and let believing Gentiles be counted branches yet Infants then were some of the branches when they were in the Olive or root and so were branches cut off when their parents were cut off as long as the parents stood branches so long the Infants were branches nor were any parents branches but from that state they had when Infants Gentiles Infants therefore are branches with their believing parents and stand in the same state with them Secondly wee know that the Scriptures do not so appropriate the words root and first fruits as not to apply them to others besides the particulars Jerem. 11.16 God called the Church there an Olive and the people branches so she is called a Vine Isa 5 c. So others are called first fruits as 1 Cor. 16.15 Rev. 14.4 c. And if parents had no relation to children nor Infants to parents in this respect how could Infants being branches with their parents to Abraham the root be cut off with their parents seeing they could not be cut off for their own unbeliefe and their relation to Abraham was intire in respect of any thing on their part to the contrary This place therefore is not abused in the application of it but fully concludeth what I brought it for Next hee considereth 1 Cor. 7.14 which hee saith neither suppresseth roots nor first fruits nor hath it any such meaning as that the holinesse of the parent should cause a holinesse in their Infant In a word I reply root and first fruits are not expressed but necessarily implyed and so much is expressed as amounts to that For if the children be holy upon their parents believing and if the parents did not believe the children should not be holy it is as much as if he had said the root is holy and the branches are holy not in the parents believing any cause of their childrens holinesse but Gods free grace But not to strive about words in the view of the place it self before he comes to expresse his Reasons negative and affirmative he conceives it necessary to observe what I say which hee thus sets down I suppose it is mistaken when expounded of the same holinesse spoken of before of an Infidel person sanctified to a believing yoke-fellow And the Apostle speaking of a two-fold holinesse the one not in the thing it self but to another use the other of the thing it self it cannot but be sinfull to confound them Hee answereth he◠will not contend nor gain-say any thing of this Reply Herein he makes himself an Adversary to some of his judgment in this case of Baptisme who maintain that state of holiness to be meant in the children that was in the parent that is holy to the believers use Further he saith I say the Apostle saith two things that to the pure all things are pure Ergo a believing person may dwell with an Infidell yoke-fellow Secondly that by vertue of a believers state in grace all the fruit is holy and partakers of the same state in grace unlesse they do by some act of theirs deprive themselves of it as Esau and Ishmael c. In answer to this he grants the former but denies the latter wholly and that it is not the purpose of Paul so to speak and therefore he gives divers reasons First ¶ 1 the Apostle intends such a holinesse in the Infants as is inseparable from their very being or else it would not have been a sufficient proof of the sanctification of the unbelieving unto the believer Reply I deny that the Apostle intends to conclude such a holinesse as is inseparable to their very being for then it would be common to all Infants whereas this is appropriate to an Infant of at least one believer In a word there is a two-fold holinesse of a person one is externall and is the separation of him from common state to be the Lords and bound up in covenant with him which is foederall holinesse The other is internall and is the speciall separation of a man from the state of sin by inherent sanctificaon from justification in Christ which is inseparable from them that have it The other is separable as in the case of Jewes who by this were called a holy people when yet they were not really sanctified by inherent grace and the holy city called an Harlot and of this in his place which fully will prove what the Apostle intends as wee shall see afterward His second Reason follows which is this ¶ 2 If by a believers state in grace be meant the covenant that Abraham and all believers do possesse by faith then he saith first Ishmael Esau c. were never of it Rom. 9.8 and therefore could not by any act of theirs deprive themselves of it Reply First by the state of grace is meant that covenant that Abraham and all believers do possesse by faith Secondly I say Ishmael Esau c. were of that covenant dispensed on Gods part unto them and to be received on their part by faith at present or afterward And if Ishmael and Esau were not so in that covenant as well as Isaac and Jacob then how could they be circumcised with the seal of the righteousnesse of faith they had the same seal set unto them that Abraham Isaac and Jacob had and if it were not the same covenant then Abraham Isaac and Jacob were in one covenant and sealed to that and Ishmael and Esau and the like were in another covenant and sealed to that with the same seal that the others were sealed to the other Further whether or no shall Ishmael Esau c. be judged according to that covenant of Abraham and punished for refusing it if so as it is certain then they were under that covenant though they injoyed not the benefit of it which is the meaning of Rom. 9.8 and deprived themselves of it by hardening their hearts and had a spirit of slumber inflicted upon them as a just punishment of that their refusing Rom. 11.7 Secondly he saith that if Ishmael and Esau were deprived by some act of theirs then we must fall upon Arminius tenet of falling from grace which all understanding Christians do utterly abhor Reply First it is well known that many holding with the Consuter in this point of paedobaptisme do maintain that a man truly elected and in state of salvation may and do fall away and perish if he dissents in this I will not blame him 2ly What understanding Christian did ever deny that some men fall from grace and are there not many Scriptures that do testifie as much Christians do deny that any elect of God and made partakers of saving calling can fall away from that estate they thereby are made partakers of But there is another state of grace whereof many non-elected are partakers of by the covenant on Gods part dispensed and of many effects of Gods operation in their hearts some more some lesse and from this all of them may many of them do fall
