Examination of Marshalls Sermon About Infant Baptism, Part 3 (4 of 4)
§. 13. That Mat. 28. is not a Command to baptize Infants, but contrary to it.ANother you shall finde, Mat. 28. where our Saviour bids them goe and teach all Nations, baptizing them in the Name of the Father, of the Sonne, and of the Holy Ghost. Where you have two things; first, what they were to doe. Secondly, to whom they were to doe it; they were to preach and teach all things which he had Commanded them; that is, they were to Preach the whole Gospel, Mark. 16.15. The whole Covenant of grace, containing all the promises, whereof this is one, viz. That God will be the God of Believers, and of their seed; that the seed of Believers are taken into Covenant with their Parents; this is a part of the Gospel preached to Abraham. The Gospel which was preached to Abraham, is delivered Galat. 3.8, 9. And the Scripture foreseeing that God would justifie the heathen through faith, preached before the Gospel to Abraham▪ saying, In thee shall all Nations be blessed; so then they which be of faith, are blessed with faithfull Abraham. And Rom. 1.16, 17. I am not ashamed of the Gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God to salvation, to every one that beleeveth, to the Jew first, and also to the Greeke. For therein is the righteousnesse of God revealed from faith to faith; as it is written, the just shall live by faith. The like may be proved out of Rom. 10. and elsewhere; but it is no wrong to say it, that it is a new Gospel, to affirme, that this is one of the Promises of the Covenant of grace, that God will be the God of Believers, and of their seed; that the seed of Believers are taken into Covenant with their Parents. I cannot derive it's pedegree higher then Zuinglius. But you goe on: And they were to baptize them, that is, to administer Baptisme as a seale of the Covenant to all who received the Covenant; this is a dark Paraphrase, you expresse it clearer, pag. 35. Expresse Command is there, that they should teach the heathen, and the Jewes, and make them Disciples, and then baptize them. If your meaning be the same in both places, I am content you should Comment on your own words; you goe on; Secondly, Wee have the persons to whom they were to do this, all Nations, whereas before the Church was tyed to one Nation, one Nation onelyonly were Disciples, now their Commission was extended to make all Nations Disciples, every Nation which should receive the faith, should be to him now as the peculiar Nation of the Jewes had been in time past. In a word, Nations here are opposed to the one Nation before. I grant that Nations are opposed to one Nation, and that th… Commission was extended to all Nations; which you expresse well, pag. 44. Whereas before they were to goe to the lost sheepe of the house of Is…ael, now they were to goe unto all the world. But what sense those wo…ds may carry, Every Nation which should receive the faith, should be to him now as the peculiar Nation of the Jewes had been in time past is doubtfull. For either it may have this sense, Every Nation that receives the faith, that is, Believers of every Nation, shall be to mee a peculiar people, as the Jewes were, in the sense that Peter speaks, 1 Pet. 2.9. and so the sense is good; or thus, When a Nation shall receive the faith, that is, a great or eminent part, the Governours and chief Cities, & representative body, shall receive the faith, that Nation shall in like manner have all their little ones capable of Baptisme, and counted visible members of the Church, as the posteritie of the Jewes were in the time of that Church administration. This I guesse is the businesse that is now upon the anvill, by observing …undry passages in latter Writers, with whom your Sermon agrees, as if it came out of the same forge. Mr Blake, pag. 20. hath these words. In the same sense and latitude, as Nation was taken in respect of the Covenant of God, when the Covenant and Covenant-initiating-Sacrament was restrained to that one onelyonly Nation, where their Commission was first limited: in the same sense it is to be taken (unlesse the Text expresse the contrary) now this Commission is enlarged. This cannot be denied of any that will have the Apostles able to know Christs meaning by his words in this enlarged Commission. But Nation then, as is confessed, did comprehend all in the Nation in respect of the Covenant, and nothing is expressed in the Text to the contrary, therefore it is to be taken in that latitude, to comprehend Infants. Mr Rutherfurd in his peaceable and temperate plea, Ch. 12. Concl. 1. Arg. 7. hath these words; Seeing God hath chosen the race and nation of the Gentiles, and is become a God to us, and to our seede; the seede must be holy, with holinesse of the chosen Nation, and holinesse externall of the Covenant, notwithst… …ing the father and mother were as wicked, as the Jewes who slew the Lord of glory. And indeed those Paedobaptists are forced to say so, who justifie the practise of baptizing foundlings, infants of Papists, excommunicate persons, Apostates, if they be borne within their Parish; thereby directly crossing their own tenent, That this is the priviledge of a believer from the Covenant of grace, I will be the God of a believer, and his seed; And the Apostles words, 1 Cor. 7.14. according to their own exposition, which is, that the children whereof one of the parents is not sanctified by the faith of the other, are federally uncleane; nor considering that this practise of baptizing all in the Parish, arose not from any conceit of the federall holinesse of a Nation, but from the conceit of Cyprian, with his 66 Bishops, that the grace of God is to be denied to none that are borne of men: upon which ground, and the necessitie of baptisme to save a childe from perishing, as of old, so still among the common people, and officiating Priests, children are baptized, without any relation to Covenant-holinesse, particular or nationall. But I leave this to the Independents to agitate, who have in this point the advantage; and returne to the Text, Mat. 28.19. Concerning which the question is, what foreign, or [them] refers to in our Saviours words: whether all Nations must be the substantive to it, without any other circumscription, or the word, foreign, men and women, as the Author of infants baptizing proved lawfull by Scriptures, or foreign, Disciples, included in the verbe foreign, which may be translated, make Disciples. That Author denies not , but that the verbe may signifie to make Disciples, yet by the subject matter, which it is here taken and used to expresse, it must be taken for to teach, and not to make Disciples: because to m…ke Disciples was not in the power of the Apostles (upon whom the command lay) it being the peculiar of God to frame the heart to submit unto and embrace the Apostles teaching, and to cast them into the forme and obedience of it, and so to make them Disciples: but to teach and thereby endeavour (as much as in them lay) to make Disciples, was in their power and duty: and is all the whole meaning of the word here, therefore properly, and rightly rendred teach, and not, make Disciples. But that the word doth not signifie onelyonly simply, to teach, whether with effect or without, but to teach till they become disciples, is plain by the use of it elsewhere, in all the places it is used in the new Testament. Mat. 13.52. foreign, Every Scribe that is so taught, as to become a disciple. Mat. 27.57. foreign, rendere… …y Beza, Vulgar, ours, &c. who also himselfe was Jesus disciple: where the noune foreign, disciple, is included in the verbe, and expressed by John, Cha. 19.38. foreign, being a disciple of Jesus. Act. 14.21. foreign, which though our translatours render, and had taught many; yet Beza renders it, Discipulos multos adjunxissent, and had joyned many disciples. So plaine it is that the noune foreign, disciples, is included in the verbe foreign, to make disciples; and that it is put not for simple teaching that is without effect; for then the Apostle might be said foreign, when he did preach to the Athenians who mocked, Acts 17.32. and the unbelieving Jewes, Acts 28.24. for they were taught: but for teaching, cum effectu, with effect, so as that the persons taught became disciples. And Mr Edwards lately at Christ-Church averred in all the Dictionaries he could peruse, it did not signifie simply to teach, coming from foreign, to learne, he might have added coming from the noune foreign, a disciple. As for the objection; Christ should command them that which was not in their power. I answer, it was in their power, and their dutie not onelyonly to teach simply, so as to propound things to them, but also so as to bring them to be disciples, which they could doe, not as principall, sole, supreme agents, but as workers with God, foreign, as it is 2 Cor. 6.1. subordinate instruments to him they could, in which respect they are called wise Master-builders, that beget men by the Gospel, save and convert them, espouse them to Christ; &c. Even as the knife cuts, though not without the hand; as an Ambassadour makes peace, though not without his Prince. And this might be rightly charged to them, as it was charged to Peter, to feed Christs sheepe, and to strengthen his brethren, though he could doe neither of himselfe. But that Author hath another exception, that foreign, disciples, is of the m…sculine gender, and if that were the substantive to foreign, them, then women should be excluded. To this I answer, that there be hundreds of places, where the masculine comprehends both sexes, as Joh. 3.16. foreign, every one that believeth, though in the masculine gender, yet comprehends women. Rom. 5.12. foreign, upon all men, comprehends women too: and women are comprehended under foreign disciples, Acts 1.15. &c. Besides that Author did not consider it seems, that if foreign, men, were the substantive, and foreign, them, in the masculine gender were the adjective, women if this reason were worth any thing, should be excluded however. And for that which he saith, "that some say foreign, them, cannot agree with foreign, nations, because of a different gender, though it may be a reason, an… Piscator made use of it thus farre, foreign syntaxi refertur ad sensum, non ad vocem: nam praecessit foreign, them, in the syntaxis is referred to the sense, not to the word, for nations went before: yet I fasten nothing on it, sith it cannot be denied that Enallage, Heterosis, or change of gender is frequent. duplicate page duplicate page But for my part, I conceive that the sense includes both, neither separately, both conjunctly, and that foreign, them, referres both to foreign, disciples, and to foreign, nations; thus, foreign, disciples of all Nations, and must be thus expounded, make disciples of all nations, baptizing them, that is, the disciples of all nations. And this is agreeable to your Paraphrase, pag. 35. teach the heathen, and Jewes, and make them disciples, and then baptize them; and pag. 38. make all nations disciples. And Beza annot. in Matth. 