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
An Examen OF THE SERMON Of Mr. STEPHEN MARSHAL About Infant-Baptisme in a Letter sent to him Divided into Foure Parts 1. Concerning the Antiquity of Infant-baptisme 2. Concerning the prejudices against Antipaedobaptists from their miscarriages 3. Concerning the Arguments from Scripture for Infant-baptisme 4. Concerning the Objections against Infant-baptisme In which are maintained these Positions 1. Infant-baptisme is not so ancient as is pretended but as now taught is a late Innovation 2. Antipaedobaptisme hath no ill influence on Church or Common-wealth 3. Infant-baptisme cannot be deduced from Holy Scripture 4. Infant-baptisme is a corruption of the Ordinance of Baptisme LONDON Printed by R. W. for George Whitington 1645. Infant-Baptisme Is not so Ancient as is pretended As now Taught Is a late Innovation PART I. Concerning the antiquity of Infant-Baptisme SIR IT is now full nine moneths since that being informed by one of the Members of the Assembly in which you are one that there was a Committee chosen out of the Members of the Assembly to give satisfaction in the point of Paedo-baptisme and advised by the same person out of his tender love to me to present the reasons of my doubts about Paedo-baptisme to that Committee I drew them up in Latine in nine Arguments in a scholastique way and they were delivered unto Mr. Whitaker the Chair-man of the Committee about nine moneths since to which I added after an addition of three more reasons of doubting with a supplement of some other things wanting which was delivered to Mr. Tuckney and joyned by him to the former Papers My aim therein was either to find better ground then I had then found to practise the baptizing of Infants from that Assembly of learned and holy men whom I supposed able and willing to resolve their Brother in the Minâ—stâ—ry Or else according to the solemn Covenant I have taken to endeavour the reformation of these Churches according to Gods word by informing that Assembly what I conceived amisse in the great ordinance of Baptizing The successe was such as I little expected to this day I have heard nothing from the Committee by way of answer to those doubts but I have met with many Pamphlets and some Sermons tending to make the questioning of that point odious to the People and to the Magistracie Among others reading the Sermon of Mr. Richard Vines on Ephes. 4.14 before the Lord Major and the Sermon you preached at Westminster Abbey I perceive there is such a prejudice in you and it may seem by the Vote passâ—d about the members of the visible Church in the generality of the Assembly that he is likely to be exploded if not censured that shall but dispute against it and therefore little or no likelihood that this matter will be argued as I conceive it doth deserve in your Assembly And further I perceive there is a great zeale in your spirit against the denying of Children baptisme as if it were a more cruâ—ll thing than Hazaels dashing out Childrens brains That it were an exclusion of them out of the Covenant of Grace c. Which I the more admire considering the report which hath been of you as a sober learned holy well-tempered man that you should be so transported in this matter as to be so vehement in maintaining that which was accounted heretofore in many ages but an Ecclesiasticall tradition for which you are fain to fetch a command from Circumcision and confâ—sse no expresse example in Scripture for it and go not about to prove it but by consequence inferr'd from five Conclusions which though you call undeniable yet others do not think so nor yet see reason to subscribe to your judgment You are not ignorant I prâ—sume that Mr. Daniel Rogers in his Treatise of the Sacrament of Baptisme part 1. pag. 79. confessed himself yet unconvinced by demonstration of Scripture for it And whereas your Achilles for Paedo-baptisme is the Circumcision of Infants me thinks Mr. Balls words Reply to the Answer of the New-England Elders about the third and fourth Positions pag. 38 39. cut the sinews of that argument But in whatsoever they agree or differ we must look to the Institution and neither stretch it wider nor draw it narrower then the Lord hath made it â—or he is the Institutor of the Sacraments according to his own good pleasure and it is our part to leaâ—n of him both to whom how and for what end the Sacraments are to be administred how they agree and wherein they differ In all which we must affirm nothing but what God hath taught us and as he hath taught us And whereas the words of Paul 1 Cor. 7.14 are your principall strength to prove the Covenant-holines of Infants of a believing parent Musculus a writer of good esteem in his Commentary upon that place confesseth that he had abused formerly that place against the Anabaptists but found it impertinent to that purpose And for my part after most carefull and serious reading and perusing of many Authors and among the rest your Sermon I cannot yet find it to be any other then an innovation in comparison of many other things rejected late maintained by erroneous and dangerous principles having no true ground from Christs institution which alone can acquit it from Will-worship and which hath occasioned many errors in doctrine corruptions in discipline and manners unnecessary and vain disputes and almost quite changed the ordinance of Baptisme Wherefore upon advise I have resolved to examine your Sermon who are a leading man and in respect of your eminency either likely to be a very good or very bad instrument as you are guiâ—dd that you may either rectifie me or I you and that we may if the Lord shall see it good give one another the right hand of fellowship and stand fast in one mind in the truth of the Gospel and cleare the truth of God to the people whose eyes are upon