Booths or Tabernacles to dwell in Deut. 16. 16 17. compared with Levit. 23. 34 35. 38 39 40. which none will say was Infants worke Let none then object that you may as well plead for Infants comming to the Lords Supper as in Cyprians time and was the corruption of the time as was crossing rebaptizing c. in use in his time too and as the Jewes Infants partooke of the passeover the contrary whereof appeares in a word wee spake of initiatory sealing of persons outwardly capable thereof otherwise albeit the parties have a covenant right unto it in the generall yet in that case of incapability it 's peculiar and their jus in re justly suspended from being personally elicited and this doth not make the ordinary rule and ground of right to the initiatory seale to bee invalid suppose an adult beleeving Pagan or Turke to joyne to our opposite Churches who make totall immersion essentiall to baptisme and that they were banished into Freezeland or Greenland or some such cold countrey if this person bee very weake and sick yet desireth to joyne to them ere hee die I demand whether hee hath right to baptisme or no this will not bee denyed Yea but is this right to bee elicited surely no unlesse they would bee guilty of his death But why not baptized because you will say it 's not simply necessary to salvation There being no contempt of it but onely a naturall and corporall incapacitie thereof but this crosseth not that ordinary rule ground and way of baptizing Very true but then let none object against such Infants covenant right to the initiatory seale the case of the females of Abrahams seed which albeit in Abrahams covenant yet not circumcised for when God injoyned cutting away of the superfluous foreskin of the flesh to bee the seale of his covenant the very nature of the command doth in reason if the notion of males had never beene expressed reach the case of the males which have such a superfluous foreskin of their flesh and not the females which are naturally and corporally uncapable thereof as having by nature no such superfluous foreskin and so in that case as in some others that law of circumcision had some things peculiar in it albeit it had other things in common with that of baptisme For the clearer handling of this thesis propounded wee shall lay downe a few other propositions or conclusions SECT II. 1. THat mixt commands of God having some part circumstantiall vanishing some part substantiall abiding the latter is binding to us since Christs time albeit the former be not A seventh day which God shall single out to bee holy is binding to us not the very seventh day of the week to be that day he that commanded the sanctification of the seventh day hee commanded a seventh day of his owne choosing and that to bee that seventh day the former stands in the fall of the latter Hee that commanded a strict holy worship on the Sabbath Exod. 34. 21 c. he commands sutable worship to the day and strictnesse of worship in such and such a manner of expressions the former was perpetuall the latter temporary the moralitie of the second commandement inforceth all the substantialls in seales or worship injoyned nor doth Christ in that sense abolish a title of the Law SECT III. THat consequentiall commandements grounded on Scripture are Scripture commandements as even consequentiall articles of faith are articles of faith and in a word all consequences drawne as necessarily flowing from or grounded upon Scripture principles these are of Scripturall warrant Paul Act. 13. 46 47. maketh a promise yea an old testament promise to bee virtually a command yea a new Testament commandement Loe wee turne to the Gentiles why so For God hath so commanded us How doth that appeare or where It followeth so hath God commanded saying I have set thee for a light to the Gentiles that thou shouldest bee my salvation to the ends of the earth this was spoken too in Esay 42. and 49. and it was a gracious promise in the letter of it yea but Paul rightly drew the force of a command as included in it according to the old rule Hee which promiseth the end hee commandeth the meanes tending to that end but of this more hereafter but here wee see what ground worke is made use of in way of authorising so great and waighty a matter upon It 's verily the mind of God and Christ that Baptisme and the Lords Supper should bee administred to the worlds end yet is it onely to bee drawne by Scripture consequence from such like places as Matth. 28. 19 20. and 1 Cor. 11. 26. So when it 's said As oft as yee doe this our Divines make account it is a virtuall command to celebrate the Lords Supper often and not as in some places twice or thrice a yeare That sisters as well as brethren should in case bee ecclesiastically censured it is of Scripture warrant yet by consequence onely for the rule is of a brother offending c. nor is brother of the common gender Matth. 18. 15. 2. Thes 3. 6. 14. And as in matter of practise so of faith it is thus in Christs time there was no other Scripture how then should that great article of the resurrection bee convincingly proved even to learned Sadduces which deny it verily an old Testament proofe Christ maketh account sufficeth as that Matth. 22. 29. 31 32. compared with Exod. 3. 6 c. and Luke 22. 37. yet this was but drawne by consequence Thus the orthodox fathers dealt against the Arrians denying Christ to bee essentially one with the Father they held him forth to bee 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 consubstantiall or coessentiall with the Father yet no direct Scriptures are for the same expresly so in reasoning against such as denyed the deity of the holy Ghost or that hee was to bee worshipped they did the like And where is it otherwise then by consequence to bee drawne from Scripture that there are three distinct persons or substances in that one God or that Christ hath two natures essentially distinguished and yet united in one Person c Circumcision is called a signe of the covenant how did Paul in speaking of Abraham mention circumcision as the seale of the righteousnesse of his faith whence drew hee that that circumcision was in the nature of it else it had not beene so to Abraham or any other any such thing verily it was from Scripture consequence And as in matters of faith and practise so in matters of fact the same rule holds Acts 4. 4. there were foure thousands 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 virorum not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hominum a word of the common gender which beleeved What no woman among them none of their wives that were very strange but were they not baptized Anabaptists will yeeld surely they were yea but that must bee drawne by consequence The Church of the Philippians Colossians
saith Lydia's houshold was baptized saith not that any more beleeved but Lydia and because this example is diversly controverted I shall indeavour to cleare it as for and not against us the story is so exactly in all the circumstances of it set downe that as I wonder of that evasion that wee are to seeke the explication of this by that other distinct story as distinctly and independently set downe from this as this from that The holy Ghost is exact in setting downe many particular passages in mentioning the occasion of this here expressed from Acts 16. 6. to 14. and in the particular circumstances of this passage of the first successe of Pauls ministery at Philippi The person wrought upon is described shee was no meere Pagan but a worshipper of God before albeit not one that beleeved in Christ Jesus as the promised Messias which then was the great article of faith and full of difficultie to bee beleeved in all likelihood a Jew or one of the best sort of proselytes venturing hard for Religions sake they were not allowed the libertie of a Synagogue at Philippi as in some other places under the Romish jurisdiction but they withdrew to a remote place from ordinary concourse view and though Sabbath solemnities were loathsome to the Romans there yet shee with some other women adventure to spend the time in Prayer Thither Paul repaires and amongst them all shee is wrought upon and no other mentioned God opened her heart that shee attended c. if any of her houshould too had beene then or presently after that brought home to Christ the holy Ghost so exact in the circumstances of this story as in that other afterwards of the Jaylour it 's very unlikely that he would have omitted the same here more then in the other place Yea after shee and her houshold were baptized the Text expresly saith If yee have judged mee not if yee have judged them also faithfull come into my house If there bee but one seeming example for rebaptizing and neither rule nor example to colour that wrested sense of Acts 19. 4 5 6. that must be currant and warrant for that innovation and we upbraided if there were but one example so good for Paedobaptisme as that for rebaptizing they will yeeld the cause to us and so may wee to them if this bee not fuller for us then that for them Yea but saith Mr. B. would you baptize a Turke in his Masters faith and what of that therefore here were none baptized but beleevers unlesse that bee granted Non sequitur is it not rule for us herein to make use of a Synecdoche as well as you when wee urge you with families baptized and so children in them you tell us it is a Synecdoche of the whole put for the part the whole were baptized that is the growne part capable of being preached unto in the house Acts 16. 31 32 33 34. Yea but here was none preached to of this house that is mentioned but Lydia only yet the houshold baptized that is say we a part thereof by a Synecdoche even that part which might most properly be baptized in her right more then in their owne as were her children For so house in Scripture is oftentimes used for children of such or such a person onely as Judg 9. 16. 18. dealing ill with Gideons house that day is expounded to bee murdering of his 60. sonnes so the poore widow and her house that shee was providing for and which after lived of that meale and oyle was but the widow and her sonne 1 King 17. 12 13 15. compared Davids house which at that time was not so orient 2 Sam. 23. 5. was but his children many whereof proved badly and came to sad ends witnesse Absaloms Ammons act and end c. If Noah onely beleeving and upright yet all the rest with him are typically baptized for that ground Come thou and thy house even wife sonnes and sonnes wives and all into the Arke For thee not for them have I found righteous Gen. 7. 1. with 1 Pet. 3. 21. if Abraham alone bee a beleever yet hee and his have the same seale of the righteousnesse of faith of the covenant Gen. 17. Rom. 4. if the growne Israelites have faith it furthers that extraordinary baptisme in the Sea Lesse then this herein is not to bee denied yea but the rule is plaine otherwise Matth. 28. 19. Marke 16. therefore the Apostles did baptize none but beleevers and Disciples Nay verily by their leave I conclude that that restriction of that word Disciple onely to one that is an actuall beleever in Christ was never there intended in Matth. 28. nor was that in Mark 16. ever intended to bee a rule of baptizing persons excluding every other person then such a one as there is mentioned from being baptized and I further adde to that that it pointeth out what a kind of person shall bee saved rather then bee baptized Wherefore it is not said hee that shall bee baptized hee must beleeve but hee that doth beleeve and is baptized shall bee saved hence contrâ hee saith not hee that beleeveth not shall not bee baptized but rather shall bee damned or not saved If children bee excluded from baptisme because of the former clause hee that beleeveth and is baptized they must bee excluded salvation because of the latter clause hee that beleeveth not shall bee damned will not our opposites themselves say that the latter clause is taken de adultis and not as any rule of exclusion of Infants from salvation and I say as much in that other as no rule thereby to exclude Infants from baptisme it is the same in Act. 2. 38 39. if Infants because not beleeving and effectually called are excluded the promise then by the same reason excluded remission of sins promised yea salvation promised to them that cal upon God v. 21. if not therefore excluded these why therefore excluded baptisme in defect of actuall faith if the promise of justification salvation be not denied which are the signats for want of actuall faith repentance why is baptisme the signe denied them is the signe more then those things signified is not faith and repentance more simply required to salvation Luke 13. 5. Heb. 11. 6. then to baptisme As for what C. B. addeth that that Gal. 3. 27. excludeth Infants I deny it if that be taken as if each baptized person had really effectually put on Christ then none of the Galatian members had bin such as Gal. 3. 3 4 5. and 4. 11. 19. 21 22. and 5. 3 4 5. he speakes thus in a Sacramentall sense as 1 Cor. 10. 4. 6. Heb. 10. 29. and such like and so each Infant too Sacramentally puts on Christ are buried with Christ Rom. 6. 3. that is that which is visibly signed and sealed thereby and that is the doctrine of the visible word of the Sacrament holding forth what baptized persons are called upon as they are
of the Church that way And possibly the Authors by adding this testimony of Austin to that of Cyprians Epistle and on this say that Cyprian ordeined children should bee baptized they bring this to confirme it which doth indeed confirme it that Cyprian held this and ratified this but not as the first Author of it which perhaps the Treatise would make the world beleeve but rather as that which the Christian Church had ever firmely beleeved According as Austin in his 10th Sermon of the words of the Apostle speaking of Paedobaptisme saith this the Church meaning the Christian Church hath alwayes had alwayes held this it hath received from the faith or doctrine of the ancients this doth it keepe most constantly unto the end Yea but pag. 33. our authors ciâ—e some words of his in his 28th Epistle to Jerom therefore doe men hasten so with their children to baptisme because they beleeve they cannot otherwise be made alive in Christ and to the like purpose in his Enchiridion from the young to the old none are to bee denyed baptism for salvation is not promised to the children but through baptisme c. and to the same purpose Austin and the Bishops of the Milevitan councell wrote as condemning such as thinke Infants can bee saved without Baptisme All this if they intend it of the necessitie of Baptisme in respect of Gods precept in opposition to contempt and neglect and of salvation promised in such sort as with reference to this as one ordinary helpe and seale thereof leaving extraordinary wayes and secrets to the Lord Charitie would thinke favourably of their words especially since as much in effect is in this sense held forth Ephes 5. 25 26 27. But bee it that Austin superadded his owne Stubble and Straw yet that hinders not but the bottome and foundation of that Ordinance was good and sure you will not say because Papists hold baptisme to bee of necessitie to salvation that therefore baptisme of growne persons is no Ordinance That other speech of Austins that as those were circumcised which were borne of circumcised parents even so should they bee baptized which are borne of parents that are baptized is sound and good and no proofe of that 7th Proposition that Paedobaptisme is an humane Ordinance Thus wee see Austin hath sped no better then his neighbours SECT III. MElancton is the next witnesse who is called in to give evidence to confirme the 2d 6th and 7th Proposition I am sorry that these bookes cited are not at hand so that I cannot so well discover the ill dealing which I suspect upon the 1 Cor. 11. 15. hee is said to affirme In time past those in the Church which had repented them were baptized and it was in stead of an absolution wherefore repentance must not bee separated from baptisme For baptisme is a Sacramentall signe of repentance It 's evident that Melancton here speakes of the baptisme of growne ones those in the Church which had repented were baptized and so in like case of baptizing adult persons repentance should not bee separated from baptisme But to Melancton himselfe it is a non sequitur that therefore Infants ought not to bee baptized because they cannot repent witnesse the answer he maketh in his Common places unto that objection against Paedobaptisme Loco de Baptismo Infantum It is most true saith hee that in all adult persons Baptisme faith and repentance are required but in the case of Infants this sufficeth that the holy Spirit is given them by baptisme c. As for that definition of Baptisme that it is a Sacramentall signe of repentance it is imperfect nor yet will it follow thence that none else should bee baptized but such as actually repent no more then in that circumcision was a signe of Heart circumcision and therefore of repentance Deut. 10. 16. Jer. 4. 4. Deut. 30. 6. that none but adult persons were fit to bee circumcised Melancton is againe quoted Proposition 6. for saying there is no plaine commandment in Scripture that children should bee baptized And if hee did say thus doth this prove that there is no command at all because not plaine or expresse scil in so many words you shall baptize children there is a command to bee deduced from Scripture by necessary consequence in Melanctons judgement witnesse the foure arguments which hee drawes from necessary consequence of Scripture to prove it Loco de Baptismo Infantum and witnesse his hand subscribed at Wittenberg amongst others to that Article with its explication touching Paedobaptisme as necessary in respect of divine command as before wee mentioned Proposition 7. Melancton in his answer to the Anabaptists Articles is quoted but no words mentioned that hee should speake unlesse the Authors cite him for mentioning the story of Cyprian and the other Bishops determinations about Paedobaptisme which were impertinent in as much as Origen is here quoted for saying that Paedobaptisme was a tradition of the Church Now Origen was before Cyprian and the Church whose tradition it 's supposed Origen saith it was was long before Origen so that Cyprian did not first ordaine Infants Baptisme the Authors themselves being Judges I have not that booke of Melanctons and I cannot divine what his words were unlesse they were mentioned And I wonder if they were for their purpose they set them not downe I conclude then of Melanctons testimonies as of the rest that they are wrested CHAP. IIII. SECT I. IVstin Martyr as the Authors of ignorance or the Printer by oversight calls Justin Martyr in his oration ad Antoninum Pium I will declare unto you how wee offer up our selves to God after wee are renewed though Christ those amongst us that are instructed in the faith and beleeve that which wee teach them is true being willing to live according to the same wee doe admonish to pray for the forgivenesse of their sinnes and we also fast and pray with them then they are brought by us to the water and there as wee were newborne are they also by newbirth renewed and then in calling upon God the Father the Lord Jesus Christ and the holy Ghost they are washed in water Mr. Blackwood addeth that of Justin also That wee do bring the party so washed not the beleever as hee expresseth it and joyned to the brethren as they are called where they are gathered together to common prayers and supplications is not expressed as Mr. Blackwood hath it but thus that wee may pray both for our selves and for the party newly enlightned c. Now whereas the Treatise brings this to prove the third Proposition that the people were commonly first instructed and then baptized c. Mr Blackwood is more peremptory in that matter making this testimony contrary and so inconsistent with any other testimony in the questions ascribed to Justine and concludeth hence that in Justines time Paedobaptisme was not in the world Let us therefore consider whether this apology and that which is recorded
