A Defense of Infant Baptism, Treatise · Part 2
PART II.
HAving made good the practiſe of Antiquity for the Baptizing of Infants, I follow you in that which Reply to Sect. 1.you are pleaſed to make the ſecond part of my Sermon, which you call prejudices againſt Antipaedo-baptiſts, from their noveltie and miſcarriages. Where, firſt, you blame me for ſeeking by prefacing and ſetting downe a briefe touch of the Anabaptiſts carriage in Germany, to create prejudice in my Auditors.
To which I anſwer, that I yet never learned that a briefe Anſw.ſetting downe the Originall Hiſtory and State of a Controverſie, or the weight and conſequence of it, thereby the more to ingage the Readers attention, was againſt any Rule or Law of Art either divine or humane; but in caſe it were a fault, Quis tulerit Gracchos? You who begin your booke with telling, how nine moneths ſince you ſent thus many Arguments in Latine, drawne up in a Scholaſtique way, &c. and never yet received any Anſwer, and in the end of your booke intimated that though you allowed me but a monethmonth, yet I have kept your booke a whole yeere unanſwered: and throughout your whole Treatiſe ſtrive to make an oſtentation of reading, and put abundance of ſcoffes and jeeres upon them who are of a contrary mind to you, and ſeeke to loade the opinion you write againſt as if it carried all kind of miſchiefes in the wombe of it. All which things you know well enough are apt to take the people; but have no weight with them who uſe onelyonly to weigh Proofe with Proofe, and Argument with Argument: you (I ſay) of all other ſhould pardon ſuch a peccadillo, and might very well have paſſed over what either my ſelfe or Dr. Featlies Frontiſpice, or Mr. Edwards his expreſſions might ſeeme to bee lyable to, of exception in this kind.
In your ſecond Section you blame mee for two things, Reply to Sect. 2.firſt that I gave you no more light out of Auguſtine, to know who they were that queſtioned Paedo-Baptiſme in his dayes, you have ſearched and cannot finde any, the Pelagians you acknowledge oppoſed it not, the cuſtome was ſo univerſall, and eſteemed ſo ſacred that they durſt not oppoſe it.
All the further light I ſhall now give in a matter of no Anſw.greater conſequence is, that if you cannot finde any in Auguſtines dayes who queſtioned it, I am contented you ſhall beleeve there were none.
Secondly, you blame me for making ſuch a leape from Auguſtines time, to Baltazzar Pacommitanus, as if be were the firſt who oppoſed it, where as you alledge many who oppoſed it 400. yeeres before his time. To which I anſwer, I ſayd not hee Anſw.was the firſt whoſe judgement was againſt it, but the firſt that made an head againſt it, or a diviſion (or Schiſme) in the Church about it. It is poſſible men may hold a private opinion differing from the received doctrine, and yet never make a rent, or divide the Church into factions about it.That the middle times between the Fathers and Luther were for Baptizing Infants.
But let us examine your inſtances; you alledge the famous Berengarius as one. 2. The Albingenſes. 3. Out of Bernard you mention another nameleſſe Sect. 4. Petrus Cluniacenſis, charges the ſame upon the Petro-Bruſians.
To all which I anſwer, firſt, in generall. That (theſe inſtances of yours having occaſioned mee to make a more dilligent Anſw.ſearch into the doctrine and practiſe of thoſe middletimes between the Fathers, and the beginning of Reformation in L…bers time) I dare confidently think, that you will have an hard taske to prove out of any impartiall Authors, that there were any company of men before the Anabaptiſts in Germany, who rejected the baptizing of Infants out of the confeſſion of their faith; poſſibly ſome private man might doe it, but I ſhall deſire you to ſhew that any company or Sect (if you will ſo call them) have ever denied the lawfulneſſe of baptizing of Infants: produce if you can any of their confeſſions, alledge any Acts of any Councells where this doctrine was charged upon any, and condemned in that Councell: you know, the generalitie of the viſible Chriſtian world was in thoſe dayes divided into the followers of the Beaſt, and the ſmall number of thoſe who followed the Lambe, who bare witneſſe to the truth of the Goſpel in the times of that Antichriſtian Apoſtaſie, theſe were called by ſeverall names, Berengarians, Waldenſes, poore men of Lyons, Albingenſes, Cathariſts, Petr-Bruſians, and ſeverall other names, as may bee ſeene in Biſhop Ʋſhers book of the Succeſſion and State of the Chriſtian Churches. Now all grant that the Church of Rome even in thoſe dayes, owned the baptizing of Infants, and ſo did all thoſe perſecuted Companies or Churches of the Chriſtians, for any thing I can find to the contrary. Severall Catalogues of their confeſſions and opinions I finde in ſeverall Authors, Vſher de ſucceſſione, cap. 6. Sect. 1…. 17. Cap. 8. Sect. 34. Cap. 10. Magdeburg…en…. 12. Cap. 8 col. 1…06.and more perticularly in that forenamed booke De ſucceſſione Chriſtianarum Eccleſiarum. But not any one of them denying this point; they indeed denyed any Sacrament to conferre grace ex opere operato, and thereupon ſome of their adverſaries would lay to their charge that they denied gratiam Baptiſmi, the grace of Baptiſme: And others of them denyed the trumperies that went along with Baptiſme in the Church of Rome: And thereupon ſome of their adverſaries charged them that they laughed at the Baptiſme of Infants: but I can finde none who layd to their charge ſimply that they denyed the lawfulneſſe of Baptizing of Infants, except onelyonly ſuch who alſo charged them with Manicheiſme and other abominable doctrins & practiſes, which we all beleeve they utterly abhorred; Nothing tendes more fully to manifeſt their doctrine then their owne confeſſions, one whereof was publiſhed by Baltazzar Lidius which was preſented to Ʋladiſlaus King of Hungary: In their Apologie Baltazzar Lidius, Tom. 2. Pag. 285. &c.and defence of their doctrine, they have a whole Chapter wherein they aſſert and prove Paedo-Baptiſme largely. The confeſſion of the Taborites hath not a word ſounding Hiſtory of the Waldenſes. lib. 1. cap. 3. p. 10.againſt it. I finde alſo in the Hiſtory of the Waldenſes, this is ſet downe among the calumnies unjuſtly caſt upon them, That they reject the Baptiſme of Infants, for which Bernard is cited in his 66. Hom. in Cant. but of this they are purged out of their owne writings, and there the ground and occaſion Lib. 1. cap 4. pag. 15. Lib. cap. 6. pag. 43.of imputing this errour to them is expreſſed line 15. True it is, that having been conſtrained ſome 100. yeers, &c. The ſame Author in the third part of his hiſtory, profeſſedly ſets downe the doctrine of the Waldenſes and Albigenſes, and among other things concerning Baptiſme, he expreſſes this: And whereas Baptiſme is adminiſtr…d in a full Congregation—and for this cauſe it is that we preſent our children in Baptiſme, which they ought to doe, to whom the children are neareſt, as parents, &c. Waldenſis againſt the Wickleviſts and Huſſits imputes this hereſie to ſome of the Lollards, that beleevers Tom. 3. Tit. 5. cap. 53.children were not to be baptized, and that Baptiſme was to no purpoſe adminiſtred to them, ſecundum ritum quem ſervat Eccleſia, but he imputes it not to Wicklefs followers in generall, onelyonly aſcribes it to ſome Lollards of the Highlands in Scotland, and ſome few of the Dioceſſe of Norwich, and yet in the ſame place confeſſes hee had ſeene none of their writings to that purpoſe, nor knew what their grounds were, but onelyonly had tranſiently heard that they uſed to produce 1 Cor. 7. Sanctificatus eſt, &c.
