Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
cause_n	holy_a	scripture_n	word_n	2,805	5	4.1192	3	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A96995	The covenants plea for infants: or, The covenant of free grace, pleading the divine right of Christian infants unto the seale of holy baptisme. Against the rusticke sophistry, and wicked cavillations of sacrilegious Anabaptists: being the summe of certaine sermons had in the parish-church of Cranham, neere the city of Gloucester, in Gloucester-shire, with the exceptions of certaine Anabaptists against the foresaid sermons, and the authors answers thereunto. Very seasonable for weake consciences in these unsettled times of schisme and apostacie. By Thomas Wynell minister of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.	Wynell, Thomas, b. 1599 or 1600.	1642 (1642)	Wing W3778; Thomason E115_17; ESTC R8440	86,631	137

holinesse of the children spoken of here can be no other but that which is opposed to bastardy Here this wise man maintains the contradictory of your opposites conclusion He saies that the holines of the children doth not arise from that one parent was a beleever But how proves be this Surely testimonium dicentis is full en●ugh he being a man of such an infallible a spirit that a bare I say must serve your turne But whence then doth this holinesse arise From this saies he that the unbeleever was sanctified to or by the beleever Very good because the unbeleever was sanctified to the beleever therefore the children of such were holy And why was the unbeliever sanctified to the believer Was it not because hee was a beleever and so made pure by faith and then unto the pure all things are pure Tit. 1.15 Now then because hee was a believer therefore the infidell was sanctified to him for conjugall societie and because the infidell was sanctified to the beleever for conjugall societie therefore the children of such were holy and so by necessary consequence because one of the parents was a beleever therefore the children were holy Faith made the conjugall societie holy the holy conjugall society made the children holy and therefore faith made the children holy Quest But how can the faith of the parent make the children holy Answ Surely not by infusing of sanctifying grace into the children but by putting the parent into Christ Now faith puts the parent into Christ and Christ puts the parent so put into Him into the Covenant of grace and the Covenant of grace is I will be thy God and the God of thy seed and hence is it that the children of such parents are holy namely because of the holy Covenant And therefore the holinesse spoken off here may be and is somewhat else then that which is opposed to bastardy namely the holinesse of the Covenant which the saith of the parent puts him into for himse●fe and his seed For Goodman-Cocks-combe how can the children of those be bastards that are lawfully married But you acknowledge that the parents of the holy children here spoken off were lawfully married before you meane while in the state of infidels And therefore it must be the holinesse of the Covenant of grace which the faith of the parent put himselfe and his children under But you say in the last paragraph of your letter to your Disciples that Infants were in the Covenant legally but not Evangelically and that when the law ceased this being in Covenant ceased with it But for so saying you deserve a pillory not a Pulpit You might be better imployed in looking to your Sope or Candles then in filling mens heads with such hellish notions If this be your care and diligence that you shew for your Disciples as you say in your foresaid letter you may sit still The devill himselfe can shew such care and diligence fast enough But how prove you that childrens being in Covenant with their parents is now ceased under the Gospell You say so And your I say must stand as an Oracle with such as are willing to be seduced by you And personall faith in your sense is no more requisite to the being of Infants in Covenant with their parents under the Gospell then under the law For it 's the same Covenant of free grace in Jesus Christ now as then And thus for ought I see your master and you are in hot emulation who shall excell in speaking of non sense And yet you are so confident of the truth of your cause that had you a 1000. lives you would lay them all downe for the confirmation of the same Stout words But should you lay downe that one you have for it it would bee judged rather madnes then martyrdome and you not a Martyr but a mad-man in so doing And truly if you can say no more for your cause give over writing and take Physick Talke no more of your conscience but see your folly Now say on Anabaptist For we have examples in Scripture where children that are borne of two parents that were lawfully yoked together were called to bee holy and a godly seed by birth As for instance Mal. 2. Ezra Levit. and