flesh successively Secondly by passing the promise into a solemne formall visible covenant as the father of the blessed and all-blessing seed and of all believers of all nations Thirdly confirming it by circumcision the sign and seal of the righteousnesse of faith which he had yet being uncircumcised 3. The third from Moses to Christs coming in the flesh this is the same in substance with the former the same Christ and doctrine and grace dispensed but differing from the former in the manner of dispensation in divers circumstances First in adding these ten words in tables of stone and drawing a vail of shadowes over it consisting of all those Lawes and Ordinances delivered to Moses on the mount according to the pattern shewed him and by him communicated to the people Secondly in adding the Ordinance of the Passeover with divers rites thereto belonging all which were to continue till the time of Reformation and this and not the former is the old Testament ratified by the death of Bulls and Goats c. Shadows of better things without the application whereof the other purified the flesh and not the conscience 4. The fourth begins with the manifestation of the Son of God in the flesh and still continues and is the new Testament ratified by the death and blood of the Lord Jesus the testator who being come the vaile of shadowes was utterly removed and the Mosaicall administrations quite abolished the old being done away that the new might be established which cannot be removed And this is to be attended that all the Scriptures that speak of the removall of the old and setting up of the new Testament or that declare the abolishing of the old and establishing of the new as was foretold is to be understood of these two periods from Moses to Christ and after not of that from Abraham to Moses and he opposition in this case made in the Scriptures is of that under Moses and Christ only 5. The covenant that God made with Abraham and continued to his seed the Jewes and us Gentiles hath two parts in it the first respecteth God the other respecteth us In the first concerning God is contained all that concerns our good temporall and eternall and himself held forth as the sole efficient of all preventing us with his grace freely and performing all the good pleasure of his grace in us according to his own will nor doth any thing that hee is pleased to work depend on us nor requires he any thing of us by way of efficiencie or causality yet so as that hee worketh something in us without us even being meerly passive in the act of working till it be first wrought something he works by us stirring up and assisting that which hee hath first wrought in us nor can we at first do any thing till hee hath principled us by supernaturall grace nor first or last more then hee helpeth us who worketh all the will and deed according to his will 6. Infants are passively capable of the dispensation of God and of the Spirit and grace of the covenant and what ever men of yeers are capable of though not wrought in the same way or by the same means yet the same things and by the same Spirit so far as is necessary to union with Christ and his justification to life thereby else no children dying Infants are elected or shall be raised up again in their bodies and saved nor is the judgement that we can have of men of yeers infallible as in Simon Magus c. 7. The Lord having taken hold of any man or woman by outward dispensation of means to call them out of Infidelity into visible profession of faith in the Word of his grace and obedience to his commands they are hereby made partakers of his covenant and all the priviledges outwardly belonging thereto yea though they have not saving faith but be hypocrites and so themselves and all that ever proceed from them continue in the same state parents and children successively so long as the Lord continues the course of his dispensation nor can any alteration befall them whereby this estate is dissolved but some apparent act of God breaking them off from him 8. Baptisme is not the first grace but the second nor doth it confer grace but confirm the former which therefore must be presupposed and it is the seal of the righteousnesse of faith in the new Testament to all that receive it as circumcision of old was to them Rom. 4.11 By baptisme I mean the ordinance of the church administred by a just calling which is too oft though it never should be separated from inward grace yet remains true baptisme so administred else Simon Magus and those false breathren Gal. 2. being not inwardly baptized were not truly baptized and if they had repented must be baptized anew 9. Last of all as of old more was required of Abraham and of men of yeers turning Proselytes when they were to be circumcised then of Isaac and their Infants continually afterwards circumcised So now in administring baptisme to persons more is required of men of yeers then of Infants God required faith of Abraham in the blessing seed before circumcised but hee required not faith of Isaac nor of any one of Abrahams seed after him before circumcision but