28.19. foreign, id est, discipulos mihi f…cite ex omnibus gentibus, make disciples to me of all nations: and a little after▪ foreign, ergo hoc loco, non neutropassivè pro dis…ipulum esse, sed activè accipitur quasi in Conjugatione Hiphil, ac si dicas discipulare, to teach therefore in this place is not taken neuterpassively for to be a disciple, but actively, as if it were in the Conjugation Hiphil, as if you should say, to make to learne. Some doe make the substantive credentes, believers, and that parallel place, Mark. 16.16. may leade us to it; but disciples and believers being all one in this matter, it comes to one passe. I rather, as I said, make the substantive foreign, disciples out of all nations, for these reasons; first, because it suits with the expression, Joh. 4.1. foreign he maketh more disciples and baptizeth; where making disciples is put before baptizing, and baptizing of Christ by his Apostles is of disciples: they that were baptized by John, or Christs disciples, are every where called the disciples of John, and of Jesus, and the doctrine they taught them, their baptisme, Acts 19.1, 2. and elsewhere. Secondly, because usually hearing and believing are put before baptizing, Acts 2.41. Acts 8.12.38. Acts 10.48. Acts 16.15.33. and so were called disciples, which shews that the Apostles so construed the precept of Christ to baptize disciples. Besides, if [them] were referr…d to nations or men, without due circumscription of disciples or believers, as a limitation, directing whom to baptize, it would follow, that either they might baptize any man or nation in the world, whether taught or not, and if so, then the Spaniards practise of forcing droves of Indians to baptisme, and that practise of baptizing a Kingdome upon the Kings conversion and command, without sufficient precedent teaching, were justifiabl…; or else they must baptize none till all men or all nations were to be baptized together.
There hath been vented lately, in a little p…per, a very absurd one, though it be licensed, entituled, A Declaration against the Anabaptists; in which the Author saith, that making Disciples, is to be done by baptizing them; which if true, then the Apostles needed to have done nothing else, in observance of that command of discipling, but to baptize, and it would serve for a good plea for non-preaching, or meer officiating Priests: whereas in Mark. 16.15. which I think will not be denied to be parallel to this, Matth. 28.19. Disciple all nations, is preach the Gospel to every creature. But this conceit is so absurd, that I presume none that hath any wit will entertain it, though the paper be licensed. That which I have hitherto discoursed, tends to this, to prove, that when Christ saith, Teach all nations, and baptize them, his meaning is, by preaching the Gospel to all nations, make them Disciples, and baptize those that become Disciples of all nations. Now, concerning the Position, which after Mr. Blake and Mr. Rutherfurd, you seem to imbrace, concerning the federall or externall holinesse of a believing or chosen nation, giving right to the Infants of that nation to be baptized. Give me leave to argue a little: First, if Infants may be baptized, because they are born in a chosen nation, or a believing nation, then there may be a rule whereby we may know when a nation may be called a believing, or chosen nation, when not; otherwise we should not know when to make use of this title to baptisme, when not: and it were absurd to conceive God should give us a rule, and no direction how to make use of it. But no rule can be assigned whereby to know when a nation is a believing, chosen, or discipled nation, giving right to baptize Infants of that nation, when not; Ergo, If it be said they may be known, in that they are descended from such a Believer as Abraham. I reply, then God would have lef… us a note to know such a nation by, as he did Abrahams posterity by Circumcision: But there is no such note, nor any such nation marked out; this were indeed contray to the appointment of admitting all nations. If it be said when the king of a countrey is a Believer, this is no rule; for it may be he may be a Believer, and all the rest unbelievers, and then the practice of baptizing Infidels afore they are instructed at the command of Princes: As when Charles the great fo…ced the Saxons to be Christians, were to be justified. If it be said, the nation is a believing nation, when the representative body believes, and so the children of that people may be baptized: I answer, the representative body may be Believers, and the greatest part Infidels, Papists, &c. these Infidels children must then be baptized; yea, the Infidels themselves, by vertue of an implicit faith in their governours faith; for they are a part of the nation. And therefore if Mr. Blakes Argument be good: The Infants of any nation make up a part of the nation, and the nation where they came was to be discipled; and therefore the Infants to be baptized: the same reason holds for Infidels of age, for they are a part of the nation. If it be said, it is a believing nation, when the greatest part are Believers, how shall that be known? How shall a minister do when he cannot come to the knowledge of it? must he stay till they be counted by poll, as the Sheriffes do at the election of Knights of the Shire, and upon Certificate that the major part is believing, then baptize? Why did not the Apostles so, nor any other Ministers to this day? How ill would it fare with some poor Christians, who are but a handfull in respect of the multitude of unbelievers of their own nation, as in the Primitive times, when Princes and States were adversaries to Christianity? If it be said, when all adulti of ripe yeers are believers, then such a right is asserted as never was, nor perhaps ever will be, except when all Israel shall be saved; and so no Infants shall be baptized on this ground. Secondly, but, if it could be resolved what number or sort of Believers make a believing nation, giving title to Infant-baptisme, yet there would be uncertainty concerning the kind of believing, which might denominate a believing or chosen nation, having federall or externall holinesse, such as may create title to the baptisme of Infants of that nation. There are some nations that are reckoned among Believers, which yet are mis-believers, as Heretiques, for instance, the nation of the Goths, who were Arians; or grosly Idolatrous, as the Spaniards, shall they give title to their children to baptisme, when without repentance they cannot be deemed capable of communion in the body of Christ? Thirdly, if Infants of wicked parents be capable of baptisme, because born in a believing nation, then this priviledge agrees to them, either in respect of their descent, or the place of their birth, or both. If in respect of their descent, then either their descent within mans memory, or their descent beyond all the memory of man. If of their descent within memory and knowledge, then Foundlings have no title hereby to Baptisme, of whose parentage there is no knowledge, neerer or remoter, who are neverthelesse baptized: If of that beyond memory, it must be upon such a ground, as is common to all Infants in the world, which are descended from some Believer, in some precedent generation; or else such a rule must be set down, as hath no certainty in it, by which to administer that Ordinance: If from the place of birth only, because the Church of God is there, then children of Turks or Jews are to be baptized, because born in London: If by reason of both, when they concurre, and not otherwise, then the children of an English Embassador at Constantinople, or Agent at Aleppo, supposed to be wicked, as the Jews that persecuted Christ, loose this priviledge, because born out of England: If there be any other nationall respect upon which this supposed priviledge may be fastened, it either hath these or the like inconveniences consequent on it. Fourthly, if there be such a federall holinesse of a chosen, discipled, or believing nation as may make the Infants of that nation, though their parents be openly wicked, capable of Baptisme; this right must come from some grant or charter or other. We find indeed, God would have the posterity of Abraham, and all the males in that nation circumcised: So God appointed it, what ever their parents were, for reasons before rehearsed; but there is no such grant, promise, covenant, or appointment now to any nation of Gentiles, as was then to the posterity of Abraham, because the reasons now cease, the Messiah is now come, and the prerogatives are now personall, not nationall, not one nation hath priviledge above another as a nation, but personall, as a Believer in any nation.As for the Text which Mr. Rutherfurd alledgeth, to wit, Rom. 11.16. it hath been examined before, and shewed out of the Text, that holinesse of the branches there, is meant personall by faith; and the objection against it which he makes, to wit, that then the children of a believing parent should be all sanctified, whereas the contrary is manifest: as in Absolom, the son of David, proceeds upon this mistake, that by the root and first fruit, are