other examples Answer The meer being of the two parents lawfully yoked together is not sufficient to denominate the children of such parents holy by birth but their being within the holy Covenant The Covenant under which the parents are is the cause why the children of such are holy by birth and so called by the Spirit of God in the Scripture and for that reason only And those very instances where you find them in the old Testament where children are said to be holy will cut the throat of your owne cause for you cannot shew that the Scripture doth so much as once call the children of the Gentiles and Pagans an holy seed as is doth the children of the Church The holy Covenant of God I say under which the parent or parents is or are is the onely cause why the Scriptures terme children holy And I challenge you to bring me one instance where children of parents are said to be holy for any other reason Anabaptist Againe we doe not find any warrant in Scripture for to give the seales of the Covenant of grace upon imputed holinesse but upon personall holinesse and confession Acts 16. Mat. 3. Mark 1. For the signe of circumcision was not given by vertue of any imputed holinesse in the child that it did draw from the parents but by vertue of Gods Commission unto Abraham that he gave him for to circumcise his seed and so ought the seale of Baptisme to be given by vertue of Christs Commission and not by vertue of any holinesse that is imputed unto the child Answer By imputed holinesse I conceive your meaning to be imputative righteousnesse And by personall holinesse inherent righteousnesse or holinesse in a mans personall practice and confession And by seales the initiall seales of Gods Covenant Now I finde the initiall seale of the Covenant of grace to be given upon the ground of imputative righteousnesse for the righteousnesse of faith is imputative righteousnesse but I find it to be administred upon this ground and therefore upon the ground of imputative righteousnesse And circumcision unto the Infants of the Jewes was a seale of righteousnesse but not of righteousnesse in their personall practice and confession and therefore of imputative righteousnesse And thus I have brought unto your hand what you could not finde And then for your instances Act. 16. Matth. 3. Mark 1. they will not serve to help you For the matter in controversie is whether children of parents already in the state of Christianity bee to bee baptized in their infancy or no And now you bring instances of such whose parents were not in the state of Christianity which is a quite contrary case But prove by Scripture that the children of the

winne upon them they grow in grace and submit unto Gods word in all duties And certainly God doth not ordinarily work by a false ministery and a false Sacrament I say God doth not thus ordinarily by false and unlawfull meanes though sometimes He brings light out of darknesse Now I challenge all the Brownists and Anabaptists in the world to answer me this one thing though nothing bee more rife with them then to condemne our Ministers and Baptisme as false and Antichristian Certainly God would not ordinarily give testimony to a false Ministery and false Sacrament by making them effectuall to the proper ends whereunto the true Ministery and Sacraments are appointed in the Gospell The Apostle Paul useth this very argument to prove his calling to be right and from the Lord. 1 Cor. 9.1 2. saying Am I not an Apostle Am I not free Have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord Are not you my work in the Lord If I bee not an Apostle to others yet doubtlesse I am to you for the seale of mine Apostleship are yee in the Lord. 1 Cor. 4.15 Reason 5 Fiftly and lastly we baptize Infants of Christian parents because it is the practise of other reformed Churches which God hath blessed in that way with great increase of heavenly gifts Now if we should forbeare by virtue of a divine restraint as we pretend then wee should lay iniquity upon whole kingdomes and godly societies as taking liberty where God hath put a restraint And how should we justifie our practise and condemne theirs by the word of God For they would tell us that we put restraint upon mens consciences where God hath put none And that we misinterprēt the 28. of Matth. verse 19. And that our inter pretation of the text is absurd and ridiculous and that neither Christs Commission nor the Apostles practise doth any way countenance our cause Againe they would tell us that wee doe evade the evidence of 1 Cor. 7.14 against us by a base and beggerly shift plainly derogatory to the Majesty of the holy Scriptures in saying that children of a beleever are said there to bee holy in opposition to bastardy as if they were holy for no other more noble cause but for their being meer legitimates a notion too low for the Spirit of divine Oracles a notion plainly ridiculous in the apprehension of every ordinary capacity