that they should believe afterward which he promised to work in them So now of men of yeers faith is to be required and must be that a man of yeers be baptized but not so of Infants of baptized persons who are to be baptized that they may believe afterward c. Having premised thus much I come to the proof of the question that Infants of believing parents and in covenant with God by visible profession may and ought to be baptized ARGUMENTS ¶ 1 IF the covenant now under Christ be the same that it was with Abraham and the Jewes before Christ then as Infants were in that covenant and partakers of the signe thereof circumcision so are Infants now in the covenan and should receive the signe thereof baptisme But the covenant now under Christ is the same with that before Christ with Abraham and his posterity in the flesh Therefore as Infants were then in the covenant and signed with circumcision so are Infants now in the covenant and are to receive baptisme the signe thereof In this Argument three things are to be cleared First that the covenant made with Abraham and his posterity before Christ and this under Christ is the same And secondly that Infants were then in that covenant so they be now in this And thirdly that all Jewish Infants were then partakers of the signe and circumcised and so should Infants now receive baptisme the signe of it Of each of these I will set down particular grounds 1. That the covenant with Abraham and the Jewes before and the Gentiles now is the same is evident by these reasons First the Gospel is the doctrine of the covenant but this is but
shall be holy that is both parents that dedicate and devote them to God Others take it of foederall holinesse and is nothing else but that the children doe belong to the covenant of God as well as the parent and as well as if both parents had been beleevers Thus diversly are the words taken To issue all note these things First that it pertains to children of one at least beleeving which is evident because he speaks to a case not of all mankind but of an Infidell with a beleever Therefore the argument must bee taken from some thing proper to a beleever so it is in the first Argument Though all things naturall in regard of the use of them be common to Infidels with beleevers as to eate sleep c. yet the impurity of conscience defileth the use of every thing to an Infidell and the purity of conscience purifieth the use of every thing to a beleever 1 Tim. 4.4 And as this is taken from something proper to a beleever so in this of childrens holinesse Therefore legitimation cannot be meant because that is no more proper to a beleever then an Infidell Pilat was as legitimate as Paul though not so holy Never was it heard that Infidels children were called holy nor can an instance been given of this notion viz. that an holy childe should signifie legitimate Again to make marriage lawfull it is not necessary that the parties at least one of them bee a beleever else there were no lawfull marriage among Infidels The question is not therefore of legitimate marriage but of legitimate marriage polluted It were to no purpose to argue from legitimacie of children to prove that for children are alwayes legitimate from lawfull marriage whether the marriage bee uncleane and impure or not Therefore it cannot bee meant of legitimacie Secondly it is spoken of something present notwithstanding the disparity of religion continue This is manifest because the beleever must not depart from the Infidell willing to cohabite because the children are holy Now if he should mean when the Infidell party is converted or the children afterward this being uncertain whether ever it should be or no the question is left unresolved the scruple is not removed and it is uncertain from thence whether ever it shall be a pure marriage or no and in the mean time is not The exposition therefore of holinesse of children in respect of future and what may be is not sound I take it therefore of foederall holinesse whereby the children are with their believing parents taken by God to be his and by him put under his covenant and so they continue when men of yeers though they never have any further grace wrought in them nor have any other state upon them then what they had when they were born nor are they right that do expound it to be all one with the former of the Infidels sanctified to the believing partie as if he should say you need not question your dwelling with the Infidell party no more then you question your dwelling with your children For First there is a two-fold holinesse the Apostle speaks of the one not of the thing it self but to the believers use the other of the thing it self and not in regard of the believers use and it is unjust to confound them Secondly the dwelling with the Infidell party was not scrupled but the enjoyment of marriage society and therefore children are not to be compared with them in that respect Last of all the words are brought to prove that a believing party sanctifieth the Infidell party and therefore that cannot be the sense of it and it were to prove the same by the same c. If in the promise made to Abraham ¶ 2 I will be the God of thee and of thy seed both Jewes and Gentiles are included and of old Infants as well as men of yeeres and therefore circumcised then Infants now also and so to be baptized but under that promise both Jewes and Gentiles are included and their Infants and for that cause circumcised Ergo so are Infants now and for that cause to be baptized First the promise was made to Abraham and to his seed which are both Jewes and Gentiles and therefore made unto him in the state of uncircumcision and after that circumcised Rom. 4.11 to 16. Gal. 3.8 Secondly Infants were then under that promise and for that cause circumcised because God was their God as well as of