Selected quad for the lemma: christian_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
christian_n	baptize_v	child_n	infant_n	1,168	5	9.1746	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A77397	Anabaptism, the true fountaine of Independency, Brownisme, [double brace] Antinomy, Familisme, and the most of the other errours, which for the time doe trouble the Church of England, unsealed. Also the questions of pædobaptisme and dipping handled from Scripture. In a second part of the Disswasive from the errors of the time. / By Robert Baillie minister at Glasgow.	Baillie, Robert, 1599-1662.; Baillie, Robert, 1599-1662. Dissuasive from the errours of the time.	1647 (1647)	Wing B452A; Thomason E369_9; ESTC R38567	187,930	235

and Elders the Independency of every Congregation from Presbyteries and Synods the thousand years of Christs visible raign upon earth All this new light did shine first and still burns most brightly among the Anabaptists Although many of the Tenets mentioned in the former Chapter be dissembled and denied by divers of this Sect Their Antipaedobaptisme and dipping shall here bee briefly and plainly considered yet all of them will acknowledge as their own what ever almost is practised either by the Independents or Brownists and besides two Tenets more Antipaedobaptism and Dipping all who carry the name of Anabaptisme though through ignorance they know not or through better instruction they dissent from many positions of their Brethren yet will avowedly and oft with passion professe their minde against the sprinkling of infants paedorantisme to all of them I ever heard of is an abomination It will not therefore be amisse before I leave them to speak something to those two points which all of them are content to take upon themselves as a Characteristick distinction from any other Sect. Let us then consider First whether it be lawfull to baptize any infant Secondly whether sprinkling be sufficient or if it be necessary to dip over head and eares all who are baptized Concerning the state of the first Question The state of the first question we need not controvert the quality of the infants to be baptized Whether they must be the children of true beleevers or onely of professors without scandall whether of Church members only or if it be enough that their Parents be Christians in the largest signification all this belongs to another place The onely point pertinent here is Whether any infants may be baptized The champions for the Anabaptists side in their Declaration of the publick Dispute intended by them with the City Ministers for their Tenet set down their These in these expresse terms No infants ought to be baptized The formall contradiction hereof is Some infants ought to be baptized for this Position I propone some few Scripturall reasons Who have leisure to see this point debated at length may look upon the worthy and judicious Writs of M. Marshall M. Black M. Geere M. Ainsworth also in his last Writ and M. Cotton in his latest learnedly and zealously maintain this truth against the Anabaptists The first reason for the affirmative My first reason I frame thus Who ever have a good right to the first Sacrament of the New Testament ought to be baptized But some infants have a good right to the first Sacrament of the New Testament Ergo Some infants ought to be baptized The major is naturally clear it needs no more for its proof but the explication of the terms of the Proposition for Baptism and the first Sacrament of the New Testament are one thing and ought to be baptized is nothing else but to have a good right to Baptism Who have right to the chief promises have right to some of the seals which God has appointed to be a means of assurance of these promises unlesse the Lord himself have made a speciall exception All the question lies in the minor which thus I prove Who ever have right to the chief promises of the New Testament they have right to the first Sacrament of the New Testament if the Lord have not put some impediment to their participation of that Sacrament But some infants have right to the chief promises of the New Testament and the Lord has put no impediment to their participation of that Sacrament Ergo. About the major I see one and but one makes some velitation all the rest give it for granted for it is grounded likewise on the nature of the terms of the proposition the chief promises of the New Testament and the first Sacrament this is the sign and seal that the thing signified The reason proceeds not from every thing signified to every sign but from the chief thing signified to the first sign some of the blessings which Circumcision did seal belonged to Melchisedek to Lot to Job and others who were not so farre as we reade circumcised but the main promises sealed by Circumcision In thy seed all the Nations of the earth shall be blessed The Messias comming of the posterity of Abraham Isaac and Jacob the Covenant of grace as it was administred under the figures of the Ceremoniall Law did belong to the people of Israel alone and to the proselytes who joyned themselves to their body Nor do we speak but of the first sign for unlesse there be a right to this there is a right to none and where the Lord has appointed signes to seal up thereby the assurance of his promises to deny to them whom God wil have to be assured of the promise the use of all the seals which he has instituted to be the spirituall means of that assurance were on mans part a great unjustice except the Lord himself have put a barre to the participation of these seals as in the Sacrament of Circumcision of old he did to women and to male infants before the eighth day and to all born in the Wildernesse during the time of their fourty years wandering therein But