the Scriptures no where terming children holy but for the holy Covenants sake under which they were borne Now for us to pretend Apostolicall imitation and walking according to Christs primitive Commission and yet to put off Apostolicall Authority with such a bastardly glosse would give other Churches which we oppose just cause to think that our way is rather a diabolicall delusion then an ordinance of Christ and that phantasticall humours doe rather sway with us then conscience Againe they would tell us that our way of rebaptizing hath been alwayes condemned in all reformed Churches by the holiest and ablest Christians for an heresie and that paedo-baptisme was never so condemned in any reformed Church but practised and maintained an Ordinance of Jesus Christ under the Gospell and that God ordinarily hath blessed it by making the same effectuall to the comfort and sanctification of the baptized Furthermore they would tell us that denying Baptisme unto Infants of baptized parents is grounded upon an hellish foundation and is the inlet of many hatefull heresies which have been alwayes found with the abettours of this practise though at their first entrance into this trade they have not been so vile and loathsome Yet for the maintaining of this way when opposed by the Churches and Ministers of Christ they have been enforced to hold many grosse and palpable heresies which our Anabaptists will be driven unto though as yet they deny not the doctrine of predestination orginall sinne in Infants the morality of the Christian Sabbath the Person of the Holy Ghost c. I say though as yet they seem to be more tolerable they must be driven unto these and many moe such abominations or else they cannot hold up their trade Finally they would produce many learned authours that have condemned our practice and refuted our tenents which to this day are not answered by any of the contrary party Now for us to make so pitifull a schisme from all the Churches of God and not to refute those that have written against us would argue rather obstinate folly then conscience and zeale And so much for this first Generall THE COVENANTS Plea for INFANTS vindicated Anabaptist A Briefe answer unto Mr WYNNNELS arguments and reasons that hee delivered in publique for to prove the lawfulnesse of Infants Baptisme with propositions annexed Answer A full reply to your answer vindicating the arguments and reasons for paedo-baptisme against your frivolous exceptions with an answer to your annexed propositions Anabaptist First you argue from the difference of state and time of the Pagan Gentiles in the Apostles times and us now under the Gospell For you say that they were such as had their severall country Idols and that they were strangers to the Common-wealth of Israel and without God in the world For answer unto this First we grant that this was the generall state and condition of the Pagan-Gentiles but there were many particular persons as Cornelius and others is the Acts who were men truly fearing God and such as were called out of the state of Paganisme unto the profession of the Gospell and therefore they were not all under Paganisme and yet we doe not find that any of the seed of those persons were baptized but only such that did heare the word and beleeve Act. 10. latter end Answer Well If this were their state in generall that is as much as I require And for particular extraordinary instances they cannot infringe the truth of an ordinary and generall canon However to the point Shew one example that any of the seed of Cornelius or of any Jew or Gentile converted to Christianity were baptized when they were able to answer for themselves and not before and then and not before then the cause is yours Iohn Baptist baptized a world of people And from Iohn Baptist to the end of the Acts was about forty yeares But shew that any one of the posterity of those John baptized or of those the Disciples baptized who were more then those Iohn baptized Jo. 4.12 I say give one example of any one such baptized when growne up and then you speak to the purpose Else give over calling for examples Anabaptist Againe further Admit we grant you that this were the condition of them all in particular as well as in generall yet this would make nothing for your purpose For wee Gentiles are all Generally as bad in our naturall condition as they were and we are such as know not God nay are open and professed enemies to God as well the seed of beleevers as other stand therefore seeing our condition by nature