us And so much the rather have I pitched upon your Sermon because I conceive it contains in a plain way as much as can be wel said for Poedo-baptisme and your Epistle seems to intimate your publishing of it to be for the ease of the Assembly and possibly it may be all I may expect from them Now the Lord vouchsafe to frame both your spirit and mine that we may seek and find truth in humility and love in this great businesse which concerns the soules perhaps lives and estates of many millions yea of all godly persons and the glory of God and honour of our Lord Jesus Christ and that we may trample under our feet our own credit our own opinion if it stand not with the honour of Christ and the truth of God LEtting passe the Epistle and leaving the various Questions and allowing the stating of the Question conceiving you mean it of baptizing by warrant of ordinary rule of Scripture without extraordinary revelation or direction Whereas you affirme that the Infants of
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
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
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
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„
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
Gal. 3.25 26 27. the Apostle speaks thus But after faith is come we are no longer under a Schoolmaster meaning Circumcision c. For we are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ which Text is apparently answerable to Col. 2.8 9 10 11 12. And again Rom. 6.3 4 5. Know you not that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death therefore are we buried with him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by baptisme into death that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father even so we also should walk in newnesse of life For if we have been planted together in the likenesse of his death we shall be also in the likenesse of his resurrection In which places you may easily perceive that by putting on Christ we come to be exempted from the Schoolmaster that is the Law and so from Circumcision that being planted into Christ we walk in newnesse of life that is as Rom. 7.6 that now we are delivered from the Law that being dead wherein we were held that we should serve in newnesse of spirit and not in the oldnesse of the letter and that the means hereof is by Baptisme by which we put on Christ and are baptized into his death and by faith whereby we are no longer children under age but sons come to their inheritance Thus have I at last waded through your third Conclusion and the Text Col. 2.11 12. the misunderstanding of which hath been the ignis fatuus foolish fire which hath led men out of the way in this matter into bogs YOur fourth Conclusion followes That by Gods own expresse order Infants as well as grown men were in the time of the Jews to be initiated and sealed with the signe of Circumcision whether Jews by nature or Proselytes of the Gentiles one Law was for them all if they receive thâ— Covenant they and their children were circumcised It is true this was Gods expresse order and it is as certain that this expresse order of God is now revoked or repealed Acts 15.10.20.26 Gal. 5.1 2 3. as belonging to that administration which was before Christ came That which you adde of the females virtuall circumcision in the males hath been examined before I passe on to that which followes And whereas some who see which way the strength of this Conclusion tendeth do alledge that though Circumcision was to be applyed to their Infants yet it was not as a seal of the spirituall part of the Covenant of Grace but as a nationall badge a seal of some temporall and earthly blessings and priviledges as of their right to the Land of Canaan c. And that Ishmael though he was circumâ—ised for some temporall respects yet he was not thereby brought under the Covenant of Grace which was expresly said to be made with Abraham in relation to Isaac and his seed They that thus object speak that which is truth only whereas you make the objectors say That it was not a seal of the spirituall part of the covenant of Grace I would say to all that were circumcised and when you say but as a nationall badge c. that Ishmael was circumcised for some temporall respects I would leave out those words and say because God commanded it Thus did I expresse my self in my Latin paper affirming that not right to Euangelicall promises I now adde nor right to any other benefit by the Covenant made with Abraham was the proper and adequate reason why these or those were circumcised but Gods Precept For as much as persons were to be circumcised who had no right either to the Euangelicall promises or any other in that Covenant which was confirmed by circumcision and I named Ishmael concerning whom though God heard Abraham in giving him some blessing upon Abrahams prayer when he understood the promise was not intended for Ishmael but to Isaac Gen. 17.19 20. yet he expresly added his determination to hold vers 21. that he would establish his Covenant with Isaac not with Ishmael and on the other side all the females in the Covenant were uncircumcised though some of them had right to all the promises in the Covenant and the Text expresly makes the reason of what Abraham did to be Gods appointment v. 23. and no other Wherefore those that say that Circumcision did not seal the spirituall part of the Covenant of Grace to all and that Ishmael was not by circumcision brought under the Covenant of Grace say no more then what the Apostle saith Rom. 9.6 7 8. Gal. 4.28 29. and your self pag. 13. where you say only true believers are made partakers of the spirituall part of the Covenant Now the end of this objection is to prove that it followes not because a person was appointed to be circumcised therefore he was within the Covenant of Grace