meant any Ancestor; whereas it is meant of Abraham the Father of the faithfull, as Deodate in his Annot. on Rom. 11.16. or, at most, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, in whose names all the elect are comprehended, when God calls himself The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, as our Saviour intimates, Luke 20.37, 38. Mat. 22.32. Mar. 12.26, 27.And for that which he saith, that the Jews in Pauls time were holy by covenant, howbeit for the present, the sons were branches broken off for unbeliefe, if it be meant of the Jews broken off through unbelief, in respect of their present state, they were not holy by covenant. Only thus f…r the Jewish nation in Pauls time is said to be holy, either in respect of the remnant, according to the election of Grace, mentioned, vers. 5. of which he was one; or in respect of the posterity that should afterwards be called according to the promise of God to Abraham, in which sense they were federally holy; yet this did neither give right for the baptizing of children of unbelieving Jewes in Pauls time, nor now. And for that which he saith that God hath chosen the race and nation of the Gentiles, it is not right: For God hath not chosen simply the race and nation of the Gentiles, but a people to himself, out of the race and nation of the Gentiles, as it is said, Rev. 5.7. Thou hast redeemed us to God by thy blood, out of every kindred, and tongue, and nation. As for Mr. Blakes Argument, because it falls in with your reason, I shall answer them together in that which followes. You say; Now we know, that when that one nation of the Jews were made Disciples, and circumcised, their Infants were made disciples (made to belong to Gods School) and circumcised with them, when that nation was made disciples in Abrahams loynes, and circumcised their seed also was the same, when that nation was taken out of Egypt, and actually made Disciples, their children were also with them. This is your first Argument to prove a command by cleare consequence, from Mat. 28.19. for baptizing Infants. Now the strength of it lies in these suppositions, First, that Christ did bid them baptize all nations, after the manner that the Jews did circumcise one nation. And Mr. Blake doth conceit this so strongly, that he saith, this cannot be denyed of an…, that will have the Apostles to be able to know Christs meaning by his words in this enlarged Commission. Secondly , that the nation of the Jews were discipled when they were circumcised. I do not impute it to Mr. Blake through defect of ability to understand, but through the strong hold which these points have in his minde, that Baptisme succeeds Circumcision, in the place, roome, and use of it, and the covenant of the Gospel is all one, with the covenant made to Abraham, that he imagines there should be such an allusion to circumcision, as that the Disciples must understand Christs meaning, whom to baptize from the Precept of circumcision, Gen. 17. but in mine apprehension, there is no colour for such a conceit. 'Tis true, he enlargeth their commission, and bids them, Go and make Disciples of all nations; or, as it is in Mark, Preach the Gospel to every creature, and then to baptize the Disciples of all nations; but this enlargement of commission was not in opposition to the restriction about circumcision, Gen. 17. but in opposition to the restriction, Mat. 10.5, 6. as your self rightly expresse it, pag. 44. And for that expression, that the nation of the Jews were discipled, that their Infants were discipled, that the nation was made Disciples in Abrahams loines; it is such a construction of the word foreign, make Disciples, as I believe no Lexicon, nor, I think, any Expositor to this day made of the word, which plainly signifies so to teach, as that the persons taught do learn, and accordingly professe the things taught; and our Lord Christ in Mark expresseth it by preaching the Gospel, and accordingly, the Apostles by preaching, did foreign, disciple, Acts 14.21. which how it can be said of Infants that can neither understand, nor speak the doctrine of the Gospel preached to them, without a miracle, I know not. I make no question, but Abraham did teach his children, and make them Disciples, and that the Israelites did teach and make Disciples of their children, as soon as they could understand the things of God; but that they should be disciples in Abrahams loynes, is such a piece of language as I never read in the Bible, nor in any Author, but such as torture words to make them speak what they would have them. And sure, if the Apostles had understood our Saviours command thus: [Disciple all nations baptizing them; that is, Admit the infants of all nations to baptisme, as the Jews did the male Infants of that one nation to circumcision] they might have saved themselves a great deal of labour of preaching afore baptisme, and of baptizing females, and would have left us some precedent of such a practice. But you adde further: And we know, that in every nation, the children make a great part of the nation, and are alwayes included under every administration to the nation, whether promises or threatnings, priviledges or burthens, miracles or judgements, unlesse they be excepted: So are they in families, in cities, it being the way of the Scripture, when speaking indefinitely of a people, nation, city, or family, to be either saved or damned, to receive mercies or punishments, expresly to except Infants, when they are to be excepted, as we see in the judgement that befell Israel in the Wildernesse; when all that rebellious company that came out of Egypt was to perish by Gods righteous doome, their little ones were expresly excepted, Numb. 14.31. and in the covenant actually entred into by the body of the nation, Nehem. 10. it is expresly limited to them who had knowledge and understanding: And the Disciples who received this commission, knew well, that in all Gods former administrations, when any parents were made disciples, their children were taken in with them to appertain to the same school; and therefore it behooved the Lord to give them a caution, for the leaving out of Infants in this new administration, that they might know his minde, had be intended to have them left out, which that ever he did, in word or deed, cannot be found in Scripture. The Lord hath plainly given a caution in Scripture for the leaving out Infants in this administration acco…ding to ordinary rule: For, in that he directs them to baptize disciples upon preaching, he doth exclude Infants, who are not such disciples, nor according to ordinary providence can be. And this the Apostles could easily understand, as knowing that under the term Disciple, in common speech, and in the whole new Testament, those only are meant, who being taught, professed the doctrine taught by such a one, as Johns Disciples, Christs Disciples, the disciples of the Ph…risees, Luke 5.33. the disciples of the perverters, Acts 20.30. and accordingly they administred Baptisme. And in that Christ appoints these to be baptized, he excludes others: For the appointment of Christ, is the rule according to which we are to administer holy things, and he that doth otherwise, follows his own invention, and is guilty of will-worship; and thus we construe the meaning of the Holy Ghost in other appointments: As, because it is said, 1 Cor. 11. 28. Let a man examine himself, and so let him eat, therefore Infants are excluded, though Infant-c… …union was held lawfull and necessary for six hundred yeers in the Church: Wine is appointed in the Eucharist, therefore not Water mixt with Wine, as the Papists contend:Master Bal…y. A diswasion from the error of the times, ch. 8. p. 175. argues from this very text in like manner, to prove that only Ministers have power to preach the Word ordinarily. Water in Baptisme, therefore not salt, chrisme, spettle: the Preacher to baptize, therefore not women, or private persons: Males to be circumcised, therefore no females: two shall be one flesh, therefore no more then two, against Polygamie, Matth. 19.5. So that unlesse you will alter the definition of wil-worship, according to Mat. 15.9. in point of worship, that is excluded which is not expressed. And therefore, whereas you say, [it behoved the Lord to give them a caution for the leaving out of Infants in this new administration, that they might know his minde, if that be intends to have them left out, which that ever he did, in word or deed, cannot be found in Scripture]. I may more truly invert thus; it behoved the Lord to give them a Precept for the putting in of Infants in this (which you truly call) new administration, as being not the same with Circumcision, that they might know his mind, if that he intends to have them put in, which that ever he did, in word or deed, cannot be found in the Scripture. Certainly, you may as soon extract water out of a flint, as draw a command to baptize Infants out of this Scripture, by any expresse terms, or virtuall consequence: but the ordinary baptizing of Infants is, and may be proved from this Text to be a wil-worship, if this Scripture be the rule of administring ordinarily that Ordinance, which it indeed is, and hath been still taken to be. As for that which you say, The children make in every nation a great part of the nation, so do the Infidels that are adulti, of ripe yeers; and yet are not therefore included in this speech, Teach all nations, and baptize them; and as for that which you say, the children are alwayes included under every administration to the nation, whether promises or threatnings, priviledges or benefits, mercies or judgements, unlesse they be excepted; therefore here Infants are included, when it is said, Go teach all nations, baptizing them. I answer: Fi…st, that this speech in so universall and ample expressions, if understood of temporall judgements and mercies, is contrary to Ezek. 17.20. Jer. 31.29, 30. Isai. 6.13. and 10.22. if of eternall, as it seems you mean, when you say, [to be either saved or damned] it is contrary to Rom. 9.13.27.29. Rom. 13.5. Secondly, if it were true, yet makes