2. I anſwer to your particular inſtances, firſt, for Berengarius, it Vſher de Succeſſ. cap. 7. Sect. 37. Berengarius cleared from Anabaptiſme.is true that Deoduinus Leodienſes tooke it up as a common fame, and upon his credit Guitmund Archbiſhop of Averſe relates it: But ſaith Biſhop Ʋſher, in ſo many Synods held againſt Berengarius, wee never find any thing of this nature laid to his charge: and to him it appeares that they who in thoſe dayes were charged to hold that Baptiſme did not parvulis proficere ad ſalutem, held nothing but this, that Baptiſme doth not conferre grace ex opere operato.
The ſame anſwer ſerves for the Albigenſes and Waldenſes; cleare it is that neither Aene… Sylvius in his booke de Origine Waldenſes, Albigenſes, &c. cleared from Anabaptiſme.Bohemorum, when he ſets downe their opinions, nor the Magdeburgenſes, who out of an ancient Manuſcript relate their doctrines, no nor William Reynolds in his Calvino-Turciſmus, wherein he indeavours to reproch them, layes any ſuch thing to their charge. Sure I am, the confeſſion of the faith of the Albingenſes recorded by Hoveden doth enough, Vſh. ubi ſupr. ca. 8. Sect. 34.and more then enough owne the baptizing of Infants. Tis true, Bernard in the place cited by you ſayes of thoſe Anonymous people whom he wrote againſt, (who were no other then ſome of the Waldenſes) Irrident nos quia baptizamus Infantes, and the reſt of the Doctrines which you mention, but withall in the ſame place charges them with Manechiſme, and relates how the people threw them into the water as if they were witches, and when they would not ſinke they fell upon them with ſtones and killed them; and if you beleeve Bernard ſlandered them in theſe two laſt, you will forgive the Reader if he beleeve that he did no leſſe in the other. And as for what Petrus Cluniacenſis writes againſt Peter de Bruis and his ſucceſſour Henry, the truth is, theſe two men, did for 20. yeers together ſo much ſpread the Doctrine of the Waldenſes, and ſo plague the Biſhops Miters, and the Monks bellies, that I wonder not though they charged any thing upon them which might make them odious to the people. He who reads that rayling booke of Petrus Cluniacenſis, will find that he acknowledges moſt of what he layes to their charge to be upon the report of others, and layes this for one of their Articles, that Children who died before they could actually beleeve were damned, and that they would have all Churches demoliſhed, and incouraged people to pull them downe; and that common fame gave out that they condemned all the Latine Fathers, and not onelyonly excluded the Latine Doctors è Cathedra Doctorum, but è regno Caelorum; that they did not altogether beleeve the Prophets, Apoſtles, nor Chriſt himſelfe. And no marvaile that theſe opinions ſhould bee charged upon them, though they held them not, ſeeing wee find this particular charged upon Luther, Calvin, and Beza, who did all in ſpeciall manner oppoſe this errour: So that untill you or ſome other doe out of their owne confeſſion, Joſ. Vicecom. Obſer. Eccl. Vol. Lib. 2. cap. 1. p. 103.or ſome other impartiall and authentique Regiſter give better evidence then yet you have done, I ſhall beleeve that this doctrine of oppoſing the baptizing of the Infants of beleevers, is an Innovation no ancienter then the Anabaptiſts in Germany; concerning whoſe practiſes wee now proceed to inquiry.
In your third Section you take great paines to ſhew out of To Sect. 3.your reading who firſt in Germany ſtirred this queſtion. I ſhall not ſtay the Reader long about it, becauſe your ſelfe grant that it is not tanti; I deny not but Nicholaus Storch, Marcus Stubner, and Thomas Muncer did bring it firſt upon the Stage about 1521, or 1522, and that by Muneers doctrine, a ſad ſedition was raiſed in the upper Germany, among the Country people, but becauſe this Baltazzar Hubmir P acommitanus Paſtor of the Waldſhut, a Towne neere the Helvetians, was a man of greater note for learning, of an active turbulent ſpirit, one who both by preaching and writing much fomented their way, & was in very great repute among them, I feared not (as others have done before me) to name him as the Anteſignanus of that unhappy Sect: of whoſe ſeditious practiſes, doctrine, recantation, Apoſtaſie, and miſerable death, for which he was eſteemed a Martyr by his followers, I might out of many Germane writers eaſily informe the Reader, if I affected a needleſſe oſtentation of reading.
In this Section upon occaſion of the name of Anabaptiſme, and reiterating of Baptiſme, you deſired to have it To Sect. 4.proved unlawfull to repeate Baptiſme, or for a man that hath beene baptized rightly to be baptized againe: and afterward in your third part Sect. 12. you profeſſe you are not ſatisfied, but that both Circumciſion might have been, and baptiſme may be reiterated: and here you adde that the Argument uſed againſt the repetition of Baptiſme are inſufficient; and that if there were but as much for baptizing of Infants, as Acts 19. 5, 6. affords for rebaptization, the controverſie were at an end with you.
I anſwer, you here clearely diſcover your itch after new Anſw.opinions, your joyning with the Marcionites and Aetians, who allowed it to be done at leaſt thrice. I ſuppoſe in your next wee ſhall have your Arguments to prove the lawful fulneſſe of it, which if you doe, I beſeech you alſo to ſhew how oft it may bee done, whether as oft as the Phariſ…es uſed to waſh: at leaſt (becauſe your anſwers here ſeeme to imply ſo much) whether it may not be repeated as oft as wee ſhould attend upon the preaching of the word, or as oft as wee ſhould indeavour to mortifie our corruptions? In the meane time I ſhall tell you ſome of the reaſons which have hitherto ſatisfied Vide Voſſii Theſes de Anabaptiſt. R…aſons againſt rebaptization of ſuch as are rightly baptized.the Orthodox Church in all ages.
Firſt, Baptiſme is primarily and properly the Sacrament of our new birth, the waſhing of regeneration, which is done but once, the Sacrament of our inſition into Chriſt, which is done but once; the Sacrament of our admiſſion into the new Covenant, and partaking of the benefits of it, and (although many of thoſe benefits and priviledges are repeated and augmented, yet) we have but one admiſſion to them.
Secondly, in no place where the Inſtitution of it is named is there any mention, directly or by conſequence, of any repeating of it, nor any order taken about it; whereas in the other Sacrament, we have a quotieſcunque in the very Inſtitution: nor in any of the thouſands baptized in the Scripture is there the leaſt hint of any example of rebaptization of ſuch as were rightly baptized, no not though ſome of them had played the Apoſtates, as the Galatians, ſome of the Corinthians and many others. And mee thinks this Argument ſhould move you whoſe principle is, that nothing ſhould be done about the Sacraments, but what wee have either inſtitution, or example for.