nothing is pure to them but their consciences are defiled in the use thereof Tit. 1. 15. Prov. 24. 4. whether the promise give right to such and such blessings or no or whether ever the blessing of the blessings bee pleaded for in prayer or no men may have a lawfull use of their meate and sleep c but such have the holy use or every thing is sanctified to such by the word and prayer which improve the same for that end 1 Tim. 4. 5. for so hee giveth meate to them which feare him as mindfull of his covenant Psal 111. 5. and so hee giveth his beloved sleepe Psal 127. 2. The eighth and last thing premised is that the Apostle in the Argument which hee useth here to confirme that of such yokefellowes being thus sanctified to or by the beleeving parties hee changeth the person from the third to the second as concerning and nearely touching the body of the Church collectively especially such as were parents and had children The case might originally respect some few yea but hee argueth about it not thus Else their children were uncleane c. but else your children were uncleane but now are they holy as extending it to all the children of the Church and to the children of the members of it whether the parents were both fathers and mothers of the Church as it was the case of many or whether the fathers or mothers onely were in the Church which was the case of some SECT III. ANd now to ascend the Watch-Tower Albeit Gigantine Casuists have done worthily yet let a dwarfe on their shoulders mention what roaving fancies he discovers to misse and what explication hee observeth to hold a right and streight course and to weather and directly to fall in with and come up to the point of divine truth circumscribed in the clause mentioned Else your children were uncleane but now they are holy And here but barely to name explications of the words uncleane and holy to which our opposites stick not As when holy is used as opposed to corporally uncleane by actuall lusts as 1 Sam. 21. 5. 1 Thess 4. 4. or holy as actually holy for office Numb 16. 7. or holy for a person borne without sinne and so not inherently uncleane So onely the Child Jesus was not uncleane but holy Act. 3. Prov. 20. Job 23. Albeit grosser Anabaptists some of them have not doubted to affirme this of other children also or holy for one personally holy or truely gratious and godly wee contend not to determine of all beleevers children that they are thus Albeit wee are charitable in our thoughts and hopes this way of this or that particular child or holy for persons elected or saved we doe not positively affirme this neither of all them considered together Albeit we hope the best of the particular children presented to us and yet we judge that a most unsound and uncharitable speech of I. S. in his booke against Infants-Baptisme p. 3. That Infants in respect of their nonage are neither subjects of election nor subjects capable of glory * Me thinks these words do savour much of the Popish Arminian Tenet of foreseen faith Contrary to that Rom. 9. 10 11 12. Esay 65. 20. some beleevers Infants die Infants will any say they are all damned God forbid Yea but if supposed to bee saved then to bee glorified unlesse some Limbus Infantum be imagined which is neither the place of glory nor of damnation And if supposed to come to glory they are capable subjects of it unlesse God order any to glory whom he fitteth not for it If supposed to be sayed then also elected and so subjects of election or persons in whom election is partly subjected unlesse it be supposed either that some reprobates or persons not elected nor capable of being elected are saved or that there is some middle state betwixt Iacob have I loved before he had done good Esau have I hated or rejected before hee had done actually evill Contrary to Rom. 9. And supposing that such Infants dying Infants are elected and glorified it must be concluded that as Infants they were subjects of election and are capable of glory unlesse any will fondly imagine that God in choosing them eyed them as other persons then ever they lived to become or glorified other persons then ever they were in glorifying of them for dying Infants they never came to be other then Infants Nor by holy is meant ceremonially holy of which holinesse the Apostle speaketh as is evident by the mention of the instrumentall meanes of sprinkling of bulls and goats blood Heb. 9. 13. which Mr. B. would seeme to draw as if intended of outward holinesse now visible to the Church when it 's evidently spoken of that branch of Jewish ceremoniall holinesse now abrogated Nor by holy is meant here persons which possibly may be converted but this is but a may bee in respect of all such children whereas the Apostle saith peremptorily they are not they may bee holy Nor by holy is meant persons that may be religiously educated as I doe not remember such use of the word holy in Scripture however it is not here the thing intended for the Apostle positively saith they are not they may be holy whereas many beleevers babes never live to be holy by holy education Others expound it thus in reference to that inhibited separation verse 12 13. that if you stay together the children will bee counted legitimate but if you part they will be accounted bastards This is far-fetcht nor de jure in cases of lawfull divorce for adultery ought the children begot of the divorced Wife in lawfull wedlock before her adulterous pranks and divorce for it bee counted bastards SECT IV. BUt there are three other Expositions of this clause which are more usually urged and pleaded by opposites to Infants federall holinesse First some make this clause Else your children c. to be a reason inforcing that inhibition verse 12 13. and not of the sanctifying of the infidell spouse in the other Thus if you divorce your yoke-fellows you must put away your children also as they did Ezra 10. 44. And Hen. Denne maketh the meaning of your children are holy to be the same with the unbeleeving husband or wife is sanctified scil They are not to be put away Whereas the immediate connection of this clause to that passage vers 14. in way of arguing and not to vers 12 13. sheweth it to be a reason of the former not of the other in vers 12 13. The case of putting away came in question but as a supposed remedy of pollution of conscience by conjugall communion the unlawfulnesse of which remedy being so expresly mentioned vers 12. 13. and confirmed by foure reasons vers 14 15 16 17. there needed no more weight put there But since the feare of pollution of conscience did occasion that case vers 12 13. and that feare is so fully taken off in the first
Inchurched parents at least one of them so he considereth them at least as Ecclesiasticall beleevers visibly in Covenant with God his people and holding forth faith in God and in his Covenant as beleeving brethren and sisters and not barely as lawfull man and wife as the context and proofes formerly urged declare But let us heare the reasons why meant of them as man and wife and not as beleevers in the case propounded Obj. 1. When the Infidell party is spoken of he is named and so is not the beleeving party but is barely mentioned under the common name of man or wife therefore so to bee considered in the case there spoken to An. This hath been formerly answered That as much is expressed in that case Vers 16. man and wife onely named but it were absurd to reason that therefore in that case there mentioned they are considered as man and wife not as beleeving nor in that concealing of the word beleeving in the mention of the beleeving partie is it said the wife or husband is sanctified in or to or by the unbeleeving partie as if they as such had an influence in this sanctifiednesse of the other spouse but still the phrase is rather thus the unbeleeving husband is sanctified in or to or by the wife and the unbeleeving wife by the husband evidently pointing out the wife or husband as the subject of that sanctifiednesse which in the other is an effect and applyed to them as the object Obj. 2. The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hath been sanctified in the preterperfect tense twise repeated therefore probably relating to their estate when both were unbeleevers Ans He repeateth the word twice as being to speake of the unbeleeving parties in some couples the husband in others the wife as sanctified in unto or by the other parties beleeving for as such the wife or husband to or by whom the Infidell partie is sanctified are considered as before proved now in the preter-perfect tense such were so sanctified not whilst both unbeleevers since not then an unbeleever sanctified to a wife beleeving but in reference to past time since their comming to the faith and to the Church-estate which was some good space of time as in which many had sundry children Obj. 3. The same word is used in 1 Tim. 4. 5. concerning the creatures being lawfull to use that therefore is the sense here Ans If that had meant onely lawfulnesse of use for the way there mentioned as in some other Scriptures some such use of the Greek word here used may be found yet it 's not therefore consequent that here as it is circumstantiated it must be so meant likewise But as for the place in Timothy the confirmation it yeelds to this text is rather for us then against us since intending a way of the creatures becomming not barely lawfull to use as it is to others which makes no improvement of the word of Covenant as well as command in prayer but of a way of a holy use to such as take that holy course for that end And even so it is here of which more anon As much is mentioned in another phrase to like purpose Tit. 1. 15. but the opposition to unbeleeving persons sheweth that albeit many things are lawfull to them yet is nothing pure as it is to the Saints namely in a preter-naturall way holy to their use Obj. 4. But this is most pertinent to the Apostles scope of encouraging to abide together Ans The Apostles scope is not to speake to a case of civill lawfulnesse of such abode then indeed it had been lawfull to have spoken in that sense but to a case of persons troubled in conscience about pollution even by a communion which out of doubt was amongst all and so to them civilly lawfull Heb. 13. 4. This therefore were but to beate the ayre to tell them for satisfaction to their troubled conscience of a matter of which they never doubted and of which if never so well assured by what they knew now or before yet still their wound is not healed but might bleed and fester for all that in as much as many things lawfull in respect of civill use amongst men yet are not alwayes such things by the use whereof the Saints may not bee in conscience polluted as in the case of divorce of old tolerated Obj. 5. Hee speaketh of things not as contingent and possibly never likely to be but of things certaine in order to effects necessarily following and so of civill lawfulnesse of spouses a certaine effect of the ordinance of marriage Ans And so is the sanctifiednesse of a lawfull spouse as certaine a sequell in reference to the other making improvement of the word of Gods covenant as well as commandement by faith in prayer 1 Tim. 4. 4 5. Repl. Yea but it 's not so certaine a sequell that the holinesse of children should follow from that spirituall condition and consideration of the parent as it 's necessary it should if the Apostles reasoning hold good from the cause to the effect since then it must necessarily follow or else hee reasons impertinently nor will it reach the trouble of such which never had nor it may bee through age or other naturall inabilitie might never have children or how could their faith sanctifie their conjugall communion in reference to children Answ The Apostle reasons from cause to effect ex natura rei and not barely ex natura eventus rei It doth not follow that such a cause is not in its nature a cause of such an effect or that one may not pertinently reason from the cause to the effect because that sometimes a second cause may bee suspended in its full operation either by the first over-ruling cause or by secondary impediments But to come to the matter propounded We will suppose it meant of matrimony which as Gods ordinance is a certaine cause as of legitimacy of the husband to marriage use so of the children begotten in and by marriage fellowship This you will say will satisfie all sides But will it indeed Is it certaine all married people should have children Is it not a very contingent effect how can you reason from cause to effect rationally Are not many married persons past having of children by each other or naturally disabled from generation what satisfaction is it to such persons to tell them of an effect so unlikely and naturally so unpossible All will answer here yea but in the nature of the ordinance it is such a cause tending by Gods appointment to such an effect and ex hypothesi supposing the object to bee qualified with that effect of legitimacy scil children actually begotten by marriage fellowship then the effect is not contingent but alwayes followeth And all married persons may bee incouraged to their condition in that the ordinance hath not influence alone upon the spouses in reference to their marriage-fellowship but upon such children as God pleaseth to bestow upon
married persons for that both became lawfull and not unlawfull As much say I in this case That a faithfull man in covenant with God and his Saints hee by improvement of Gods word c. hath this certaine to him and for his incouragement whether hee stand in relation to a spouse onely and have yet no children yet hee hath a sanctified use of his spouse or if God make his spouse fruitfull hee hath a sanctified use of her yet further in a reference to any child by her to which hee stands in relation as a parent That as another effect of the covenant improved and of faith also therein hee hath this priviledge of a Federall and Ecclesiasticall condition of his child and this is a comfortable incouragement to all such persons that there is such an influence of the word of God improved by faith that as marriage-use is sanctified by it so children begotten in marriage are Ecclesiastically and Federally holy when the Apostle saith All things are pure to the pure Tit. 1. and every creature is sanctified by the word and prayer 1 Tim. 4. hee doth not thereby weaken or falsifie the ground-worke from cause to effect or weaken their comfort thence because it may bee said it is very contingent yea impossible that one beleever should have all things or creatures c. but it sufficeth ex hypothesi what ever hee hath more or lesse its pure to him And if hee have any thing more which he had not that then it becomes actually pure to him so in this case Therefore the Apostle doth not reason thus else you should have no children but supposing you have children it would follow they were else uncleane but now they are holy Obj. 6. But hee speakes of an holinesse incident to an unbeleever remaining an unbeleever and therefore of a civill holinesse Ans When the Apostle saith every thing is sanctified by the word c. 1 Tim. 4. and Tit. 1. 15. All things are pure to the pure will any say that hee speakes of a puritie meerly civill and naturall in reference unto the pure say an Indian servant yea say a beast to whom this puritie is attributed remaine Heathen or irrationall in themselves and are civilly pure onely to the unbeleeving yet they are in a more peculiar and spirituall respect said to bee pure to the pure else why is there put such a distinction between them therein Tit. 1. 15 It is in a peculiar way and sense that the creatures 1 Tim. 4. and the Infidell spouse 1 Cor. 7. are sanctified to the faithfull Obj. 7. Yea but he speakes of an unbeleever as a joynt cause of the childrens holinesse therefore that is but civill holinesse or legitimacy Ans Hee is a joynt cause of the child properly but of the child thus priviledged hee is not any proper cause as an unbeleever but as an unbeleever sanctified to his beleeving spouse 3. I. S. hath some further expression tending to the same end that the children are holy to use as are other creatures to the Saints and concludeth that the holinesse of the parent and child is the same in nature scil the holinesse of the creature in a naturall not in any spirituall respect That is they are made lawfull to use as before he spake when he shewed in what sense the husband was sanctified scil made lawfull to use or as others say as C. B. doth That children in this Text are not holy with any holinesse distinct from Idolaters as appeareth in the repetition of the word sanctified and that holinesse hee afterwards saith it is civill holinesse Ans Albeit this hath been in substance objected before and answered yet let me give a distinct answer to it 1. Then I deny that the same word used touching the parents is repeated in mention of the children if wee speake Grammatically Yea but they are of the same roote one the verbe the other the noune And what then is there no difference in the use of the words non sequitur Aquinas is right in that touching the meaning of words saith hee non tam attendendum est à quo quam ad quid Wee must not so much heed the roote whence they are derived as the use to which in common speeches they are applied Sanctified in or to a person is one thing and holy is another Afflictions persecutions yea the falls of the Saints are sanctified to them but they are not holy It 's Pauls wont when intending that use of the word sanctified either expresly or implicitly to mention to whose use the person or thing is sanctified As here twice in this verse ◠sanctified to the husband and to the wife so Tit. 1. 15. To the pure all things are pure and 1 Tim. 4. 4 5. mentioning prayer he noteth out Gods suppliants c. to whom the cretures are sanctified But here is no mention to whose use the children are holy yea in that holy for civill use they are holy to the infidel parent as well as to the beleever he may make a lawfull use of his child yet being unbeleeving the child is not sanctified to his use as Tit. 1. 15. sheweth 2. Suppose it of an holy or sanctified use of the children strictly taken as incommunicable to others then to Saints for use yet why rather your children holy then others then other Pagans children since to the members of Corinth the Pagan Cities children might be said holy for use and they might make a holy use of them many wayes in prayer c. Yea why not instancing as well as any other creature as holy thus as well as the children of the members of Corinth Church Obj. It was more suitable to instance in children being to prove that the Infidell parents were thus sanctified in their beleeving parents Ans Yea but if that bee the question it is not one particular instance like it would prove the same unlesse an induction of more particulars that the husband is thus sanctified for so are the children so are such and such things c. therefore so is the Infidell husband or wife to the beleeving party SECT V. HAving thus removed and cleared such mistakes in the expounding this Text we come now to what I conceive to take up the full meaning of what is said of these children of the body of the Corinthian-Church-members that they are holy Some take it of Federall holinesse some of Ecclesiasticall and Church-holinesse I would exclude neither It being spoken of the children of parents in such sort in the Covenant of Grace as it is invested with Church-Covenant also explicit or implicite and in the same respect the children are Federally holy as the Covenant of Grace is cloathed with Church-Covenant in a Politicall visible Church-way And thus I conceive of the Apostles inference and argument else your children were uncleane but now they are holy Scilicet That unlesse your Interest in the Covenant of Grace which you hold forth and your faith