nothing to the purpose, sith this Prec…pt is not an appointment to baptize all nations as nations without a… further circumscription, for then every person in the world might be …aptized, but disciples of all nations; and therefore it is not a nationall priviledge, but a personall, belonging to Disciples or Believers of every nation. And for that which you say, The disciples who received this commission, knew well, that in all Gods former administrations, when any parents were made disciples, their children were taken in with them to appertain to the same school; if it be thus understood, that God required that parents being called, should instruct their children, and so the children in potentia propinqua, in a neer possibility, were disciples, it is granted, according to that which God speaks of Abraham, Gen. 18.19. and requires of the Israelites, Deut. 6.7. But if you mean it thus, that the Disciples knew, that when any parents were made disciples, barely and precisely for this reason without any other, the children were actually disciples, and so to have Baptisme administred to them, it is an untruth, that hath no ground for it. But you have yet somewhat more to say for Infants being disciples; and therefore you thus answer an objection. If it be said they are not capable of being disciples, I answer, as capable as the Infants of the Jews and Proselytes were when they were made disciples. It is granted, but neither were the Infants of Jews or Proselytes capable of being actually disciples in an ordinary way, nor are ours. You go on: And besides, they are devoted to be disciples, being to be trained up by their parents, who are from their Infancy to teach them the knowledge of Christ. It is hard to say, that parents are to teach Infants from their infancy the Knowledge of Christ: For, though it is said of Timothy, Thou hast known the Holy Scriptures, foreign, 2 Tim. 3.15. yet our Translators would not render it from an Infant, but from a child. But however, if their parents be to teach them from their infancy, and the parents devote them to be disciples, yet this doth not make them disciples actually, but potentially, they may never be disciples for all that. But you tell us: And at the present, they are capable of his own teaching. I deny not but Infants are capable of Christs own teaching, yea, of actuall faith, yea, of actuall profession of faith. The same power that could make John Baptist in his mothers womb sensible of the presence of Christs mother, and to leap for joy, that could open the mouth of Balaams Asse, can out of the mouth of babes and sucklings perfect praise. But then this is done in an extraordinary way, and extraordinary accidents make not an ordinary rule. But you adde: And su…e I am, in Christs own dialect, to belong to Christ, and to be a Disciple of Christ, or to bear the name of Christ, are all one; and that such Infants do belong to Christ, and bear the name of Christ, I have sufficiently proved already, and in the margine you cite Mat. 10. 42. Mar. 9.41. Mat. 18.5. Mr. Blake pag. 21. seems to triumph in this Argument, when he saith: Who then is not afraid to refuse them, who will receive Christ? Who will not baptize them, that is willing to baptize disciples in the name of Christ? But this is a triumph afore victory. The plain truth is, there's never a one of all the three Texts, speaks of little ones in respect of age. The first, Mat. 10.42. is meant of the Apostles; and as Beza in his Annotations sayes rightly, Parvos vocat per concessionem suos discipulos, homines nimirum coram mundo viles & abjectos, He calleth his Disciples little ones by concession, to wit, men vile and abject before the world; so that they are called little, in respect of their outward estate in the world, not in respect of age. The second Text, Mar. 9.41. hath not the term little ones, or children at all, and it is expresly meant of the Apostles, foreign, because ye belong to Christ. The third Text, Matth. 18.5. is as little to the purpose. For, first the word is not Infant, but little childe, who may be one able to speak: secondly, one such little child, is not meant of a little childe in age, but a little child in affection, though an old man in age, resembled by a little child, as appeareth out of vers. 3. one that is converted, and made as a little child, vers. 4. one that humbles himself as a little childe, vers. 6. one of those little ones that believe in him. And therefore Beza rightly on vers. 5. hath this Annot. Puerulem talem foreign, id est, quempiam ita se demittentem, ut puerum referat: nec enim proprie de pueris agit; such a little childe, that is, any one that doth so humble himself, that he resembles a little childe: For he doth here properly deale concerning children: And so the Syriack Interpreter, qui sit sicut puer iste, who may be as this boy. But you have yet one place to prove that Infants are disciples, which you thus expresse. And I desire it may be seriously weighed, whether that expression, Acts 15.10. Now therefore why tempt yee God, to put a yoak upon the necks of the Disciples, do not necessitate us to give the name of Disciples to Infants, as well as to grown men: For I reason thus; All they upon whose necks those false teachers would h…ve put the yoak of Circumcision, are called disciples, and to be called disciples; but they would have put the yoak of Circumcision upon Infants, as well as grown men; therefore Infants …s well as grown men are called disciples, and to be called so. The Major is undeniable, the Minor I prove thus: They who pressed Circumcision to be in force according to the manner of Moses Law, and would put it upon their necks after the manner of Moses his Law, they would put it upon Infants of those who were in convenant with God, as well as upon the necks of those who were grown men; for so Moses Law required: But these false teachers pressed Circumcision to be in force, as is apparent, Acts 15.1. I have seriously weighed this Text, Acts 15.10. as you desire, and I find no necessity nor colour of giving to Infants the name of Disciples from that Text. And in answer to your Argument, though you say, it is undeniable, yet I have the boldnesse to deny the Major in your Prosyllogisme; For, though it be true that they are called disciples upon whose necks they would put the yoak of Circumcision, yet it is not said, they would put it only on Disciples, it is more probable they indeavoured to put it on the necks of all, whether Disciples or others, as universally necessary to salvation, v. 1. And therefore your M…jor is not certain, that all they, upon whose necks those false teachers would have put the yoak of Circumcision are called disciples: The Minor likewise in your Prosyllogisme, I deny and in your latter Syllogisme, framed to prove it, I deny the Major: For, though I deny not that they would have had Infants as well as converted Gentiles circumcised; yet the putting the yoak of Circumcision is not actuall circumcision in their flesh, for that they were able to bear for many ages; and at this day Mahometanes and Abassine Christians do still bear, as well as Jews; bu… the yoak of circumcision is the necessity of it on mens consciences, and therewith the whole Law of Moses, vers. 5. and that as necessary to salvation, v. 1. and therefore Peter having said, v. 10. Why tempt ye God to put a yoak upon the necks of the Disciples? addes, v. 11. but we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus we shall be saved even as they, plainly implying, that the yoak he meant, was the necessity of Circumcision, and keeping Moses his law to salvation. Now, this yoak was not put upon Infants, but upon brethren taught the necessity of it, vers. 1. And thus, like another Sisyphus, the stone you roul returns upon you: Volvendo saxum sudas, nec proficis bilum, you sweat in rouling a stone, and yet profit not a whit; and you are so far from proving by virtuall and undeniable consequence, a command to baptize Infants of Believers, according to ordinary rule, that on the contrary, this Text, Mat. 26.19. clearly proves Infants are not by ordinary rule to be baptized, because Disciples of all nations, and no other, are appointed to be baptized; and therefore baptizing of Infants is besides the institution, and so wil-worship. But yet Mr. Blake hath one Text for a reserve, which he thus puts in array: Let that Text of the Prophet be well weighed, where speaking by the Spirit of prophecy of the rejection of the Jews, and the glorious call of the Gentiles in their stead, in that ample way, as it is there set out, hath these words: Behold, I will lift up mine hand to the Gentiles, and set up my Standard to the people, and they shall bring thy sons in their arms; and thy daughters shall be carried on their shoulders, Isai. 49.22. If there were but such an hint, as that by way of prophecy to have left them behind, we should from some have heard of it with a noise. It may be truly said, the alledging this Text for Infant-baptisme, is but a noise, vox & praeterea nihil, a voyce, and nothing beside, as the Spartan said of the Nightingal. To it I answer, that the allusion is to nursing-fathers and mothers, carrying children on shoulders, and in their arms, and the speech is metaphoricall, as Junius saith in his annot. in locum, Haec omnia allegoricè dicuntur, all these things are spoken allegorically, and may be either understood, as he speaks, of the spirituall amplifying of Christs Kingdom; and so children were brought on arms and shoulders among Gentiles by preaching and instruction, as when the Apostle saith, he was gentle among the Thessalonians as a nurse that cherisheth her children, 1 Thes. 2.7. or, it may be understood of the return of the Jews from captivity; and that the following verses make more probable; nor is there a word in the Text that I observe, of the rejection of the Jews, as he sayes, but of their restitution. But if it must be understood properly, which hath no likelihood, it may be as well conceived of bringing their children to have laying on of hands, as baptizing of them. I go on to that which followes in your Sermon.