men of yeers yea from thence he was their God when men of yeers Nor did God actually first require faith of any Jewes after Abrahams time to become their God but God freely vouchsafed them that grace from an act of their own nor did the unbeliefe of men of yeers frustrate that grace of God but still he made it good and continued it unto them in all their apostasies untill by some manifest act he cast them off as he did at last the ten Tribes and finally all in the dayes of his Sons manifestation nor might any Infant but a Jewes be circumcised except himself first was incorporated into the Jewish body Ecclefiasticall Thirdly that Infants now also are under that promise and so to be baptized as a part of that seed they were in it till Christs time and why should they be now excluded or let any shew who did it or where it was done it shall be sufficient If any shall say that believers are the seed of Abraham I answer so it was among the Jewes Rom. 9.6 7 8. the children of promise are counted for the seed and therefore our Saviour argueth them not to be the children of Abraham but of their father the Devill Joh. 8. Let this then be noted that our Saviour and his Apostle speaketh thus of them in a certain respect and we are to consider them first as Abrahams seed foederally continuing in outward profession and so they were all Gods people men and Infants and were all under that promise and so were partakers of all promises and priviledges given unto that people on Gods part offered Rom. 9.4 5. Secondly as under Gods election of grace and so the elect only obtained the things promised whether Infants or men of yeers Rom. 11. But the want of obtaining did not make them not to be the seed nor under that promise in another sense Abraham had two sons the one obtained the other not of his posterity there were alwayes of them two sorts the one bound after the flesh not naturally but in another sense the other after the Spirit and so it is now Gal. 4. But being after the flesh did not make that God was not their God and they Abrahams seed foederally So then it remains that as the Jewes Infants were included under that promise and for that cause circumcised so the Gentiles believing are with their Infants under that promise and for that cause to be baptized though only the elect whether Infants or men of yeers Jewes or Gentiles do obtain the
the other miracles and concludes that if I had well weighed the Scripture I would not have made it a ground to justifie Infants baptisme Reply And what is this to that he should prove namely my proof evinceth that to be my sequele which hee said was my proof was not who was to be baptized but that all the ordinances there mentioned were the same with our baptisme as well as the rest Again where he saith they were the other miracles and not the other ordinances and that I erre in calling them so I reply it is too much bodlnesse in him to prescribe how others shall speak and hee erres grosly in saying as he doth for if that shewed that these miracles were ordinances also Ergo may be so called for could these miraculous works signifie such things unlesse they had been ordained thereto and whatsoever is ordained is an ordinance In a word I have upon his expression better viewed this place then ever I did and doubt not but every one that shall weigh how ill hee confutes it will see that there is a just ground in it to defend the baptisme of Infants which is the question A fourth answer he gives to my Argument is this If the Israelites were not baptized with these signes nor with any other after they came into the land of Canaan then this was not a perpetuall signe of the practice of baptisme but they were not baptized with these signes nor any other after they came in to the land of Canaan therefore it was not a perpetuall sign of the practice of baptisme Reply First it is the minde of the that they had another baptisme continued unto them And Hebrew Writers affirm that three things concurred to make a Jew or Proselyte male a stated member circumcision baptisme and sacrifice and to females baptisme and sacrifice And some conclude from hence that the Jewes therefore questioned John Baptist calling to baptize but not his baptisme being used to it before but to passe that 2ly What time will he prescribe to make an example sufficient it must have a period and why may not a moneth serve as wel as a longer time and those forty yeers in the wildernes as wel as a thousand 3ly How many things in the Scripture are recorded done in a short time which were examples of things done in a longer time Eze. 4.5 6. the acts of Abrahams justification by faith Gen. 15.6 an example of perpetuall justification Rom. 4.24 Jude 7. the instances in the Scripture 1 Cor. 10. many others so that this answer is of no force The fifth and last answer is this Baptisme of different kindes depend upon different grounds and are to be ministred upon different subjects to different ends but the baptisme of the cloud and Sea are of divers kindes therefore they depend upon different grounds and are to be administred upon different subjects for different ends Reply I shall say no more but this baptismes of the same kinde depend upon the same grounds and are to be administred upon the same subjects to the same ends but baptisme of the Sea and cloud is the same spiritually with ours therefore they depend upon the same grounds divine institution and to be administred upon the same subjects Gods people men and Infants and to the same ends to put on Christ Jesus Another proof I added to my Argument was this otherwise the Apostle should link things together that are not equall nor would it be of force against the Corinthians if they were not the same Sacraments spiritually now the conclusion is certain that the Corinthians should be punished with like