therein which you in a Church-way professe have so much influence upon your yokefellowes as to sanctifie them in and to your conjugall use But that there be invaliditie and privation of influence thereof in that your conjugall relation then must you be as well to seeke of any validitie thereof in another relation also scil in your parentall relation to your children even there also shall the covenant and faith have no influence unto such an effect of holinesse of your children If they produce not such an effect in the former by which yet the Infidell partie have no personall priviledge how will they produce the later by which children have according to you an unquestioned personall priviledge that they are holy hee that will question or cast off the force of such instruments influences in one thing hee by the same distemper will cast the same off in another Yea if it be groundedly and really for that the Covenant of Grace which beleevers lay hold of together with their faith therein have no efficacy in one condition or relation it is as well true in another only reserving the diversitie of influences as diversly elicited or expressed If they are not effectuall to produce something peculiar to beleevers in a conjugall relation differing from all Pagan spouses they will neither produce any thing peculiar to them in a parentall relation to their children But as your spouses shall bee to you as all other pagan spouses in common to each other meerely lawfull to use so your children with and to you shall be in your parentall relation but as pagan children are uncleane or profane which to all were absurd But now rather they are holy namely Federally and not as other Pagans children profane Now when I mention in this exposition the Covenant as in part having some influence in both relations as well as faith I doe it as not daring to sever faith from the word of faith which even giveth strength to faith it selfe And besides God having made a Covenant with Abraham and with his spirituall seed in their Generations as well as with the Jewes And that in such sort also as with respect to Church estate and as invested with Church-Covenant hence it is that the meere Infidelitie of a Pagan spouse abiding Pagan when the other comes to the faith shall not hinder the course and force of Gods Covenant to In-Churched beleevers seed witnesse the example both of the son of Moses Exod. 4. 24. c. and of Eunice Act. 16. 1 2 3. even many personall sinnes of the Saints hinder it not much lesse doe other personall sinnes evacuate the same Hence so long as this Covenant-Interest holdeth in force that either it be not rejected by the parents as it was by those Jewes Rom. 11. 20. or that they be not justly for covenant breaches dispoyled of Church benefit by it by some Church-censure so long the covenant is Ecclesiastically of force to the childrens federall Church-estate So in the case of those Idolatrous Church-members being not discovenanted and discharged by Gods hand or by Ecclesiasticall authoritie their children were federall and Church-seed the Churches children borne by her unto God Ezek. 16. 8. 20 21 23. compared That holy Covenant produceth that respect of holy persons Dan. 8. 24. compared with 11. 28. 30. 32. Hence the Covenant and Church-estate of Covenant and In-churched parents is firstly the parents priviledge and so to bee considered Hence also I conclude then that the little ones of visible beleeving and In-churched parents such as these mentioned in the Text were 1 Cor. 1. 1 2. with 1. and 14. they are Federally and Ecclesiastically holy In this sense the word holy is frequently used yea of many persons which were neither inherently holy nor imputatively holy in a strict sense no nor so much outwardly holy in point of lively expressions of personall holinesse yet are called holy scil Ecclesiastically and in externall respect to the Covenant and that not a Covenant of workes for that calleth no sinners holy nor by any meere ceremoniall holinesse but by vertue of Abrahams Covenant Gen. 17. 7. with Ezra 9. 2. They are called the holy seed and the same phrase in the same Covenant and Church respect is in Scripture frequently used with respect to such Infants the holy people destroyed by Antiochus Dan. 8. 24. were the Jewish children as well as growne persons The children were a part and a speciall part of that chosen beloved and people redeemed from Egypt which were called holy Hence both Deut. 14. 2. and 26. 18 19. and 28. 2. 9. speaking of the whole people as holy it is in the phrases thou thee loved and established Thee that thou mayst bee an holy people c. Adoption belongeth to the little ones as did the promises as well as to the rest of Pauls kindred Rom. 9. 4. They were children of the Church and borne to God as husband to the Covenant Church Ezek. 16. 8. 20 21. 23. compared with Jer. 2. 2. 3. 1. and Esa 54. 4 5. nor was this as I intimated a ceremoniall matter no more then either Abrahams Covenant was with some which oppose us confesse did belong in speciall sort to the Jewes and that Covenant was the very Covenant of Grace and therefore that did by this grant in speciall wise belong to them nor was it more ceremoniall then was that Deut. 30. 6. 11 12 13 14. which the Apostle maketh the very doctrine of faith which they preached as by comparing that with Rom. 10. 6 7 8. wee shall God willing declare This was not as the ceremonies against them but for the good of them and theirs and avowed by the Apostles after Christs ascension Act. 2. 38 39. of which afterwards And as 1 Pet. 2. 9. which Interpreters agree relateth to Exod. 19. 6. spoken of them not as an invisible Church but visible such as had officers over them which the invisible Church as such hath not For supposing a company with Church-officers they are now not an invisible but visible Câ—…us see 1 Pet. 5. 1 2 3. and 4. 10 11. hee calleth them elected such they were to the judgement of charitie and in respect of visibilitie so that visible Church of Babylon hee calleth it elected 1 Pet. 5. 13. yet were there in that visible Church as in others some tares and vessels of dishonour Some things mentioned in Peter of their obedience exercise of faith c. are not actually appliable to Infants yet that hinders not but that Infants are intended in that Inchurched part of the 10. Tribes as Calvin and Ames thinke in reference to James 1. 1. and Hos 1. 10. or in that In-churched part of the Gentiles as Oecumenius Aretius c. thinke since in Exod. 19. 6. to which this place is to bee referred this condition of that Covenant-priviledge scil Actually and personally to keepe Gods Covenant and to obey his voyce indeed Exod. 19. 5. was applyable onely to the
bee called then is that promise to persons as yet uncalled and their calling is an effect following their interest in that promise as a cause and not preceding their interest in the promise as a condition As touching this whether the sole condition of this being of the promise to them c. we shall examine that anon God willing SECT IV. AS for Hen. Dens exposition of children here not to be those after the flesh but spirit even beleevers I cannot see how it 's pertinent to the cause propounded touching the children mentioned Act 2. hee doth not intend it thus your children i. e. Abrahams children for Abraham is considered rather by him as a pattern having the precedentiall copy of the Covenant mentioned And it had been incongruous to have said It is to your children that is to Abrahams children Abrahams children were not all their children nor were their children alone all the children which Abraham had and besides Hen. Den confesseth it is to comfort them concerning their owne children against whom they had wished that curse Matth. 27. 25. now taking it then of their children how will Hen. Den. make these Jewes whom hee cannot but eye at this present when these words Act. 2. 39. were applyed to them to bee such spirituall fathers to any children of theirs or sustaine the relation of such fathers at that instant unto such children themselves not being yet such relates as beleeving fathers nor having such correlata as children after the spirit nor was Abrahams charter lesse then what here avowed by the Apostle scil that the promise even of remission of sinnes did belong to the Jewes and to their children in respect of externall right and administration and no more is pleaded for and so much is to Gentile beleevers in their generations of which more elsewhere Nor will C. B's exposition of children hold as if here taken for men because in some other Scriptures so used he saith that to the farther scruple of the Jewes about their wish of Christs blood on their children Peter answereth The promise is to you and to your children What were their children growne to bee men in two moneths space since they made that cursed wish Or had they no children but such as were men growne or if they had did they intend that curse of blood to bee on their growne children and not as well on their babes on their children indefinitely To like purpose is A. R's conceit that by children are meant their grown children according to that in Joel your sonnes and your daughters but as hath been intimated this plaister is too narrow for their wounds rising from the guilt of blood wished upon all their children including and not excluding their babes Nor will the conceit of I. S. and some others hold that by children are meant allegorically such as imitate and walke in their footsteps of faith and repentance c. for which end Scriptures are urged where fathers are taken for such as are patternes to others and children for such as imitate them But 1. Is it the use of Scriptures to propound comforts to such kind of persons by allegories 2. If it bee supposed that the naturall children are excluded and onely allegoricall children understood there needed no such circumlocution But it might have been plainly thus The promise is to you and to your children even to such as are afarre off as many as God shall call whereas hee speaketh distinctly of all three it is to you and to your children and to such as are afarre off as many as God shall call 3. These convinced Jewes at present could not bee such fatherly precedents to others that should bee called to follow their instant faith and repentance which as yet they acted not nor doth Peter say the promise is or belongs to you for you have repented and consequently beleeved for that is rather mentioned as exerted after many words besides ver 40 41. But repent and bee baptized de futuro for the promise in praesenti is to you scil in respect of externall right 4. It would rather have discouraged then incouraged stumbled then satisfied them for Peter thus to bid them to their losse All the Jewes as visibly in Covenant with God were in some sence fathers to the Gentile Church-members 1 Cor. 10. 1 2 3 4. All our fathers scil of you of this Church of Corinth and of mee Paul and yet withall these were fathers too from Abrahams time downward to conveigh Abrahams covenant and its priviledges to their owne naturall seed Rom. 9. 1 2 3 4 5. Deut. 29. 1. 14 15. 29. and 30. 6. SECT V. NOr will C. B's apprehension of the phrase the promise is to you c. i. e. not the promise but the proffer of the promise hold consonant to himselfe or to the truth for hee grants that promise to bee to those that were prickt in heart but no more then to them afar off c. as many as God shall call nor know I what Scripture hee builds upon for such an exposition of the phrase the promise is to you when it is offered to you Albeit others speake as much in effect when they say the promise made to Abraham of sending Christ and now fulfilled is to them But deale ingenuously is that all which in Act. 3. 25. 26. is understood by that yee are the children of the Covenant made with the fathers c. i. e. God hath fulfilled the promise made to the fathers concerning Christs comming whom now hee offereth to you Why are the Jewes onely such children and not the Gentiles all kindreds as well albeit Christ was first sent to them For vers 25. all kindreds of the earth are mentioned as those that should bee blessed in Abrahams seed Yea doe not such as so speak affirme before that this promise of sending Christ was to them their children and those afarre off which notion Paul Ephes 2. 11 12. applies to the Gentiles They are the children of the Prophets Act. 3. and hee doth not say thus and of the fathers with whom the Covenant is made as if it were meant in respect of bare naturall relation but and of the Covenant made with the fathers to shew that it 's meant of Church and federall interest in them as Covenant fathers and dispensers yea to shew that the Covenant was as seed by vertue whereof they considered as federally and ecclesiastically priviledged did spring I had thought that these parallel phrases that children of the Covenant of grace mentioned Act. 3. 25. and children of the promise Gal. 4. 28. was not meerely applyed to either Jewes or Galatians because Christ according to the promise of God to Abraham c. came into the world that blessing might bee offered to them through him the promised seed But because they had a visible interest in the promise of blessing by him and therefore both Jewes and Galatians were so stiled sure I am Pauls phrase of the Jewes Rom.
them which notwithstanding tooke saving effect onely in the elect and in the beleeving Nor will any say that it was other then the covenant of grace which tooke such effect Rom. 9. 6. And what need that preoccupation of the Apostle when speaking before of the promise indefinitely as belonging even to those refuse Jews he saith not that the word of God tooke none effect scil in the persons to whom it belonged As if his meaning were thus to prevent all objection I yeeld that many to whom the word of Gods gratious covenant did externally belong never got any saving good by it as appeareth by their sad case at present verse 1 2 3. but yet this will not follow that Gods covenant had none effect at all namely in others which were savingly interested therein And the reason hee giveth is added for they are not all Israel which are of Israel as if hee would say they are indeed Israelites or of called covenant in-churched Israel verse 4. and 6. compared but they are not all elected Israel so then that the word of covenant taketh not savingly in such like persons it is neither in that they were not in that covenant externally for the promise belonged to them verse 4. nor that the word of Gods covenant is not per se efficacious since it doth take effect in as many as are the choyse seed principally intended in that Covenant but here rather is the secret ground of it They are not nor never were elected of God and such as in his secret counsell hee intended and ordained to extend eternall mercy to for had they been of that number they could never according to the objection included have so fallen as to reject and cast off so irrecoverably the revealed grace and mercy of Gods covenant as ratified in Christ Rom. 15. 8. Acts 4. 45 46 47 48. and Rom. 11. 20. and 9. 31 32 33. 1 Pet. 2. 7 8. compared This here said may serve for answer to Mr. B. his distinction of the Covenant of grace and an outward Covenant c. they are not two distinct covenants but the covenant of grace made with the elect in respect of their saving interest in that I will bee a God to them the same is made with others in respect both of visible interest and the visible administration of it nor is Gen. 17. 10. a proofe of an outward covenant distinct from the covenant of grace verse 7. but it is the covenant or conditionall part and dutie of the same covenant on their parts As God had before told Abraham what was his part of the covenant both more personally respecting Abraham verse 4 5 6. As for me or my part behold my Covenant is with thee and more parentally and radically in respect to him considered with his seed verse 7 8. So verse 9. hee telleth Abraham what is his and his seeds part of the covenant thou shalt keepe my covenant and thy seed c. If Abraham demand What is that his and his seeds part It is answered verse 10. c. From the same principle may sundry objections of I. S. against the truth in question bee answered as that there is but one way of entring into covenant scil by a true and lively faith The contrary whereof here appeares in that persons may bee said to bee in covenant with God in respect of externall right which never came to beleeve actually nor savingly Of like nature is that the promise being yea and amen in Christ 2 Cor. 1. 20. such as have not true faith in him as Infants c. have not they cannot bee interested in the covenant to which purpose also Gal. 3. 9. 27. 29. is brought now taking that of saving faith wee see others may bee called the children of God Ezek. 16. 20 21. 23. Rom. 9. 4. yea children of the promise Acts 3. 25. Gal. 4. 28. then such as doe attaine to saving faith as before was cleared Of the like nature is that that wee by our doctrine doe set up another way of salvation then by regeneration which is a meere non sequitur since unregenerate persons may bee in covenant with God on whom the word never taketh effect Rom. 9. 4. and 6. compared and no other is our doctrine we disclaime that conclusion that all that are externally in covenant attaine salvation nor doth that sequell of universall redemption follow from our doctrine of Federall holinesse since wee maintaine no other but that whatever such are quoad homines counted redeemed of the Lord and sometimes so stiled as that visible Church of Ephesus is said to bee purchased by the blood of Christ Acts 20. 28 c. yet in that and other visible Churches many prove otherwise even rent-members verse 29 30. so 2 Pet. 2. 1. If these had not been externally in Covenant they had not been in the Churches And albeit they were so yet the effect proved they were not internally of the number of redeemed ones Hitherto that Dilemma being reduced may receive answer That according to our doctrine beleevers children being in the covenant of grace that covenant is made with them either conditionally or absolutely if conditionally then either on condition of faith or workes Not of workes none will affirme that then of faith and that is nugatory to say this Covenant is to beleevers seed if beleevers to which branch wee answer the Covenant is theirs externally and quoad homines considered as invested with Church-covenant and in reference to Covenant Ordinances whereof they are capable as of old they were of Circumcision and are now of baptisme Thus it 's theirs at present in respect of the visible faith and interest of the parent or parents in the Covenant and for the future it 's theirs in the further grace of the Covenant upon condition of their beleeving if they live to yeeres of discretion If absolutely then God either keepes it and so all the seed of beleevers should bee saved which is false or hee doth not keepe what hee absolutely covenanted which to affirme were blasphemy Wee answer God may bee said absolutely to covenant with beleevers seed collectively and specifically considered and yet all the Individuall children not saved It is absolutely made and made good that that sort of persons shall bee and are saved by vertue of Gods Covenant for some of them are infallibly saved The Covenant is to the indefinite collective seed or children in respect of the internall saving interest else none of them dying Infants should bee saved Supposing they are the Israel of God a part of the elect seed yet the meanes of saving effect in and upon them is the word of Covenant Rom. 9. 6. It 's thorough the effectuall word and ingaged truth of God that that part of the Church are savingly purged Ephes 5. 25 26. The Covenant is to the individuall seede all and each of them in respect of externall interest and yet many of them not saved nor yet is