§. 14. Of examples in Scripture of Infants Baptisme, particularly of baptizing of housholds.ANother command by good consequence for the baptizing of infants, you shall finde in the forementioned place: when the Apostle exhorteth them to repent and be baptized, &c. because the promise was made to them and to their children, which as I shewed clearly proves that the children of such as beleeve and are baptized, are taken into Covenant, and therefore by good consequence they are to receive the seale of the Covenant, the Text not onelyonly shewing that they are within the Covenant, but also that a right to Baptisme is a consequence of being within the Covenant. This text hath been examined before, and it hath been proved that the promise there is the sending of Christ, who was raised up to blesse them and their children first, then those that were afarre off, being called, and that the promise doth not belong to their children, as the children of beleevers, but as called, and that the promise is not alledged as of it selfe giving right for them or their children to be baptized, without any other consideration, but as a motive and incouragement for them to repent, and so to be baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus; for the remission of sinnes, notwithstanding they had crucified the Lord of glory, and wished his bloud to be upon them, and their children; which being thus rightly understood, is so farre from proving a command to baptize infants, that on the contrary, it proves they are not to be baptized. You say further; Thus for Commands: for examples, though there should be none, there is no great argument in it, when the rule is so plaine, yet we have examples enough by good consequence. It is true, if the rule were plaine, there would be no need of an example; and on the other side, if wee had regulating examples, we should thereby know how to interpret the rule. But whereas you say, wee have examples enough by good consequence, it may be well suspected, these examples will prove like the commands, by consequence meere conjectures and conceits of men that would have it so. But let us heare what you say. For you shall finde, that the Gospel tooke place just as the old administration, by bringing in whole families together; when Abraham was taken in, his whole familie was taken in with him; when any of the Gentiles turned proselytes, ordinarily their whole families came in with them; so in this new administration, usually if the master of the house turned Christian, his whole familie came in and were baptized with him; the whole household of Cornelius, the first converted Gentile, Act. 11.14. the houshold of Stephanus, the houshold of Aristobulus, the houshold of Narcissus, the houshold of Lydia, the houshold of the Gaoler: These are examples not to be contemned. True: nor any part of holy Scripture which is written for our learning, but in all these, there is no example of an infants baptizing in the Scripture. You say, the Gospel tooke place just as the old administration, by bringing in whole families together. By the old administration, you meane circumcision. But wee doe not finde the Gospel or Baptisme tooke place just in the manner or circumcision; for in circumcision, it was but in one familie singled out, of the males onelyonly, whether in the covenant of grace or not, children or servants, elder or younger, at eight dayes old, in the house, by the Master of the familie, or others in his stead. But in Baptisme it is cleane otherwise, so that you might more truly have said, the new administration of Baptisme is just opposite to that of circumcision, yea in respect of that one thing wherein you make them agree so well, the bringing in of whole families together, it was but contingently so, not alwayes so, nor constantly so, according to any promise or prophecy, and when it did so happen, we finde not any infant baptized, nor any intimation of baptizing housholds, in conformitie to the administration of circumcision. And this may appeare by going through the examples of baptizing in the new Testament. Concerning John the Baptist, it is said, Mat. 3.5. Then went out to him Jerusalem, and all Judea, and all the region round about Jordan, and were baptized of him in Jordan, confessing their sinnes. Luk. 3.29. And all the people that heard him, and the Publicans justified God, being baptized with the baptisme of John; but the Pharisees and Lawyers rejected the counsell of God against themselves, being not baptized of him. Concerning Christ and his disciples, it is said, Joh. 4.1, 2. When the Lord knew how the Pharisees heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples then Iohn (though Iesus himselfe baptized not but his disciples.) In these examples the practise of baptizing, is not by taking in a familie, but by admitting all that would become disciples over all the Countries. After the ascension of Christ, the first example of Baptisme, is that Acts 2.44. and there it is said, They that gladly received the Word were baptized; and these were they to whom he had said, ver. the 39. the promise is to you and to your children; and there were added unto them about three thousand soules, and yet never an infant baptized, unlesse we shall take Mr Thomas Goodwins conceit for an Oracle (possibly the more willingly taken up, that it might seeme the more credible, that the Church of Jerusalem was but one single formed Congregation in a Church way) that therefore it is said, There were added three thousand soules; to intimate, that there were men, women and children added: he might have observed how ridiculous such a conceit is by that which follows, ver. 42. And they continued stedfastly in the Apostles doctrine, and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayer, and feare came upon every soule, &c. Which if he can apply to infants, Erit mihi magnus Apollo, I shall take his words for Oracles. Now sure these three thousand soules were not one family. The next example is of the Samaritanes, of whom it is said, Acts 8.12. That when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the Kingdome of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized men and women. Where it is plaine, that in a manner the whole Citie were baptized; for ver. 6. it is said, The multitude with one accord ga…e heed to that which Philip spake; ver. 13. Simon himselfe that did before lead them, now believed; and ver. 14. Samaria received the word of God, and yet not an infant mentioned to be baptized, but those that believed, and received the word of God; nor was this administration by taking in of a familie, but rather of a Citie. The next are of the Eunuch, Acts 8.38. and Paul, Acts 9.18. which were single believing persons, not a whole familie. The next is of Cornelius, of whom you gather from Acts 11.14. "That his whole houshold were baptized. But it is true withall, that his house was not an ordinary familie, but a garrison of Souldiers. 2. That he called together his kinsmen and neare friends, Acts 10.24. 3. That ver. 2. This whole house feared God. 4. That no other are nominated to have been baptized, but those who had heard the word, ver. 44. which spake with tongues, and magnified God, ver. 46. which received the holy Ghost, ver. 47. who were saved by Peters words, Acts 11.14. which I presume will not be affirmed of infants. "Then you mention the houshold of Stephanas, which is said to be baptized, 2 Cor. 1.16. and also Chap. 16.15. is said to addict themselves to the ministery of the Saints. To this houshold most aptly may be adjoyned that which you omit, the house of Crispus, concerning whom 'tis said Acts 18.8. And Crispus the chiefe ruler of the Synagogue believed on the Lord, with all his house, and many of the Corinthians hearing believed, and were baptized. Where under the tearme houshold, those onelyonly are meant who believed, and those that among the Corinthians were baptized, are said first to heare and believe. You put in the houshold of Aristobulus, the houshold of Narcissus, and you doe allude to Rom. 16.10, 11. but these are onelyonly brought in to make a number. For though our translators in the Text, reade of Aristobulus and Narcissus houshold, yet in the Greeke it is foreign, & foreign, which cannot well be translated of the houshold of Aristobulus and Narcissus, but rather as Beza, ex familiaribus, and as our translators in the Margin, of the friends of Narcissus; and if it were translated houshold, yet proves not that the whole families were Christians, but some of them. The next you mention, is the houshold of Lydia, of whom it was said, that shee was baptized, and her houshold, Acts 16.15. But this must be understood by other places, which when they expresse the baptizing of the houshold, they expresse also the believing, or receiving of the Word by the whole houshold, and by the frequent use of the Word, which is to put the house for the people of growth in it; as, Mat. 10.13. Mark. 3.25. & 6.4. Luk. 11.17. Joh. 4.53. Acts 10.2. 2 Tim. 4.19. The last you mention, is the houshold of the Gaoler; concerning whom it is said, that he was baptized, foreign, Act. 16.33. I remember Mr Edwards at Christs-Church indeavoured lately to gather from this expression, that because it is said, [all his were baptized] therfore his young children or infants, but this is but a light conjecture, and the Text sufficiently refutes this glosse: for ver. 32. immediately precedent expresseth who those [all his] were, to wit, all those in his house to whom Paul had spoken the word of the Lord; and ver. 34. immediately subsequent, which saith, that he rejoyced, believing in God, with all his houshold. But Mr William Cooke, pag. 46. hath foreign, a wise remedy to cure this: he tels us thus, I conceive it might be rendered more agreeably to the signification of the words, the scope of the place, and the avoyding of ambiguitie. And having believed in God, he rejoyced, exulted, or testified his joy openly by words and actions in all his familie, or through his house, or all his house over. But it is not worth while to refute this conceit at large, it is agreeable enough to the scope, order, meaning and signification of foreign, with all his house, to joyne it with foreign, believing, and to expound it as Beza, cum universa domo, with the whole house, and the Vulgar, cum omni domo, with all the house, rather then in domo, in the house, and to make it answer to foreign, with all his house, Acts 10.2. to foreign, with all his house, Acts 18.8. so that a… yet it doth not appeare that either one infant was baptized, or that the Gospel tooke place just as the old administration, by bringing in whole families together. Yea the contrary appeares out of the 1 Pet. 3.1. & 1 Cor. 7.13.16. that the husband was converted sometimes without the wife, and on the contrary, 1 Cor. 7.21. & 1 Tim. 6.1. Phil. 4.22. in the house of infidel Masters were converted servants, and on the contrary, Philem. 