Thirdly, Baptiſme ſucceeds Circumciſion, wch was but once adminiſtred nor to be adminiſtred any more, as is cleare to mee not onelyonly from the totall ſilence of the Scripture, but out of Joſh. 5. 4. &c. where the holy Ghoſt is pleaſed to give this as a reaſon, why Joſhuah Circumciſed the Iſraelites in Gilgall, viz. becauſe all the Circumciſed were dead; intimating that had they been Circumciſed already, it ſhould not have been done againe. Beſide, by Gods inſtitution it was tied to the eighth day and unleſſe you can find another eighth day after the birth beſide the firſt, you will never bee able to juſtifie it from being a breach of the inſtitution.
Fourthly, to this I might adde the uncontradicted cuſtome of all the ancient Church, with whom it was numbred among Hereſies to reiterate a Baptiſme, which was acknowledged to be valid: Indeed Cyprian and his fellow Biſhops baptized ſuch as had formerly been baptized by Hereticks, but it was onelyonly becauſe they thought the Baptiſme adminiſtred by Hereticks not to bee true Baptiſme. What weight theſe things have with you I know not; the judicious Reader will conſider of them.
But whereas you adde that if you ſaw but as much for baptizing of Infants as Acts 19. 5. &c. affords for rebaptization, the controverſie were at an end with you; give me leave to tell Anſw.you that I perceive a ſmall Argument would ſatisfie you if wee could but once gaine your good will. As will eaſily appeare by a ſerious examination of the ſenſe of that place, Act. 19. which it ſeemes ſatisfies you for rebaptization. I Act. 19. 5, 6. vindicated from favoring rebaptiztion.acknowledge, Interpreters differ very much concerning the meaning of that Text, but none of their expoſitions doe in any degree favour that opinion, that ſuch as were once rightly baptized may be rebaptized: which I thus manifeſt; very many Interpreters doe judge that thoſe twelve Diſciples were not baptized in that place, and they make the fifth Verſe, when they heard this they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jeſus, to bee a part of Pauls ſpeech, not of Lukes the Hiſtorian, and then the ſenſe is this, when thoſe twelve men had told Paul that they were baptized with Johns Baptiſme, Vid. Voſſii Theſes de Baptiſmo Johan. pag 402. &c.Paul tooke upon him to explaine to them what Johns Baptiſme was, namely that Johns miniſtry did firſt exhort men to repentance; and then that they ſhould beleeve in Chriſt, who would give all them who beleeved in him the gift of the holy Ghoſt, which after John had ſufficiently inſtructed them in, he then baptized them in the name of the Lord Jeſus, which ſay they is a paraphraſticall interpretation of this fifth Verſe: and ſo Paul having approved the doctrine and Baptiſme of John, which theſe twelve Diſciples had received, hee did not rebaptize them, but laid his hands upon them, and then the holy Ghoſt immediatly came upon them. Other Interpreters thinke, that theſe words in the fift Verſ. are the words of Luke the Hiſtorian, and that theſe twelve Diſciples were then baptized after Paul had done his ſpeech; and of theſe ſome conceive that theſe were firſt baptized by ſome of Iohns Diſciples into Iohns name, and not into Chriſts: and ſo their baptiſm was a nullity; or at leaſt, if they were baptized into Chriſts name, yet they were not inſtructed in the right faith of the Trinity, of Jeſus Chriſt, his perſon, gifts; and offices; and ſo conſequently that their faith and Baptiſme were deficient in ſome fundamentall and eſſentiall things; and this way go many of the Fathers, and Schoolemen. Others thinke they were rightly baptized with John's baptiſme, and yet were baptized againe by the Apoſtle Paul; becauſe they think that John's baptiſme, and Chriſt's did really differ; and that the Lord would have them re baptized, who were baptized with John's baptiſme onelyonly; but not them who were baptized with Chriſts. And this way generally goe the Papiſts: now whichſoever of theſe you take, here is no colour of rebaptizing of ſuch who were rightly baptized with Chriſts baptiſme: and indeed, whoever conſiders the Text, muſt needs grant that if they were re-baptized, it was becauſe of the deficiency of the baptiſm which they had recieved. Paul demands of them, Have you received the holy Ghoſt ſince you were baptized? They anſw. The holy Ghoſt: what meane you by the holy Ghoſt? wee never ſo much as heard whether there be an holy Ghoſt: No? (ſaith Paul) what were you then baptized into? what ſtrange kind of baptiſme have you received? what Doctrine, or Faith were you inſtructed in before your baptiſme? if you never ſo much as heard that there is an holy Ghoſt. Doth not this plainly hold forth, that if they were re-baptized, it was becauſe Paul thought their former baptiſm to be inſufficient? Truly Sir, I conceive you might eaſily be perſwaded, that there are at leaſt as good grounds for Infants baptiſme, as this Acts 19. affords for re-baptizing of ſuch as have been rightly baptized.
In this 5. Section, I very much wonder at your ſpirit; the ſumme of it is, That although much of what I ſpeake of the To Sect. 5.Anabaptiſts in Germany (eſpecially about Munſter) is true; Yet you ſay, 1. Perhaps vehemency of oppoſition hath made matters more or worſe then they were. 2. No marvaile though ſuch things happen, when Reformation of abuſes is denyed men by an orderly Synodicall way; and the perſons who ſeeke it, declaymed againſt, and perſecuted as Heretiques, &c. 3. That the like things, if not the ſame, happened among the Non-conformiſts, and ſuch as ſought to remove Epiſcopacy and Ceremonies in Queene Elizabeths dayes; that ſome of them grew to bee a dangerous and turbulent Sect: the practiſe of Hacket, and his companions proved like that of John a Leiden at Munſter. That miſcarriages, diviſions, and perſecutions brought the Non-conformiſts of England as low as the Anabaptiſts. That Whitgift and Hooker have long agoe compared the Non conformiſts principles and practiſes with the Anabaptiſts, &c.
To which I anſwer. Firſt, I am confident you ſhew more Anſw.good will to the Anabaptiſts, then you intend ill wil againſt thoſe worthy men who have written theſe Stories: but the things have been done ſo lately, and ſo many agreeing ſtories are written of them, and by men of ſuch undoubted faith and honeſty, that the things are not to be queſtioned. And I think you are the firſt of our Divines who have ſuſpected them to overlaſh in their relations.
Secondly, what you meane by denying Reformation to them who ſeek it in a Synodicall way, &c. I can hardly gueſſe: whether you intend it to excuſe the Anabaptiſts in part, and to blame the Reformed Churches, as laying that ſtumbling blocke in their way, by refuſing to heare them, or whether you hint it as a warning to our ſelves. As for them, I never read that they ſought Reformation in a regular way, or were denyed it, before they fell into theſe furies. And as for our ſelves, you are the onelyonly man, who hath pretended to ſeek Reformation (if it may be ſo called) in this point; the reſt of our Anabaptiſts ſeek not The old Nonconformiſts in Qu. Elizabeths days, pleading againſt Epiſcopacy and Ceremonies, il compared with the Anabaptiſts in Germany.to our Aſſembly; unleſſe it be to reproach, and load them with ſcoffes, libels, threatnings, &c.
