origen is most taxed as Pelagianizing Wherefore Vossius in the place aforenamed though he cite him for company yet addes sed de Origene minus laborabimus quia quae citabamus Graece non extant But what saith the supposed Origen In one place that the Church received this tradition of baptizing infants from the Apostles in another according to the observance of the Church baptisme is granted to infants you adde as foreseeing that this passage would prove that then it was held but a tradition that then the greatest points of faith were ordinarily called traditions received from the Apostles and you cite 2 Thes. 2.15 To which I reply true it is that they did call the greatest points of faith though written traditions Apostolicall as conceiving they might best learne what to hold in points of faith from the Bishops of those Churches where the Apostles preached and therefore in prescriptions against Heretickes Tertullian Irenaeus and others direct persons to go to the Churches where the Apostles sate specially the Romane Church which seemes to have beene the seed of Appeals to Rome and the ground of the conceit which was had of the Popes unerring Chaire But it is tâ—ue also they called Apostolicall traditions any thing though unwriâ—ten which was reported to have come from the Apostles as the time of keeping Easter and many more which was the fountaine of all corruptions in discipline and worship And that in those places you cite is meant an unwritten tradition not only the not citing any Scripture for Baptizing of Infants but also the very Phrases Pro hoc et Ecclesia ab Apostolis traditionem suscepit Secundum Ecclesiae observantiam are sufficient proofe to them who are acquainted with the Ancients writings of those times So that yet you have not proved that the baptisme of Infants was time out of minde that it had beene received in the Church or was delivered over to the Church in Origens time and was of ancient use in the Church afore his time But these passages prove that in the time when the framer of those passages wrote it was accounted but an Apostolicall tradition according to the observance of the Church Like speeches to which are found in Pseudo-Dyonisius in the end of his Hierachy and Augustin lib. 10. de Genesi ad literam c. 23. and elsewhere which argue that it was held as an Ecclesiasticall tradition in those times THe fourth and last of the Greeke Church you name is Gregory Nazianzen who is by Perkins placed at the yeare 380. by Vsher 370. much short of 1500 yeares and upwards you say that Orat. 40. in Baptismum he calls baptisme signaculum vita cursum in euntibus and commands Children to be baptized though afterwards he seemed to restraine it to the case of necessity But doth he seeme onely to restraine it to the case of necessity the words are plaine that he gives the reason why Infants in danger of death should be baptized 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that they might not misse of the common grace but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he gives his opinion of others that they should stay longer that they might be instructed and so their minds and bodyes might be Sanctified and these are all you bring of the Greek Church By the examination of which you may perceive how well you have proved that it is manifest out of most of the Records that we have of antiquitie both in the Greeke and Latine Church that the Christian Church hath beene in possession of the priviledge of baptizing the infants of beleivers for the space of 1500. yeares and upwards Whereas the highest is but a bastard Treatise and yet comes not so high if it were genuine the next without a glosse which agrees not with the text speakes nothing to the purpose the third is of very doubtfull credit the fourth which was
them to him by his Spirit forgiving them their birth-sin through Christs obedience â—lthough they be not baptized As corrupt as the Schoolmen were they could say Gratia Dei non alligatur Sacramentis The grace of God is not tyed to Sacraments If most of the Anabaptists hold universall grace and free-will there may be as much said of most of the paedobaptists taking in a great part of the Papists almost all the Lutherans and Arminians and if they denyed originall sin it is their dangerous error but it is not consequent on their denying Paedobaptisme But the late confession of faith made â—n the name of 7. Churches of them in London Art 4 5 21 22 23 24 26. will abundantly answer for them in this point of Pelagianisme The third is Or that although they be tainted with originall corruption and so need a Saviour Christ doth pro bene placito save some of the infants of Turks and Indians dying in their infancy as well as some of the infants of Christians and so carry salvation by Christ out of the Church beyond the Covenant of grace where God never made any promise Nor doth this follow for it may be said all that dye in their infancy are not damned nor all saved because they have no birth-sin nor some of the Indians saved For the some that may be saved may be the infants of believers to whom God may forgive their birth-sin without baptisme Thus you may perceive how the push of all the horns of your horned