or that because persons were within the Covenant of Grace therefore they were to be circumcised Let us now see what you answer to this You say I answer there is nothing plainer then that the Covenant whereof Circumcision was a signe was the Covenant of Grace It is granted that the Covenant made with Abraham Gen. 17. was the Covenant of Grace though not a pure Covenant but a mixt covenant But what then Doth it follow that every one that was circumcised was in the Covenant of Grace It is true the sacrifices did confirm the Covenant in Christs blood but it doth not follow that all that did offer sacrifices were partakers of the Covenant The like may be said of Baptisme the Lords Supper Manna c. which they that did partake of yet were not all of them in the Covenant as the Apostle shews 1 Cor. 10.5 Heb. 3.18 19. It is one thing to be under the outward administration another thing to be in the covenant of Grace This is proper only to elect persons the other is common to Elect and Reprobate and depends meerly on Gods appointment without any other consideration You go on Abraham received circumcision a signe of the righteousnesse of Faith Very true and the Apostle expoundeth this when he saith which he had yet being uncircumcised that he might be the father of all them that believe though they be not circumcised that righteousnesse might be imputed to them also Rom. 4.11 So that the Apostle makes Circumcision a seal of righteousnesse but not to all or only circumcised persons but to all believers whether Jews or Gentiles so that according to the Apostles doctrine Circumcision in as much as it sealed to Abraham the righteousnesse of faith which he had being yet uncircumcised iâ— a seal to the Gentiles that believe of the righteousnesse of faith though they be never circumcised So that it is so far from being true that persons have the promise therefore they must have the seal in their persons that it followes persons
to prove it Rom. 3.1 2 3. Rom. 9.4 And the truth is priviledges are so arbitrary and various that God gives them as he thinkes good oft times without assigning any special reason so that no argument can be drawne thus God gave such a priviledge to the Jewes Ergo we must have such a priviledge too except we can prove it is Gods will it should be so And therefore this Argument is of no force but rather an argument of arrogant presumption without an institution to attempt to prove that because the Jewes had a priviledge to circumcise infants therefore we must have a priviledge to baptize infants nor doe any of the many Scriptures you have alledged prove that Baptisme of infants is a priviledge granted by God in lieu of Circumcision But you take upon you to answer this objection You say but these things have no weight we are inquiring for priviledges which are branches of the Covenant of Grace which every man who is in Covenant with God may expect from God by vertue of the Covenant were he a Jew or a proselyte not for any particular or peculiar favour to a particular man or woman or family or tribe All these forementioned things and many other of the like kind as the ministery of the Tabernacle Temple to belong to one Tribe the Kingly office to one family such and such men never to lacke a man of their house to stand and before God proceeded indeed from free grace but were no parts of the Covenant of Grace which God made to Abraham and all his seed For could every man in Covenant challenge these things at Gods hand and that by vertue of the Covenant Could every one of them promise that Christ should be borne of his flesh or every one of their women that shee should be the mother of Christ Could every one whom God owned to be in Covenant with him promise by vertue of the Covenant that their Children if cast off by unbeliefe should after many hundred yeares be againe called in We speak onely of such priviledges as were universall and common to all who were in Covenant for which by vertue of the Covenant they might relie upon God Though you say the things objected have no weight yet it may seeme they are so heavy presse your conclusion so hard as that you cannot well ease it of them The things objected you deny not but you answer that they are impertinent you tell us why because you enquire for priviledges which are branches of the Covenant of Grace common to all in Covenant which they may challenge at Gods hand by vertue of the Covenant and such are not these It is not materiall what you inquire after men may sectari Aquilam in nubibus follow after an Eagle in the Clouds But sure I am the Scriptures you bring prove not that believers now have more priviledges belonging to the Covenant of grace which all may challenge at Gods hands then the Jewes had Yea your second conclusion contradicts your fifth understood in this sense Beside Circumcision was not a priviledge common to all in the Covenant of Grace For besides all the faithfull before Abraham and those of his time Melchisedeck and Lot and their households and Job after his time there was a sort of proselytes called strangers or of the gate who were not circumcised yet the Scripture reckons them among the worshippers of God Such is Cornelius conceived to be by Mede in his discourse on Acts 17.4 by Selden lib. 2. de jure nat Gent. c. 4. who is said to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a godly or devout man and one that feared God with all his house which gave much almes to the people and prayed to God alwayes Act. 10.2 and therefore within the Covenant of Grace Besides the priviledges alledged in the objection doe some of them at least belong to the Covenant of Grace as well as Circumcision as to be Father of the faithfull to be the Mother of Christ and the last belongs much more to the Covenant of Grace then circumcision And those Rom. 9.4 are priviledges which you