Thirdly, but the reſt of this Section is to me extreamly ſcandalous, when I read your odious compariſons between the Non-conformiſts in Queene Elizabeths dayes, and the Anabaptiſts in Germany; it even grieves mee to conſider, whither affection to your cauſe doth carry you. Sir, are you perſwaded in your own conſcience theſe things are ſo? The Anabaptiſts in Germany roſe up, and with fire and ſword pulled downe Magiſtracy, Schooles, &c. wrought wofull Tragedies in upper Germany, in M…ravia, Sileſia, Helvetin, and elſewhere; did the like if not the ſame things happen here? What did the Non-conformiſts ever endeavour to doe beyond prayers and teares? what turbulent Sect was ever found among them? what were thoſe diviſions and miſcarriages which brought them ſo low? the perſecutions of the Prelates indeed brought them low; but I profeſſe I am wholly ignorant of any diviſions and miſcarriages of theirs in that kind: Hacket indeed was a blaſphemous wretch; and hee and his two Companions (for no more there were of them that I can find:) Coppinger, and Arthington made a noiſe in the City of London for a few hours. Hacket was taken and hanged for his blaſphemy, his two Companions laid in priſon, where one of them dyed, and the other (I thinke) was ſpared in hope of his repentance But what is this to your purpoſe? what had Hacket to doe with the Nonconformiſts, who (you know, if ever you read that Story) abominated him, and would have nothing to doe with him, even before he fell to thoſe prankes he plaid in London? Or wherein was Hacket to bee compared with John of Leiden, who overthrew Magiſtracy at Munſter; ſet up a King of his owne Sect; plundered the Towne, gave up all to Polygamies, Adulteries, &c. And laſtly for the parallel which you ſay Whitgift, and Hooker made between them and the Anabaptiſts both in principles, and practiſes, (under which reproach you leave them, without ſpeaking a word in their behalfe to vindicate them) I anſwer onelyonly this, that I am perſwaded your ſelfe beleeve, that Whitgift and Hooker abuſed them in theſe Compariſons: and what your ayme ſhould bee in ſetting it downe, I cannot tell; unleſſe it bee to inſinuate, that as the good Nonconformiſts were thus abuſed by their Adverſaries; ſo Sleiden, Bullinger, Calvin, &c. are not too much to bee credited in their relations of the Anabaptiſts, to whom they were profeſſed adverſaries.
In this Sect your quarrell is againſt Mr. Vines, for ſuſpecting To Sect. 6.the Anabaptiſts will indeavour to undermine Magiſtracy, if they could once get ſtrength. To which you anſwer: 1. You take not Mr. Vines for a Prophet. 2. It follows not, that becauſe they oppoſe Paedo. Baptiſme, out of Mat. 28. 19. that therefore they will oppoſe Magiſtracy out of Rom. 12. 19. 3. That you will undertake to make good that to prove Paedo-baptiſme from the equity and reaſon of Circumciſion, doth undermine much of the Magiſtracy and Lawes of this Kingdome. 4. That ſome of the enemies of Anabaptiſts have oppoſed Magiſtracy. 5. That ſince the actions of Muncer and Munſter, you finde neither their writings nor actions oppoſing Magiſtracy. 6. You bring in Caſſander a Papiſt, ſpeaking moderately of ſome of them. And to make your Reader thinke obaritably of them in this point; You 7. referre them to the Compaſſionate Samaritan, and the London Anabaptiſts late confoſſion.
I ſee how diligent and willing an advocate you are for Anſw.your friends, but few of theſe things will either help you, To 1, 2 Mr. Vines vindicated.or indure the tryall. 'Tis true, Mr. Vines is no Divining Prophet. And 2. it follows not by Logicall argumentation, that becauſe they have oppoſed the one, therefore they will oppoſe the other. But Sir, without a Spirit of Divination, or neceſſary conſequence of reaſon, when wee ſee clouds gathering, wee may ſuſpect rainy weather; when we Almoſt all the Errors of the Germane Anabaptiſts, lately drunke in in England.ſee multitudes of our Anabaptiſts, eſpecially thoſe of the laſt edition, to have drunk in almoſt all the reſt of the dregs of the Germane Anabaptiſts; (I ſay) in a manner all, except that of oppoſing Magiſtracy; may we not feare that even that alſo would bee imbraced if they were fit for it? Read over the whole Gangrene of their opinions recorded by Bullinger, Calvin, and others; and lately …pitomized by Cloppenbergius; and ſee whether among our Anabaptiſts in England, they are not almoſt all to be found: Doe not ſome of ours, as well as they, hold blaſphemous Opinions about the fleſh of Chriſts? Have not multitudes of ours ſwallowed down all Arminianiſm, as well as they? Plead not ſome of ours for the mortality of the ſoule, as well as they? have not ſome of ours laid downe their Armes out of opinion that even in a juſt cauſe warre is unlawfull? have not many of ours drunke in the conceits of immediate revelations and Enthyſiaſmes as much as they? doe not many of ours conceit a perfection of grace? doe they not oppoſe the Chriſtian Sabbath? doe they not cry downe our Miniſtry as no Miniſtry? our Churches as no Churches? Verily one egge is not more like another then this brood of new opinions (lately hatched in England, and entertained among them who are called Anabaptiſts) is like that Spawne which ſo ſuddenly grew up among the Anabaptiſts in Germany; and ours plead the ſame Arguments which theirs did; and if they flow not from the ſame Logicall or Theologicall principles, it is yet their unhappy fate to be led by the ſame ſpirit. I confeſſe I yet heare not much of their denying the Magiſtrates authoritie, but if theſe men ſhould increaſe to much ſtrength, I will not take upon me to divine, but I ſhall pray that Mr. Vines prove not too true a Prophet, eſpecially conſidering the nature of erroneous and hereticall ſpirits is to grow worſe and worſe, and not at firſt to vent all their poyſon; even the Anabaptiſts of Munſter in the beginning of their Schiſme ſet forth a confeſſion of faith every way as Orthodox as that which you mention of the ſeven Churches of the Anabaptiſts of London, in their Confeſſion mentioned in the latter end of this Section, as I am credibly informed by a Reverend and Learned Divine, Mr. Dury.who hath many yeers agoe both ſeene and read it in Germany.
To your third and fourth I anſwer, onelyonly this, that I ſhall waite untill you cleare them, as being not able out of my To 3. 4.ſmall judgement and Reading to conjecture either what proofes you can bring for the one, or example for the other: you who make your ſelfe merry with Mr. Vines his Logick, will ſhew your owne to bee ſupereminent when you make this conſequence good, that pleading baptizing of Infants from Circumciſion of Infants, overthrows much of the Magiſtracy and Lawes of England.
But your fifth ſeemes very ſtrange, that you cannot finde, that ſince Munſter and Mun…er the Anabaptiſts in Germany have either by writing or action made any oppoſition againſt magiſtracy: as for their actions, they have of old paid ſo deare for their inſurrections, that wee have not lately heard of any new ones; but for their writings it is moſt apparent that their bookes written by them, even to this day, do conſtantly defend, that though Magiſtracy bee an Ordinance of God, as to them who are not under the kingdome and dominion of Chriſt, yet Chriſt hath put an end to it among his owne people, taken away all Magiſtracy from among them, that no Chriſtian can be a Magiſtrate with a good conſcience, and that if Chriſtians doe live under any ſuch, they are to beare them but as other plagues and judgements are to be borne.