Syllogisme may be avoyded But you conceive it a great absurdity to say That Christ doth pro bene placito save some of the infants of Indians it is true it is a bold saying to say he doth save them but â—is as bad to say that God may not save them pro bene placito according to his good pleasure He hath mercy on whom he will have mercy Buâ— then salvation by Christ is carried out of the Church where he hath made no promise if you mean by the Church the invisible Church of the elect the Church of the first-born that are written in heaven of which Protestant Divines as Morton de Ecclesia and others against Bellarmine understand that saying Extra Ecclesiam non est salus without the Church is no salvation then it follows noâ— that if the infants of Indians be saved salvation is carryed without the Church for they may be of the invisible Church of the elect to whom belongs the promise made to Abraham I will be thy God and the God of thy seed But if you mean it of the visible though I disclaim Zuinglius his opinion who was a stiffe assertor of Paedobaptisme and I think the founder of the new way of maintaining it by the new addition to the Covenant of grace that Hercules Arist des Socrates Numa and such like heathens are now in heaven yet I cannot say no persons without the communion of the visiblâ— Church are saved He that could call Abraham in Vr of Chaldea Job in the land of Vz and Rahab in Jericho may save some amongst Turks and Indians out of the visible Church You will not call Rome a true visible Church nor will you I think say that all are damned that are in Rome You adde That God hath made a promise to be the God of believers and of their seed we all know If you know it yet I professe my ignorance of such a promise I reade indeed of a promise made to Abraham That he would be his God and the God of his seed and I reade That they that are of the faith of Abraham are the children of Abraham Gal. 3.7.29 Rom. 4.11 12 13 16. But I am yet to seek for that promise you speake of to be the God of believers and their seed You say But where the promise is to be found that he will be thâ— God of the seed of such Parents who live and die his enemies and theâ—â— seed not so much as called by the preaching of the Gospel I know not Nor do I. Only I know this I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion Rom. 9.15 which is the Apostles answer in this very case Thus have I entred your out-works I shall now try the strength of your walls I mean the third part of your Sermon Infant-baptisme cannot be deduced from holy Scripture PART III. Concerning the Arguments from Scripture for Infant-baptism YOu say My first argument to â—his The Infants of believing parents are foederati therefore they must be signati 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 The ordinary answer to this argument is by denying that Infants are under the Covenant of grace only some few deny the consequence that although they were within the Covenant yet it follows not that they must be sealed because say they the women among the Jews were under the covenant yet received not circumcision which was the seal of the Covenant They that deny the consequence of your argument do it justly for the consequence must be proved by this universall All that are foederati must be signati all that are in the covenant of Grace must be sealed which is not true If it were true it must be so either by reason of some necessary connexion between the termes which is none for it is but a common accident to a man that hath a promise or a covenant made to him that he should have a speciall sign it may adesse vel abesse a subjecto it may be present or absent from the subject God made a speciall promise to Joshuah that he should bring Israel into the Land of Canaan to Phineas a covenant of an everlasting Priesthood without any speciall sign or seal distinct from the Covenant or else it must be so by reason of Gods will declared concerning the covenant of Grace but that is not true The promise made to Adam which you confesse was the same in substance with the covenant of Grace had no speciall sign or seal annexed to it Noah Abel were within the covenant of Grace yet no speciall sign appointed them therefore it is not Gods will that all that are foederati in the Covenant must be signati Sealed if they had been signati though they were foederati it had been will-worship God not appointing it to them But you will say all that are foederati should be signati since the solemn Covenant with Abraham But neither is this certain sith we finde no such thing concerning Melchizedeck and Lot that lived in Abrahams time nor concerning Job that it 's conceived lived after his time You will say but it is true of all the foederati in Abrahams family but neither is that true for male children before