punishment if they committed the like sins His answer hereunto denies the consequence because although the Cloud and Sea Manna and Rock were Sacraments of the same Christ that Baptisme and the Lords Supper is yet they were not the same Sacraments and it sufficeth the Apostles purpose that the cloud c. were as effectuall tokens of Christ as they were in the nature of them as Baptisme and the Lords Supper is though they were different Sacraments of the same Christ and not the same Sacrament And except they were dipped in water did eat and drink bread and wine as we do I cannot say they were the same Sacraments w th ours Reply First hee should say sacramentall signes and not Sacraments for neither the seal nor bread and wine are the Sacraments but sacramentall sigues the things signified concurring to make them sacraments nor can any be guilty of the body of the Lord in eating the bread if that alone were the Sacrament Secondly it is true that the sacramentall signes then and now were not the same and in that regard the Sacraments are not the same but to say absolutely they are not the same therefore is not right For a man though dressed in never so many fashions differing one from another yet he is the same man still although his fashions differ and in that respect he is not the same yet the man is the same in all So Christ is the same yesterday and to day and for ever though set forth by divers signes then and now 1 Cor. 5.7 Christ our Passeover is offered for us he is the Lamb slain from the beginning of the world their Lamb and ours their Passeover and ours theirs and ours dispensed the same but not by the same signs and therefore to what subjects the same Christ was applied then by those signes to such subjects may the same Christ be applied now by these signes but I have spoken to these things before now is my Argument refuted by any thing he hath said My third Argument follows which is this there is one and the same consideration of the root and branches of the first fruits and lump but the first fruits and root believing parents are holy and must be baptized therefore Infants the lump and branches are holy and must be baptized To this he answereth denying the Assumption viz. believing Parents are the roots and first fruits and the Scriptures that I bring will not prove it Rom. 11.16 1 Cor. 7.14 which hee considering apart and First Rom. 11.16 concludeth that parents are not the root because they are branches of the root they bear not the root but the them therefore they cannot be this root nor their children naturally descending from them branches and concludeth this first place to be abused in so applying it Reply Grant that believing parents are branches and not the root yet Infants as well as men of yeers are branches and Abraham and the Fathers are the root and that of the Gentiles as well as the Jews 1 Cor. 10.1 Now the Argument holdeth as well here in this respect as in the other For if Abraham the root be holy so are the branches as is the state of the one so is the state of the other and this the Apostle concludes of all the body of Jewes yea counting them are cut off naturall branches still
their lawes receiving circumcision as a seal thereof that being not the first but a second grace not the covenant it self but the sign of the covenant Secondly I deny that all the males were to be circumcised or else their parents might not be admitted but only Infants were admitted and circumcised with the parent and those of yeers were not admitted and circumcised but upon their owne voluntary acceptance of and submitting to the covenant and so the believing proselytes yoke-fellow For if they had no faith though they had circumcision yet how could they partake in the Passeover or sacrifices to the remission of sin And therefore though there were no Sacrament for females entrance yet there must be faith either potentially by being under the covenant with their believing parent or actually by their own profession And as I have answered before to the like allegation they should receive the seal of the covenant which in order of nature followes it and were not in it and be admitted to circumcision the seal of the righteousnesse of faith which they had not Thirdly touching a president or rule of a believing proselyte admitted with his Infants leaving out the yoke-fellow I need say no more then this Whatsoever is not of faith is and ever was sin Rom. 14. ult and without faith it is impossible and ever was to please God Heb. 11.6 But this answer saith that a proselyte might be admitted and circumcised with all his males and females by vertue of his admission though neither hee nor they believed quite contrary to these Scriptures and so some should become one with Abrahams people neither by flesh nor faith which himself hath said are the only two wayes whereby any may be instated in such a condition As therefore in that state proselytes were admitted by faith into the fellowship thereof and therein Infants with them by vertue of Gods covenant accepted for themselves and their seed but those of yeers and their yoke-fellows excluded unlesse they did believe So in this state now abeliever and his Infants are admitted into fellowship of it but such children as are of yeers and unbelieving yoke-fellow excluded till they believe A 4th reason of this is this ¶ 4 The Apostle speaks indefinitly of children as children and in that relation to parents whose children they are whereof some of them might be twenty or thirty yeers old but children of twenty or thirty yeers old apparently wicked are not holy in such a sense as by vertue of their parents state in grace to be partakers of the same state with them and for that cause to be baptized Therefore holines here cannot be so understood by the Apostle Reply First the Apostle speaking