You oppoſe Caſſanders moderate teſtimony of ſome of 6.them to the Duke of Cleave a Papiſt, againſt Mr. Vines his ſpeech before the Lord Major and City of London; Caſſander indeed ſpake favourably of ſome of their perſons, but doth not excuſe or plead for their doctrine or principles; and Mr. Vines ſpeakes againſt their doctrine or principles, but ſpeakes nothing againſt the perſons of any of them: ſo that I can ſee no cauſe of your bringing in this long teſtimony out of Caſſander, in the favour of Menno and his followers, but onelyonly to ſhew your good-will to the Anabaptiſts, and your diſpleaſure againſt Mr. Vines, who differs from your opinion. One thing more I adde concerning this Menno (whom you pleade for by Caſſanders pen) that his whole doctrine is as full of blaſphemy about our Saviours taking fleſh of the Virgin Mary, and other Hereticall and abominable ſtuffe, as the reſt of his fellowes, though I thinke his ſpirit was not ſo ſeditious as many of theirs.
And as to your allegation out of the compaſſionate Samaritan, which indeavours to ſpeake all poſſible good of 7.ſuch as oppoſe Presbyteriall government: pleading to obtaine an univerſall libertie for all their opinions, and practices, and indeavors to brand as infamous, and caſt all manner of filth in the faces of ſuch, as indeavor to promote it, I leave ſuch Lettice to their lips who like it. And for what you alledge out of the London Anabaptiſts confeſſion, I acknowledge it the moſt Orthodox of any Anabaptiſts confeſſion that ever I read, (although there are ſundry Heterodox opinions in it) and ſuch an one as I beleeve thouſands of our new Anabaptiſts will be farre from owning, as any man may bee able to ſay without a ſpirit of divination, knowing that their received and uſuall doctrines doe much more agree with the Anabaptiſts in Germany, then with this handfull who made this confeſſion here in London.
In your ſeventh, you firſt expreſſe your good affection To Sect. 7.to further Reformation; ſecondly, you propound what in your judgement is the beſt way to promote it In the firſt you are ſenſible of your …ath and Covenant, declare the ſincerity of your deſires and prayers to promote it according to the Word of God, &c.
Your deſires, and prayers, and intentions are holy, and Anſw.good, well ſuiting with the report I have often heard of you before I read this your booke; and would the Lord pleaſe to draw out thoſe good Talents he hath given you in the moſt uſefull way; I conceive you may be a very profitable inſtrument in this great worke, and I verily thinke your abilities greater then many others, whom you ſuppoſe to have been imployed more eminently then your ſelfe▪ But pardon me, that I tell you ſadly and freely, that the frame of ſpirit which the genius of your booke ſhewes forth makes me feare the contrary, you every where manifeſt ſuch height of ſelfe-confidence, you powre out ſuch abundance of ſcorne upon them who thinke otherwiſe then you doe, you ſo magiſterially tread under foot the Arguments and Reaſons of thoſe who differ from your opinion, though they appeare never ſo ſtrong or evident to others; you ſo boldly call into queſtion ſome doctrines which few have ever queſtioned before you; you ſo ſlight the Authoritie both of ancient and moderne writers, eſpecially in this point, though you know the generality of all Confeſſions and Harmonies (except onelyonly the Anabaptiſts) concurre in one againſt you, that unleſſe God alter your preſent temper, I ſuſpect this is not the laſt trouble you are like to put the Church unto; and I aſſure you, very many who willingly acknowledge your learning, and other abilities and are no whit ſorry your booke is extant, (becauſe they conceive this controverſie may thereby receive a fuller ſcanning) are extremely ſcandalized at your high and ſcornefull ſpirit.
You propound what you conceive is the beſt way to promote Reformation, and your thoughts are, that the 2.onelyonly way to further Reformation is to begin with this your darling, the caſting out this point of Infant-Baptiſme, a point which you conceive to bee a mother corruption, which carries in her wombe moſt of thoſe abuſes in diſcipline and manners, and ſome of the errors in doctrine which defile the reformed Churches, without which all after Cathechizing, Cenſures, ſeparaton, Church-Covenant, &c. are altogether inſufficient to ſupply the want of it. Secondly, that Baptiſme therefore hath not that influence into the comfort and obligations of Conſciences as it had of old. And thirdly, that the Aſſemblies not beginning with this point is one great cauſe why Gods bleſſing doth no more accompany them, whilſt they waſte much time about things inconſiderable in compariſon of this, and either haſtily paſſe over, or exclude from examination, this which deſerves moſt to bee examined.
Ah Sir, How deare and lovely are our owne children in our eyes! did ever any before you conceive ſo many and great evills to follow upon the baptizing the children of Anſw.beleevers? that ſuch Monſters ſhould be bred in the wombe of it, or conceive that the removing of this would bee the healing of all? I verily thinke, ſhould another have ſpoke ſuch things of farre greater points, you would have called them dictates, Chimaraes, bold, aſſertions, and what not? Whether your Examen of my Sermon, and your twelve Arguments in your exercitation will prove it to bee a corruption of Chriſts inſtitution; whether the reaſons for Paedo-Baptiſme be far fetched; whether there be a cleare inſtitution of Chriſt againſt it. (as here you affirme) wee ſhall have leiſure (God willing) to examine in their due place: but for the preſent, ſuppoſe mee to grant your poſtul…tum, that it is an applying of an inſtitution to a wrong ſubject, yet I would faine learne of you, how all theſe odious conſequences will bee made good, how theſe abuſes in doctrine, diſcipline and manners (which you mention) would be taken away if Paedo-Baptiſme were removed; nay would not the ſelfe ſame things ſtill bee found as grounds or occaſions of the ſame differences, while ſome profeſſe they would baptize any, whether Turkes or Heathens, who onelyonly would make a profeſſion of their faith in Jeſus Chriſt, and then admit them to all other Ordinances, and not have them Excommunicated è ſacris, (but onelyonly a private conſortio) though their lives ſhould prove ſcandalous; (and I am miſinformed by good friends who know and love you very well if your ſelfe incline not this way) others would take the ſame courſe before Baptiſme, which now they doe before admitting men to the Sacrament of the Lords Supper, and would proceed to excommunication à Sacris as well as privately withdraw from ſuch as prove ſcandalous and obſtinate; yea and take themſelves bound to ſeparate from mixt communions with them, as much as they doe now, notwithſtanding their admiſſion by Baptiſme in your way. And in this various manner of admitting men to Baptiſme, and dealing with men in other cenſures, every Church or Elderſhip proceeding according to the largeneſſe or ſtrictneſſe of their owne principles, I can ſee nothing but that the ſame abuſes in diſcipline and manners which are now found among Chriſtian people, the ſame controverſies about ſuch as ſhould be admitted to the Lords Supper, the ſame diviſions and ſeparations would be ſound in the Church, which now (alas!) take too much place amongſt us. This I ſay, ſuppoſing your Poſtulatum were a truth; But on the contrary ſuppoſing it not to be a truth, what a Deformation inſtead of a Reformation ſhould wee bring in, in caſting the children of Beleevers out of the viſible Church, reputing them no better then Turkes and Indians, and eſpecially doing it upon ſuch grounds, as are pleaded by you and others; which even alter the ſtate of the Covenant of grace? As for your ſecond, I know not what influence of comfort or obligation upon conſcience Baptiſme had of old, which is not now to bee found among them who are truely baptized, who injoy not onelyonly the putting away the filth of the fleſh, but the anſwer of a good conſcience towards God by the reſurrection of Jeſus Chriſt.