alledge as belonging to the Covenant of Grace to which I may joyne that Rom. 3.2 that to them were committed the Oracles of God which yet were prerogatives of the Jewes as Mr Rutherford rightly and according to truth Lastly the phrases Rom. 11.21 of the naturall branches ver 24. of the wild Olive by nature thou wast graffed in besides nature these according to nature doe seeme to me to import not that the Jewes were in the Covenant of Grace by nature but that they had this priviledge to be reckoned in the outward administration as branches of the olive by their birth by vertue of Gods appointment which the Gentiles have not But you goe on Let any mâ—n shew out of the Scripture where our priviledges under the Gospel are cut short in any of these things and be saith somewhat and in particular for the case in hand concerning our infants right to the Covenant of Grace and the seale of it Once we are sure the infant children of all Covenanters were within the Covenant and the seale also belonged to them and by vertue of the Covenant which is still the same we plead their interest in it Let any man shew when and where this was taken away when the infant children of believers were expunged out of the Covenant of grace It is unreasonable to require men to shew what they doe not avouch it were equall to exact this taske at the hands of those who doe expunge the infant children of believers out of the Covenant of Grace we neither write in nor expunge out but leave that to God onely from whom we learne Esau have I hated Jacob have I loved Though you thinke your selfe sure that all the infants of Covenanters were within the Covenant of Grace yet I see no cause to believe you for as much as I thinke God never shewed you the booke of life that you may see who are written in who expunged out of the Covenant of Grace and St Paul who was as well read in that booke as you saith Rom. 9.8 They which are the children of the flesh are not the children of God but the children of the promise are counted for the seed which how to spell I have shewed above But you adde Certainly who ever will goe about to deprive them of it to cut off such a great part of the comfort of believing parents must produce cleare testimonies before they can perswade believers to part with either of them either right to the Covenant or to the seale of the Covenant And you adde two reasons of it You are now on your advantage ground in a veine of Oratory and on a subject of all others aptest to move affections to wit parents tendernesse to their children But wee must not sacrifice truth to either of these You insinuate that Antipaedobaptists goe about to deprive infant-children
dictate The Evening of the Passeover is no more accidentall then the day it selfe they being commanded both together And for the Lords Supper how we can be loose to receive it in the Morning or Evening after Supper when the Apostle doth so distinctly mention in this relation of the Institution 1 Cor. 11.23 that it was done in the night and vers 25. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 after he had supped I leave to your Assembly to consâ—der Especially those of you that are so stiffe for the sitting together at the Table which is not mentioned or hinted in the Apostles relation and therefore may seeme as much occasionall as the other And for that which you intimate as if Baptisme were not the Sacrament for spirituall nourishment growth and continuance in the Covenant as well as for entrance I take to be but a dictate like the rest which upon exact examination will not hold it seems to me somewhat neare of kinne to that of Bellarmine and other Papists that the efficacy of Baptisme extends not to the remission of the sinnes of our whole life but of originall sinne onely But you have yet one more Instance and thus you speake The like Instance I give in our Christian Sabbath the fourth Commandement binds as for the substance of it as much as ever it bound the Jewes there God once for all separated one day of seven to be sacred to himselfe and all the world stood bound in all ages to give unto God that one day of seven which should be of his own choosing Now untill Christs time God chose the last day of the seven to be his Sabbath and having by the death and Resurrection of our Lord Jesus put an end to the Saturday Sabbath and surrogated the first day of the week instead thereof to be the Lords day wee need no new Commandement for the keeping of the Lords day being tyed by the fourth Commandement to keep that day of seven which the Lord should choose the Lord having chosen this the fouâ—th Commandement binds us to this as it did the Jewes to the former so in like manner I say in the Sacrament of Baptisme What I conceive about the Lords day I have before declared Part. 2. Sect. 8. where also I shewed you how different the case of Paedobaptisme is from it which I shall not now repeate Onely whereas you bring the Sabbath for an Instance of a Command of God about the Sacraments of the Jewes binding us as well as the Jewes you forget the marke at which you shoote the Sabbath or Lords day being not to be reckoned among the Jewes Sacraments or ours according to the usuall Ecclesiasticall acception and definition of the word You see now your maxime which is the foundation of your undeniable consequence undermined I presume you may see quickly the superstruction it selfe overturned one blow more will doe it You piece things together thus When God made the Covenant with Abraham and promised for his part to be the God of him and his seed what God promised to Abraham wee claime our part in it as the childâ—en of Abraham and whâ—t God required on Abrahams part for the substance of obedience wee all stand charged with as well as Abraham Wee as Abraham are tyed to beleeve to love the Lord with all our heart to have