indefinitely I grant children of any or no yeers may be understood Secondly children of twenty or thirty yeers or Infants have a state of holinesse upon them by vertue not of naturall relation but of foederall as children of a believer for that must be noted that one of them must be a believer that being the case that the Apostle resolveth Thirdly children of twenty yeers more apparently wicked were born either before the parent believed or after if after then they are holy seep a seed of a believer and so remain notwithstanding their wickednesse till they be cut off from that relation by God in his usuall way and then that holinesse is taken away from them their naturall relation stil continuing they are children stil of those parents whose they were if they were born before I say then they are unclean notwithstanding their parents believing and are not holy at all nor can be partakers of it but by their own faith in Gods covenant but for Infants as I said before they are holy and by vertue thereof may be baptized as a holy seed and so remain till by some act of theirs they be cut off and deprive themselves of it as Ishmael and Esau This exception hee excepted against saying the Apostie speaketh positively of a conclusion drawn from the state of the relation which can admit of no exception For if it could then will it be of no absolute validity to enforce the conclusion Again if the children do deprive themselves by some act of theirs of their state in grace then their believing parents can have no sanctified use of the believing yoke-mate but that may be whether the children be in the state of grace or no. Reply First the Apostle speaks positively of a conclusion drawn from the state of the relation that is not naturall as children but foederall as holy children of a believing parent Secondly it may and doth admit of an exception and yet is of absolute validity to enforce the conclusion because the exception lies in a diverse respect of the thing if it lay against the thing it self viz. as a believers childe then indeed it would not force but it lies here that when it comes to yeers and stands by its own faith in regard of personall relation acted to the covenant also by personall sin deprive it self of the personall state it had by personall relation to the covenant yet though the children cease to be and deprive themselves of that foederall holinesse which they had in regard of their personall the relation they had of children of believers and thereby holy remains still they were holy as born of them as is evident in the Jewish Infants cut off with their parents who were a holy seed before they were cut off But more of this afterward The fifth answer he makes ¶ 5 stands thus The holinesse here spoken of is such as must prove the unbeleeving parent sanctified to the beleeving yoak-mate But the holinesse of Infants in such a state of grace inward or outward will not prove an unbeleeving parent to be sanctified to the beleeving yoak-mate therefore it cannot bee meant of such a holinesse and hee gives this Reason of this Assumption Because it answers not the Corinthians scruple nor proves the thing in question by them Reply To cleer this discourse two things are to be attended First what was the Corinthians scruple and the state of the question amongst them Secondly by what argument the Apostle answers this scruple and question To the first hee saith The scruple that troubled the Church was whether their marriage were lawfull or no and sheweth that such a state of holinesse of Infants in grace whether inward or outward will not prove whether the parents were lawfully married or no because the childrens state in grace cannot prove the unbelieving parent sanctified to the believing yoke-fellow Reply First Grant the holinesse here spoken of must be such as must prove the unbelieving parent to be sanctified to the believing yoke-fellow yet to argue that such a holinesse of children in a state of grace will not prove that is but a mistake For if the children be holy then certainly the believing parents from whom they proceed must needs be holy For no man can bring
birth is baptisme and for that cause called the birth of water Joh. 3.5 Tit. 3.5 Therefore by administration of true baptisme the church is is truly stated and constituted in her true being Reply Regeneration and natural birth hold proportion in many things together but not in all yet I will not trouble the discourse there the great mistake is in making baptisme regeneration and that which answereth naturall birth and the places quoted will not prove it For first it will ask more skill then it may bee hee hath to recover them out of the hands of many godly judicious that deny those places to be meant of baptisme but indeed of the new birth or regeneration by the Spirit putting forth the same effects upon the regenerate party that holds some proportion with the effects of water But secondly grant they be meant of baptisme yet it followes not that baptisme is regeneration because in John there is the Spirit also and in Titus Father Son and Holy Ghost and a full work of regeneration wrought afore baptisme and themselves also will necessarily require it before they will baptize any and therefore baptisme is not regeneration being not to be administred but to regenerate persons knowne before to bee so Thirdly it is not therefore called the birth of water but as bread and wine are called the body and bloud of Christ circumcision the covenant the Lamb the Passover as therefore the Lamb or Christ is the Passover circumcision the covenant bread and wine the Lords body and bloud so baptisme is the new birth that is a signe or seale of regeneration and not regeneration it self I dislike the phrase The birth of water Secondly hee argues from the forme of baptisme which is dipping and