And laſtly, for what you ſpeake of the Aſſembly, I impute it to your prejudice, and extreame doting upon your owne opinion, that you thinke this Point moſt worthy of their examination, and to your miſinformation (to ſpeake no worſe) that they waſte much time about things inconſiderable in compariſon, or that they exclude this from Examination, or ſeeke to ſtop it from any Tryall, or that they haſtily paſſe it over; This is a very bold charge which you give upon the Aſſembly in the face of the world: What evidence have you for this? unleſſe your Compaſſionate Samaritan bee Authentick with you? The Apoſtle commands Timothy not to receive an accuſation againſt an Elder unleſſe it bee under two or three witneſſes. But for one man to caſt thus much filth in the face of an Aſſembly of Miniſters is very high, and ſavours little of that modeſty or meekneſſe to which you did ſometimes pretend. How farre the bleſſing of God (who hath not hitherto altogether left us, notwithſtanding our unworthines) doth and will accompany the endeavours of the Aſſembly; it is fit to leave to himſelfe, who gives increaſe to Pauls planting and Apollo's watering according to his good pleaſure. But as for their ſhutting out the due examination of this Point, you are wholly miſtaken (though they have returned no anſwer to your paper.) It is true (as I told you in the beginning) that wee are ſhut up by Ordinance of Parliament from anſwering any private mens Papers or Bookes without leave from the Houſes; but I dare ſpeake it in the name of the whole Aſſembly, that they would bee glad you were admitted to diſpute all your grounds among them.
In your next Paragraph which containes a compariſon Sect. 8.betweeve the evidences held out in the New Teſtament for the Religious obſervation of the Lords day, and this of Infant-Baptiſme, you firſt make your ſelfe merry with my expreſſions, that all who reject the baptizing of Infants, becauſe there is not an expreſſe Inſtitution or Command in the New-Teſtament, doe and muſt upon the ſame grounds reject the obſervation of the Lords-day. But I am no whit aſhamed of thoſe words. They doe, and they muſt upon the ſame Principles (if they be true to their Principles) reject the one as well as the other. And though I want the skill which ſome others have to plead for the Lord-day; yet I ſuppoſe you ſhall find I have skill enough to make this good, That there is no more expreſſe Inſtitution or Command in the New-Teſtament for the Lords day then there is for Infant-Baptiſme. And whereas you alledge that ſome of the reformed Churches reject the Lords day, and yet entertaine Infant-Baptiſme, and thence inferre that theſe two muſt not neceſſari'y ſtand and fall, bee received and rejected together. I anſwer, Thoſe Churches which doe ſo conceive that there is an inſtitution for the Baptizing of Infants, but none for the obſervation of the …ords day, although herein I humbly conceive they are miſtaken, I doubt not but it doth and will appeare to impartiall and unprejudiced Readers, that there is ſufficient evidence of an Inſtitution for both of them, though not in ſuch expreſſe Texts of Scripture in the New-Teſtament as the Anabaptiſts require, and I ſhall now examine whether you bring any better evidence for the one, then is to be found for the other.
Firſt, you ſay, they meane it of poſitive worſhip, conſiſting in outward rites, and not of worſhip which is naturall or morall.
Anſw. But this but a blind, morall and naturall are not to be confounded; whatever worſhip is naturall may bee indeed acknowledged to be morall, but not whatever is morall is to be eſteemed naturall: I know you cannot bee ignorant of the received diſtinction of Morale Naturale, and Morale poſitivum, and I beſeech you, though a Sabbath be grant…d to be Naturall, yea if I ſhould adde, that one day in the revolution of ſeaven ſhould bee ſo; yet that this or that ſeventh day in the revolution of a weeke ſhould bee obſerved, all grant this depends upon an Inſtitution, and hath no more moralitie in it then what can bee made out from an Inſtitution, and conſequently, that the firſt day of the weeke ſhould be the Chriſtian Sabbath, or that this one day of ſeven which God hath ſeparated to himſelf and had once expreſly fixed upon the ſeventh or laſt day of the week, ſhould be tranſlated from the laſt day to the firſt day of the weeke, muſt depend wholly upon an Inſtitution, and conſequently they who reject that which depends upon poſitive Inſtitution, unleſſe its Inſtitution can bee expreſly found in the New-Teſtament are as much at a loſſe for the Lords day, as for the baptizing of Infants.
Nay give me leave to adde, that in this point in queſtion, the advantage lies more on this hand, (I meane for Infant-Baptiſme) becauſe there is more neceſſitie of clearing the Inſtitution for the Lords day, then for baptizing of Infants, becauſe in the one the ordinance it ſelfe, and its inſtitution is queſtioned, but in this of Infant-Baptiſme, the queſtion is not of the Inſtitution of the Ordinance it ſelfe, but onelyonly of the ſubject to whom the Ordinance is to be applyed. If the queſtion bee betwixt Baptiſme and the Lords day, all grant that we have clearer Inſtitution for the Sacrament of Baptiſme, then for the Lords day: Baptiſme is clearly inſtituted in the New-Teſtament to bee the Sacrament of our admiſſion into the Covenant of grace, and to ſucceed in the roome of Circumciſion, (as your ſelfe grant.) Now the onelyonly queſtion is, whether (taking this for granted) that baptiſm ſucceeds in the roome of Circumciciſion, and to bee applyed unto all perſons by the will of God who are in Covenant with him, whether the ſame perſons may partake of this Sacrament, as might partake of the other, unleſſe thoſe perſons bee expreſly ſet downe in the New-Tement; I hope in the judgement of all indifferent men, a queſtion about the perſons to whom an ordinance is to bee applyed, is a queſtion of a farre inferiour nature to that queſtion, whether ſuch a thing pretended to be an Ordinance have any Inſtitution at all or not. It's one thing to invent a new Ordinance of worſhip, another (and that of inferiour rank) to miſtake in ſome of the perſons to whom an Ordinance is to be applyed. In ſome of the ancient times the Lords Supper was given to Infants, and carried to ſick perſons when abſent, to teſtifie their communion with the Church: I take them both for errours, but yet not for errors of the like nature with inventing a new Sacrament; I ſay againe, there is a great difference betweene bringing in a new Ordinance, and applying it to theſe or theſe perſons, eſpecially, when the queſtion is not of the perſons in generall, who are the ſubject matter, (as whether men or Angels, men or beaſts) but whether men of ſuch an age or of ſuch a Sex. Sir, to my beſt underſtanding, theſe two queſtions are not parallell, a juſt parallell queſtion to this of Infant-Baptiſme would be ſuch a one as was once diſputed betwixt Mr. Bifield and Mr. Brerewood, viz. Taking it for granted, that by a cleare Inſtitution, the Lords day ſucceeds in the roome of the old Sabbath, whether yet the ſame perſons are tied to keepe the Lords day, who of old were tied to keepe the Sabbath, unleſſe thoſe parties were mentioned in the New-Teſtament, as whether ſervants as well as their maſters, the ſame holds here.