it is upon the minor that our Adversaries bestir themselves to purpose they deny stoutly both its parts Infants have good right to the promises of the Covenant of grace all the Scripturall objections which they can make against infants baptism they count impediments put by God to paedobaptism and upon this ground they deny the last part of the minor this we shall consider when we come to answer their objections it were not so pertinent in this place The first part likewise of the minor they deny affirming that no infants have right to any promise of the New Testament before the time of their actuall faith which they say cannot possibly be in them before the years of their discretion This is the greatest and most dangerous knot in the whole debate for we do not so much contend for the outward Sacrament to infants as for their spirituall right in God and his promises all our adversaries deny to all infants all right in God all interesses in his promises and Covenant as much as they do to Turks and Pagans Some of both say they may be elected and saved but neither of both have any place in the Covenant of grace or any Gospel promises till they be called by the Word and by an actuall faith have embraced the Gospel If therefore we make good the right and interest of any infants in the chief promises of the New Testament we establish the main hinge of this whole controversie For this end we will endeavour to clear from Scripture these four propositions First that the infants of the Jews had reall and true interest in the Covenant of grace even before the comming of Christ Secondly that the infants of the Jews had that same right in the Covenant of

either eating of bread or drinking of water but however there is a positive precept that hinders them from participation of the Lords Supper they cannot remember the Lords death they cannot examine the state of their own heart no such impediment is put in their way by the hand of God to keep them from baptisme M. Tombes observes it that long before John the Baptists days baptisme was in use among the Jews and M. Marshal adds from the Talmud Maimonides and other Authors that it was a very ancient custome to baptize all that were circumcised infants as wel as their parents women as well as men and that this custome of baptizing all that were added to the Church as well children as others did continue in all ages among Christians is proved at length by many without any satisfactory reply but we intend here to dispute from Scripture alone 7. Argument Infants are partakers of remission of regeneration of life eternal Wee shall bring but one other reason and so passe on To whom the Lord gives the whole signification of baptisme from these men ought not to withhold the outward sign thereof But to some infants the Lord gives the whole signification of baptism For the proof of the major we need not alledge the equity of giving the lesse to them that gets the more of not denying the shell and the cask to them who enjoy the kirnell and the pearl for the Apostles words prove it sufficiently Acts 10.47 Acts 10.47 Can any man forbid water that these should not be baptized which have received the holy Ghost as well as we and he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord the Apostle here reasons from one part of the signification of baptisme and that but a temporary blessing the extraordinacy gifts of the holy Ghost to the outward sign of baptisme how much more may we conclude it from its whole ordinary signification The ground of this reason is granted by the principall of our adversaries who profess their willingnesse to baptize any infants of whom they were certain that they had the saving graces of the holy Ghost avow their exclusion of infants from baptism upon this ground mainly that they beleeve they are excluded from the covenant of grace remission of sins the saving graces of the Spirit till in the years of discretion they be brought actually to beleeve The minor that some infants have the whole signification of baptisme is thus proved Who have remission of sins regeneration and right to eternall life they have the whole signification of baptisme But some infants have all these The major is clear I prove the minor None enters into heaven but they whose sins are remitted who are regenerate and to whom life eternall belongs But some infants enter into heaven Ergo. The minor is not questioned for the words of Christ of such is the kingdome of heaven and the confession of the adversaries puts it out of doubt The major also is clear from Revel 21.27 And there shall in no wise enter into it any thing that defileth Nothing comes into heaven but what is perfectly purged justified sanctified glorified also Ioh. 3.5 Iesus answered Verily verily I say unto thee except a man be born of water and of the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdome of God and Rom. 5.19 As by one mans disobedience many were made sinners so by the obedience of one man many shall be made righteous As Adam makes all that are descended of him sinners infants as well as others so Christ communicates his righteousnesse to all who are in him to all whom he receives and acknowledges to be his without any distinction of Jew or Gentile male or female young or old who ever have interest in Christ are justified and sanctified by him Now that some infants especially these elect ones who die before the age of discretion have interest in Christ and his covenant hath oft been proved If it be said that infants by this argument may be admitted to the Lords Supper we deny it for the Lord himself hath put a barre to keepe them off from that Sacrament also they are not capable of the whole signification of the Lords Supper for the thing signified therein is not the Lords body and blood simply but his body to be eaten and his blood to be drunken by the actuall faith of the communicants of this active application infants are not capable but in baptisme no action is necessarily required of all who are to be baptized for as the body may be washed without any action of the party who is washed so the vertue of Christs death and life may be applied in remission and regeneration by the act of God alone to the soul as a meer patient without any action from it CHAP. VI. The Antipaedobaptists Objections answered M. 