foedus dei inituÌ„ cum Abrahamo non omnes Abrahae posteros fimbria sua comprehendere sic simpliciter instituenduÌ„ esse censemus Esavus Jacobus erant ex posteris Abrahae at horuÌ„ utâ—uÌ„que non coÌ„plexus est Deus foedere suo cum Abrahamo inito ergo non omnes posteros Abrahami Probatur autem Deum non complexuÌ„ fuisse utruÌ„que foedere gratiae quiae non complexus est EsavuÌ„ majoreÌ„ sed JacobuÌ„ minoreÌ„ Bain on Eph. 1.5 p. 138. He answereth the assumption of the latter Syllogism by distinguishing of Israel children denying that al Israelites are that Israel to which Gods word belongeth or that all Abrahams seed are those children whoÌ„ God adopted to himselfe v. 7. but such only who were like Isaac first begotten by a word of promise and partakers of the heavenly calling The reason is to be conceived in this manner the rejecting of such who are not the true Israel nor belong not to the number of Gods adopted children cannot shake Gods word spoken to Israel and Abrahams seed but many of the Israelites and Abrahams seed aâ—e such to whom the word of God belonged not ergo the word of God is firm though they be rejected Pag. 139. A childe of the flâ—sh being such a one who descendeth from Abraham according to the flesh For it is most plaine that these did make them thinke thâ—mselves within the compâ—sse of the word because thâ—y were Israelites and the seed of Abraham in regard of bodily generation propagated from him and Arminius doth decline that in objecting and answering which this discourse consisteth Beside that though the sons of the flesh may signifie such who carnally not spiritually conceive of the Law yet the seed of Abraham without any adjoyned is never so taken The assumption which is to be proved is this That many of Abrahams seed are such to whom the word belongeth not The word which belonged not to Ishmael and Esau but to Isaac and Jacob only and such as were like to them that word belonged not to many of those who are the seed of Abraham and Israelites But the word shewing Gods love choice adoption blessing of Israel and Abrahams seed belonged not to Esau Ishmael and such as they were but to Isaac and Jacob. Amesius Animadv in Remonstr citat scripta Synod de Praeâ—estin cap. 8. § 6. thus expresseth the Apostles scope Multi sunt ex semine Abrahami ad quos verbum promissionis non spectat ut Ismael Ismaelitae si autem multi sunt ex semine Abrahami ad quos verbum promissionis non spectat tum rejectio multorum Judaeorum qui sunt ex semine Abrahami non irritum facit verbum promissionis Out of all which I gather if the naturall posterity of Abraham were not within the Covenant of grace by vertue of that promise Gen. 17.7 then much lesse are our naturall posterity but the former is true Rom. 9.6 7 8 9 10 11 12. therefore the latter is true and the contrary delivered in that which I conceive your â—ssertion false A second reason is this The Apostles Exposition of the promise shews us best what is the meaning of it but the Apostle when he expounds the promise of God to Abraham I will be thy God and the God of thy seed as it was a promise of saving grace to wit justification and life expounds it as belonging to Abraham not as a naturall Father but as Father of the faithfull whether of the Jews or the Gentiles and his seed not his naturall but his spiriâ—uall seed Christ and believers Rom. 4.11 12 13 14 15 16 17. Gal. 3.7.16.29 Whence George Downham of Justification lib. 6. cap. 6. § 4. speakes thus The other promises concerning his seed are two The former concerning the multiplication of his seed that he should be a father of a multitude of Nations namely in Christ and that he would be a God to him and his seed he doth not say to seeds as of many but as of one to thy seed which is Christ Gal. 3.16 that is Christ mysticall 1 Cor. 12.12 Containing the multitude of the faithfull in all Nations both Jews and Gentiles This promise therefore implyeth the former that in Christ the promised seed Abraham himselfe and his seed that is the faithfull of all Nations should be blessed And in confirmation of this promise he was called Abraham because he was to be a Father of many Nations that is of the faithfull of all Nations for none but they are accounted Abrahams seed Rom. 9.7.8 Gal. 3.7.29 Thus he opens the Apostles meaning and thus frequently do Protestant Divines in their writings Now if only believers are in that promise as it was a promise of saving grace then it is not made to the naturall posterity as such of any believer much lesse of us Gentiles My third reason is this The Covenant of grace is the Gospel and so you call it pag. 37. when you say This is a part of the Gospel preached unto Abraham Now the Gospel preached to Abraham the Apostle thus expresseth Gal. 3.8 9. And the Scripture foreseeing that God would justifie the heathen through faith preached before the Gospel unto Abraham saying in thee shall all Nations be blessed so then they which be of faith are blessed with faithfull Abraham and ver 11. But that no man is justified by the Law in the sight of God it is evident for the just shall live by Faith it is Hab. 2.4 By his faith And generally when Divines distinguish of the Covenant of grace and of workes they say the condition of the Covenant of grace is faith They then that say the Covenant of grace belongs not only to believers but also to their naturall children whether believing or not these adde to the Gospel and the Apostle saith of such Gal. 1.8 9. Let him be accursed Fourthly I thus argue If God have made a Covenant of grace in Christ not only to believers but also to their seed or naturall children