11.12.14, 15, 16. And our Lord Christ foretold it should be so in the preaching of the Gospel, Mat. 10.35, 36. Wherefore I much marvaile at the speech of Mr Blake, pag. 22. We have examples not to be contemned of the baptizing whole housholds, and whether infants were there or no, as it is not certaine, though probable, so it is not materiall, the president is an houshold; He that followeth the president, must baptize housholds; It appeares not that any wife was there, yet he that followes the president in baptizing of housholds, must baptize wives, and so I may say servants, if they be of the houshold. Which speech, though it containes onelyonly dictates, and might be let passe, yet it is not fit to leave it without some animadversions. For if it be true, that the president is an houshold, and wee must baptize households, I aske whether we must baptize wife and servants, because they professe the faith, or because they be of the houshold: if the first be said, then the president is not of baptizing housholds, but baptizing a professor of the faith, which is the thing the Antipaedobaptists contend for; if because of the houshold, whether professing faith or not, then an unbelieving wife or servant should be baptized, because they are of the houshold, unlesse it be supposed, that in an houshold when the Master or a husband is a believer, the wife and servant cannot be an unbeliever, the contrary whereof hath appeared above: But this I believe, none will deny to be absurd, and heterodox, and consequently that speech of Mr Blakes is very absurd, that I say no worse of it. To which I adde, that Mr Blake gives no reason, nor I thinke can, why the baptizing of housholds, Acts 16. should be the precedent for baptizing rather then the baptizing Samaria, Act. 8.12. the 3000. Acts 2.42. all Judea, Mat. 3.5. So that in fine, it appeares that the administration of Baptisme is not just as the administration of circumcision, and that though it be true, that sometimes housholds were baptized, yet it is said, those housholds received the Word, and the word houshold, is often put for the growne people of it, and therefore as yet there is no example in Scripture to justifie the baptizing of infants, according to ordinarie rule. As for the objection of the houshold, eating the Passeover, and the answer to it, I shall let it passe now, because it will come againe in the last objection of the fourth part of your Sermon. And thus I have at last examined your first and maine argument. Your second, it seemes, you make lesse account of, and therefore I shall sooner dispatch the answer. Thus you frame it.
§. 15. Of an infants capacity of inward grace; the Text Mat. 19.14. and of the inconsequence of Paedobaptisme thereon.THe second argument: to whom the inward grace of Baptisme belongs, to them belongs the outward signe, they ought to have the signe, who have the thing signified, the earthly part of the Sacrament must be granted to those who have the heavenly part: but the infants of believers, even while they are infants, are made partakers of the inward grace of Baptisme, of the heavenly and spirituall part, as well as growne men: therefore they may and ought to receive the outward signe of Baptisme. The major proposition, that they who are made partakers of the inward grace, may not be debarred of the outward signe, is undeniable: it is Peters argument, Acts 10. Can any forbid water, that these should not be baptized, who have received the holy Ghost as well as wee? And againe, for as much as God gave them the like gift, as he did unto us, what was I that I could withstand God? And this is so cleare, that the most learned of the Anabaptists doe readily grant, that if they knew any infant to have received the inward grace, they durst not deny them the outward signe, and that the particular infants whom Christ took up in his armes and blessed, might have been baptized. The Question between us is, whether the infants of believers universally, or indifferently, are to be admitted to the Sacrament of Baptisme, according to ordinary rule. Now I suppose you doe not hold that the infants of believers indifferently have actually the thing signified by Baptisme, that is, the Holy Ghost, union with Christ, adoption, forgivenesse of sinnes, regeneration, and everlasting life: for then they are all sanctified, and are all believers, and if this could be proved, there would be no question about Paedobaptisme, the texts, Act. 8.37. Act. 10.47. Act. 11.17. would undeniably prove it, and therefore there is no Antipaedobaptist, I thinke, but will grant your Major; That regenerate persons united to Christ, whose sins are forgiven, adopted persons that have received the Holy Ghost, are to be baptized. But I conceive, though in the laying down the Major, you use these phrases [who have the thing signified, who have the heavenly part]: and in your Minor [are made partakers]; yet you do not mean in this Assumption, actuall having, and being made partakers of the inward grace of Baptism; concerning which, the Antipaedobaptists do so readily grant the Major: but a potentiall having, or, as you after speak, being capable of the inward grace; and so you use the fallacy of equivocation: in the Major, [having] being understood of actuall having, and in the Minor of potentiall, which makes four terms, and so the Syllogisme is naught: Or, if you do mean in both actuall having, you mean it only of some Infants of Believers, not of all, of whom the Question is, and so your conclusion is but particular, that some Infants of Believers, who are sanctified actually, are to be baptized. But this will not reach home to your tenet or practice, concerning the baptizing of all Infants of Believers, in as much as they are the children of Believers, without the consideration of actuall faith or sanctification. It is true, the Lutheranes do teach, that Infants have actuall faith, and are regenerate in Baptisme, and therefore, in Colloquio Mompelgar…ensi, upon the fourth Artic. de Baptismo, they put these among the Positions they reject, as contrary to the Scripture: Non omnes infantes qui baptizantur gratiae Christi participes esse, & regenerari, infantes carere fide, & nihilominus baptizari; that all the Infants which are baptized, are not partakers of the grace of Christ, and regenerate; that Infants want faith, and neverthelesse are baptized. And I remember, when I lived in Oxford, there was a book published in English, of Baptismal initiall regeneration of elect Infants, the Position whereof was opposed, as favouring the doctrine of conferring grace by Baptisme, ex opere operato, by the work wrought, and intercision of regeneration, sith according to that doctrine, a person might have the Spirit initially, in infancy; and though it could not fall away finally, as being an elect person, yet might run out in a continued course of sinning grosse and scandalous sins with full consent untill his dying day; which doth enervate the urging of that Text, 1 John 3.9. against Apostasie of regenerate persons, when out of it is proved, that raigning sin is not in the regenerate, and the like texts, which in that Controversie are urged against Arminans. With that book Dr. Featley in his late feeble, and passionate Tract against Anabaptists, and Antiprelatists concurs, pag. 67. in these words: Nay, so farre are they from excluding faith from Infants that are baptized, that they believe, that all the children of the faithfull, who are comprised in the covenant with their fathers, and are ordained to eternall life, at the very time of their baptisme receive some hidden grace of the Spirit, and the seed of faith and holinesse, which afterwards bears fruit, in some sooner, in some later. And since I came to London, I met with a Book, intituled, A Christian plea, for Infants Baptisme, by S.C. who holds positions somewhat like to the Lutherans, that though children of believing parents be not all holy and righteous, they may degenerate, apostatize, yet the Infants of believing parents are righteous by imputation, are believers and confessors imputatively, &c. pag. 10. and elsewhere. And he hath this passage, pag. 3. It is a sure truth, that the sins of the parents, being forgiven, the Lord will not impute the same unto their Infants. Originall sin, I say, taketh no more hold on the Infants then on their parents; and touching actuall sin, they are as clear as their parents. Many more like passages there are in that Book, these I mention, that you may see what stuffe Paedobaptists do feed the people with. But I suppose you do not hold, that all Infants of Believers, either actually or initially, or imputatively, are sanctified, regenerated, adopted, justified, as knowing how contrary this is to Rom. 9.6, &c. to daily experience, to the doctrine of Beza and his Collegues, at Mon… pelgart, to the reformed Churches of Geneva, &c. and what advantage it gives to Papists, Lutherans, Arminians, and those that follow the way of Tomson in his Diatribe, of which I suppose you are not ignorant; and therefore conceiving you orthodox in this point, the answer to your Syllogisme is either by shewing it doth not conclude the question, if your Minor and conclusion be understood of actuall having the inward grace, and they be particular only. If you understand them of actuall having, and they be universall, then I deny your Minor. If your Major be understood of potentiall having, I deny it, if of actuall, and the Minor be of potentiall, there be four terms, and so the Syllogisme