〈◊〉 c. M. ●om●s and M 〈◊〉 O●jecti●● THE exceptions which use to be taken to infant-baptisme goe about in a number of late Treatises the principall are as I take it in the three last which I have seen upon that subject the declaration of the publick dispute intended betwixt sixe of the prime Preachers of the Anabaptists and some City Ministers Mr Tombs exercitation and the namelesse Treatise of Baptisme In the first are nine Arguments in the second eight and some more in the third Who desire to see large and solid answers to all these and to what else is brought to any purpose by any other of their companions let them look upon M Marshals Sermon and its vindication M ● Blacks three Treatises and M. Cottons Dialogue for the time they who are in haste may have this short reply to the main arguments of the three named Authors They are in effect but few all invented by the old Anabaptists Take upon all these two generall observations First that what ever any of them has is all borrowed from the old Anabaptists in whom the spirit of the worst heresies did rage who will be at the pains to compare the writs of the Authors in hand with that which Zuinglius Bullinger Guy de Bres Ainsworth and others have set down in the name and words of the old Anabaptists shall finde that our late opposers doe adde little that is considerable to the arguments of their Fathers Secondly that all the arguments which either the elder or later Anabaptists bring against Paedobaptisme are but two or three at most when they are increased to a greater number it 's but the same body put in many diverse habits by a needlesse variation of shapes M. Cox first Argument 〈◊〉 makes examples alone a full rule The nine Arguments of the publick disputants have not as yet so far as I know been honored w th any answer neither do I think was there any necessity of it for the Disputants do so insolently out-bragge the City Ministers and the matter of their Arguments has so often been answered in divers

propositions may be denyed there is no necessity of the major for although the commission of teaching and baptizing goe together yet this infers not any necessity of applying these two commands to the self same persons be it so that these two acts are ever conjoined and that teaching must ever goe before baptizing for the parents ought to be instructed before the children be baptized and in the right administration of baptisme the nature of the covenant is always declared before the seal of the sacrament be appended yet it follows not that the same persons who are to be baptized are at that same time to be taught as in the commission for Circumcision Gen. 17. all the precepts concern not the self same persons but some the parents onely some the infants only and some both v. 12. he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you this belongs onely to infants but the 11. v. ye shall circumcise the flesh of your fore-skin this belongs onely to the parents and those of age for no other could obey this injunction and v. 10. every man-child among you shall be circumcised belongs alike both to old young Even so that in the Law of Baptism some of the injunctions should belong only to the Pastors as the act of preaching and baptizing and others onely to the elder people that are to be baptized as that of being taught and others as that of being baptized to the younger also who are not able to bee taught there is no absurdity The minor also is denyed upon divers grounds Infants are Disciples I speak not of that which divers maintain of the actuall faith of children and of the application to infants of that of Isaiah they shall be all taught of God from the least to the greatest But I desire that to be considered which many more affirm and divers of the Anabaptists themselves doe presse that the word which Christ uses in his commission to the Apostles is matheteuein which signifies say they not to teach but to make Disciples now infants may very well goe under the name of Disciples for they are brought to the School of God the visible Church and there they are dedicate to Gods discipline and have their names given up to be the Lords subjects and scholars Sundry scriptures also are produced where infants are counted Disciples as Act. 15.10 why tempt ye God to put a yoke upon the neck of the Disciples Circumcision is the yoke whereof the Apostle is speaking now they on whose neck ordinarily that yoke was put were onely infants A third reason for the proving of our first minor is this Infants have interest in the Trinity To whom the form and end of Baptisme expressed in the place in hand does belong to them the commission set down in Mat. 28.19 does extend But to some infants the form and end of Baptisme expressed in that place does belong Ergo. The minor is grounded upon the words of the text for they make the form and end of Baptisme to be a dedication of the person baptized to the Father Son and holy Ghost and an interessing of the three Persons in the baptized party now the necessity to dedicate christian infants to their Creator Redeemer and Sanctifier and the interest of all the three Persons in the infants of their servants so dedicated unto them is evident A