then it is either conditionally or absolutely if conditionally the condition is either of works and then grace should be of works conâ—rary to the Apostle Rom. 11.8 or of Faith and then the sense is God hath promised grace to bâ—lievers and to their seed if believers that is to believers and believers which is nugatory If this Covenant of grace to believers seed be absolute then either God keeps it or not if he do not keep it then he breaks his word which is blasphemy if he do keep it then it follows that all the posterity of believers are saved contrary to Rom. 9.13 or if some are not saved though they be in the Covenant of grace there may bee Apostasie of persons in the Covenant of grace by which the Arguments brought by Mr. Prynne in his Perpetuity and others for perseverance in grace are evacuated and Bertius his Hymenaeus desertor justified The truth is generally to be in the Covenant
circumcision made without hands a better circumcision then the Jews was in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ. You say rightly First that the Apostle would take them off wholly from circumcision therefore not teach them that they had another Ordinance in stead of it by vertue of that command Secondly That the use of circumcision ingaged them to the use of the rest of the Jewish ceremonies and therefore that Baptisme succeeds not in the use of Circumcision Thirdly In Christ we are circumcised with a circumcision made without hands a better circumcision then the Jews was in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ and therefore we have circumcision not in another Ordinance but in Christ and his circumcision You go on and whereas the Jewish teachers would be ready to object that the receiving of the inward grace of circumcision did not make them so compleat as Abraham and his seed was because they also had an outward sensible signe whereby they might be further perswaded comforted and confirmed This is but a conceit that either the Jews were ready thus to object or the Apostle intended to answer such an objection The intent of the Apostle is to declare in what way and manner and by what means they became compleat in Christ to wit Baptisme and Faith whereby they had communion with Christ and so were compleat in him But you say To this he answers vers 12. that neither is this priviledge wanting to Christians who have as excellent and expresse a Sacrament of it being buried with Christ in Baptisme the effect whereof he there sets down and therefore they needed not circumcision as their false teachers insinuated thereby directly teaching that our Baptisme is in stead of their circumcision It is true the Apostle teacheth them that they needed not circumcision but not because they had Baptisme in lieu of it but because all was in Christ now who hath abolished all these rites or taken them away quite vers 14. as being but shadows of good things to come and the body is of Christ vers 17. in whom and in that which befell him all was accomplished And Aretius therefore in his Comment on Colos. 2. saith rightly in this not a rem ipsam vindicari sanctis sine externo symbolo quod tamen indesinenter urgebant adversâ—rii sâ—c Rom. 2.29 Phil. 3.3 Atque hoc beneficium in Christo habemus est igitur perfectum organum salutis note that the thing it self is asserted to the Saints without an outward symbole which yet the adversaries incessantly urged so Rom. 2.29 and Phil. 3.3 and this benefit we have in Christ he is therefore a perfect organ of salvation so that it is utterly against the Apostles scope and whole argument to say that therefore they needed not circumcision because they had another Ordinance in the room of it For the Apostles intent is plain to shew that Christ is in stead of Circumcision and all the rest of the Jewish ceremonies and the truth is by this doctrine that Baptisme is in stead of Circumcision the Apostles argument for the disanulling the Jewish ceremonies both here and Hebr. 9. 10.1 13. in the Epistle to the Galatians chap. 3. 4. and Ephes. 2. is quite evacuated who still useth this argument to prove the abolition of the ceremonies of the Law because they have their complement in Christ not in some new Ordinance added in stead of them for if there be need of other Ordinances besides Christ in stead of the old then Christ hath not in himself fulnesse enough to supply the want of them and this abolition is not because of Christs fulnesse but other Ordinances that come in stead of the abolished And indeed Baptisme and the Lords Supper though they be Ordinances of Christ that may imitate or resemble the Ordinances of the Jews yet it cannot be said they succeed into the roome place or use of them For Christ only and that which he did doth so succeed So that if things be well weighed this Text is against your Position not for it and so your Ordinance is turned against you You go on And the Analogy lies between two sacramentall types of the same substance regeneration to both Jews and Gentiles I deny not but that there is Analogy between Circumcision and Baptisme and so there is between the Deluge and Noahs Ark or deliverance from the Deluge and Baptisme 1 Pet. 3.21 they do resemble each other in some things But