in that repect called a buriall with Christ Rom. 6.4 betokening our death and refurrection Ergo as the rising out of the grave at the last day is the beginning of our state of glory in our bodily being so the rising out of the water of baptisme is the beginning of our visible state of grace and the beginning of our visible spirituall life is from that day c. Reply First here is the same mistake with the former making baptisme the beginning of the spirituall visible state whereas it is the signe and seale of it onely which they are to have before for doe they baptize a grown person dead or alive If alive then visibly or invisibly in the state of spirituall life not invisibly for himself hath said they must professe their faith first and receive the word Acts 2. else not to baptize any their faith in Christ their union thereby to him their communion with him in death buriall c. are to goe before their baptisme And himselfe saith it betokeneth how it is then the thing it selfe Secondly whereas he makes dipping the form of baptisme he is in a double mistake First it is not the forme but the matter of baptisme Secondly he seemes to conclude sprinkling unlawfull whereas it is lawfull as shall be seen afterward Lastly he makes it a Sacrament of our last resurrection to glory the Text making it expresly a Sacrament of our dying to finne and resurrection to new obedience Thirdly he argues from the end of baptisme which amongst others is to unite them to the visible body of Christ 1 Cor. 12.13 Gal. 3.27.28 Eph. 4.5 6. and to distinguish them from the rest of the world Col. 2.12 with 20. as circumcision did distinguish the Jewes from the Heathens But except baptisme bee administred to beleevers subjects onely capable of such union communion and distinction they cannot have that end effected to be united to the body of Christ and distinguished from the rest of the world Ergo baptisme is to be administred to beleevers for that end Reply They be beleevers first for so himselfe saith but to beleeve is to bee in Christ and by his faith forsaking sinne and the world chuseth God to bee his God and Gods people to bee his people and as by the inward grace this is done effectually invisibly so by actuall profession thereof without which he were not to bee baptized he visibly declareth and effecteth the same ends and is baptized as a signe and seale thereof baptisme there doth not effect those ends but signifie and seale those ends before effected This Argument still laboureth of the former mistake making the signe to be the signe and the thing signified by it Again there are other ends of baptisme besides these as himselfe confesseth and therefore the church may be formed a church before and without these ends to be effected by baptisme one end is to be a signe seale of the covenant which precedes baptisme it selfe and therefore baptisme comes too late to doe that which was done before Last of all Ephes 5.25.27 the party to bee baptized is and must bee a member before because the church is to bee washed not made a church by washing but being a church to be washed A fourth argument he hath is from the not iteration of baptisme it being to be administred but once the Lords Supper often in which respect baptisme is the signe of our birth and initiation the Lords Supper of our growth and conservation in the visible body of Christ and if a man may be conceived to have a being for a time in a visible church without baptisme the signe and Sacrament of his entrance and initiation hee may have a continuance there also and so consequently baptisme needlesse But baptisme is needfull as a means of the beginning of our visible being in the visible body of Christ Ergo without baptisme they have no visible being in the church and so baptisme is the form of it I answer First he saith baptisme is a signe and Sacrament of the beginning of our visible being in the body of Christ then say I it is not the beginning it selfe of our visible being in the body the signe and the thing signified being really distinct the one from the other and the thing signified preceding the signe and seale of it But of this before Secondly he plainly contradicts himselfe in saying it is a signe and Sacrament of our entrance and yet there is no visible being in the church without baptisme Thirdly where he saith If a man may have a being for a time without baptisme then may he have a continuance also it follows not for they had a being in the Jewish state before they were circumcised but circumcision was not needlesse neither should they have continued in that state without circumcision Again as the males had a being and continued members of that church seven dayes so if God had not commanded them to bee circumcised the eighth day but left it to their own wills they should have continued visible members without it alwayes as women did being not commanded Abraham and his family fourteen yeers and they in the wildernesse forty In like manner Gods command makes baptisme necessary for