All this I ſpeake not as any whit doubting that there is as cleare evidence for Baptizing of Infants, as there is for the religious obſervation of the Chriſtian Sabbath, notwithſtanding the latter ſeemes to require fuller evidence then this doth.
Your ſecond explication gives you as little advantage, you ſay that Apoſtolicall example which hath not a me…re temporary reaſon, is enough to prove an Inſtitution from God, to which that practiſe doth relate, eſpecially when ſuch examples come to bee backed with the conſtant practiſe of all Churches in all ages. And then you bring in Pauls preaching at Troa…, the collections upon the firſt day of the weeks in the firſt of the Corinthians and the ſixteenth, the mentioning of the Lords day, Revel. 1.
Sir, I except againſt none of all this to bee a part of that good evidence which wee have for the religious obſervation of the Lords day, but I dare confidently ſpeake it, that out of theſe you can never evince more (laying all things together) to prove the Inſtitution of the Lords day, then I have done for the lawfulneſſe of baptizing of Infants; and I appeale to all learned Readers, whether the many bookes written of late againſt the Inſtitution of the Lords day, give not as ſpecious and plauſible anſwers to theſe places alledged by you concerning the Chriſtian Sabbath, as yours are againſt Infant-baptiſme (although they have received ſufficient cleare and ſolid anſwers) yea and tread under their feet all arguments taken from theſe examples, with as much confidence and ſcorne, as your ſelfe doe that which I and others have named for Paedo-Baptiſme. And as for the ſupplement which you bring out of the conſtant practiſe of the Churches for the religious obſervation of the Lords day in ſtead of the old Sabbath: I earneſtly deſire you in your next to produce as many of the ancients to beare witneſſe to that truth, as I have done in this point for Paedo-Baptiſme, and I promiſe you, you ſhall receive my hearty thanks among the reſt of your Readers; in the meane time the Reader ſhall judge whether I have not brought a moity of that for the Baptizing of Infants, which you have done for the Lords day.
Further, whether you have not abuſed your reader in ſo confident averring that there are no footſteps in Antiquity for Paedo-Baptiſme, till the erroneous conceit of giving Gods grace by it, & the neceſſity of it, to ſave an Infant from periſhing ſome hundreds of yeers after Chriſts Incarnation, is eaſily to bee ſeene by what I have at large produced in the former part of this treatiſe.
Laſtly, your tedious diſcourſe of that dangerous principle of framing additions to Gods worſhip by Analogies of our own… making without warrant from Gods Word; I deſire you to apply it to them who do ſo, I no further make uſe of it, then I find Gods Word to goe along with me: Whether beleevers Infants are confederates with their parents in the Covenant of Grace, comes afterwards to be examined; the reſt of this Section being carping at a phraſe or expreſſion which your ſelfe grant being taken cum grano ſalis, may paſſe with a candid Reader, I paſſe over as worthy of no further anſwer, onelyonly I adde this one word, that though it bee not ſafe to reaſon barely from events of things, yet it well becomes us thankfully to take notice of Gods bleſſing upon his owne Ordinance, and the more earneſtly to contend for that which God is pleaſed ſo mercifully to accompany with his grace.
In your ninth Section you concurre with mee in condemning To Sect. 9.it as a wicked practiſe to ſeparate from miniſtry and communion in Ordinances, by reaſon of this difference in opinion, and that the making of Sects upon theſe grounds is contrary unto Chriſtian Charitie: and I as willingly concurre with you in what you ſay in the latter part of this Section, that godly Miniſters and other Chriſtians ſhould not by harſh uſage of their brethren in ſtirring up hatred in Magiſtrates and people againſt them, caſt ſtrumbling blocks in their way, thereby to alienate diſſenting brethren from them: but for what you ſay in the middle of this Section, that this is not the evill of Anti-paedo-baptiſme; I anſwer, I conceive it flowes from the principles which moſt of the Anti-paedo-baptiſts do conceive (though poſſibly all (and your ſelfe for one have not wholly embraced them) for if you pleaſe to take and to compare theſe three principles of theirs together. Firſt, members are added to the Church by Baptiſme, and not otherwiſe. Secondly, that ſuch as are not baptized according to Chriſts Inſtitution, their Baptiſme is a nullitie. Thirdly, that becauſe the Baptiſme of Infants is not clearely held out in the New Teſtament, it is therefore not warranted by Chriſts Inſtitution, but contrary to it, and then tell mee what followes leſſe then this, that none ſo baptized are Churchmembers, & conſequently can performe no acts of Churchmembers, and that therefore our Churches are no true Churches, our Miniſtry can bee no true Miniſtry, and therefore a neceſſitie of ſeparation from us. What you add in the end of this Section, that a paſſage in one of my Sermons about the hedge which God hath ſet about the ſecond Commandement hath been one cauſe of your ſtartling at this point of Paedo-Baptiſme. I anſwer, onelyonly this, had you not bin ſtartled before, there is nothing in that ſpeech could have moved you; and when once you have manifeſted that Baptizing of Infants doth breake downe the hedge which God hath made about the ſecond Commandement, I ſhall bee ſtartled with you, and not till then.
In your tenth and laſt Section, wherein you undertake to anſwer that paſſage in my Sermon, that the opinion To Sect. 10.of the Anabaptiſts puts all the Infants of beleevers into the ſelfeſame condition with Turkes and Infidells, you anſwer ſeverall things: wherein I plainely perceive you cannot deny what I affirme, and yet you are loath to grant it: you ſay, firſt, Cyprian with his 66. Biſhops doth the ſame, which I have forinerly ſhewed will not follow out of the words of of that Epiſtle: ſecondly, you ſay, Mr. Rathband pleading that ſuch Children whoſe Anceſtors in any generation were faithfull may lawfully bee accounted within Gods Covenant, grants the ſame alſo. But this no wayes followes without extreame wracking thoſe words in any Generation. I ſuppoſe your ſelfe doth not thinke thoſe words, Exod. 20. 5. were intended to intimate that all the children in the world, who came from Adam or Noah were included in the Covenant of grace, nor doe I conceive you beleeved Mr. Rathband to thinke ſo. For your owne opinion you declare it thus; 1. You know no warrant to thinke election to reach beleevers children more then unbeleevers children. 2. You know no more promiſe for them then for the children of unbeleevers. 3. All the likelihood there is, that they belong to Gods election rather then Turkes and Infidels, to be, becauſe they have their parents and the Churches prayers, ſome generall and conditionall promiſes, and enjoy the benefit of good inſtruction and example, which puts them into a nearer poſſibility to bee beleevers and ſaved, and experience ſhewes God frequently continues his Church in their poſterity. But this you dare not ground upon any promiſe made unto beleevers as ſuch, for ſtore you ſhould incurre blaſphemy by challenging a promiſe which God doth not keepe: in that many of the poſteritie of godly parents prove very wicked.