is the same with the Pagan-Gentiles I know no reason why we so long as we remaine in our naturall condition should have greater priviledges then they unlesse the holy Ghost had any where given commission for is in Scripture And therefore untill you can prove a difference between them and us by nature you in effect as good as say nothing Answer Here as a man more then confident of his cause you seem to grant your antagonist more then is required Here you have found out an argument which in your opinion is more then demonstrative And oh how happy is your Church in having so mettalsome a champion that is able to say something that your Apostolicall fraternity be not troden down of the Idolatrous paedo-baptists But however your words may passe in your Church as oracles yet wee the maintainers of Gods Covenant judge your assertion in all this prattle to be but an aspersion And either make your charge good or else we will look upon you as an agent for the devill and not for Christ Prove that all the children of beleeving parents are open and professed enemies to God Shew where the Scripture so termes Infants of Christian parents seeing such are borne Christians and called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Saints I Cor. 7.14 You shew your selfe to be an open and professed enemy to the holy seed in casting so soule a reproach upon persons that God hath so highly honoured And as much may be said of the Infants of the Jewes namely that they were borne in originall sinne yet the Scripture termes them no where open and professed enemies to God though you say the promises made unto them were but temporary Nor did this estate debarre them from being sealed into Gods peculiar in their infancy by the seale of His holy and eternall Covenant Now if you say that infants in their infancy must not be baptized because they cannot understand the meaning of that mysticall Ordinance nor have saith to apply the promises therein held forth by the same reason the Infants of the Jewes should not have been circumcised for circumcision had in it the same essentiall mystery with Baptisme though held forth in a type And so your argument blames God Himselfe for preposterous dealing in prescribing the seale of the righteousnesse of faith to be imprinted on persons before they manifested or could manifest any faith at all by profession or practise And circumcision was a seale of the same righteousnesse of faith which we Christians build our eternall salvation upon and that is faith in Jesus Christ Rom. 4. and Rom. 5. Ob. But there was a speciall command for circumcision in the time of infancy Sol. But your reason I say blames God for that command because Infants of Jewes were as much in the state of nature as Infants of Christians So then the same reason that you alleadge to blame us for our practise doth blame God for His command Againe we answer that there was such a command for the circumcising of such Infants in their infancy whose parents were under Gods seale but no such command for Infants whose parents were not Profession of faith was needfull unto such whose parents were not under Gods foederall seale And so Abraham in whom the Church of the Jewes began had saith before hee had the seale for being uncircumcised or before circumcision hee had the righteousnesse of faith Rom 4.11 But no such thing afterward required of Abrahams seed but the contrary commanded namely that his seed should be circumcised in their infancy So for baptisme under the Gospell For such whose parents are not under the seale of Gods Covenant are not to be baptized but first to manifest the righteousnesse of faith And here as in Abraham the righteousnesse of faith must goe before the initiall seale but when parents as Abraham are once under the seale of Gods Covenant their seed as the seed of Abraham are to bee sealed unto God in their infancy by vertue of their Christian birth-right for by birth they are under Gods Covenant and that Covenant under which they were borne is to bee put under seale and ratified unto them as joint confederates with their parents and of Gods peculiar people with them For the expresse words of the Covenant are I WILL BEE THY GOD AND THE GOD OF THY SEED And therefore when God doth put the initiall seale upon the parents He doth enright the seed of such parents unto the Covenant and initiall seale thereof in their infancy as the Lord hath clearely resolved the case when He put His Covenant under seale with Abraham And therefore you Anabaptists are destroyers of Gods Covenant and will have it to terminate in the party baptized and not to extend to his or her seed as their Christian jointure by birth So then the Covenant that God makes with us Christians is not I will be thy God and the God of thy Seed jointly But I will be thy God and not the God of the seed untill they manifest faith in practice and profession and then I will be the God of thy seed also And so this Covenant will be no priviledge unto children of Christian parents at all for the children of Turkes shall bee received by Baptisme when they testify faith in christ and and repentance towards God And so Gods Covenant of Grace must alwayes terminate in the party baptized and goe no further And is not this mad Divinity that the children shall be excluded when God hath joyned parents and children as joint-partakers