our hearts circumcised to walke before God in uprightnesse to instruct our children and bring them up for God and not for our selves nor for the Devill to teach them to worship God according to his revealed will to traine them up under the Ordinances and Institutions of Gods own appointment All these things God commanded to Abraham and charges upon all the children of the Covenant though there were no expresse reviving these Commands in any part of the New Testament And therefore consequently that Command of God to Abraham which bound his seed of the Jewes to traine up their children in that manner of worship which was then in force binds the seed of Abraham now to traine up their children in â—onformitie to such Ordinances as are now in force Supposing you meane by what God promised to Abraham the spirituall part of the Covenant and the persons claiming to be beleevers I grant this passage to be truth for these duties are morall duties and binde at all times but that which follows I cannot tell how to take for any other then plain Judaisme You say And the sâ—me Command which enjoyned Abraham to seale his children with the seale of the Covenant enjoynes us as strongly to seale ours with the seale of the Covenant and that Command of God which expresly bound Abraham to seale his with the signe of Circumcision which was the Sacrament then in force pro tempore for the time doth virtually binde us to seale ours with the signe of Baptisme which is the Sacrament now in force and succeeds into the roome of the other by his owne Appointment This is your undeniable consequence inferred from a Judaizing principle without so much as one Scripture to prove either the principle or conclusion Whereas â— have brought ten arguments most of them out of the Scripture against your principle and for the Conclusion what construction can be made of it but this that the Command of God to Circumcise binds us still for that was the seale of the Covenant God enjoyned to Abraham and so the Law given by Moses as touching Ceremonies and rites binds Christian men contrary to Art 7. of the Church of England Then must wee Circumcise our Males at the eighth day as they did But you say it binds us virtually only to seale ours with the signe of Baptisme I pray you then what meane you by this virtuall binding The opposite Member was expresly and in Terminis in termes Is this then your meaning that it doth not binde expresly and in terminis but virtually that is implicitely and by Interpretation Tell us then I beseech you by what rule of Divinitie Logick Grammar or Rhetoricke is a man to conceive this Command Cut off the foreskin of the secret part of all the Males in thy house the eighth day That is let a Preacher of the Gospel wash with water at any time after birth the young Infants male and female of Beleevers all over or on the face You call this undeniable Consequence if so it 's either Demonstrative from the cause or effect or definition or propertie or the like or it 's onely Topicall and then not undeniable you say 't is by cleare consequence you may as well say this is good consequence Tu es Petrus super hanc Petram Thou art Peter and upon this rocke Ergo the Pope is Monarch of the Church or with Baronius Arise Peter kill and eate Ergo the Pope may deprive Princes if you can apprehend cleare consequence in it you may enjoy your conceit Nos non sumus adeò sagaces wee are not so quick-witted I passe to the next Command which
as Johns Disciples Christs Disciples the disciples of the Phâ—risees Luke 5.33 the disciples of the perverters Acts 20.30 and accordingly they administred Baptisme And in that Christ appoints these to be baptized he excludes others For the appointment of Christ is the rule according to which we are to administer holy things and he that doth otherwise follows his own invention and is guilty of will-worship and thus we construe the meaning of the Holy Ghost in other appointments As because it is said 1 Cor. 11. 28. Let a man examine himself and so let him eat therefore Infants are excluded though Infant-câ—â—â—union was held lawfull and necessary for six hundred yeers in the Church Wine is appointed in the Eucharist therefore not Water mixt with Wine as the Papists contend Water in Baptisme therefore not salt chrisme spettle the Preacher to baptize therefore not women or private persons Males to be circumcised therefore no females two shall be one flesh therefore no more then two against Polygamie Matth. 19.5 So that unlesse you will alter the definition of wil-worship according to Mat. 15.9 in point of worship that is excluded which is not expressed And therefore whereas you say it behoved the Lord to give them a caution for the leaving out of Infants in this new administration that they might know his minde if that be intends to have them left out which that ever he did in word or deed cannot be found in Scripture I may more truly invert thus it behoved the Lord to give them a Precept for the putting in of Infants in this which you truly call new administration as being not the same with Circumcision that they might know his mind if that he intends to have them put in which that ever he did in word or deed cannot be found in the Scripture Certainly you may as soon extract water out of a flint as draw a command to baptize Infants out of this Scripture by any expresse terms or virtuall consequence but the ordinary baptizing of Infants is and may be proved from this Text to be a wil-worship if this Scripture be the rule of administring ordinarily that Ordinance which it indeed is and hath been still taken to be As for that which you say The children make in every nation a great part of the nation so do the Infidels that are adulti of ripe yeers and yet are not therefore included in this speech Teach all nations and baptize them and as for that