If this therfore bee not the rule of Church administration of the Initiatory injoyned seale of the Covenant then the other of visibility of interest is that which wee must goe by therein Which may suffice for answer to what A. R. suggested to the contrary And I say visibility of the parties interest in the Covenant I say not meere visibilitie of faith or repentance The Initiatory seale is not primarily and properly the seale of mans faith or repentance or obedience but of Gods Covenant rather the seale is to the covenant even Abrahams Circumcision was not primarily a seale to his faith of righteousnesse but to the righteousnesse of faith exhibited and offered in the covenant yea to the Covenant it selfe or promise which hee had beleeved unto righteousnesse hence the covenant of grace is called the righteousnesse of faith Rom. 10. 6 7 8. The righteousnesse of faith speaketh on this wise verse 8. and it 's called the word of faith hence albeit Abraham must walke before God who is now about to enlarge the Covenant to his as well as to make it to him in a Church reference Gen. 17. 1. c. yet the Initiatory seale in his as well as in their flesh is Gods Covenant verse 13. or a Sacramentall signe firstly and expresly of Gods Covenant Verse 11. and 7. compared albeit it implicitly oblige him and them to other duties formerly mentioned Hence Act. 2. 38 39. the seale of baptisme is put to the promise as the choyse matter and foundation in view and as that was a ground of repentance it selfe Repent and bee baptized for the promise is to you Not for you have repented as if that were the thing to bee firstly sealed by baptisme but the promise rather and when wee speake of visibilitie of Covenant right as such a rule to goe by wee exclude not the lowest and least degree of visibilitie since degrees doe not vary the species of any thing if we propound a higher degree where shall wee stay and pitch Why not a higher degree as well as that wee must looke to it that not the least of Gods Covenant little ones bee left out unfolded in the Church visible Wee were better seeme to bee remisse in respect of Church care of 99. which are but seemingly just ones then neglect any and leave out any which possibly is savingly as well as seemingly of the flock of the covenant Church the least of Gods visible family or Church must have their portion as of the family if Ministers bee faithful in their office the least visible measure of grace must occasion our judgement of charitie to judge them gratious so the least degree of visibilitie of covenant right may challenge the like charitie not in word and in tongue but in deed and act of expression Wee put a difference betwixt those in Heb. 6. 4. and Infants in degrees of visibilitie of this right but in the nature of the visibilitie wee say they are all one all are visibly in covenant albeit that visibilitie in point of degree bee not in all equall God putteth a difference in point of degree of faith in justifyed persons but in his act of justifying of persons hee puts no difference the least sparke in Flax is enough that way For if it were more it would flame as well as make a smoake and yet if but so much it 's not sleighted by the Lord. I might apply the same in point of degrees of visibilitie of Covenant right in reference to the Churches act of approbation It 's a higher degree indeed of visibility of interest in the Covenant to make personall profession and confession of faith in the Covenant as it is in Adultis then to have onely the visible testimony of God in his word of Covenant expressing his mind of grace touching the seed of Abraham to bee a God to them And to adde theâ—…â—…sible testimony of his providence that these children are of thâ—… race and parentage to which also Abraham and other inchurched parents by visible owning of the covenant in the Latitude upon the termes of it and as now Christian Parents doe make profession of their parentall faith in the Covenant as made to them and their children and this profession of theirs may not bee possibly sincere yet it 's visibly a federall confession and such an avouching of God to bee their Covenant God as taketh in their children as that did Deut. 26. 17. and that Deut. 29. 10 11 12 c. And this is to the Church a degree of their childrens visibilitie of covenant right and Church right albeit not so high as the former and not varying the species of visibilitie it sufficeth not to vary the species of Church admission to fellowship of the initiatory Church-seale Judgement of charitie reacheth further then to judge of persons estates by their own personall words or workes Charitie beleeveth all things in way of testimony if they give any testimony as that of God who testifyeth more absolutely for that species of beleevers children that they are such as hee doth covenant to bee a God to them And the parents testifie alsâ— for them in the profession of their faith in that covenant of God for their seed The Churches also owne them as visibly such leaving secrets to God which particular Infant is not the elect seed principally intended here charitie as it beleeveth all things witnessed so it hopeth all things of the particular persons which are themselves dumbe but are included in the testimony of others mouths opened for them nothing being of counter-force to the contrary touching this point of visibilitie of their covenant and Church interest And I the more wonder that any which confesse that it 's not to be denyed that God would have Infants of beleevers in some sense to bee accounted his to belong to his Church and family and not to the devills as true in facie ecclesiâ—… visibilis c. yet doe oppose us in this particular now in question SECT VI. Conclus 5. THat Christ is in Scripture considered as head of the visible Church in which are many members of Christ the head in that respect which prove unsound as well as in other respects hee is considered as head of the visible Church wherein are none but elect ones And when Gal. 3. 16. it 's said to Abraham and to his seed which is Christ were the promises made it 's not meant of Christ personall as if the promises as that of pardon of sinne c. were made to Christ personally considered or the promises were first made to Abraham and unto Christ personall as the Text hath it Promises were made to Abraham and to his seed Christ Nay Christ personally considered is rather Abrahams seed not to but in which the promises are confirmed Gal. 3. 17. with 16. But rather of Christ with his body the Church whether of Gentiles or Jewes Gal. 3. 14. which though many personally yet make but one seed and
to purge away and mortifie heart sinnes and sheweth it was a very Gospel promise like that Heb. 8. 10 11 12. of writing the Law of grace in the heart now this was made to the seed or children of these Church-members assembled as Chap. 29. 14 15. here is not any evasion as is usuall in mentioning Abrahams seed to say hee meant their Allegoricall and their spirituall seede c. this people to whom this was made being not so spirituall themselves Nor was it some bare tender but it was in way of speciall Covenant and oath on Gods part as Deut. 29. 14 15. sheweth nay it was of a soveraigne nature to bring about what God in his secret counsell intended hence called a commandement Deut. 30. 11. like that Psal 105. 8. the covenant and the commanded word were one and lest any doubt should arise how this should bee ratified and made good Moses prophetically setteth out Christ as dead and risen in whom this covenant was virtually ratified vers 12 13. all which the Apostle further explaineth when to set forth the way of Gods free Covenant grace in Christ without workes Rom. 10. 6 7 8. calling it the righteousnesse of faith or Covenant of grace in Christ which justifying faith is to improve the righteousnesse of faith speaketh on this wise say not who shall c. where was this spoken but in Deut. 30. 11 12 13 14. That commandement or covenant was not farre off that any should say who c. but it was nigh them c. and that commandement which was not farre off vers 11. that any need speake as verse 12 13. who shall ascend c. was the same word which was nigh them in their mouth and heart vers 14. this the Apostle expounds to bee the righteousnesse of faith Rom. 10. 6. and word of faith verse 8. or covenant and promise of grace in Christ descending into the grave noting his humiliation ascending into heaven noting his exaltation verse 6 7. which faith was to beleeve and that very doctrine of faith was that which the Apostles preached as Paul saith this is the word of faith which wee preach this then albeit called in Deut. 30. a commandement yet was it a covenant and that not of workes nor a bare subservient covenant but the very Gospell covenant ratified in Christ the very object of faith and that which the Apostle preached now what this commandement or Covenant was that circumstance noteth Deut. 30. 11. this commandement or covenant which I have commanded this day for Moses had that day propounded it in a Church-way and as a mutuall covenant betwixt them and God as well as God and them the parents stipulating therein in behalfe of themselves and children and so in reference to them also a conditionall covenant made that day in the plaines of Moab Deut. 29. 1. 9 10 11 12 13 14 15. 29. and 30. 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14. so that the places compared evidently prove 1. That the covenant interest of inchurched stipulating parents children is Gospel And secondly that the Apostles preached this doctrine Thirdly that beleevers are to eye the Covenant in such a latitude as to their children with them by faith Fourthly that the essentials of the Covenant of grace in the latitude of the extent thereof to covenant parents with their children held forth in the old Testament was delivered and held forth as valid to the faith of the Saints in the new and after Christs incarnation This second and fourth particular here mentioned might bee further confirmed both by rule in that it being proved to bee Gospel by the places now compared it must needs bee that the Apostles preached the same being injoyned to preach the Gospel Marke 16. unlesse they either disobeyed Christs charge or hid some part of Gods Evangelicall mind from his people contrary to Rom. 10. 15. 18. and Acts 20. 27. 2 In that also Peter being to call upon his hearers to repent and consequently to beleeve hee propounds the word of their faith in such a Latitude as with reference to their children Acts 2. 38 39. The like doctrine doth Paul hold forth to the Saints at Rome and inchurched beleevers there touching such children Rom. 5. 14 15. even touching the abounding of the graces of Christ to them And the like virtually also is held forth by him Rom. 11. 16 17 18 19. as elsewhere is proved and so 1 Cor. 7. 14. First then that which beleevers as such have doe and ought to beleeve as a branch of the covenant of grace that is Gospel but this is of that nature ergo The major needs no proofe the former Texts also clearing the same the minor de jure it 's evident they ought to beleeve the whole Covenant made with them as is evident faith must bee as large as it's object the Covenant is the word of faith A beleever in the exercise of faith should as well have respect to the whole covenant as in the exercise of the obedience of faith respect the whole word of commandement hee doth not else beleeve rightly which doth not desire and indeavour this this therefore being one branch of Gods Covenant to beleevers as beleeving and inchurched as these Scriptures compared shew they ought to beleeve this which respecteth their seed as well as that which respecting themselves if they beleeve aright God in making a covenant in a Church reference especially as was that with Abraham Gen. 17. 7. hee taketh in their seed or children as joynt covenanters Hence the phrase of seed in their generations taking in parents generating and children begotten as those in and by whom Churches are likely to bee continued whence God when to speake in reference to the Church seed as well as to the choyce elect seed of Isaccs line in which the visible and not meerly the invisible Church was to bee continued hee saith hee will establish his covenant with Isaac not with Ishmael Ishmael was Abrahams seed too and therefore externally in the covenant and therefore sealed but God knowing that Ishmael would reject this hee warneth Abraham of it a little before that it might not trouble him afterwards It is not to bee with him in his generations for that cause Gen. 17. 18. compared with Gen. 21. 9 10 11 12 13. but with Isaac in his generations God not opposing therein Isaac to his Church-seed but to Ishmael who by rejecting the covenant will and did come hee and his to bee cast out hence when God speaketh in reference to our times after Christs incarnation when a woman compast a man Jer. 31. 22. hee saith hee will bee a God not to the families in Judah or Israel meerly but to those throughout the earth It 's the old phrase in Abrahams covenant expounded and enlarged I will be a God to thee and to thy seed in their generations Hee saith not barely to thee and to thy seed in regeneration but in their generations Now
them and therefore pleaded there for that end vers 18 19. that covenant which God made in Bethel Gen. 35. 9. to 16. hee spake it not barely to but with them or covenanted it with them in Hoseahs time which were of the posteritie of Jacob Hos 12. 4. God found him in Bethel and there hee spake with us As much might be said of that 2 Sam. 23. 4 5. the covenant was made with David the father yet in reference to his house or children whence it was that his faith as a beleeving father of his family was the evidence of things not seene Hee beleeveth that whatever his house bee at present yet it shall excell in grace both of Gods feare and justice Vers 3. as in the glory of government c. nor was this other then a covenant of grace here mentioned since it had not else been to him as all his desire and salvation whence it was that in saddest times this covenant was pleaded by the Prophets in behalfe of Davids posteritie Psal 89. vers 38 39. 49. 50. see more vers 20. 28. and so on if the parents and the children both may thus act forth and must in the covenant so made it 's a signe parents and children were joyntly interested therein And so I come to instance as well in such as de facto have done so as to shew de jure they should doe it to let passe Davids example here the instance of our grandmother Eve is past exception her sonne Cain being discovenanted and discharged hee and his and Abel slaine shee beleeved the promise of God Gen. 3. 15. at first made to her and when infant Seth was borne shee beleeved that God had for his covenant sake lookt on her in that covenant babe and therefore as soone as borne she calls his name Seth for saith shee God hath appointed mee another seed in stead of Abel whom Cain slew Gen. 4. 25. shee spake not thus in reference to him as a meere naturall babe borne of her as a sinfull woman but as of a Covenant and Church seed therefore comparing him to Abel not to Cain and calls him by such a name as signified her faith touching the Covenant estate of this babe even whilst a very babe nor did shee faile in her faith therein as appeares by the sequell vers 26. whence the Church seed continued in his loynes externally at least albeit much degenerating as that distinction of sonnes of God and daughters of men doth shew Gen. 6. 1 2. And as Eve beleeved this way so did Lamech Gen. 5. 28 29. as soone as Noah was borne hee from saith in that promise of God Gen. 3. 15. * See Geneva Bible notes on the place gave the babe that name of Noah beleeved that that child should bee a root as it were to the Church albeit that corrupt world were to bee destroyed Another example of the Saints faith touching their childrens federall estate see in Psal 102. 25 26 27. with Heb. 1. 10 11 12. which referred unto Christ as in whom they pleaded and expected this touching their children And it 's evident that those Saints did expresse their faith in Christ touching their children and seeds being established before him nor did they exercise their faith touching the vanishing temporall good of their children barely vers 25 26. but in reference to induring mercies of Christ to them lasting when heaven and earth should dissolve Now did they take the rise of this their faith from possibilities of election or redemption without foothold from the covenant verily no they ought not to ground their faith on any thing but God his revealed will touching themselves or theirs Deut. 29. 29. the Covenant and promise is that which faith in its acts of beleeving doth build and rest upon and faith albeit it must goe as farre yet no further that way then the word of faith Rom. 10. 8. secrets of possibilities of election and redemption of the children would not might not have caused in them such a conclusive apprehension of faith but the revealed covenant and testament and will of Gods grace in Christ election and redemption though things which faith beleeveth yet not grounds in themselves considered without reference to the covenant revealed of any mans faith touching himselfe or others as being secrets It 's not the election of faith but the word of faith nor beleefe of election as such for as such it 's a secreâ— act of God hid within himselfe but the beleefe of the truth or revealed promise Another argument of the federall interest of beleevers Infants to bee Gospell and therefore of perpetuall validitie now as well as at any time may be in that it was held forth as Gospel in the beginning of the world and so will bee in the purer times of the Gospell towards the very end of the world and therefore it 's Gospell to us now The consequence is evident both from the everlastingnesse of the Gospell and covenant of grace of which this was and will bee made a branch which covenant of grace is Gospell Heb. 13. 20. Revel 14. 6. and from the essentiall samenesse and onenesse of the covenant of grace from the beginning of the world to the end for so farre forth as any thing partaketh of everlastingnesse it partaketh so farre of immutabilitie Now the covenant is not in nature the same if the covenant the confederate persons are not specifically the same the covenant in the nature of it supposing God as one partie and such or such a sort of persons as other parties betwixt whom that covenant is drawn and made if it were supposable that there were not the same God covenanting with man or not the same sorts of persons specifically accepted of by God into termes of covenant grace with him the covenant were not in nature the same Albeit it bee not shut up in families as of old in Adams Seths Enoshes Kenans Mahaleels Jareds Enochs Methuselahs Lamechs Noahs c. or in the posteritie of Abraham Isaac Jacob in respect of Church interest in and administration of it but inlarged to all the families of Gospeld persons yet if the persons admitted to covenant bee not specifically the same even that sort of inadult as well as adult persons whether male or female bond or free then is not the covenant in nature the same Now to prove the proposition in both its branches and first that it was held forth as Gospell that the species of the Infants of beleevers in Church-estate were taken into the verge of the covenant of grace Gen. 3. 15. sheweth Adam and Eve were eyed by God as a seminall visible Church by whom as well the Church as the world was to bee built up and God that he might especially glorifie his grace even in the weakest mentioneth Eve as one touching whom hee first expressed his revealed minde of grace to her and her seed not intending meerely the principall seed Christ in and by whom
elect or reprobate but one in nature albeit in use and efficacy it were various according as the Spirit of God and faith made thereof improvement or not To adde one word more in way of proofe that Gentile-inchurched-beleevers Infants they are the seed of Abraham this being wholly denyed by Anabaptists If I prove that this species or sort of persons are Abrahams spirituall seed without personall actuall faith by which onely they say persons come to bee Abrahams seed quoting for it Gal. 3. 7. 6. 9. 16. 27 28 29. it sufficeth Now the place to mee is full proofe thereof whole Christ mysticall in all the parts of his body the Apostle maketh it to bee the seed of Abraham but that sort of persons the Infants of beleevers are a part of Christ mysticall or Christ considered with his body the Church as Christ is in Gal. 3. and 1 Cor. 12. 12. compared as hath beene proved Ergo that sort of persons as well that other of actuall beleevers are Abrahams spirituall seed And here supposing according to them that Christ is considered there as with his body the invisible Church it maketh still more for what I am to prove since if that sort of persons bee not of the invisible Church whereof Christ is head there can none of that sort not beleevers children at all bee saved since out of the invisible Church is no salvation at all as some of the most judicious of our opposites doe speake in way of answer to what is brought by our friends that extra ecclesiam non est salus that is say such extra ecclesiam invisibilem non visibilem But wee will goe yet further and take this as meant of Christ considered with his body the visible Church according as formerly it was proved to bee considerable And I say to exelude that sort of persons scil beleevers infants from being a part of the visible Church in generall is to exclude them from any ordinary state and way of salvation Nay I will go further and say that for any to suppose all the individuall Infants and each of them which come of such inchurched parents not to bee also parts of this body of Christ the visible Church and consequently not to bee Abrahams spirituall seed is to exclude them from a state and way of salvation in respect to the ordinary course thereof and so to leave them all under the consideration of such a way to bee saved in as is onely extraordinary ordinarily they are not to bee supposed to bee saved as at least it is not to be supposed that ordinarily or that in any ordinary way any Pagans or Turkes out of the visible Church or any in and of Rome as Tridentine and Antichristian should bee saved yet God may and sometimes doth and will have some soules brought on to him thence and even from amongst Mahumetans c. but all will yeeld I suppose that this is an extraordinary case so crosseth not that rule that without even the visible Church there is no salvation scil taking the maxime in reference to ordinary times and withall to the ordinary course and way of attaining unto salvation Such then as exclude all Infants of beleevers one or other from the notion of Abrahams spirituall seede from Covenant and Church estate they put them in the Pagan Gentiles estate of which Paul speakes who being they and theirs strangers from the promise and covenants and from the visible Church they place them in that respect in an estate of persons that are without God in the world and so under the devill the God of the world and in an hopelesse estate neither they nor any for them can have any grounded hope of them they are without hope in regard at least of any ordinary way or meane of salvation Ephes 2. 11 12. Nor let it seeme grievous that our friends and brethren in the Lord of name and worth in the Church have as it seemeth urged that in case of such an exclusion of beleevers children they are made as Turkes or Indians so farre forth in regard that being not in covenant nor Church estate the Apostle truely states such persons cases they are without hope and without God in the world Hee maketh no distinction of potentia remota propinqua in that case Yea but hee speakes of Pagan parents wee of Christian and there is not the same reason of the childrens estate which are of the one as of the other Tell me the difference supposing them actually excluded from covenant and Church estate It is not in their parents prayers or in the Churches nakedly considered without reference to any covenant or Church estate of theirs for they pray as well for Indians c. as for them Nor is it barely in their instruction and education of them for if they have any Indian or Black more bond servants in their house they must instruct both them and their children in Gods feare as they are capable thereof Yea but for the one their prayers and instructions come from a nearer bond and are carried on with more strength then in the other grant that yet this is but more and lesse and they vary no species of any formall reason of difference yea but they may beleeve more for the one then for the other and why so because usually the one sort prove religious when the other is not usuall This confirmeth what I am to prove that God is a covenant God to the children of his people and Church because albeit sometimes some prove vile enough yet usually they prove religious and pious and God speakes of things as they more frequently prove Yea I demand what is the ordinary revealed instrumentall meanes of the saving efficacy which is upon any children of Gods people and Church especially supposing they die very young is it not the word of Gods covenant as hath beene often said from Rom. 9. 6. and Eph. 5. 25 26. Yea I would know whether if beleevers have hope to take hope most properly concerning their childrens good or glorious resurrection by Christ if they die in Infancy have they other ground then that of Gods being a God to them This is Christs demonstration in that case Luke 20. 36 37 38. Is it any other then Scripture hope or comfort that way or must they sorrow as persons without hope If they draw any waters with joy Esay 12. 3. must it not bee out of the wells of salvation the promises not other promises which concerne not the case they will not helpe at such a dead lift but promises pertinent to the case of their children Yea can they have such hope without faith or can they have well-grounded faith where they have not a word of faith for it and when they cannot beleeve that God should bee so much as externally much lesse internally and savingly a covenant God to them or can they conjecture that ever any were saved ordinarily if at all touching whom God never made