of the same Covenant and inheritance And are not you herein the devills attournies sent of purpose to wrangle children of Christian parents out of the spirituall inheritance unto which they are borne as Christians by birth The Lord plead the cause of His Covenant against these perverse disputers maintaine the inheritance of our seed and of-spring against the cursed machinations of these sacrilegious theeves and robbers which steale from God from us and from our children But you call for a difference beteeen us Christians and the Pagan-Gentiles by nature unles this be shewed nothing in effect is spoken against you or for us By nature that is by naturall generation this I beleeve is your meaning a notion indeed high enough for Anabaptists who look upon all Gods ordinances like sensuall beasts But upon that naturall generation of procreation of seed you may behold the Covenant of Grace established and set up had you any sparke of spirituall discerning in you for so did St. Paul Ephes 2.3 4. c. And had you learned the language of the Scriptures you might truly say that the children of Christians are Christians by nature and not sinners of the Pagans as the Apostle speakes of the Jewes saying we are Jewes by nature and not sinners of the Gentiles Gal. 2.15 Here Jewes by nature and sinners of the Gentiles are opposite members But how were they Jewes by nature Surely as St. Peter speaks because they were the

not to be ascribed unto those typicall sacrifices but unto Christ which they did typifie but the conversion of Gods Elect under the Gospell is to be ascribed unto the sacrifice of Christ the Captaine of our Salvation as the proper cause thereof The Law said Christ is to be sacrificed the Gospell sayes Christ is sacrificed for us And they both bespake the same Christ for the spirituall benefit of the worshippers yet the Gospell-ministration is to have the prerogative for now our High-priest is more excellent Now we have a clearer manifestation of Gods love for every necessity of the soule Now we have a Throne of Grace to goe to every where Now wee have free accesse unto God without bringing our sacrifices unto others who must as types offer them unto God for us 2. The old Covenant in the sacrifices thereof did againe call to remembrance the sinnes of the worshippers every yeare and so could not make the commers thereunto perfect as pertaining to the conscience Heb. 10.3 4. The new Covenant in the sacrifice thereof doth wrap up the sinnes of the commers thereunto in perpetuall oblivion and makes the worshippers perfect as pertaining to the conscience Heb. 10.12 18. Heb. 7.24 28. Heb. 9.14 15. And so now every worshipper hath boldnesse to enter into the Holiest by this one sacrifice and to draw neare unto God Heb. 10.19 22. And for this cause the typicall ministration must needs be inferiour and the Gospell ministration more excellent sublime and anagogicall Let these things be but seriously considered and they will affoord you a great deale of light in reading that glorious Epistle of Paul to the Hebrewes And in a word grant me that Gods Elect under the Law were saved by Gods free grace in jesus Christ in those sacrifices typified as if there be any sparke of ingenuity left in you you must needs acknowledge and you shall grant that Covenant and this under the Gospell to be all one for substance and so the difference betweene that and this to lye in the ministration onely But how say you that this Gospell-Covenant is established to better subjects I pray how better subjects you say beleevers But did God seale his Covenant under the Law to unbeleevers How prove you that To children in their infancy therefore to unbeleevers The inference is unsound neither can you bring one text of Scripture where it 's said that Infants of Jewes in Covenant were unbeleevers And therefore let all men see how well your Divinity agrees with the language of Scripture If the Scripture termes infants of the Jewes the holy seed then they are not to be termed unbeleevers and therefore you speake wickedly and more than you can justifie Turne your Bible over and by finding nothing for your purpose you shall see that you have said nothing to the purpose That unbeleevers might have the signe of Circumcision under the Law Oh abominable blasphemy And the promises under the Gospell doe no more belong to beleevers than they did to beleevers under the Law They did and doe belong to Gods people in Covenant And infants of baptized parents are under the promise and in Govenant Well thus you argue viz. The promise of the Gospell is onely to beleevers But infants of Christians are not beleevers Ergo The promise of the Gospel is not to infants of Christians This Syllogisme may well be termed a Solacisme But it may well passe in the Schoole of Anabaptists for to speake non-sence overthrowes not the principles of their Religion But we have shewed you before That infants of Christians are not