is naught. Take away the ambiguity of your terms, and the answer is easie. But for the proof of your Minor, you say thus: And for the Assumption, or Minor, That the Infants of Believers, even while they are Infants, do receive the inward grace as well as grown men, is as plain, not only by that speech of the Apostle, who saith, they are holy, but our Saviour saith expresly, Mark 10. That to such belongs the Kingdome of God, as well as to grown men; And whereas some would evade it, by saying, that the Text saith not, To them belongs the kingdome of God, but of such is the Kingdome of heaven, foreign, of such like, that is, such as are graced with such like qualities, who are humble and meek, as children are: and that Luke 18. is parallel to this in the meaning of it: whosoever doth not receive the Kingdome of heaven as a little child, be shall not enter therein. But I answer, though it be true, that in other places this is one use that Christ makes of an Infants age and condition, to shew, that such as receive the Kingdome of heaven, must be qualified with humility, &c. like unto children; yet here it cannot be his meaning, because his argument is, Suffer them to come to me, and forbid them not, because of such is the Kingdome of God, that i…, my Church and Kingdome is made of those, as well as of others. This was the very cause, why the disciples rebuked those who brought the children to Christ, because they were little, not fit to be instructed; and therefore not fit that Christ should be troubled about them; this Christ rebukes in them, and tels them, that the littlenesse of children, is no argument why they should be kept from him: Suffer them, said he, to come, and forbid them not, for of such is the Kingdome of God; and what kinde of argument had this been, if the Text should be interpreted as these men would have it; Suffer little children to come unto me, that I may touch them, take them up in mine arms, put my hands upon them, and blesse them, because the Kingdome of God belongeth to them, who have such like qualities, who resemble children in some select properties? By the very same ground, if any had brought doves and sheep to Christ to put his hands upon them, and blesse them, the Disciples had been liable to the same reproof, because of such is the Kingdome of God, such as are partakers of the Kingdome of God, must be endued with such like properties.
The Minor to be proved is, that all the Infants of Believers, or the Infants of Believers in as much as they are Infants of Believers, are actually partakers of the inward grace of Baptisme, else your Argument will not serve for your purpose, as hath been shewed. Now neither doth the Apostles speech, 1 Cor. 7.14. prove it, as hath been shewed above; nor doth this Text, Mar. 10.14. prove it. For, first, it is doubtfull, whether these were Infants or no. I presume you are not ignorant, that Piscator observat: in Mat. 19.14. doth maintain that the speech of Christ, is not of Infants, but of children which were capable of instruction, which he gathers from this, that Christ called them, Luke 18.16. And whereas it is said in Mark, he took up in his arms, the word so translated, is used Mark 9.36. For the imbracing of those that were of some growth, whom he placed in the midst, and of whose scandalizing he there warnes; nor doth the word foreign used Luke 18.15. translated in English Infants prove it, for it signifies a childe capable of teaching, as when it i… said, Timothy knew the sacred Scripture from a childe, foreign, that is, ever sinne he was a boy, not an Infant; nor doth the word foreign translated brought unto him prove that they were Infants: For the same word is applied to them that were guided, though they were not carried, but did go by themselves, as the blinde and deaf Daemoniake, Matth. 12.22. and the lunatick childe, Matth. 17.16. To this purpose Piscator. As for Mr. Thomas Goodwins reason from Julius Pollux, that the word foreign doth signifie one that is madidus, moist or sappie, it is of no force to prove that they were Infants: For besides, that not etymologie, but use must expound words; if it were so, yet we know children are moist, till they be adolescentes, youths; we say, till they be of good yeers, they are but a gristle, tender, green; so that notwithstanding this, the children brought to Christ, might be of yeers sufficient to be catechumeni, and yet fit enough to resemble humility and harmlesnesse by. Secondly, It is yet doubtfull whether our Saviour said, of them is the Kingdome of heaven; for the word is foreign, of such, not foreign, of these: And Luke 18.17. Mark 10.15. both adde this speech, Verely I say unto you, whosoever doth not receive the Kingdome of God as a little childe, shall not enter therein; like to which is that Matth. 18.3. But you have two exceptions against this: First, because this had been no reason why they should suffer these little children to come to him, because, of such is the Kingdome of God: Secondly, he might as well have said, suffer sheep, or doves to come to me; for of such is the Kingdome of God. To these exceptions it may be replied, the reason may be thus conceived; therefore you should not despise that age as prophane, and keep them from me, for even they that are my Disciples, must become children again, in putting off their vices, being converted, unlearning what they have learned, becoming humble and docible, which things could not be resembled by sheep and doves. Thirdly, but let it be granted, that these were Infants, and that foreign, is to be expounded as Beza in his Annot. on Mat. 19.14. horum & similium, Grot. annot. ad. Mat. 9.18. notum erat Judaeis solere Deum Prophetis hunc exhibere honorem, ut in alios dona sua conferret ad prophetarum preces, quarum symbolum erat manuum impositio. Ad Mat. 19.13. pro pueris etiam eo ritu preces concipi solitas manifestum est ex Gen. 48.14, 15. Exinde Hebraeis semper observatum, ut ad eos qui sanctimonia praestare caeteris crederentur pucros deserrent, ipsorum precibus Deo commendandos, foreign: qui mos bodie & apud ipsos manet. Hunc autem morem Christus probans ostendit isti etiam aetati pr…desse aliorum fidem ac preces.these and the like, yet there is no certainty, only conjecture, that they were believers Infants. For, though Christ was in the coasts of Judea then, yet it might as well be, that the children were brought by others as parents, and that without faith in Christ, as the Messiah, upon the fame of his miracles, and the conceit he was a prophet, and so they might bring children to him to be blessed, as Jacob and Esau, by Isaac, Josephs children by Jacob, &c. Fourthly, but let it be granted they were the Infants of Believers, and that it is said, of these is the Kingdome of God, it may be, as Piscator observes, referred not to thei… present estate, as if for the present they were in the kingdome of God, that is, believers and justified; but that they were elect persons, and so in time of them should be the Kingdom of God: Now that which gives right to Baptisme, … the present estate of a person. Fifthly, but let that be also granted, yet all this proves not your Minor, unlesse you can prove, that the reason why the Kingdome of heaven belongs to Infants, is common with these to other Infants of Believer…, and the reason why their… is the Kingdome of God, is, because they were the Infants of Believers, that …o it may be true of all the Infants of Believers. But this cannot be true, being contrary to expresse Scripture, Rom. 9.6, 7, 8.13. and inferring this error, that a childe hath right to the Kingdom of God, in that he is the childe of a Believer: And experience proves innumerable of them have no interest in the Kingdome of God. Besides, this reason may be given, why these Infants did belong to Gods Kingdome, because they were such as Christ would blesse, and then all that you can gather from hence will be, that of the Infants of Believers whom Christ blesseth, is the Kingdome of heaven. But this will never prove your Assumption, except you can prove that Christ blesseth all the Infants of Believers. Lastly, Christs action in this businesse is proper to him, as the great Prophet of the Church, and extraordinary, and therefore yeelds no ground for an ordinary rule of baptizing by the publique Ministery. And, if an ordinary rule should be made in imitation, of it, it would serve better for the proving the Sacrament of confirmation, which Art. 25. of the Church of England puts among things, grown from a corrupt following the Apostles, then Baptisme. And in all probability, if Christ would have this accident to be a rule or precedent for bringing Infants to him by a visible signe in the new Testament, as Mr. Thom…s Goodwin at Bow dictated, he would have appointed his Apostles to have baptized these Infants as a samplar. For which reason, it seems to me, that this example rather shews Christ would not have Infants baptized, then that he intended to make this accident a precedent for paedobaptisme. But you will prove your Minor by reasons, and thus you reason:
Beside, what one thing can be named, belonging to the initiation and being of a Christian, whereof Baptisme is a seal, which Infants are not capable of as well as grown men; they are capable of receiving the Holy Ghost, of union with Christ, of adoption, of forgivenesse of sins, of regeneration, of everlasting life; all which things are signified, and se…led in the Sacrament of Baptisme. I may apply to you the words of Horace, Amphora coepit institui, currente rota cur…recus exit? A barrell began to be made, why the wheel running doth a pitcher come forth? The thing you should prove is, that all the Infants of Believers, are actually partakers of the inward grace of Baptisme; but in stead of this, you prove, they are capable of it; they may have it, but doth it therefore follow, that they actually have it? It was once an Axiome in the Schools; a posse ad esse non valet argumentum, from it may be …o it is, an Argument holds not; and I think it is so still. Besides, must children be baptized, because they are capable of Grace? Then may all children be baptized, for they are all capable of the inward Grace of Baptisme. But you have yet something more to say.