This argument supposeth that one cannot bee within the covenant of saving grace externally but they must bee in a saving estate the contrary whereto appeareth Conclus 3. And it 's said of sundry illegitimate Jewish children that they were within the covenant of saving grace namely externally for the author cannot meane other And yet of all such who will say they were all in a saving estate even Esaus birthright was more then right to Isaacs temporall estate as borne of Isaac why else doth the Apostle apply Esaus example of selling his birthright in such sort as Heb. 12. 15 16 17. hee propoundeth his example to deterre the Hebrewes which were in Church estate Heb. 10. 25. and 12. 17 18. from the mischiefe of falling short of the grace of God not of meere temporall blessings nay expresly the thing hee fell short of as his birth heritage as Isaacs first borne is said to bee the blessing indefinitely even Abrahams blessing to his seed the same blessing whereof hee rejecting his externall right Jacob his younger brother came to possesse which was a Church blessing as well as naturall and civill Gen. 28. 3 4. as for temporall blessings he had store of them notwithstanding nor was Isaacs trembling when hee saw how strangely God had ordered the blessing of the first borne to Jacob the younger sonne Gen. 27. occasioned from a bare disappointing him of the externall right to temporalls but withall to spiritualls and ecclesiasticall good also whence the Apostle calleth him for his contempt a prophane person Heb. 12. 3 Object But saith I. S. the covenant of grace being a covenant there must be mutuall agreement betwixt the covenanters and so knowledge and consideration of the termes thereof and restipulation as in mens covenants Hen. Den a little differently maketh a necessitie of the persons entring into covenant with God scil by faith unto covenant right and not meerely Gods entring into covenant with the creature for so hee entred into covenant with the beasts c. Gen. 9. 10. Answ To which I answer the covenant of grace is as well a testament 1 Cor. 11. Heb. 9. Now a testament may bee and useth to bee made in reference to little ones without knowledge nor doe any use to deny a childs right in the testators will because it was taken in amongst other legacies in the bequeathed legacies before it understood the same nor will it bee denyed in the case of the elect seed the choyce parties in Gods covenant Gen. 17. that they many of them dying Infants without actuall knowledge were not therefore children of the promises or that that solemne covenant Deut. 29. 9 10 11 12 13 14 15. and 30. 6 7 8 9 10 c. with that people wherein conditions also were propounded on their parts that therefore the covenant was not made betwixt the little ones there present because they neither understood nor could actually subscribe to the conditions the contrary being there expressed no rather it sufficed that the childrens covenant estate being the parents priviledge whence the incouragement to Abraham to walke with God Gen. 17. 1 c. From that amongst other incouragements that God would become his seeds God also c. vers 7. and so Deut. 29. and 30. amongst other incouragements to the parents that is one vers 6. that God will doe thus for their seed also yea the children being reckoned as in their parents as Levi payd tithes in Abraham c. yea the externall avouching in a covenant way of God being owned as the childrens Deut. 26. 16 17. yea the childrens circumcision being as well the covenant dutie Whence called the covenant or the covenant parties covenant part or dutie as well as the token of Gods covenant Gen. 9. 7. 9 10 11. they restipulate in their parents knowing acceptance of the covenant and professed owning of it upon the covenant termes as well on their childrens part as their owne and they restipulate in a passive reception of the covenant condition and bond to after imitation of their father Abrahams faith and obedience to which purpose I. S. confessed circumcision was annexed to the covenant Yea the bastard children of Iudah and Gilead and others are acknowledged to bee in the covenant of saving grace which yet could not personally restipulate in a way of actuall knowledge or faith or the like 4 Obj. Your doctrine would make God the author of sin partly in causing persons to beleeve untruths partly in promising life to the wicked and so keeping of him from returning I.S. C.B. I.S.C.B. C.B. Besides it will make every beleever an Abraham and make Christs body to consist of dead members and even confound the world and the Church as if one Answ To the first wee require the parents in reference to the Church and covenant estate of their children to make confession of their faith in the covenant of God as made with them and their seed indefinitely according as the termes of the covenant are and being the termes of the covenant it 's no untruth or sinne to beleeve it in foro dei or confesse that faith in foro Ecclesiae which of the beleevers children is elect or saved or not it 's to us a secret and our doctrine requireth them to beleeve revealed things as are those indefinite words of the covenant leaving secrets to the Lord and no other was Moses doctrine having propounded the covenant of God as with parents and children and being yet further to inlarge hee joyneth the former and latter part of his speech with that item that secret things belong to God but things revealed scil touching this his mind of grace indefinitely these are for us and for our children And for further taking off of this cavill together with the second I answer when some say that even bastard children were in the covenant of saving grace and even I. S. which objecteth the same confesseth that God promiseth to bee a God or to fulfill his promises even such as Luke 1. 74 75 c. and gave them circumcision to confirme the same on both seeds requiring them to walke in the footsteps of Abrahams faith c. I demand were the carnall seed saved I. S. will not say so yet God promised and gave circumcision as a seale to that end that hee would bee their God requiring them to beleeve c. did not then God faile in his promise or in requiring them to beleeve an untruth surely no so when they were on that ground according to I. S. to walke in the footsteps of Abrahams obedience and circumcision of heart was required of them did not this rather further then hinder their repentance is it not the Apostles argument to the Jewes to prevaile with them to repent Repent for the promise is to you c. Act. 2. 38 39. Nay doth not our doctrine holding forth the interest at least externall of such in covenant thereby hold forth as well an externall interest in that
children of Gentile in-churched parents Though even this also is of grace that they should naturally descend from such parents Gen. 49. 26. Object 4. The Gentiles come into and abide in Church-estate by faith Rom. 11. 20. But children have not faith Therefore this Scripture concernes not them Answ 1. The Gentiles that so stand by faith are collectively taken as including also their children with them so abiding untill that these their children come to reject as did the children of those godly Jewish ancestors their covenant right And observe it by the way how tender God was of covenant children They were never excluded untill they came after many generations so wholly to degenerate as Rom. 11. 16 17 18 19 20 21 25 28. sheweth and then but not till then they are rejected so is it still God is tender of unchurching and discovenanting any that come of godly ancestors till they grosly and obstinately reject their owne mercy But if they grow up to that obstinacy then they cut off the gratious covenant entailed as from themselves personally so to their children parentally as did those of old Rom. 11. 20. and as those of Rome Corinth and Ephesus c. have done since 2. This faith mentioned is not a bare personall faith respecting this or that particular Gentile but such as is in direct opposition to that unbeleefe of the Jewes by which they were broken off as that opposition Rom. 11. 20. sheweth now it is evident that their unbeleefe was the obstinate rejecting of the covenant of grace as it was held out in Christ to them and theirs joyntly and not as barely made to themselves personally Acts 3. 25 26. and 13. 46 47. Matth. 21. 41. 42 43 44. Rom. 9. 31 32 33. and 10. to the end see Rom. 10. 21. with 11. 1. c. and vers 20. So verily is it in the faith of the Gentile opposed thereunto It is a faith that lookes to Gods covenant as in reference to families and kindreds of the earth so imbracing it and so being quickned and comforted by it That pretious fruit of faith must hold proportion to the nature of the seed thereof scil the words of promise 1 Pet. 1. 23. now the words of promise run not barely in a personall way but in a parentall oeconomicall and plurall way as well Jer. 31. 1. Acts 3. 25 c. our faith is or de jure should bee inlarged according to the latitude of covenant as was before proved Rom. 10. 8 c. By what hath been said their grosse mistakes appeare which say that none are the subjects of this lumpe but elect ones That the branches were such onely which were in Christ by faith and hee in them by his spirit for neither Jew nor Gentile branches many of them were such as appeares by their being broken off nor is that assertion sound but absurd and crosse to the very text that the Jewes owne naturall root and Olive tree whereof they were naturall branches onely by faith was union with God c. since that way of being branches onely by faith is no where called naturall nay in the same verse Rom. 11. 24. speaking of the first growne Gentiles inserting by faith it is said to bee contrary to nature nor is inserting which is onely by faith more naturall to Jewes then it is to Gentiles Neither is that true and sound that no other holinesse inrighteth any in any priviledges of grace if understood of Church priviledges now in question then holinesse of justification or sanctification since many of those naturall branches which as naturall branches of that holy root were holy federally and did partake of the root and fatnesse of the olive before their rejection as well as some better Jewes did afterward yet they were not justified for which compare Rom. 11. 16. 24. 17 18 19. so likewise the Gentiles which came to partake of that Olive fatnesse in their stead ibid. yet were fatally cut off many of them which had never bin if they had been justified and sanctified Object 5. Doth not the Apostle only speake here of the invisible Church under the notion of the Olive which sometimes was amongst the Jewes and therefore called their Olive the Apostle reasoning about the elect remnant Rom. 11. 1 2 3 4 5 6 c. and making the tree to bee the Church of beleevers still standing and some branches broken off and others graffed in and so it might seeme the graffing in to bee inserting into the invisible Church by election and faith Answ I deny not but that the Apostle discourseth about the elect and invisible members of the invisible Church vers 1 2 3. c. and therefore proveth fully enough one principall thing propounded scil that the invisible elect membes of it or the elect seed and branches of Abraham Isaac and Jacob did not could not fall away finally but it will not therefore follow that hee speaketh onely of the invisible Church in the whole chapter or that he discourseth not as well of the visible Church of the Church seed of Abraham Isaac and Jacob. Yea it wil appeare by good reason that in that part of the Chapter where hee discourseth of the Church as an Olive communicating its fatnesse to all the branches of it hee principally intendeth the visible Church as visible For 1. The objection acknowledgeth that it is the Church of beleevers still standing and some branches broken off and others graffed in now none that were in the invisible Church by election and faith could ever bee broken off Yea but they might bee in the Church in appearance or visibly as branches may bee said to bee in Christ and after broken off John 15. 2. Not to answer this with an exposition of that according to some to bee meant of Christ considered with his body the visible Church as 1 Cor. 12. 12 13. here is more said of these scil that others came in their roome and place Rom. 11. 17. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in ramorum defractorum locum as Beza noteth on that particle they had then a reall place there and a reall breach was made neither did the Gentiles come into an imaginary place in the Church but a reall and yet they came into no other place then into the place of the broken branches therefore theirs was a reall not a seeming place in the Olive the Olive then must bee the visible Church where hypocrites may have place and not the invisible Church where they can have none Besides they were such branches of the Olive as did partake of the fatnesse of the Olive not like withered branches seemingly in Christ which are saplesse nor did ever partake of the sap of Christs saving grace as these did of Church sap hence the Gentile is said to partake in common with them Rom. 11. 17. Greeke 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. and thou partakest in common with them in the fatnesse of the Olive What did the collective Christian
Father c. that is invocating the name of the Father Sonne and Spirit bringing Acts 22. for their proofe Paul is bid to bee baptized calling upon the name of the Lord now Infants cannot call upon the Lord when to bee baptized Now let us consider the weight of what hath been said 1. For the order of the words as morall in Matthew because also in Marke and so morall in both for saith Mr. B. it reacheth to the worlds end it was Christs last commission and it were absurd to thinke a man baptized before preached to and so baptized into hee knowes not what And indeed this is urged as an argument distinctly against Pedobaptisme because children understand not the mysteries of Baptisme and what hath God to doe with such as know him not nor what hee offers them or doth for them c Whence I. S. urgeth it as an absurditie that wee will have children baptized which know nothing of it and so must build their faith upon humane testimony We shall now answer to these particularly SECT II. 1. THen some things in this order of Christ were perpetuall as that preaching the Gospel should goe before Baptisme that baptisme is to bee administred by such as preach that discipled in-churched persons are to bee baptized that in founding Churches the first members are to bee visible professors of the faith in reference to Church estate that baptisme is with water to bee applyed to the persons baptized and that into the name of the Father Sonne and holy Ghost Yet non sequitur that all which here Christ held forth is so strictly to bee attended to the end of the world as that which is to indure to the end of the world or that what in Matthew and Marke hee propoundeth it is presidentiall in all Church cases of persons to bee baptized as alike and that without distinction of Churches then or now gathering or to bee gathered There is a commission given to Elders or Churches as here was to ministers James 5. 14. that they are to pray over the sicke and to anoint them with oyle wee must now then without all distinction of times or Churches doe so too by Mr. Blackwoods argument wee must stick to Scripture commission of the Lord as this was by his spirit according as the other was viva voce And let our opposites that urge Matthew and Marke as presidentiall to all Churches and times attend what is said in Marke 16. 16 17 18. if Marke 16. be the rule to us what persons should bee baptized onely scil beleevers then few are to bee now baptized but such whose beleeving is attended with signes that can cast out devills speake with strange tongues take up Serpents drinke deadly poyson without hurt or if any other are yet at least some amongst the baptized beleevers now as well as then will have such miraculous gifts For Christ speaking of some of those baptized beleevers at least albeit not of all for all had not then gifts of miracles and tongues 1 Cor. 12. saith these signes shall follow them that beleeve c. Marke 16. 17. and it was one continued speech and touching some of the persons spoken of vers 15 16. hence Mr. B. will never deny unlesse his reason faile him but that such kind of persons were proper to bee found in those first Churches and times of first foundings of Churches amongst the heathen nations And therefore will hee nill hee must he make a distinction of first Churches gathered amongst such as never heard of Christ and other Christian Churches in these dayes Secondly bee it that it was Christs last commission yet it sufficiently appeares already that what he here held forth in this gracious order about Gentile Churches it was not therefore morall and applyable to all times no such signes now following any beleeving baptized members of Churches as did then And if that very order of Christs last words were so morall and strictly to bee observed why doe the Evangelists and Paul so vary in expressions of those last words of Christs order touching the Lords Supper Matthew expresseth the Sacramentall actions of Christ about the bread and cup to bee as they were eating Matth. 26. 26 27. and so Marke Chap. 14. 22 23. but Luke and Paul say hee tooke the cup after supper Luke 22. 20. 1 Cor. 11. 25. Matthew Luke and Paul make the Sacramentall promise to bee uttered before the Disciples dranke even whilst Christ gave order for their drinking but Marke mentions the promise This is my blood of the Testament c. as spoken after they had all drunke of the cup Marke 14. 23 24. Luke addeth to what Matthew and Marke say This is my body which is given for you Paul otherwise which is broken for you Matthew Marke and Luke say of the bread that Christ gave it to them yet Paul which affirmeth what hee had received and did deliver accordingly to the Church of Corinth as from the Lord he leaveth out that act of giving the bread Matthew and Marke say as much expresly of the giving of the cup to them which Paul omitteth Matthew and Marke expresse that thus This is my blood of the New Testament which Luke and Paul expresse thus This is the New Testament in my blood Matthew and Marke say which was shed for many Luke which is shed for you Paul wholly omitteth it Luke addeth in mention of the bread Doe this in remembrance of mee but not in mention of the cup Matthew and Marke omit that passage in both Paul addeth it to both and addeth that in the latter as oft as yee drinke it What varietie is here additions omissions variations c. in the mention of Christs last commission about the other Sacrament surely Mr. B. and others will confesse that if it had beene so morall and invariable because Christs last commission holy men inspired would not had not could not have so placed them before or after one another something before as mentioned by one something set after the same words by another analogie of faith and comparing Scriptures with Scriptures must regulate in such things here and in this Sacramentall order and so in the other And because so much is put in order of phrase and words to conclude thence without compare thereof with other Scriptures the order of things in acting because in those two places such in order of uttering and expressing I would argue hence If because beleeving is set before baptizing none is to bee baptized but such as beleeve then because being baptized is in the same place Marke 16. 16. set before being saved therefore no beleevers are saved but such as are baptized and so baptisme is absolutely necessary to salvation and a man may bee a true beleever but for want of baptisme which yet was the case of some of old which were martyrd may bee damned yea then since Christ when preaching Marke 1. 15. saying Repent and beleeve the Gospel it must bee