Insidels Ergo beleevers And you say afterwards that infants are saved by the Election and therefore say I the promise of the Gospell belongs unto them But haply you had forgotten what you said here as indeed he that will lye had need have a good memory otherwise a fluent tongue will quickly discover a knaves heart And now give me leave to put in my plea for our poore infants Thus I argue for them viz. All the Elect have right to the promise of the Gospell But some infants of Christians are Elect Ergo Some infants of Christians have right to the promise of the Gospell And then againe thus viz. Such as have right to the promise of the Gospell have right unto the initiall seale of the Gospell But some infants of Christians have right to the promises of the Gospell Ergo Some infants of Christians have right unto the initiall seale of the Gospell Quest Why then doe you baptize all Infants of Christians seeing you confesse that the promise of the Gospell belongs only to the elect Answ And why doe you baptize any at all though they give testimony of faith by practice and confession seeing you confesse that the promise belongs only to Gods elect For if the certaine knowledge of a persons election must bee the ground of baptizing unto us then you shall never baptize any but every particular person must baptize himselfe For no man by ordinary grace can have certaine knowledge of another mans election But you will say that albeit wee know that there bee many reprobates borne within the Church and many hypocrites may make a shew of faith by profession and not have it in truth yet when they come one and one unto us by profession of faith we have a charitable perswasion that this and that man so professing is of Gods election And so say wee that albeit wee know doctrinally that diverse Infants borne within the Church are reprobates yet as they come to us one and one upon the evidence of Gods Covenant engraven upon them by birth wee have a charitable perswasion that this and that Infant is of Gods election Quest. Why then doe you not baptize the Infants of those that are without the Church as Turks and Insidels if a charitable perswasion of Gods election be warrant enough for you Sol. We answer that such Infants are not borne under the Covenant neither are their parents under the seale of Baptisine and the Scripture no where termes such Infants holy as it doth every where the children of the Church And this is a direct answer unto A. R. in the 6. page of his childish book entituled the vanity of childish Baptisme The Adoption belongs to the children of the Church and not to the children of aliens And therefore this prophane Asse speaks wickedly in his † most ferious thoughts What sayes he if it be a warrantable ground for us to administer Baptisme to all Infants because that some particular Infants are elected by the same reason it will follow that Baptisme may lawfully be administred to every man and woman in the world because among them also wee may judge that some are elected page 6. These stout words of his doe as well beare before them a professed quarrell against God for Circumcision as against us for Baptisme Why might not such an hellish blasphemer say unto God What If it be a

infants that die unbaptized have faith by Christ and the Spirit of Grace Ergò Elect infants that die unbaptized have faith by ordinary meanes of faith And thus you see that all is trash on your side and meere jugling and you can as well maintaine your cause as your title to the Crowne of England Anabaptist And thus we have runne over your chiefest arguments at briefe as we could We desire you would not take it offensively from us that we have beene so tedious in writing unto you for we could have beene larger in many things but that we were fearefull of tediousnesse And if there be any thing wherein we are mistaken we desire information and we desire to submit to the judgement of judicious and reasonable men whether your reasons be not answered If you can overthrow clearely by the Word of God these answers we will cry peccavi if you cannot we expect according to your former promises that you should cry peccavi Answer You have runne over my arguments indeed but you have not refuted any one of them They all stand unmoveable as Mount Zion and the glory of the Lord is upon them And as for your tediousnesse that 's not so offensive unto me as your absurd reasonings And for your mistakes I have shewed them unto you for your information And if you will submit to judicious and reasonable men so will I And for this cause I have published this Treatise And whether I have dealt unfaithfully with Gods holy Word either in my Sermons or in this mine Answer to your Objections I leave to the censure of the godly learned And if you or any of your side can say any thing more that is materiall against the point of Paedo-baptisme I shall by Gods helpe give you such satisfaction whereby you through Gods