which you say the children are alwayes included under every administration to the nation whether promises or threatnings priviledges or benefits mercies or judgements unlesse they be excepted therefore here Infants are included when it is said Go teach all nations baptizing them I answer Fiâ—st that this speech in so universall and ample expressions if understood of temporall judgements and mercies is contrary to Ezek. 17.20 Jer. 31.29 30. Isai. 6.13 and 10.22 if of eternall as it seems you mean when you say to be either saved or damned it is contrary to Rom. 9.13.27.29 Rom. 13.5 Secondly if it were true yet makes nothing to the purpose sith this Precâ—pt is not an appointment to baptize all nations as nations without aâ— further circumscription for then every person in the world might be â—aptized but disciples of all nations and therefore it is not a nationall priviledge but a personall belonging to Disciples or Believers of every nation And for that which you say 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 if it be thus understood that God required that parents being called should instruct their children and so the children in potentia propinqua in a neer possibility were disciples it is granted according to that which God speaks of Abraham Gen. 18.19 and requires of the Israelites Deut. 6.7 But if you mean it thus that the Disciples knew that when any parents were made disciples barely and precisely for this reason without any other the children were actually disciples and so to have Baptisme administred to them it is an untruth that hath no ground for it But you have yet somewhat more to say for Infants being disciples and therefore you thus answer an objection If it be said they are not capable of being disciples I answer as capable as the Infants of the Jews and Proselytes were when they were made disciples It is granted but neither were the Infants of Jews or Proselytes capable of being actually disciples in an ordinary way nor are ours You go on And besides they are devoted to be disciples being to be trained up by their parents who are from their Infancy to teach them the knowledge of Christ. It is hard to say that parents are to teach Infants from their infancy the Knowledge of Christ For though it is said of Timothy Thou hast known the Holy Scriptures 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2 Tim. 3.15 yet our Translators would not render it from an Infant but from a child But however if their parents be to teach them from their infancy and the parents devote them to be disciples yet this doth not make them disciples actually but potentially they may never be disciples for all that But you tell us And at the present they are capable of his own teaching I deny not but Infants are capable of Christs own teaching yea of actuall faith yea of actuall profession of faith The same power that could make John Baptist in his mothers womb sensible of the presence of Christs mother and to leap for joy that could open the mouth of Balaams Asse can out of the mouth of babes and sucklings perfect praise But then this is done in an extraordinary way and extraordinary accidents make not an ordinary rule But you adde And suâ—e I am in Christs own dialect to belong to Christ and to be a Disciple of Christ or to bear the name of Christ are all one and that such Infants do belong to Christ and bear the name of Christ I have sufficiently proved already and in the margine you cite Mat. 10. 42. Mar. 9.41 Mat. 18.5 Mr. Blake pag. 21. seems to triumph in this Argument when he saith Who then is not afraid to refuse them who will receive Christ Who will not baptize them that is willing to baptize disciples in the name of Christ But this is a triumph afore victory The plain truth is there 's never a one of all the three Texts speaks of little ones in respect of age The first Mat. 10.42 is meant of the Apostles and as Beza in his Annotations sayes rightly Parvos vocat per concessionem suos discipulos homines nimirum coram mundo viles abjectos He calleth his Disciples little ones by concession to wit men vile and abject before the world so that they are called little in respect of their outward estate in the world
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of such like that is such as are graced with such like qualities who are humble and meek as children are and that Luke 18. is parallel to this in the meaning of it whosoever doth not receive the Kingdome of heaven as a little child be shall not enter therein But I answer though it be true that in other places this is one use that Christ makes of an Infants age and condition to shew that such as receive the Kingdome of heaven must be qualified with humility c. like unto children yet here it cannot be his meaning because his argument is Suffer them to come to me and forbid them not because of such is the Kingdome of God that iâ— my Church and Kingdome is made of those as well as of others This was the very cause why the disciples rebuked those who brought the children to Christ because they were little not fit to be instructed and therefore not fit that Christ should be troubled about them this Christ rebukes in them and tels them that the littlenesse of children is no argument why they should be kept from him Suffer them said he to come and forbid them not for of such is the Kingdome of God and what kinde of argument had this been if the Text should be interpreted as these men would have it Suffer little children to come unto me that I may touch them take them up in mine arms put my hands upon them and blesse them because the Kingdome of God belongeth to them who have such like qualities who resemble children in some select properties By the very same ground if any had brought doves and sheep to Christ to put his hands upon them and blesse them the Disciples had been