compleat in the substantiall and most materiall parts or branches of it had the one a covenant and Church blessing and heritage as to them so to their children so are these compleat that way too if the ratification thereof by a solemne covenant and Church initiatory seale bee the great thing they have to boast of these are compleat in Christ in that respect too Christ hath not left his Churches and the members of them without such covenant priviledges nor without a solemne way of initiatory sealing thereto and ratifying thereof whether as Churches or as members of it in particular or as such members who have children to partake thereof with them doe the false Apostles then urge against them their incompleatnesse without circumcision It 's answered in the generall v. 10. they are compleat in Christ how as fulfilling the types which were in any Jewish ceremonies onely no verily not onely so albeit firstly and principally so for Christ nailed them on his crosse and tooke them away as such by his death And what need then any Church ordinances at all wee have all in Christ might some say as 1 Cor. 1. I am for Christ I care not for Paul nor Apollos nor Cephas nor for their dispensation of the word or seale of the covenant I have enough in Christ such a spawne of our seekers there was in those times v. 12. Yea but the Lord Jesus in wisedome and faithfulfulnesse will have his Church and people to bee graced and perfect as of old they were in substantialls of the same Church ordinances and the like The beautie of the Church was perfect through that Church comelinesse which God did in this respect put upon them Ezek. 16. 14. not a comelinesse of outward possessions in a temporall land in temporall jurisdictions kingdomes cities what had the Church quà Church and as in covenant with God as his covenant Spouse to doe with them nay the heathen might vye with them for as good land as large possessions territories riches honours dominions c. yea but not for Church ordinances hee dealt not so with any nation besides Psal 147. 19 20. Christ had as mediator and as a Priest compleated all ceremonious types yea but as Prophet hee will have it held forth and cleared by that dispensation of the Gospel and as King of the Church hee will have all also exhibited in such a way and by such evangelicall meanes 2 Tim. 1. 10. the Word and the Seales they are parts of the Gospel in the dispensation of them and by them all is brought to light yea by them as by pipes is Christs fulnesse conveyed as head of his visible body the Church outwardly as it is by his spirit to his elect inwardly Zach. 4. 11 12 13 14. Col. 2. 19. hence the Church hath such officers given it whose proper work it is to exhibit and communicate such things as tend to make them every way compleat Ephe. 4. 11 12 13. wee are compleat in Christ as the signatum but yet in baptisme too as the signe Yea but regeneration and sanctification both in respect of mortifying and quickning grace c. signified by circumcision is conferred on us by Christ And so it was of old in him in whom Ezek. 36. 25 26 27. and Deut. 30. 6. was yea and amen 2 Cor. 1. 20. and by his Spirit as hee held all forth then in the ministry of the Prophets of old 1 Pet. 3. 18 19 20. so hee exhibited the same to his elect among them yet then hee had covenant and Church Symbols to confirme the same and instrumentally to convey the same and so now Ephes 5. 25 26. As by the word of covenant as the principall instrument and the Spirit maketh baptisme it selfe to become efficacious so by washing too hee sanctifyeth his Church both as that whereby hee ratifyeth it so to their faith that they have the more strength of hold and influence for that end and as that which he blesseth as one ordinary meane also in respect of the word of promise to which baptismall washing is annexed as the Seale Sanctifying and purging is the signatum and end washing with water through the word is the ordinary Seale and meane whence here in Col. 2. 10. when hee had laid downe that thesis he declareth it by two instances partly in that wee are circumcised by the circumcision of Christ which is the fulfilling of the type v. 11. partly by applying the benefits of the circumcision of Christ to them and theirs by the like or an equall ordinance to that of circumcision which the Jewes injoyed to wit of baptisme else were not the Church and Saints now as compleat as those of old which as they had virtually all fulfilled in Christ to their faith Act. 15. 11. and 26. 6 7. Heb. 13. 8. Revel 13. 8. Heb. 12. 1 2 3. So had they withall sealing ordinances applying the spirituall circumcision of Christ to them and theirs And so Aretius which maketh Christ the perfect organon of our salvation without any other equall externall cause joyned with him in that respect it was by him alone that all was fulfilled Col. 1. 19 20. and by himselfe he did that worke Heb. 1. 3. yet in point of externall application hee denieth not any thing wee say for in the same place in his notes upon Colos 2. within foure or five lines hee addeth it as an observeable thing from the place that baptisme comes in the stead of circumcision as is evident in that the Apostle calleth it the circumcision of Christ scil in a Sacramentall way under the name of the signe in whose stead baptisme is set comprehending the spirituall thing signified by a metonymy as the covenant scil the Sacramentall signe of it Gen. 17. 11. 13. Act. 7. 8. the testament scil the visible seale of it 1 Cor. 11. 25. So his body and blood ibid. the Sacramentall communion of it 1 Cor. 10. 16 17. or communion of it in a Sacramentall sense So that the Apostles answer is full to prove the uselesnesse of circumcision which the false Apostles would have intruded upon them as necessary to the Gentile Churches Gal. 1. 6 7 8 9. and 4. 21. and 5. 11. Acts 15. 24 24. 25. It was a generall false doctrine troubling all the Gentile Churches ibid. but it 's now uselesse in respect of the maine thing signified Christ to come who hath fulfilled it as ceremonious and in respect of the externall signe and meane of application of Christ scil circumcision supplied by baptisme whence Gentile Philippians as well as Paul a Jew are of the circumcision Phil. 3. 3. Abraham Isaac and Jacob were inwardly circumcised so are they at least ecclesiastically judged to bee they were externally circumcised so are they in their baptisme ergo now circumcision is wholly uselesse Yea but what is this to Infants the Apostle directs his speech to growne ones Suppose he did yet this speech is of and reacheth to
mischiefe of restrayning baptisme to certaine times of the yeare in cold countries and sundry other sad consequencies of such a course might bee propounded but thus much for the Major The Minor of Mr. Bs. Syllogisme is weake also since some which hold paedobaptisme yet baptize by dipping therefore wee shall thus retort Mr. Bs. Syllogisme Baptisme by dipping is the baptisme of Christ but with sundry Ministers baptisme of Infants is baptisme by dipping therefore with them at least baptisme of Infants is the baptisme of Christ so contradictory are Mr. Bs. reasonings to his own principles And thus much bee spoken from the solid grounds of Scripture to that part of the controverted case touching Infants Baptismall Right PART III. CHAP. I. Sect. I. Generall consideration of the eight Propositions HAving seene before what defensive and offensive weapons the Armory of the Scripture affords us for the just vindication of the controverted Title of the little ones of inchurched visible beleevers unto the Covenant and Baptisme the initiatory seale thereof the globe of contention is againe cast by sundry and a challenge is made that laying by a little those spirituall weapons of our warfare which indeed are mighty through God to cast downe all the specious Logismes reasonings of the sonnes of men against Christ in the doctrine of his free grace and Covenant and initiatory seale thereof wee should try it out at other weapons even humane testimonies and authorities And besides other darings of us this way the Author or Authors of that Pamphlet entitled The plaine and well grounded treatise concerning Baptisme give out great words this way and even conclude the victory before the fight For my owne part I must confesse my selfe a very puny and too too unskilfull at such weapons yet I shall God willing adventure to accept the challenge and make a little tryall of their skill not doubting but when an essay shall bee made albeit by a learner there will bee some able seconds to take up the cause when I have laid it downe But to leave Prefacing and fall to worke The substance of the booke is laid downe in these eight Propositions 1 That Christ commanded his Apostles and servants of the holy Ghost first of all to preach the Gospel and make Disciples and afterwards to baptize those that were instructed in the faith in calling upon and confessing the name of God His proofs out of Scripture are Matth. 28. 19. Mark 16. 15 16. Luke 24. 45. John 4. 1 2. Acts 22. 16. This proposition might passe for the most part as current allowing a latitude in the word Disciples and understanding it of such as were baptized meerely in their owne right and taking that phrase calling upon the name of God as not alwayes the present act of the persons baptized at the instant of their baptisme but rather of the Minister baptizing nor doth the instance of Paul Act. 22. 16. prove this latter It being absurd even in adult persons to suppose it thus in that example of the Samaritan woman that they should in the open face of the Congregation when they were baptized make their personall and particular prayers Acts 8. 12. or that every one of those 3000. baptized that day Acts 2. 41. made their severall prayers for if it werâ— essentiall to the Ordinance to make such personall prayers since there is no stint how long or how much they should utter in calling upon Gods name the Apostles had need to have spoken severally to them that you must not bee long the time is short and if they had taken that paines yet many dayes would have beene needfull to such a worke It was not possible to bee dispatched that very day As for the other Scriptures they have been else-where considered The second Proposition that the Apostles and servants of the Holy Ghost have according to the Commandement of the Lord Jesus Christ first of all taught and then afterwards those that were instructed in the mysteries of the Kingdome of God were baptized upon the confession of their faith Proofes out of Scripture 1 Cor. 1. 17. How this is a Proof I see not for if hee alwayes preached before hee baptized it might easily have been replyed Yes Paul if God sent you to baptize any he sent you also to preach for you are to preach alwayes to all persons that you baptize before you doe baptize them why therefore doe you say you were not sent to baptize but to preach the Gospel since with the one you do the other The other proofs 1 Cor. 3. 6. and 4. 15. are somewhat farre fetched and strained but I will not stick there Heb. 6. 1 2. is as well applyed by Authors Calvin Beza c. as grounds of Paedobaptisme those being the heads of Catechising containing the summe of Christian Doctrin scil profession of faith and repentance of the articles of which Doctrine an account was demanded of adult Pagans and Jewes at the time of their baptisme and therefore called the Doctrine of Baptismes alluding in the plurall word to the many typicall washings in use of old among the Hebrewes or Jewes but from baptized Infants the same was called for when they were solemnely admitted to full Church Communion and declared so to bee by the Elders commending them therein to God by prayer And hence the same Doctrine is called also by the name of the Doctrine of Imposition of hands Amongst which articles of that Doctrin two are singled out as containing the rest scil the resurrection of the flesh and eternall judgement See Calvin and Beza in Locum His next proofe Heb. 10. 22. I let passe In the next proofe Acts 2. 36 38. 41. I observe how craftily the 39th Vers is left out unmentioned wherein the strength of argument on our part doth consist Acts 8. 36 37 38. and 10. 47 48. and 16. 31. to 34. But why is that example of Lydia here left out and her houshold but that it speakes too broadly that albeit the Apostles sometimes required confession of some persons which they baptized yet not alwayes of all sorts of persons as that one example witnesseth His other Scripture is that Acts 18. 8. but of all these consideration is elsewhere had This Proposition with the limitations formerly mentioned may passe supposing it not understood exclusively that such as they baptized were such therefore they baptized none other but such which is a non sequitur 3 Proposition That after the Apostles time by the ancient fathers in the primitive Church who observed and followed the Ordinance of Christ and the example of the Apostle the people were commonly first instructed in the mysteries of faith and after that they were taught they were baptized upon confession of the same This Proposition sano sensu might passe also understanding that that was the Ordinance of Christ and practise of the Apostles so farre as concernes growne persons baptisme but yet that was not all intended in the one nor practised by the
such an ordinance that tendeth to their spirituall gaine in their childrens good thereby furthered Now if Hierom thought there were no Law for childrens baptisme why is there any transgression yea so deepe charged upon the neglectors of it that it is scelus in his account So in his second Tom. 1. 3. Dialogorum adversus Pelagianos ad finem hee proveth infants baptisme to bee for remission of sinnes as well as for entrance into Gods kingdome so that this Authors words are wrested against his owne intention Let us see whether the next be better dealt withall scil Athanasius in his third Sermon contra Arrianos Our Saviour did not slightly command to baptize but first of all hee said Teach and then baptize that true faith might come by teaching and baptisme bee perfected by Faith If Athanasius had said thus in the Authors sense yet the fallacy had still beene the same to conclude à dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter But let us look upon that place and weigh the words of Athanasius there speaking of the unprofitablenesse and vanitie of Baptisme by Arrians hee proceedeth thus For saith hee the Arrians doe not give Baptisme in the Father and Sonne but in the Creator and creature in the maker and workmanship As therefore a creature is a diverse thing from the Sonne so is the Baptisme supposed to bee given by them diverse from true Baptisme Albeit because they see the names of Father and Sonne in Scriptures they doe faine to name them for it is not hee that barely nameth the Lord which giveth lawfull Baptisme but hee that expoundeth that name and holdeth the right faith And therefore our Saviour doth not command to baptize after any fashion the Authors render the word quovis modo by slightly but first hee said Teach and then baptize in the name of the Father Sonne and Holy Ghost this clause the treatise leaveth out that by teaching a right faith might arise the treatise saith true faith might come and with the faith of Baptisme the intire initiation might bee perfected by initiation hee meanes baptisme as the words before these shew In these words The Arrians hazzard the losse of the integrity of that mystery But I speake of Baptisme For if perfect and full initiation bee given in the name of the Father and Sonne and they hold not forth the true Father c. how should the Baptisme which they give bee true c. So that that speech with the faith of Baptisme the intire initiation might bee perfected is that with the faith or doctrine of faith rightly held out the Ordinance of Baptisme might bee perfect or valid which hee calleth the right faith as the words before mentioned shew So that hee doth not here intend fidem quâ credit aliquis sed fidem quam credit hee meaneth it of the object not the habit of faith and of the qualifications of the persons baptizing to make their act valid not of the parties baptized For none will say that an hypocrites Baptisme because hee hath not true faith is not true Baptisme The essence of the Ordinance not depending upon mans faith but Gods word And that hee intends no other thing as it appeares by the premises for if you take his next words following the same it will bee evident Truely saith he even other heresies and those not a few doe in seeming words pronounce that rite of baptizing but being not right in judgement nor retaining the sound faith they possesse and bestow an unprofitable water as destitute of the Deity of Religion so that they which are sprinkled by them are rather polluted through corrupt Religion then redeemed Here therefore is an ancient Authors words wrested to another sense then the scope of his discourse tended and some words left out which served to declare his meaning and other words so palpably mistranslated that the Reader is grossely abused thereby as well as the Author SECT II. THe next testimony is of Haimo upon this Text of Matthew In this place is set downe a rule how to baptize aright scil that teaching should goe before baptisme for hee saith Teach all nations and then hee saith and baptize them for hee that is baptized must bee before instructed that hee first learne to beleeve that which in baptisme hee shall receive for as faith without workes is dead so workes when they are not of faith they are nothing worth This labours of the same fallacy as that of Jeroms testimony à dicto secundum quid ad simpliciter Gerhardi loc com loc de baptismo what the Author spake in reference to Adulti it 's applied as his mind thereby to make baptisme of children besides or against rule when yet the same Author upon the 14. of Romans speaking about the case of their dipping of children hee mentions Cyprian as practising dipping of children in baptisme but once but after saith hee hee being corrected of God hee abounded in more sublime knowledge dipping them thrice Hee looketh then at that way of baptizing Infants as a lesson which Cyprian learned of God Hee then surely thought baptisme it selfe of Infants to bee taught of God and no breach of a rule of God Wee speake not this as allowing Haimo's judgment about Immersion and much lesse that of trina Immersio but to cleare the Author from that intention which the treatise would father upon him or at least by producing the mans writings in one place would make him against hâ—…s owne light to write things contradictory in another Thus is this Author and the Reader with him abused also SECT III. THe next Author cited in this Treatise is Erasmus both upon Matth. 28. and Marke 16. to like purpose When you have taught them if they beleeve c. and repent c. then let them be baptized c. and Proposition 3. those who in times past were to bee baptized were first of all instructed in the mysteries of the Christian faith and were called Catachumeni c. This later one would thinke might have expounded the former that hee intends it of adult Pagans and not of others in Christian Churches such as ours are whose foundations are already laid and established And Proposition 6. It 's no where expressed in the Apostolicall writings that they baptized children Hee doth not say it 's not so much as probable nor is it to bee gathered by consequence that they did so wherefore his testimony is no proofe that the Apostles never did baptize Infants because it 's never mentioned expresly It 's never expresly said that I remember that the Apostles or Evangelists when they Baptized those in Acts 2. and 8. and 16. 18. that they called upon God for a blessing upon the Ordinance but will it follow that they did not sanctifie the Ordinance by Prayer Proposition 7. hee is quoted as a proofe of that Proposition Lib. 4. de ratione concion saying that they are not to bee condemned that doubt whether childrens