we are not to conclude thence that Baptisme succeeds into the roome place and use of Noahs Ark or that therfore we are to baptize married persons only because in Noahs Ark only married persons were saved For in the administration of an Ordinance we are not to be ruled by bare Analogy either framed by us or delivered by the Spirit of God but the institution of God But the truth is in this place Col. 2.11 12. the Apostle rather resembles buriall to circumcision then baptisme and so makes the Analogy not between Circumcision and Baptisme but circumcision and Christs buriall And so Chrysostome on the place and after him Theophylact 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and what he calls circumcision he again calls buriall You proceed thus And in truth had not baptisme come in the roome of it the Apostle could not have pitched upon a worse instance then Circumcision which was so much valued by them and was so great and usefull a priviledge to them It is true circumcision was a great and usefull priviledge to them in that estate they were before Christs incarnation in comparison of Heathens who had not a School-master to bring them to Christ yet absolutely it was a burthen and heavie yoak Act. 15.10.28 and it would be a burthen not a priviledge for us to have an Ordinance in the roome place and use of it now Christ is come in whom we are compleat And it is true the Apostle pitched on circumcision vers 11. because the Jews much valued it but not to shew as you say that Baptisme is in the roome plâ—ce and use of it but to shew that in Christ we have circumcision and are compleat in him You close up this conclusion thus Nor had there been any reason to have here named Baptisme but that he meant to shew Baptisme to Christians was now in the roome of circumcision to the Jewes This is said with more confidence then truth For another reason is plain from the context that therefore Baptisme is named because it is one of the means by which Christians come to have communion with Christ and to be compleat in him which was the thing the Apostle intended in the 12th verse and therefore he joynes faith with Baptisme they being the two speciall means whereby we come to have communion with Christ and to be compleat in him And this is further confirmed by comparing this with other Scriptures
of David proceeds upon this mistake that by the root and first fruit are meant any Ancestor whereas it is meant of Abraham the Father of the faithfull as Deodate in his Annot. on Rom. 11.16 or at most Abraham Isaac and Jacob in whose names all the elect are comprehended when God calls himself The God of Abraham Isaac and Jacob as our Saviour intimates Luke 20.37 38. Mat. 22.32 Mar. 12.26 27. And for that which he saith that the Jews in Pauls time were holy by covenant howbeit for the present the sons were branches broken off for unbeliefe if it be meant of the Jews broken off through unbelief in respect of their present state they were not holy by covenant Only thus fâ—r the Jewish nation in Pauls time is said to be holy either in respect of the remnant according to the election of Grace mentioned vers 5. of which he was one or in respect of the posterity that should afterwards be called according to the promise of God to Abraham in which sense they were federally holy yet this did neither give right for the baptizing of children of unbelieving Jewes in Pauls time nor now And for that which he saith that God hath chosen the race and nation of the Gentiles it is not right For God hath not chosen simply the race and nation of the Gentiles but a people to himself out of the race and nation of the Gentiles as it is said Rev. 5.7 Thou hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred and tongue and nation As for Mr. Blakes Argument because it falls in with your reason I shall answer them together in that which followes You say Now we know that when that one nation of the Jews were made Disciples and circumcised their Infants were made disciples made to belong to Gods School and circumcised with them when that nation was made disciples in Abrahams loynes and circumcised their seed also was the same when that nation was taken out of Egypt and actually made Disciples their children were also with them This is your first Argument to prove a command by cleare consequence from Mat. 28.19 for baptizing Infants Now the strength of it lies in these suppositions First that Christ did bid them baptize all nations after the manner that the Jews did circumcise one nation And Mr. Blake doth conceit this so strongly that he saith this cannot be denyed of anâ— that will have the Apostles to be able to know Christs meaning by his words in this enlarged Commission Secondly that the nation of the Jews were discipled when they were circumcised I do not impute it to Mr. Blake through defect of ability to understand but through the strong hold which these points have in his minde that Baptisme succeeds Circumcision in the place roome and use of it and the covenant of the Gospel is all one with the covenant made to Abraham that he imagines there should be such an allusion to circumcision as that the Disciples must understand Christs meaning whom to baptize from