liable to the same reproof because of such is the Kingdome of God such as are partakers of the Kingdome of God must be endued with such like properties The Minor to be proved is that all the Infants of Believers or the Infants of Believers in as much as they are Infants of Believers are actually partakers of the inward grace of Baptisme else your Argument will not serve for your purpose as hath been shewed Now neither doth the Apostles speech 1 Cor. 7.14 prove it as hath been shewed above nor doth this Text Mar. 10.14 prove it For first it is doubtfull whether these were Infants or no. I presume you are not ignorant that Piscator observat in Mat. 19.14 doth maintain that the speech of Christ is not of Infants but of children which were capable of instruction which he gathers from this that Christ called them Luke 18.16 And whereas it is said in Mark he took up in his arms the word so translated is used Mark 9.36 For the imbracing of those that were of some growth whom he placed in the midst and of whose scandalizing he there warnes nor doth the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 used Luke 18.15 translated in English Infants prove it for it signifies a childe capable of teaching as when it iâ— said Timothy knew the sacred Scripture from a childe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is ever sinne he was a boy not an Infant nor doth the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 translated brought unto him prove that they were Infants For the same word is applied to them that were guided though they were not carried but did go by themselves as the blinde and deaf Daemoniake Matth. 12.22 and the lunatick childe Matth. 17.16 To this purpose Piscator As for Mr. Thomas Goodwins reason from Julius Pollux that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth signifie one that is madidus moist or sappie it is of no force to prove that they were Infants For besides that not etymologie but use must expound words if it were so yet we know children are moist till they be adolescentes youths we say till they be of good yeers they are but a gristle tender green so that notwithstanding this the children brought to Christ might be of yeers sufficient to be catechumeni and yet fit enough to resemble humility and harmlesnesse by Secondly It is yet doubtfull whether our Saviour said of them is the Kingdome of heaven for the word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of such not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of these And Luke 18.17 Mark 10.15 both adde this speech Verely I say unto you whosoever doth not receive the Kingdome of God as a little childe shall not enter therein like to which is that Matth. 18.3 But you have two exceptions against this First because this had been no reason why they should suffer these little children to come to him because of such is the Kingdome of God Secondly he might as well have said suffer sheep or doves to come to me for of such is the Kingdome of God To these exceptions it may be replied the reason may be thus conceived therefore you should not despise that age as prophane and keep them from me for even they that are my Disciples must become children again in putting off their vices being converted unlearning what they have learned becoming humble and docible which things could not be resembled by sheep and doves Thirdly but let it be granted that these were Infants and that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is to be expounded as Beza in his Annot. on Mat. 19.14 horum similium these and the like yet there is no certainty only conjecture that they were believers Infants For though Christ was in the coasts of Judea then yet it might as well be that the children were brought by others as parents and that without faith in Christ as the Messiah upon the fame of his miracles and the conceit he was a prophet and so they might bring children to him to be blessed as Jacob and Esau by Isaac Josephs children by Jacob c. Fourthly but let it be granted they were the Infants of Believers and that it is said of these is the Kingdome of God it may be as Piscator observes referred not to theiâ— present estate as if for the present they were in the kingdome of God that is believers and justified but that they were elect persons and so in time of them should be the Kingdom of God Now that which gives right to Baptisme 〈◊〉 the present estate of a person Fifthly but let that be also granted yet all this proves not your Minor unlesse you can prove that the reason why the Kingdome of heaven belongs to Infants is common with these to other Infants of Believerâ— and the reason why theirâ— is the Kingdome of God is because they were the Infants of Believers that â—o it may be true of all the Infants of Believers But this cannot be true being contrary to expresse Scripture Rom. 9.6 7 8.13 and inferring this error that a childe hath right to the Kingdom of God in that he is the childe of a Believer And experience proves innumerable of them have no interest in the Kingdome of God Besides this reason may
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