of this Treatise in this particular But not to forget what wee noted touching Beza's other testimony on Matth. 3. this place cleareth Beza's intent There speaking of adult persons it may bee affirmed such must bee as the Catechumens of old in point of confession before baptisme and yet the same Author never intend by that assertion to exclude children of such as doe make such confession of faith and repentance from baptisme Beza which holdeth this forth here yet here also refuteth that as errour in Catabaptists to deny Paedobaptisme So that still here is the old fallacie à dicto secundum quid ad simpliciter dictum SECT VI. THe next Author quoted Proposition 1. scil Strigelius upon Acts the 8th as saying that to bee baptized in the name of Jesus is to bee baptized in acknowledging and confessing the name of Jesus I have not and therefore cannot examine the same Albeit this sano sensu hinders not us in that when parents offer their children to baptisme the name of the Lord Jesus is confessed and acknowledged The next testimony is of Luther Proposition 1. whereupon Gen. 48. hee is said to affirme before wee receive the Sacrament of Baptisme and the Lords Supper wee must have faith and in another place as quoting Heb. 2. 4. Rom. 1. 17. Heb. 10. 38. Mark 16. 28. Act. 8. 36. and Rom. 10. 10. to prove that faith is required to baptisme and that without faith the Sacraments profit not but hurt rather the receivers and Proposition 3. hee is quoted againe in his book of the Civill Magistrates as speaking like words and saying wherefore wee hold our selves to the words of Christ He that beleeves and is baptized So that before or else even then present when baptisme is administred there must needs bee faith or else there is contempt of the Divine majesty who offers present grace when as there 's none receive it And Proposition 5. Luther upon giving and receiving the Sacrament Tom. 3. is said to write that in times past it was thus that the Sacrament was administred to none except it were to those which acknowledged and confessed their faith and knew how to receive the same c. and Proposition 7. in his booke of Anabaptisme hee is said to acknowledge that it cannot bee proved by Scripture that childrens baptisme was instituted by Christ or begun by the first Christians after the Apostles for a 1000. yeares since it came to bee in use in the Church and was established by Pope Innocentius This place also doth A. R. quote in his second part of childish baptisme pag. 8. And Proposition 8. Luther is againe quoted as speaking thus in his Postils Young children heare not nor understand the Word of God out of which faith commeth and therefore if so be that commandment of Christ bee followed children ought not to bee baptized Now as for these testimonies of Luther I not having nor being able to procure neare hand the sight of all his Tomes I shall not bee so able to discover the legerdemaine which I verily suspect in citing his testimonies as well as those of some others Yet Luthers meaning in the words mentioned Proposition 1. may well bee expounded by that mentioned Proposition 3. and so according to his judgement rather establishing Paedobaptisme then weakning it for hee holdeth that God at present when they are baptized worketh faith in them and therefore the rather such are to bee baptized Luther in his 4th Tome expounding that Hos 12. 3. Hee tooke his brother by the heele in the wombe scil by a secret instinct and moving of the Spirit as John also by the same moved in the wombe upon Christs approach of which hee giveth this reason because God is not onely the God of growne ones but even of such babes And what wonder is it saith hee that the Spirit is efficacious in Infants in a way we understand not as having also flesh and bones in the wombe as wee have but yet not nourished as wee are And therefore that tenent of Anabaptists is impious and odious who therefore deny baptisme to Infants because they want sense and understanding nor doe they know what is done about them To us they understand not by us they are judged to want sense and understanding but it 's not so to God whose worke they are for God as hee nourisheth them otherwise then hee doth us so doth hee otherwise move their hearts c. Another answer of his see in his second Tome lib. de captiv Babyl title of baptisme Hee saith having spoken before of faith as requisite to the application of the promise opponetur forsan iis c. It may bee to the things before spoken the baptisme of Infants will bee opposed which receive the promise and yet cannot have the faith of baptisme and therefore either faith is not required or Infants baptisme is null Here saith hee I say that which all say that Infants are helped by the faith of others even of them which offer them For as the Word of God is forcible whilst uttered to change the heart of a wicked man which is not lesse deafe and uncapable then any little one so by the Prayer of the Church offering and beleeving even a little one having faith infused is changed cleansed and renewed by him to whom all things are possible For conformation whereof hee brings that example Marke 2. 3 4 5. And in his 7th Tome in his Homily of baptisme hee reckons that erroneous interpretation of Marke 16. 16. is the ground of that dispute against Paedobaptisme because if baptized say some when an Infant and not beleeving then not rightly baptized and so that baptisme is nothing to which saith Luther this is nothing else then if it should bee said if thou beleevest not when thou partakest of the Word or Sacrament it is nothing And so they onely that truely beleeve are truely baptized and others baptized which doe not beleeve they are againe to bee baptized when they doe beleeve scil albeit growne ones when baptized if then hypocrites As for Luthers other two speeches mentioned Proposition 7. and 8. I somewhat wonder if hee should utter them as here expressed that in that booke stiled Lutheri Antilutherana opera fratris Joan. Apobolymaei alias Findeling Minoritae they are not mentioned the scope of the booke being to gather up all Luthers seeming contradictions And hee instanceth in the other de captiv Babyl before mentioned it 's strange that hee misseth those if thus written since it 's evident both by that expression in Luthers greater Catechisme Tom. 3. when hee saith After the same manner doe wee when wee give baptisme to little ones Wee bring the child to the Minister of the Church with this mind and hope that verily it may beleeve But wee doe not baptize it for those things but rather because God hath commandâ—d us so to doe So in that famous story of the concord betweene Luther and the Divines which followed him and
baptizing of persons but that it may appeare that onely such were not then in the assembly albeit the growne persons were those to whom especially such speeches were directed compare this with that of Austin in his 4. Serm. in octav Paschae adneophytos where hee saith To day are celebrated the octaves of Infants their heads are uncovered in token of libertie c. Those children Infants little ones sucklings hanging on their mothers breasts and ignorant of what grace is bestowed as you may perceive because they are called Infants even they also also have their octaves to day And these old men young men striplings all are also Infants By this testimony we may perceive a larger interpretation of the word Neophytos scil any one newly planted into the Church whether Infant youth or other any one who was as new borne Sacramentally in baptisme of what age soever And that at the solemnitie of Easter * Infants sucklings were baptized as well as elder ones even before that change of the limitatiō of Baptism to Easter and and Pentecost Of which Rupertus and Boemius speake baptisme of Infants was not brought in for mortalities sake upon the change of the old use of baptisme at Easter and Pentecost but was in use while yet those limited times stood and long before this corrupt use of limiting the time of baptisme was in force of which more anon Yet also this I deny not but that corrupt addition to Paedobaptisme being in use in those times of asking questions to the child by the sureties c. this answer might suffice that even Infants too were in that number of young plants mentioned which did answer as is there said by their sureties Austin is againe quoted for proofe of the 7th Proposition de baptismo contra Donat. lib. 4. cap. 23. de Genesi ad literam lib. 10. cap. 23. now then let us examine what Austine saith there and how pertinent a proofe it is of the proposition hee calleth it there saith the Treatise a Church custome and thence concludes by the witnesse that Paededobaptisme is an ordinance of man brought into the Church by Teachers since the Apostles time and instituted by councells c. but let us heare Austin speake for himselfe at the first hand and not take a report of his words at second hand lest it prove a slander thus he speaketh in the former place the which the whole Church holdeth as delivered to it that even little Infants are baptized which truely yet cannot beleeve with the heart unto righteousnesse nor confesse with the mouth unto salvation as the Thiefe he meanes the converted Thiefe c. and yet no Christian hath affirmed that they are baptized in vaine and immediatly Chap. 24. addeth And if any seeke divine authoritie in this matter scil of Infants baptisme although that which the whole Church holdeth neither was instituted by councells but alwayes retained wee assuredly beleeve that it was not delivered but by Apostolicall authoritie yet wee may truely conjecture opposing this to all false and uncertaine conjectures of what authoritie or force the Sacrament of Infants baptisme is from circumcision c. where first in the very place quoted hee saith not that it was a tradition of the Church onely or from the Church but was delivered to the Church and least any should imagine that this was delivered to the Church by any corrupt teachers since the Apostles times Austin in the next Chapter within five or six lines of that in the 23. Chapter mentioned giveth his arguments to prove that it could not bee delivered to the Church but by Apostolicall authoritie first in that it was never instituted by any councells secondly because it was ever held by the Churches scil since there was any Church planted by the Apostles and I thinke his arguments are weightie other things which were of such note as this of Paedobaptisme was if innovations either they may bee proved that they came in by such or such councells or authors or it may be proved that there was never any such thing in use before such or such a time which in this case will be hard for any to undertake to make the same good by convincing testimonies or arguments But to returne to our Authors they bring in this testimony to prove that baptisme of Infants was instituted by councells * The first witnesse saith flatly it was not instituted by Councells what forgery is this they make him their witnesse to prove it to bee an ordinance of man the witnesse proveth that it 's of divine authoritie What notable jugling is this Will they never leave this trade Let us examine the other place where Austin saith that it is a Church custome if our Authors speake truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth of the place quoted the words there are as followeth the custome of our mother the Church in baptizing Infants is not to bee despised nor by any meanes is the same to be thought superfluous Yery good then will they say this place is full for us Nay stay Sirs be not too hasty to interrupt the witnesse whilst hee is speaking let him speake all hee hath here to say scil nor were it at all to bee beleeved unlesse it were an Apostolicall tradition c. So you heare Sirs hee tells you it 's such a Church custome as withall it is an Apostolicall tradition and that in the other place quoted is of Divine authority hee makes account which is delivered to the Church by the Apostles As indeed it is unlesse that any thinke that the Apostles in their Apostolicall ministry erred and delivered that to the Church as the mind meaning and intent of Christ which hee never meant And Austin hath the very same words as here in his third Epistle ad Yolusiam Nay lest there should bee any stick in the words traditum ab Apostolis and Apostolicall tradition hee peremptorily affirmeth speaking of the Churches authority in this case of Paedobaptisme lib. 1. de peccat merit remiss cap. 16 proculdubio per Dominum Apostolos traditum that without all question it was delivered by the Lord and his Apostles But our Authors here will not leave Austin thus but they will make him speake for them ere they have done therefore hee is quoted againe in the 28th Epistle to Jerom to confirme their 7th Proposition Content wee will heare any thing hee can say What saith Austin there Nay pag. 32. our Authors are silent and onely quote the place not the words and leave us to finde the sense out as Nebuchanezzar did his dreame and them to interpret it But let mee assure them Austin doth rather confirme the contrary in that Epistle then otherwise clearing both the spirituall ends of Christian parents in hastning with their children to Baptisme and ratifying Cyprians judgement touching the case of Paedobaptisme that hee therein did not frame some new decree but held the most firme beleefe
must the faithfull bee sealed with Baptisme Faith must praecede and goe before Mr. Blackwood inlargeth the testimony in words to like purpose For Baptisme is the seale of faith faith the confession of the Deity For first hee scil that is made godly by grace of whom hee before spake must first beleeve and after bee sealed with baptisme and baptisme is the forgivenesse of the debt of prisoners the death of sinne the regeneraon of the soule How can this saith Mr. Backwood bee affirmed of Infants And againe I will roule in mire walke deceitfully sweare and lie and then when I am full with evills I will cease and receive baptisme which shewes saith Mr. B. at what time persons were wont to bee baptized not in their Infancy but when they were men if the faithfull if one that is made godly by grace bee to bee baptized hee must first professe his faith ergo none other is to bee baptized if brought to baptisme in any other way non sequitur yea but that doth plainly resist the tradition of wholesome baptisme For baptisme is the seale of faith c. saith Basil What doth resist the wholesome tradition of baptism Paedobaptisme without actuall faith expressed Basil intended it not but if one that is made godly by grace being changeable by nature sometimes by negligence fall from grace c. and so hold forth any other thing then is consonant to the doctrine of the Trinitie confessed in Baptisme This is resisting that tradition of Baptisme he doth not intend by tradition of Baptisme a rule that onely actuall confessors of the Trinitie must bee baptized Let him expound himselfe for in his fifth booke against Eunomius pag. 119. speaking of that forme of baptizing in the name of the Father Sonne and Holy Ghost hee calleth that the tradition scil touching baptisme if by his description hee intend the seale of faith scil the Covenant and doctrine of faith it hurts us not if of faith whereby wee beleeve it is an imperfect description of baptisme Baptisme saith hee is the forgivenesse of sinne c. if he meane it that it is so really to all that are baptized then Simon Magus and Ananias had not perished in their sinnes if hee speake it that it is so Sacramentally that may bee affirmed of Infants Baptisme As for Mr. B's exposition that Basils other speech I will lie and sweare and when full of evills c. then receive Baptisme sheweth the time when persons were wont to bee baptized I wonder at his collection doth hee thinke men should sinne to the full till they are even weary and then come to bee baptized is that a fit time when they have served the Devill to the utmost and been his old sworne trustees then to list themselves under Christs command Verily if Mr. B. thinke so Basil did not for hee rather reproveth persons for deferring their Baptisme as if a man might bemire himselfe in sinne as much as hee would and then at last one washing in baptisme would make all clean which hee thus sarcastically derideth Aretius had no such thought of Basils judgement in this case who yet had reason to know Basils mind better then Mr. B. or I. And hee in his Commentary on Luke 18. brings in Basil as using this argument amongst others Infantes capaces sunt 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ergo etiam participes sunt ipsius Baptismi Basil then had other arguments for Paedobaptisme but this was one Infants are capable of salvation sealed in Baptisme therefore are they also partakers of Baptisme SECT IIII. EVsebius testimony lib. 6. hist eccl touching Origens and others being Catechists at Alexandria might have been spared Mr. B. in his Preface useth the same argument none denying but that Adult Pagans or the adult children of persons baptized were to bee so catechised thence the name of Catechumeni in Authors usually so taken But that hindred not but that children also were baptized in Origens time witnesse Origens words in his second Tom. Hom. 14. upon Luke little ones saith hee are baptized unto remission of sinnes c. The Authors stories to confirme the third fourth and fifth Proposition might have been also spared as not concluding what they intend that in those times no Infants were or were to bee baptized Some were adult Pagans which came in upon their owne right onely and were amongst the number of such Catechumeni whose baptisme were prevented by Martyrdome as the woman the Treatise mentioneth Proposition 3. and Evirenitana the Virgin Proposition 5. and sundry others mentioned by Cyprian de baptismo haeret quoted by Mr. B. in his Preface Some adult Pagans which after instruction actually came to receive baptisme of which the treatise mentions examples as Clodoveus king of France with his 3000. Souldiers also those learned men Virinus Marcellinus and Justinus in the time of Decius Quirinus the Roman Captaine under Trajan Hermingildus Anno 700. in the dayes of Tiberius the second Torpes in the dayes of Nero Nemissius in the time of Pope Stephen and of Valeriaâ—… and Gallienus Emperours and Basilica in Gallienus his time Mauro Honoratus Ragatianus Hilarius Victorinus Apronianus Tobia King of Persia Claudius the Roman and his wife in Pope Gayus his time they might have more instances too but these are more then enough unlesse pertinent proving what is not denied that adult Pagâ—ns were first catechised ere baptized But what then ergo none else but such baptized Non sequitur If we were now to deale with Indians in such sort wee would take the like course yet maintaine Pedobaptisme to bee an ordinance of Christ Cyprian which mentions that of the Catechumeni yet who more strong for Paedobaptisme then hee Austin who l. 8. Confessionum writeth of Victorinus his open confession before his baptisme yet who pleads more for Paedobaptisme then hee some were children of Christian parents which yet were not baptized till growne as Ierome Ambrose Austin Gregory Nazianzen added by Hen. Den Constantine the Emperour Theodosius the Emperour Luâ—gerus Pancratius Pontius Nazarius Tecla and Erasma Tusca a certaine brother mentioned in Eusebius And what of all this ergo children of inchurched Parents ought to stay unto adult yeers before they bee baptized because these did so Non sequitur A facto ad jus non valet consequentia Nay then they should stay till neere their death because Constantine Theodosius and others did so which to our Authors would bee a non sequitur Yea or at least wee must stay till 30. yeeres old because Jerom Austin and others did so or what is the sequell hereof Is it this ergo none other which came of Christian Parents were in those times baptized till grown up to full yeers of discretion I wholly deny it if the Authors had brought as many more instances unlesse they could say and prove it and so it was with all other children of Christian Parents their induction is not regular It is evident that the baptisme of