blessing shall be able to see that they were from the Devill and not from Christ that led you into this way of re-baptizing Anabaptist And thus we desire the Lord to adde his blessing to our weake endeavours as to perswade your hearts to embrace every truth of Jesus Christ that as yet you oppose and so likewise for our selves And thus we commend all to the disposing of Almighty God in whom we rest Answer Your meaning is perhaps that I doe oppose the way of the Anabaptists and stand for Paedo-baptisme and that herein I oppose a truth of Christ Jesus If your meaning be this your prayer is impious and a taking of Gods Name in vaine And you pray unto God to blesse your wicked endeavours in going about to perswade my heart to embrace not a truth but a lye This proves evidently that God is patient and that the Devill is impudent And is this the good stuffe that you would have to be read before the whole Congregation at Cranham as you desire in your Postscript Your desire is more then granted you desired to have it as publike as Cranham and I have made it as publike as England It s now in a faire way to be read at London at Yorke at Exceter at Bristoll at Gloucester at Worcester and where not as God shall direct it And I hope my brethren will make it knowne to more Congregations than Cranham for the information of Gods people in the truth I hope that was your end in desiring leave to have it read to the whole Congregation at Cranham and not revenge on me for keeping wavering soules of that Congregation from running into Severne after you But now to your three Questions which you subjoyne as an appendix to your exceptions 1. You demand What expresse warrant we have in Scripture for the baptizing of Infants Unto this we say that the question savours more of curiosity than of conscience But seeing you may make bold as you say to propound this question unto me and desire me to answer you punctually by the Scripture or not at all I make bold to urge you with one argument and desire you to answer me either by Scripture or Right reason Thus I argue in expresse answer to your demand and quaere All persons knowne to be under the Covenant of Grace are to have the Covenant put under the initiall seale unto them by expresse warrant of Scripture But all infants of Christians are knowne to be under the Covenant of Grace Ergo All infants of Christians are to have the Covenant of Grace put under the initiall seale unto them by expresse warrant of Scripture Deny this Syllogisme or deny either proposition if you can The major I presume you will not deny The minor is as undenyable But if Lambes blasphemy must passe for orthodox with you that you will contradict Thus therefore I make it good If all Christian parents are under the Covenant of Grace then all infants of Christian parents are under the Covenant of Grace But all Christian parents are under the Covenant of Grace Ergo All Infants of Christian parents are under the Covenant of Grace Haply you will deny the sequell of the major proposition but therein you will but shew your ignorance and irrationall stupiditie For sequela ab indivisis est valida Thus then I make it good viz. If the Covenant of Grace joynes parents and children together as inseparable and immediate companions then if all Christian parents are under the Covenant of Grace all Infants of Christian parents are under the Covenant of Grace all Infants of Christian parents are under the Covenant of Grace also But the Covenant of Grace joynes parents and children together as inseparable and immediate companions saying I will be thy God and the God of thy seed Ergo If all Christian parents are under the Covenant of Grace then all infants of Christian parents are under the Covenant of Grace also And now answer or give over your fooleries nay sacrilegious practices and impious dissolution of Gods holy Covenant with his people and their seed A wickednesse haply not so well seene of you whom subtile heads seduce with good words and faire speeches the very method of the Devils agents Rom. 16.17 18. And thus we have shaken your triumphall argument with which you have mis-led many an honest heart the more is the pity And it may be just with God to scourge this Nation for our too much connivence at you High offences deserve sharper censures And to forbeare correction is to dishonour Gods image in Superiours and to throw downe Authority for Sedition to trample upon If your way must stand adieu Religion and let us all turne Atheists And so much for answer to your first quaere 2. Your second question is What Infants doe receive in Baptisme Which question as propounded by an Anabaptist implyes this blasphemy viz. That Infants receive no benefit by baptisme But unto this quaere we say that Infants of Christians by baptisme have the Covenant put under seale unto them as their native priviledge The Covenant under which they were borne makes them holy by birth And Baptisme under