and others commendation of it To me the Text he cites Rom. 9.32 33. compared with 1 Pet. 2.9 doe as well agree to prove that 1 Pet. 2.9 is meant of all those who doe not professedly with the unbelieving Jewes reject Christ as a harp and a harrow doe consort to make musique But perhaps wee may see more by looking forward Secondly saith Mr Blake by looking forward to that which followes in the character which the Apostle before he ends his description addes which in times past were not a people but now are the people of God A speech taken from the Prophet to set forth the case of the Gentiles as it is also by S t Paul interpreted Rom. 9.26 but the Gentiles thus called and of no people made a people have all a Covenant-holiness and not alwayes inherent holiness Sure the word nation and people did so run in Mr Blakes mind that he could thinke of nothing but a nationall Church like the Jewes whereas if he had weighed the words ver 10. of having obtained mercy and considered that both Rom. 9.25 26. are meant of the same of whom he said ver 23. that they were the vessels of mercy which he had afore prepared unto glory he would have plainly perceived the people and nation to be meant of the invisible Church of the Elect and so nothing in that Text for the holiness of a believing Nation as some speake communicating a priviledge of the seales to the infants of that Nation which how absurd a conceit it is may be shewed perhaps more fully in that which followes You adde to whom as well as to them belongs the adoption the Covenant the promises You allude doubtless to Rom. 9.4 but had you alledged the whole Text ver 3 4 5. you would then have seen that it speakes of peculiar priviledges of the Jewes to whom the adoption Covenants that is as Beza thinkes the tables of the Covenant the promises of their multiplying having the Messiah from them c. were peculiar in the sense the Apostle there speakes And so Mr Rutherfurd due right of Presbyteries Chap. 4. sect 5. pag. 192. That they had prerogatives above us is cleare Rom. 3.1 2 3. Rom. 9.4 and that in other respects far more excellent we have prerogatives above them it is as cleare 2 Cor. 3.7 8 9. Mat. 13.16 17. So that even in respect of the Covenant made with Abraham it is plaine the Jewes had some priviledges above us and therefore this place proves the contrary to your conclusion and that the want of some priviledges they had may be recompensed by some other priviledges we have And therefore you may see how feeble a reason this is from the Jewish priviledge of infant-males circumcision to prove infant-Baptisme But to follow you in your way You say we as well as they injoy him to be our Father and with his dearest Sonne our Lord are made co-heires of the Kingdome of Glory All this is granted but to what purpose it is produced I see not You adde we have all these things with advantage not onely in the clearnesse of the administration but in some sense in greater extent to persons with us there is neither male nor female This is true also we have the substance of the Covenant of Grace that is justification c. with advantage not only in the clearness of administration but in some sense in greater extent to persons with us For now not only the small Nation of the Jewes but also of all Nations believers are brought into the Covenant of Grace But this proves not your conclusion or any of those things that may serve for your purpose You adde And there is neither male nor female Why you adde this I know not except you mean to insinuate that in the Jewish Church there was male and female because Circumcision was onely of Males But neither doth the Apostle Gal. 3.28 intimate that wee are better than the Jewes as if their females were not within the Covenant of Grace nor will you say it Now that which you were speaking of was the substance of the Covenant of Grace that wee are made co-heires of the Kingdome of Glory c. not of the administration of it and so there was no more distinction of male and female with the Jewes then with us nor more priviledges of ours then of the Jewes in this particular Thus have I examined all the proofes you bring for your fifth Conclusion and thereby you may perceive how you have heaped together many places of Scripture without any usefull order or distinction or pertinency to the thing in hand You bring in next an objection thus Some indeed goe about to shew that in some things the Jewes had greater priviledges then we have as that Abraham had the priviledge to be called the Father of the Faithfull that Christ should be borne of his flesh Mary had the priviledge to be the Mother of Christ and the whole Nation this priviledge that God will call in their seed againe after they had been cast off for unbeliefe many hundred yeares which priviledges say they none of the Gentiles have or can have It is true that in answer to the argument from Circumcision as it is popularly framed which yet I perceive many that either are or should be scholars to examine things more scholastically do or pretend to satisfie their consciences with thus If the children of believers be not to be baptized then we have less priviledge then the Jewes then the Grace of God under the new Testament is straitned more then in the old To this argument as being an argument of no weight but onely among vulgar and non-syllogizing capacities among other things I said thus in my Latin paper above mentioned Nec absurdum est dicere respectu aliquorum privilegiorum gratiam Dei contractiorem in novo Testamento quà m in veteri v. gr Nulla familia habet privilegium quod Abrahami familiae concessum est ut ex ea nasceretur Christus nullus vir praeter Abrahamum pater fidelium nulla faemina praeter unicam mater Christi c. Yet it is not absurd to say that in respect of some priviledges the grace of God is more contracted in the new Testament then in the old For instance no family hath now the priviledge that was granted to Abrahams family that out of it Christ should be borne no man besides Abraham is called the Father of the faithfull no woman besides one the mother of Christ. By which I would shew that it is no absurditie to grant that the Jewes may have more priviledges secundum quid in some things then wee and yet our case and condition to speak simply better then theirs by reason of other priviledges we have above them which recompence the defect of those priviledges whether real or supposed which is the very same which as Robinson did alledge so Rutherford grants in the place above-named and cites two Scriptures