the Precept of circumcision Gen. 17. but in mine apprehension there is no colour for such a conceit 'T is true he enlargeth their commission and bids them Go and make Disciples of all nations or as it is in Mark Preach the Gospel to every creature and then to baptize the Disciples of all nations but this enlargement of commission was not in opposition to the restriction about circumcision Gen. 17. but in opposition to the restriction Mat. 10.5 6. as your self rightly expresse it pag. 44. And for that expression that the nation of the Jews were discipled that their Infants were discipled that the nation was made Disciples in Abrahams loines it is such a construction of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 make Disciples as I believe no Lexicon nor I think any Expositor to this day made of the word which plainly signifies so to teach as that the persons taught do learn and accordingly professe the things taught and our Lord Christ in Mark expresseth it by preaching the Gospel and accordingly the Apostles by preaching did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 disciple Acts 14.21 which how it can be said of Infants that can neither understand nor speak the doctrine of the Gospel preached to them without a miracle I know not I make no question but Abraham did teach his children and make them Disciples and that the Israelites did teach and make Disciples of their children as soon as they could understand the things of God but that they should be disciples in Abrahams loynes is such a piece of language as I never read in the Bible nor in any Author but such as torture words to make them speak what they would have them And sure if the Apostles had understood our Saviours command thus Disciple all nations baptizing them that is Admit the infants of all nations to baptisme as the Jews did the male Infants of that one nation to circumcision they might have saved themselves a great deal of labour of preaching afore baptisme and of baptizing females and would have left us some precedent of such a practice But you adde further And we know that in every nation the children make a great part of the nation and are alwayes included under every administration to the nation whether promises or threatnings priviledges or burthens miracles or judgements unlesse they be excepted So are they in families in cities it being the way of the Scripture when speaking indefinitely of a people nation city or family to be either saved or damned to receive mercies or punishments expresly to except Infants when they are to be excepted as we see in the judgement that befell Israel in the Wildernesse when all that rebellious company that came out of Egypt was to perish by Gods righteous doome their little ones were expresly excepted Numb 14.31 and in the covenant actually entred into by the body of the nation Nehem. 10. it is expresly limited to them who had knowledge and understanding And the Disciples who received this commission knew well that in all Gods former administrations when any parents were made disciples their children were taken in with them to appertain to the same school and therefore it behooved the Lord to give them a caution for the leaving out of Infants in this new administration that they might know his minde had be intended to have them left out which that ever he did in word or deed cannot be found in Scripture The Lord hath plainly given a caution in Scripture for the leaving out Infants in this administration accoâ—ding to ordinary rule For in that he directs them to baptize disciples upon preaching he doth exclude Infants who are not such disciples nor according to ordinary providence can be And this the Apostles could easily understand as knowing that under the term Disciple in common speech and in the whole new Testament those only are meant who being taught professed the doctrine taught by such a one
first conversion will subscribe to those speeches of yours when you say all who partake of that grace are but meer patients and contribute no more to it then a childe doth to its own begetting and therefore Infants as fit subjects to have it wrought in them as grown men and the most grown men are in no more fitnesse to receive this grace when it is given them in respect either of any faith or repentance which they yet have then a very little childe What doth the most grown man in any of these more then an Infant may do being only passive in them all If my memory deceive me not the Divines of great Britain at the Synod of Dort in their suffrage did set down some things which might be done in respect of faith or repentance when grace is given by grown men more then an Infant can do and so doth in like manner Mr. Rutherfurd The Triall and Triumph of Faith Serm. 14. pag. 109 110. And though you say The most grown men are only passive in them all yet D â— Twisse in his Vindiciae gratiae lib. 3. errat 9. Sect. 3. thought this subtilty necessary that the will in the first conversion is meerly passive as the willing of the will is taken forâ—ally as being in the subject but as it is taken efficiently it being a vitall act so it is not meerly passive in the first conversion And Dr. Preston in his acute Exercitation