all these ends which he hath appointed it for and so for those ends it is to be administred and the omission of it is a grievous sin But none of these ends is to give them a visible being in a visible church but by way of signification and confirmation Ergo baptisme is not the form of the church A 5th Argument is from the nature of Baptisme as it is the seal of the Covenant if there be no visible Ordinance before Baptisme to note out their visible being in the covenant whereby they may be known then it is baptisme that doth it But there is no other visible ordinance before baptisme to note out their visible being in the covenant whereby they may be known Ergo it is baptisme that doth it and so it is the form of the Church Answ 1. If he really grant it is the seal of the covenant then it is not the covenant it self for which hee hath formerly argued Secondly it must be considered to whom baptisme must note out their visible being in the covenant if to themselves they may know it before for he that believeth hath the witnesse in himself if to others either Christians they must know it before or not baptize them or else the world and baptisme can no way notifie such a thing unto them they cannot take notice thereof nor will they they know them not because they have not known Christ nor the Father And if a man truly baptized fall off from his profession to whom doth it note that he is in the covenant though it be known he was baptized And our Saviour giveth a rule wherby all men shall know his Disciples not if baptized but if they love one another and keep his commandements and if any say he hath fellowship with God and doth evill hee lies and all the world may know it though they know he was visibly baptized Ergo baptisme cannot be the form of a church seeing it doth not note out their visible being in covenant which is notified before and by other means both before and after Last of all again he contradicteth himself in saying here that baptisme is the form of the church and yet before denying baptisme or the covenant either to be the form of it The 6th Argument is taken from the commission given to the first Matth. 28.19 where the Participle baptizing concurres to making them Disciples and Mark 16.16 Faith puts a man into the state of salvation before God Baptisme before men the reason runs thus If from commission to the first planters baptisme was required to make a person a Disciple in a visible state of salvation and stated in all other ordinances of Christs kingdom then baptisme so administred is that which gives being to a true visible Church I answer First the Scripture requires first that they be made Disciples and then being Disciples to be baptized and therefore baptisme doth not make them Disciples Again faith makes them Disciples in the state of salvation before God and profession of that faith and not baptisme doth make visibly and outwardly Disciples in the state of salvation before men Rom. 10.9 10. They that baptize any must know them to be visibly such before they baptize them else not baptize them as himself hath saith from Acts 2.21.8.12 Secondly Baptisme is required to state them in the observation of all the ordinances of Christs kingdome not by making them a church or member to whom only such ordinances yea baptisme it self doth belong but to make them fit to observe them being members and there are other things though they be baptized that may hinder them from observaton of those ordinances as in the old Testament circumcision did not make them a church but being a church they were to be circumcised without which they might not observe the Passeover but there were other things also which did hinder them from observation of the Passeover though they were circumcised And thus of his Position and the grounds of it That baptisme is the thing that formeth the church only if I understand his close hee flatly contradicts himself in saying baptisme is the means and thing that formeth the church and yet it is not the outward form of our church formed For either it formeth the church withan outward or inward but not inward before God Faith doth that and therefore the outward form it must be and so hee said in his last Argument baptisme puts a man into the state of salvation before men Again hee grants the church to be formed with an outward form without baptisme in saying baptisme is not that outward form of the church formed If a formed church it hath a form that formed it but the form is not baptisme Ergo he overthrows all that he hath argued for or else the church hath two outward forms one he grants the church hath without baptisme the other by baptisme which these six arguments plead for It were well if he agreed with himself Next he answereth the Reasons I set down as he saith to prove that baptisme is not the form of a visible church The first whereof is this That which giveth being to a church must be removed to make a church cease to be a church but Baptisme cannot be removed from a church whilest it remains a church Ergo. Hee answers It is as easie to remove baptisme from a church as to remove a church from being a church Reply First this is a very easie answer and toucheth no part of the Argument Again a church is unchurched not by unbaptizing the baptized as it must be if it were the form of a church but by destroying the church it self The church must first in reasan be made no church before ordinances can cease to be ordinances in that church but destroy the church and baptisme will not be baptisme as the Edomites circumcision was not circumcision when they were not the church the Jewes circumcision and all that they do are nullities to this day since they ceased to be a church A second Reason is this That which being wanting to a church constituted doth not cause the church to be no church that cannot be the form of the church but baptisme may be wanting to a church constituted and yet it be a church As circumcision to Infants seven dayes alwayes to all females to them in the wildernesse forty yeers Josh 5. Ergo Answ He denies the second Proposition That baptisme may be wanting to a church constituted his Reason because a church is constituted by baptisme and so Josh 5. hee saith that case was extraordinary having speciall dispensation from God himself supplyed by miraculous Sacraments during the time of their necessary forbearances of circumcision and the Passeover while in travells unlesse wee can shew a like case and supply of miraculous Sacraments we cannot conclude that a church is a church or men members of a church without baptisme by which they are constituted Reply First the Reason he gives