that it came to bee used by the Fathers that lived 300. yeers after the Apostles as much saith A. R. in his Childish baptisme But say Cassander spoke as Proposition 4. hee is said to doe yet that proveth not that children of the faithfull were commonly first instructed ere baptized because some beleevers deferred baptisme or Tertullian and Gregory counselled it much lesse that this was well done according to Christs mind for wee have seene upon what unsound principles they did it and as for the Councell of Tertullian and Gregory it hath been before weighed of what force herein As for the other speech of Cassander that Pedobaptisme came in use by the Fathers 300. yeeres after the Apostles time it maketh mee stand and wonder at the impudent forehead of errour and yet I might wonder the lesse since it 's but just with God that they which hold lies should also tell lies I read Cassander with as much heed as I could to finde out whether there might bee any colour of ground of such a speech of him but could not finde out any like it unlesse that which hee saith bee this way wrested scil that the Apostles in the beginning by the command and charge of the Lord set up their worke and did every where constitute Churches gathered of the Gentiles to the Communion of the Gospel growne ones which consented to the Apostles doctrine after confession of the faith were without any distinction of times or places knit unto the Church of Christ by the Sacrament of Baptisme administred by the Disciples of the Apostles But saith also in the next words although even at that time it is to be beleeved that Infants also and especially sickly ones were offered to bee consecrated by the baptisme of Christ but clearely to evince the falsehood of that speech before cited to confirme Proposition 7. the very title of this booke contradicteth the same George Cassander of Infants baptisme The testimonies of the Ancient Ecclesiasticall writers which flourished within the 300. yeeres from the times of the Apostles that is from the departure of John the Apostles being more then the hundreth yeere from the birth of Christ And according to this his worke that hee propoundeth hee bringeth in very notable testimonies of the antients both Latine and Greeke that lived in that space for the proofe of Paedobaptisme that any that had not sâ—ene authorities before might have been thence well furnished for this purpose and after the testimonies produced Cassander closeth thus These are the testimonies of ancient Fathers which wee suppose are sufficient for the deciding of this controversie of childrens baptisme which hath been raised up by certaine wretched persons for in as much as all these whose testimonies wee have produced in a continued series from the Apostles were Orthodox teachers and guiders of Churches of Christ at severall times and places there is no question but that this Tenent being held forth by them all severally as with one mouth it was the very doctrine of the whole Church which the Church had received from the Apostles and transmitted the same to those in after times and upon the speech of Austin l. 4. contra Donat. c. 13 14. addeth To this Apostolicall doctrine of baptisme of Infants all the Apostolique Churches planted by the Apostles throughout the whole world they doe give testimony c. Who seeth not now the grosnesse of this falshood in fathering that upon Cassander the very contrary whereunto is his businesse there to evince SECT V. Zwinglius THe next testimony is of as grand an adversarie to Anabaptisme as any and that is Zuinglius who is quoted to confirme the 4th and 6th Proposition hee is said to affirme that there is no plaine word in Scripture whereby childrens baptisme is commanded his meaning is no more then thus that it is not in so many words said you shall baptize children as neither the first day of the weeke shall bee to you the Lords day or Christian Sabbath c. but the principall place and for the other two quotations they are to no purpose is that mentioned in his booke of Articles Act. 18. whose words because the treatise is so often tripping wee shall set downe verbatim who there speaking of Confirmation saith although I am not ignorant as it may bee gathered out of the Ancients that of old time Infants were baptized this is rendred otherwise in the Treatise and yet not so common as now it is but the children were alwayes instructed openly and when their faith had made impression upon their hearts and they confessed with their mouthes then they were admitted to baptisme this custome of teaching I wish were used and recalled now namely that baptisme being given to Infants they may bee afterwards taught when they come to age as they are capable of instruction from the Word of God this the Treatise leaveth out Zwinglius his judgment was that the maine in the childs right to baptisme was the Parents Covenant estate whence the child being federally holy which else had been uncleane had its maine title to baptisme so that in case both parents were visibly Pagans or Idolatrous c. they were not to bee baptized when yet in his time many such were baptized And thus I take it is that which hee intendeth that since in Ancient times albeit sometimes every little children of Infidels as may appeare were baptized yet not so commonly as now such like children are baptized promiscuously hand over head for which some as it appeares by Beza upon 1 Cor. 7. 14. have pleaded albeit hee counts it their errour ibid. and since in those times Catechising as it appeareth of children was too little in use Zwinglius maketh that use of the Catechising of children of old both of persons joyned to the Church which were capable of instruction when first their parents joyned in Church estate before their baptisme which was one sort of children so catechised and of the exposititious children of Pagans also those children of their Pagan captive or slaves which were another sort of children catechized before baptisme Zwinglius wisheth that albeit it were not in his time used as neither before baptisme to such like children so neither after the baptisme neither of such children nor of others of visible beleevers which ought in Infancy to bee baptized yet now catechizing of children might bee in more use Assuredly Zwinglius was strong for this that baptisme of Infants was no practise taken up after the Apostles but by the Apostles no bare old custome taken upon humane grounds but his judgement was directly crosse to the Proposition hee is brought as a witnesse to that Christ did not institute Infants baptisme c. witnesse his many arguments from Scripture for it and his judicious answers to the evasions of the adversaries to that truth And as much may bee said of Oecolampadius his companion who is cited to confirme the 6th Proposition whereas in the first
all without regard to their parents Church or covenant estate yet was it an old errour albeit not so old so farre as I can finde But if it should bee taken in reference to children visibly in the covenant I wonder if hee should speake any such thing in that sense having so solemnely subscribed to the contrary in that famous meeting at Wittenberg formerly mentioned SECT III. CAlvin that grand opposer and stigmatizer of Anabaptists is quoted to confirme Proposition 6. and 8th lib. 4. Instit cap. 16. Hee confesseth that it is no where expresly mentioned by the Evangelists that any ones child was by the Apostles hands baptized Now Calvin having said Sect. 8. that there is none which seeth not that Paedobaptisme is not of humane devising which is established by such Scripture approbation brings it in by way of objection that it will bee said it 's no where expresly mentioned where the Apostles baptized children which giving albeit not granting hee saith Bee it so c. yet because neither were they excluded as oft as mention is made of baptized families who unlesse hee bee mad will thence reason that they were not baptized they may as well reason on that ground that women were forbid to receive the Supper when notwithstanding in the Apostles time they were thereunto admitted Yet our Authors are so madde to bring this very place to prove their 6th Proposit that the Apostles never baptized any Infants And upon Matthew Calvin is said to say Christ hath no where commanded to baptize Infants But on what place in Matthew Calvin saith so is not said but this I can say that in the most likely places where that Argument of baptisme is handled Calvin no where speaketh in these words here expressed as farre as I can finde Dathenus in his Colloquie is the next witnesse confessing It 's no where plainely in such words written that Christian children shall in the New Testament bee baptized and yet wee have no expresse commandement of it scil as before in so many words You shall baptize children and that there is no evident or expresse example scil in so many words recorded that the Apostles baptized such or such children and what then therefore Christ never instituted the Apostles never practised Paedobaptism according to the 6th Proposition Non sequitur Here then are three more witnesses abused CHAP. VIII SECT I. ORigen calleth childrens baptisme a ceremony and tradition of the Church Hom. 8. in Levit. and in Rom. 6. lib. 5. What doth Origen say so in both places that is false In the former hee saith baptisme is given to Infants according to the first observation of the Church But if any boggle at that in the other place quoted hee telleth you the groundworke of that observation of the Church For this also the Church hath received a tradition from the Apostles to give baptisme even to Infants If it were an Apostolicall tradition then not a bare Church tradition if the Church received it from the Apostles then was not the Church the Author of it but the Apostles rather Yea but others perceiving the force of the Testimony of so early an author in the matter of the practise of Paedobaptisme casheere it as a spurious testimony of some other rather then of Origen Some stumble at the word Tradition when yet it 's no other then what Basil speaking as before quoted of the forme of Baptisme calleth it a tradition and in his 73. Epistle speaking of the Spirit the comforter as placed in equality with the Father and Sonne to bee a thing which they had received as delivered to them So Justin Martyr another author formerly cited maketh the forme of that manner of worship mentioned in his second Apology to bee that which they had received from the Apostles So Gregory Nazianzen another quoted Author here in his first oration against Julian the Apostate hee inveigheth against that abusive imitation of the Church traditions the manner of administration of the ordinances for Pagan uses Clemens Alexandrinus a speciall Author quoted by Mr. B. yet hee counteth it a metamorphosing of a Christian to kick against the tradition of the Church and warpe to opinions of humane heresies lib. 7. Stromaton Hee meanes not bare Popish superstitious Church customes but such as are opposite to meere humane conceits and devices yet calleth them Church traditions Yea but those corrupt exploded Canons are yet called the Apostles Canons They are so by Papists not so by Protestants Such all those orthodox Divines may explode them yet maintaine this as an Apostolicall tradition which is genuine and divine Yea but it may bee said that Erasmus noteth in his Praecognita unto the Booke of Leviticus that hee which readeth this worke scil the Homilies upon Levit. and the Enarration upon the Epistle to the Romans hee is uncertaine whether hee reade Origen or Ruffinus And the peroration of the Translator annexed to the commentary of the Romans saith that hee added something defective whereof yet hee had the fundamentalls from the Author and abbreviated other things too largely expressed in the Commentaries upon the Romans Leviticus Genesis Exodus Joshua and Judges Suppose these additions of things defective by Ruffinus yet hee saith hee had the foundations of what hee added from Origen So that Origen gave such foundations of Paedobaptisme if Ruffinus added that as gave occasion to it but why is not this particular mentioned as Origens rather then Ruffinus his notion Because Origen was somewhat Pelagianisticall and this place touching baptizing Infants in respect of originall sinne was too crosse to Pelagianisme This is new to mee that Origen held that errour albeit hee were not free of others but I have read more said of Ruffinus that way scil that hee was the forerunner of Pelagius If on that ground it was not Origens much lesse was it Ruffinus his owne dictate And Erasmus denieth not but all there mentioned must bee fathered upon either Origen or Ruffinus But to put an end to this dispute the Homilies on Luke are not questioned to bee Origens neither doth Erasmus nor the Translator in the peroration mentioned acknowledge either additions or detractions in setting forth of those Homilies on Luke Yet there Origen affirmeth to the substantiallâ— mentioned in that place of the Romans for in his 2. Tom. Hom. lib. 14. on Luke hee saith parvuli baptizantur c. and little children are baptized unto remission of sins of what sins or when did they sinne or how can there bee any occasion of washing in little children unlesse in that sense of which wee spake a little before None is cleane from blemish no though but a day old in the earth and because the defilement of our Nativitie is put away by baptisme therefore even little children are baptized Nor doe I finde in our Criticks or the Authors quoted by them that these Homilies of Origens on the Romans are doubted of to bee genuine Albeit both Perkins and Rivet doe
that their Infants they carried in their armes or led in their hands lost that which they had gotten in the beginning of their birth when the day of judgement comes they will say wee have done nothing neither did we leaving the meate and the cup of the Lord hasten willingly to profane defilements c. Thus farre Mr. B. out of Cyprian Then it seemes in Cyprians time Infants were partakers of the Lords Supper as well as of baptism that birth wherein they had first got that which at the heathen Altars they lost scil that good they got by it which Sacramentally was their birth that is new birth for they rather added to what they got in their naturall birth scil sinne then lost at these sacrifices If in this Epistle Infants baptisme bee thus intimated why saith Mr. B. a little before as a ground of his challenge of his Epistle to Fidus that he findes it mentioned but once he found what was in this Epistle de Lapsis too why else mentioneth hee the same and if both were the errours of Cyprian and the rest then Cyprians judgement was for it surely albeit it is supposed hee erred in it and why then is Baronius brought in to prove it was not Cyprians judgement when Mr. B. hath assayed to prove it that it was his errour was that the errour of Cyprians judgement the which he never held but yet let us heare what Baronius can say to it Now I confesse Baronius hath this passage verbatim which Mr. B. quoteth onely he hath not Mr. B's Parenthesis that it was spoken of Infants Baptisme the Page is a little mistaken it is not Page 398. but Page 415. but Mr. B. is quite out in this application of that passage which is mentioned in reference onely to the controversie about the baptisme of heretiques which hee wresteth grossely as if intended of the matter of baptisme of Infants and if Mr. B. had but read Baronius a few lines before hee would never thus have in print falsified an authors Testimony Baronius discoursing about Traditions brings in Pope Stephen using that weapon in the case of baptisme of heretiques against Cyprian who erred therein scil that it being by tradition received that the Baptisme of heretiques might in case bee valid nothing should bee acted contrary to that tradition as it was by Cyprian and the other Bishops with him nihil innovetur nisi quod traditum est agatur scil saith Baronius quoting Stephens words and after subjoyneth If Cyprian had been sure that scil that doctrine mentioned about the validitie of Heretiques baptisme had been an Apostolicall tradition as Stephen urgeth it to bee and not contrary to holy Scriptures according to sound and sincere opinion without doubt saith Baronius hee had rested in it and for this end hee quoteth Cyprians 74. Epistle ad Pompeium contra Epist Steph. as opening the case intended where Cyprian himselfe writeth that fragment of Stephens Epistle nihil innovetur c. as urged against him in the businesse of the baptisme of Heretiques and Euseb lib. 7. eccles cap. 2. and 3. speakes of the case betwixt Stephen and Cyprian out of Letters of Dionysius Alexandrinus about it citing it as the great question then moved scil whether such as returned from any heresie should bee purged by baptisme In that the custome was to receive such onely by prayer and imposition of hands And addes cap. 3. that Cyprian hee held that such as returned from errour were no other way to bee purged then by baptisme But Stephen mentioned that nothing in this case should be innovated besides that old tradition scil of receiving such againe onely by prayer and imposition of hands where Mr. B. comparing the place in Baronius with this in Eusebius may fully satisfie himselfe in his printed errours But to come yet closer verily Stephen Bishop of Rome that was so inraged against Cyprian for that he brought in that innovation of rebaptizing persons that were baptized by heretiques that hee writ hee would have no Church communion with such as did rebaptise all sorts of heretiques as you may perceive by the Epistle of Dionysius to Xistus Stephens successour Euseb l. 7. c. 3 4 5. hee would have expressed as much violence against Cyprian and his Bishops with him for that which they determined in the case of Paedobaptisme if that had beene accounted an innovation in those times or contrary to Apostolicall tradition as hee thought the other was or that as the treatise would assay to prove from Ruffinus upon the Symboll that the custome at Rome was to baptize such as made confession of the articles of the Symbol and so not Infants no assuredly it was otherwise in Rome then they baptized Infants as well as others else Cyprian had heard of it to purpose from this Roman bishop and besides the story of Lucius and Elcutherius long before Stephens time sheweth what was the practise at Rome surely how ever some snapper at Origens Testimony who was about 20. yeeres before this for saying Infants baptisme was delivered to the Church from the Apostles yet if it had beene thought otherwise in Cyprians time within a while after other Bishops would have withdrawne the right hand of fellowship for innovating contrary or besides Apostolicall Tradition But to returne to Mr. B. if hee scruple Cyprians Epistle to Fidus hee may I thinke satisfie himselfe if hee consider Jeroms testimony for it in the forequoted place Also that testimony for it from the fifth Councell of Carthage viz. Chap. 6. citeth this Epistle of Cyprian ad Fidum so doth Austin often not onely in his 28th Epistle to Jerome but Sermon the 14. upon the words of the Apostle so in his first booke de pecc merit remiss and in his third booke also c. 5. hee citeth that Epistle against Pelagius verily if there had been any such question imagined in those dayes of the spuriousnesse of that Epistle Pelagius and his followers would soon have blunted that weapon as oft as sharpned against them But some will say here is just the proverb fulfilled Aske my fellow whether I am a theefe Austin was as rotten and corrupt in his principles about Paedobaptisme as was Cyprian Cyprian looked at them as incurring eternall judgement that were not baptized so did hee oft urging Iohn 3. 5. 6. 53. hee thought all were to bee baptized whether of beleevers or otherwise so did Austin hee thought Infants had faith and that because of originall sinne conveyed therefore to bee baptized according to that testimony of Origens Propter hoc c. For this even because of originall sinne they must be baptized c. To this I answer as before admit Austin held out that upon Corrupt grounds so did he hold the administration of Baptisme to adult persons upon grounds of necessitie thereof to salvation and purging away sin yea the Lords Supper too as so necessary to growne persons John 6. 53. also yet none will make these ordinances