De irresistibilitate gratiae convertentis hath these words Nos sustinemus voluntatem in primo actu conversionis partim passivè partim activè id est prius passivè dein activè se habere ideoque cum Deo cooperari We hold the will in the first act of conversion to be partly passive partly active that is first of all to be passive then active and therefore to cooperate with God It is true the acts of taking away the heart of stone creating a heart of flesh forgiving iniquity loving freely as they are acts of God a man is neither active nor passive in them they are not in man as the subject nor from man as the agent only we may be said to be passive or active in respect of the terminus or effect of them a new heart faith or repentance produced by them and in respect of this in some sense we are meerly passive in some partly active and partly passive in the first conversion according to the doctrine of the two learned Doctors forenamed You conclude this Argument with this speech And whoever will deny that Infants are capable of these things as well as grown men must deny that any Infants dying in their infancy are saved by Christ. Concerning which speech if you mean that Infants are capable of these things as well as grown men simply in respect of the things it is true that Infants are capable of them as well as grown men and he that denies it denies their salvation But if you mean it in respect of the modus habendi the manner of having then it is not true for Infants are not capable in the same manner of a new heart faith and repentance by hearing and outward ordinances as well as grown men But what is all this to prove your Minor which is not of potentiall having inward grace which is not denied but of actuall having And so still it remains unproved that all the Infants of Believers or the Infants of Believers as such are actually partakers of the inward grace of Baptisme And thus have I at last examined the third part of your Sermon containing your Arguments from Scripture for Paedobaptisme I proceed now to examine the last part which followes Infant-Baptisme is a corruption of the Ordinance of BAPTISME PART IIII. Concerning the Objections against Infant-Baptisme AGainst this argument severall things are objected which I shall indeavour to râ—move out of the way First it is said that although infants are capable of these things and they no doubt are wrought by Christ in many infants yet may not we baptize them because according to the Scripture patterne both of Christs Command Mat. 28. in his institution of Baptisme where this was injoyned and John the Baptist Christs disciples and Apostles they alwayes taught and made them disciples by teaching before they baptized any It is true the institution of Christ Mat. 28.19 and the practise of John Baptist and the Apostles are the great objections against Paedobaptisme This principle being laid down as a truth avouched against the Papists by Protestants generally that it is a sinne of prophaning the Sacraments when the institution is altered by substraction as when the cup is denied to the lay people or by addition as when chrisme and spittle c. are added to the elements and by the non-conformists conformists of England that it is will-worship to administer the Sacraments any other wayes 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 alterable circumstance but to belong necessarily to the administration or worship as the person baptizing and as the persons receiving the Lords Supper and therefore there must be warrant from institution for it else it is a sinfull invention of man But neither Christs institution or John the Baptist or the Apostles practise doe warrant the baptizing of infants therefore it is will-worship that the institution Mat. 28.19 doth not warrant the baptizing of infants is proved 1. Because the institution appoints onely disciples of all nations to be baptized but infants are not such therefore the institution doth not warrant their Baptisme The Major and Minor of this Syllogisme have been made good Part. 3. Sect. 13. 2. Because the order Christ appoints is that teaching or preaching the Gospel should goe before Baptisme now the order of Christ is a rule of administring holy things as we argue in like manner 1 Cor. 11.28 The Apostle appoints that a man is first to examine himselfe then to eate of that bread ergo Children are not to have the Lords Supper so in like manner wee may argue wee must first teach persons and then baptize them therefore children that cannot be taught by us are not to be baptized To that which Mr Edwards answereth to this argument that John is said Mark 1.4 to baptize and preach I oppose the words of Beza annot in Mark 1.4 Quod autem Erasmus subjungit Joannem priùs baptizâsse deinde praedicâsse baptismum ejusmodi est ut ne refutatione quidem videatur indigere Quid enim cum diceret Joannes Poenitentiam agite appropinquat enim regnum coelorum non docebat quos erat baptizaturus Imò veâ—ò nisi priùs docuisset in quem finem baptizaret quis tandem ad ejus baptismum accessisset Certe cum sacramenta sint 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 necesse est ut praeeat doctrina quam obsignent 3. Because the institution is to