And it is further considerable that in the working of that inward grace, of which Baptisme is the signe and seal, all who partake of that grace, are but meer patients, and contribute no more to it then a child… doth to its own begetting, and therefore, Infants as fit subjects to have it wrought in them as grown men; and the most grown men are in no more fitnesse to receive this grace when it is given them in respect either of any faith or repentance, which they yet have, then a very little childe, it being the primary intention of the covenant of Grace in its first work to shew what free grace can, and will do to miserable nothing, to cut miserable man off from the wild Olive, and graffe him into the true Olive, to take away the heart of stone, …o create in them a heart of flesh, to forgive their iniquities, to love them freely; what doth the most grown men in any of these more then an Infant may do, being only passive in them all? and of this first grace is the Sacrament of Baptisme properly a seal. That which you say, it is true, is further considerable; but to what purpose it is here brought in, I cannot readily divine, whether it be for a proof of the Minor of your Syllogisme; or that which you said immediatly before, that Infants are capable of the inward grace of Baptisme; or whether you would make a further Argument for Infant-baptisme thus: Baptisme is to be given to those that are capable of the first grace as well as grown men; and the proof of this seems to be, because Baptisme seals properly the first grace. But Infants are capable of the first grace as well as grown men, and the proof of this seems to be, because all who partake of that grace, are but meer patients, &c. Therefore Infants are to be baptized as well as grown men. If this be your Argument, the Major is to be denyed: For, a person is not to be baptized because he may have grace, but because he hath it. And for the reason, that Baptisme seals properly the first grace, it is obscure, what you mean by the first grace is not cleare. If the free favour of God, mentioned before, when you say, [to love them freely] this indeed is the first grace simply Gods eternall love and election; and I deny not but Baptisme seals it in some sense properly, and so doth the Lords Supper as properly; if you mean by the first grace the covenant of Grace, which is the first transient act of grace, that also is sealed properly in Baptisme, and as properly in the Lords Supper: if you mean the first grace in execution, it is uncertain wch you put first, justification or regeneration, or, as some, adoption: And then which is the second grace is uncertain, whether after-sanctification, cooperating, concomitant, subsequent grace, sustentation against temptations, remission of sins, hearing prayers, or eternall glory. Now, I do not well understand in what sense, or why Baptisme seals properly rather the first grace then the second, sith according to your doctrine it is a seal of the covenant of grace; and therefore of all the promises in it; Nor can I tell, why it should be said, that Baptisme seals the first grace properly, rather then the Lords Supper. I confesse in exactnesse of speech, Baptisme seals no grace, first or second, properly, taking it for propriety of speech, but improperly, because metaphorically, as sealing is taken for assuring. And if properly notes propriety of right, or title, or possession in opposition to anothers; or that which is alien, I see not how Baptisme doth seal, that is, assure the first grace in respect of the propriety of right more then the second, or more then the Lords Supper. And therefore your speech seems to me very ambiguous: And for the Minor, as I conceive, you frame it, that Infants are capable of the first grace as well as grown men, it is true, and so they are of the second, or at least some of them; but both by extraordinary working. As for receiving grace by ordinary means, they are not capable of one or other. And for the speeches which you heap together, though I grant that in the first conversion, in the sense that some learned men understand it, we are meerly passive; yet I doubt whether Dr. Twisse, and such as have most acutely handled the controversie about the irresistibility of grace in the first conversion, will subscribe to those speeches of yours, when you say, all who partake of that grace, are but meer patients, and contribute no more to it, then a childe doth to its own begetting; and therefore Infants as fit subjects to have it wrought in them, as grown men, and the most grown men are in no more fitnesse to receive this grace when it is given them, in respect either of any faith or repentance which they yet have, then a very little childe. What doth the most grown man in any of these, more then an Infant may do? being only passive in them all. If my memory deceive me not, the Divines of great Britain at the Synod of Dort in their suffrage, did set down some things which might be done in respect of faith or repentance, when grace is given, by grown men, more then an Infant can do, and so doth in like manner Mr. Rutherfurd, The Triall and Triumph of Faith, Serm. 14. pag. 109, 110. And though you say, The most grown men are only passive in them all, yet D•. Twisse in his Vindiciae gratiae, lib. 3. errat. 9. Sect. 3. thought this subtilty necessary, that the will in the first conversion, is meerly passive, as the willing of the will is taken for…ally, as being in the subject; but as it is taken efficiently, it being a vitall act, so it is not meerly passive in the first conversion. And Dr. Preston in his acute Exercitation, De irresistibilitate gratiae convertentis, hath these words: Nos sustinemus voluntatem in primo actu conversionis, partim passivè, partim activè, id est, prius passivè, dein activè se habere, ideo que cum Deo cooperari; We hold the will in the first act of conversion, to be partly passive, partly active, that is, first of all to be passive, then active, and therefore to cooperate with God. It is true, the acts of taking away the heart of stone, creating a heart of flesh, forgiving iniquity, loving freely, as they are acts of God, a man is neither active nor passive in them, they are not in man as the subject, nor from man as the agent; only we may be said to be passive, or active, in respect of the terminus, or effect of them, a new heart, faith, or repentance, produced by them; and in respect of this, in some sense, we are meerly passive, in some, partly active, and partly passive in the first conversion, according to the doctrine of the two learned Doctors forenamed. You conclude this Argument with this speech: And whoever will deny that Infants are capable of these things, as well as grown men, must deny that any Infants dying in their infancy, are saved by Christ. Concerning which speech, if you mean that Infants are capable of these things as well as grown men simply, in respect of the things, it is true that Infants are capable of them as well as grown men, and he that denies it denies their salvation: But if you mean it in respect of the modus habendi, the manner of having, then it is not true: for Infants are not capable in the same manner of a new heart, faith and repentance, by hearing, and outward ordinances, as well as grown men. But what is all this to prove your Minor, which is not of potentiall having inward grace, which is not denied, but of actuall having? And so still it remains unproved; that all the Infants of Believers, or the Infants of Believers as such are actually partakers of the inward grace of Baptisme.
And thus have I at last, examined the third part of your Sermon, containing your Arguments from Scripture for Paedobaptisme. I proceed now to examine the last part, which followes.