To all which I anſwer, firſt, in generall, that to my underſtanding you here clearely yeeld the Infants of beleevers to bee in the ſame condition in reference to the Covenant of grace, which the Infants of Turkes and Indians are in, no more promiſe for the one then for the other: which ſo oft as you conſider, mee thinkes your fatherly bowels to your owne children ſhould bee moved within you. Secondly, I anſwer, firſt, to that of election, your owne ſpeech that experience ſhewing that God frequently continues his Church among beleevers poſteritie, ſhould be one argument to make you thinke Gods election lies more among them then among others, though wee can bee certaine of no one of them in particular. Secondly, what promiſes are made to beleevers children more then to Turkes, and whether Abrahams promiſe reach them, ſhall God willing bee ſcand in its proper place. Thirdly, as to that which you ſay, that the children of beleevers are in a more hopefull way, becauſe of their parents prayers, inſtructions, examples, &c. and ſome generall and conditionall promiſes which puts them in a more poſſibilitie; I anſwer, this is nothing to the children which die in their Infancy, nor ſecondly, any more then children of Pagans enjoy, whoſe lot may fall to be educated by Chriſtians, but no more promiſe by your doctrine for the one then the other. Thirdly, whereas you affirme that Generall, Indefinite, and Conditionall promiſes doe prove that there is a more comfortable likelihood that the children of beleevers are elected by God rather then the children of Turkes. I reply, 1. You doe not expreſſe what thoſe promiſes are. 2. I wonder that you ſhould inferre election from conditionall promiſes. Did God ever ſay that if you will performe theſe and theſe conditions, then I will regenerate you, give you a new heart, and put my ſpirit within you? 3. If the promiſe of regeneration bee not conditionall then you muſt ſay that there is ſome comfortable likelihood that ſuch Infants may bee elected though they are not regenerated, for if there be any thing leſſe then regeneration promiſed, ſure there can be no comfortable likelihood of the election of a child gathered from a promiſe of any thing which leaves a child in an unregenerate eſtate. But I much admire that ſpeech of yours, where you feare you ſhould incur blaſphemy by challenging a promiſe which God doth not keepe, becauſe many of the children of beleevers prove wicked; I beſeech you tell me, was it not ſo among Abrahams poſteritie? and yet you grant Abraham had a peculiar promiſe which wee have not; might not they without blaſphemy plead that promiſe, notwithſtanding that promiſe, I will he the God of thee and thy ſeed, was not made good to every one of them? for it is moſt cleare by the Apoſtles diſcourſe in the ninth and eleventh Chapters to the Romans, that God was not the God of thouſands of Abrahams ſeed, either in reſpect of ſaving grace, or outward priviledges, for he caſt off the Jewes from being his people, and ſuffered them not to enjoy ſo much as outward priviledges, but made choice of the Gentiles in their ſtead; and yet I hope you will not ſay that God broke his Covenant with thoſe that had the ſeale of the Covenant in their fleſh; and yet were rejected not onelyonly from ſaving grace, but from outward priviledges.
Next let us ſee how you avoid being goared by the three hornes of my Syllogiſme. I ſaid, all being left in the ſame condition, 1. All muſt be ſaved. Or 2. all muſt bee damned. Or 3. God ſaves ſome of the Infants of the Turkes, and ſome of the Infants of beleevers pro beneplacito. After ſome diſcourſe of the two firſt of theſe, you deny the conſequence: It follows not (ſay you) God may ſave ſome, and thoſe ſome may bee the Infants of beleevers, and none of the Infants of Turks and Indians. It's true, a man that will may venture to ſay ſo; and if another will, he may venture to ſay, That thoſe ſome, are the Infants of Pagans, and not of Chriſtians: and hee that ſhould ſay ſo, hath as good warrant for this, as you have for the other, according to your principle. But what's this to the queſtion before us? I ſaid, This opinion leaves them all in the like condition; One having no more reference to a promiſe then another. Now if you will avoid being goared by any of theſe three hornes, you ſhould have ſhewed, that according to your opinion, there is ſome promiſe for ſome of the Infants of beleevers, though there be none for the Infants of Pagans. But in ſtead of ſhewing how your doctrine and opinion leaves them: you tell me what God may poſſibly doe in his ſecret Counſell, which is altogether unknowne to us. But I perceive your ſelfe ſuſpected this anſwer would not endure the tryall: and therefore you quarrell at that expreſſion of mine, That if any of the Infants, of ſuch as live and die Pagans be ſaved by Chriſt; then ſalvation by Chriſt is earryed out of the Church, whereof God hath made no promiſe. Againſt this you except; 1. That ſalvation is not carryed out of the inviſible Church; though ſome Infants of Pagans ſhould bee ſaved by Chriſt. I anſwer, it's true; and I adde, That if any man ſhall ſay, the Devils ſhould be ſaved by Chriſt: even that Opinion would not carry ſalvation out of the inviſible Church. But Sir, we are enquiring after the ſalvation of them to whom a promiſe of ſalvation is made. Now when you can prove that God hath made a promiſe, that he will gather a number, or hath a number whoſe names are written in the Lambs book, although their Parents never knew Jeſus Chriſt, nor themſelves ever live to bee inſtructed, you may then perſwade your Reader to beleeve, that even ſome of the Infants of Pagans dying in their Infancy belong to the inviſible Church: and till then, you muſt give him leave to beleeve that this anſwer is brought in as a ſhift, onelyonly to ſerve your preſent need.
Secondly, you anſwer, That men may bee ſaved out of the communion of the viſible Church; and you inſtance Abraham called out of Chaldea; Job in the Land of Vz; Rahab in Jericho: and you ſay, Hee that called theſe, may ſave ſome amongſt Turkes and Indians out of the viſible Church. I anſwer, I hope in your next, you will a little better explaine your meaning: The Reader will certainly take this to bee your meaning: that as Abraham, Job, and Rahab, were ſaved out of the communion of th… viſible Church in their dayes: ſo ſome among the Turkes and Indians may bee ſaved out of the communion of the viſible Church in our dayes. But ſurely this is not your meaning, you doe not beleeve, that Abraham, Job, and Rahab were out of the communion of the viſible Church, though poſſibly the manner of their calling might bee extraordinary, as afterwards St. Pauls was. Nor doe you beleeve that the Eunuch when he was returned into Ethiopia was out of the Communion of the viſible Church; though his habitation (at leaſt for a… while) was not among Chriſtians but Infidels. I am perſwaded that you thinke all viſible beleevers to bee within the Communion of the viſible Church, though poſſibly they may be hindered from being actuall Members of any particular Church. I will not ſo much as imagine that you mentioned theſe three examples, as a Blinde to deceive your uncautelous Reader: and therefore I only deſire you in your next, to let us know your meaning plainely: and diſcover to us this myſtery, how men may bee called to fellowſhip with Jeſus Chriſt, and yet have no communion with the viſible Church of Chriſt.
The reſt of this Section, wherein you enquire what thoſe promiſes are which are are made to the ſeed of beleevers, I ſhall (God willing) give you an account of them in the next part of the Sermon, whither now you call me; onelyonly I cannot but take notice of your confident brag in the cloſe of this Section, how manfully you have entred my outworkes, and thereby incourage your ſelfe to ſcale my walls: You indeed entred, and ſet up your flag, but I hope it appeares to the indifferent Reader that you are in no great probabilitie of getting any great ſpoile, unleſſe my walls prove weaker then the outworke, which as yet are farre from being taken by you.