fourth reason for the probation of that first minor whosoever may lawfully be baptized to them Infants may be lawfully baptized the commission in hand does extend for the baptism of women of old men of Kings of Beggers and of all sexes ages and conditions is grounded upon this command though neither their names nor their qualities be therein expresly set down nor can be fetched frō thence but only by consquence Now we assume that some infants may lawfully be baptized this both the present argument and the two former and these that follow doe prove and the Apostle Peter Acts 2.39 does evince by this argument To whom the chief ground of Baptisme does belong they may lawfully be baptized But to some children the chief ground of baptisme does belong to wit the promises of the new covenant those says he belong to you and to your children and upon this as a principall foundation he builds his exhortation to them to be baptized Arg. 4. from the Baptism of whole families Our fourth main argument is this The blessing which God bestows on whole families without exception of any infant ought not to be denyed to all infants But baptisme is such a blessing Ergo. The major is grounded on that laudable conformity which ought to be in all men with God when hee is good our eye without reproof may not be evill the minor is proved from divers Scriptures where the Apostles did baptize not only them who are declared to beleeve but with them their whole household whose actuall beleeving is not at all expressed Acts 16.15 Acts 16.15.31 when she was baptized and her houshold ibid. v. 31. thou and thy house shall be saved and v. 33. he and all his were baptized and 1 Cor. 1.16 1 Cor. 1.16 I baptized also the houshold of Stephanas No exception here is made of infants and if any should except them because they cannot hear the Word and beleeve they must exclude them also from the other spirituall benefits mentioned in these places even from salvation it self for as our Saviour speaks to Zacheus Luke 19.9 This day is salvation come to this house and the Lord shewed by the Angel to Cornelius that Peter should tell him words whereby he and all his house should be saved Acts 11.14 So Paul tels the keeper of the prison that upon his faith himself should be saved and his house Act. 16.31 How great a wrong it were to exclude infants either from the promise or from the seal of salvation when both are conferred upon whole housholds whereof infants are the most innocent parts may be seen in all the preceding practises of God from the first institution of any initiating sign to that day What ever man either Jew or Gentile was moved by God to joine himself to the visible church as himself did hear and make profession of his faith and receive the seal of Circumcision so also all his male infants were circumcised though they could neither hear nor beleeve This bounty and kindnesse God did never afterward retract and for any man to doe it it were a great presumption for so the Jews in the New Testament where their comforts are enlarged should be in a more sorrowfull condition then the very Gentiles were in the Old for then the Proselytes upon the profession of their faith had all their infants though unable to beleeve taken within the covenant and all their children admitted to the seals thereof but according to our adversaries position the Jews themselves in the New Testament though never so zealous of the faith must

the Brownists But beside all which the Brownists can like of the Anabaptists proceed to a further reformation as they account it they become Antipaedobaptists Hereby they ingage themselves in these practises and Tenets They avow the nullity of our Baptisme first they refuse to Baptize any infant they refuse to admit to the first Sacrament any who gives not a confession of their own faith they esteem paedobaptism a great sin which according to their temper they expresse in harder or softer terms the meekest of them count it a nullity and will-worship A Secondly They presse on us a rebaptization they make it necessary to baptize over again all who in their infancy were baptized and from this they carry the name of rebaptizers It is true they deny with passion all rebaptizing for infant baptism they call a nullity so when they baptize in riper age them who before were baptized in their infancy they esteem this their action to be but the first baptism which they repeat no more B But we who know paedobaptism to be no nullity but a true and valid Sacrament cannot but call their action a second Baptism and repetition of the first So with great reason the name of rebaptizers is given unto them But to put the equity of this reproach out of doubt their great patrons now are come to defend the lawfulnesse of baptism not only twice but if ye will ten times yea so oft as you repent for sin which ought to be oftner then once a day so of Anabap●●●ts they become Hemerobaptists and more C Thirdly they exclude all infants from any interest at all in the Covenant of grace D They exclude all infants from the Covenant of grace and make circumcision a seale only of carnall promises they grant that the Jewish infants had interest in some earthly priviledges which Circumcision did seal unto them but they deny that any children whether of Jews or Gentiles have any promise of grace made to them till they come to age and beleeve so they will not have Circumcision a seal of the Covenant of grace E to any of the children of Abraham while they are infants but only of temporall benefits F By this means they make the infants of faithfull Christians and of the Turks and Pagans all equall G some of both to belong to eternall election but none of either to have any interest in the Covenant of grace till they become actuall beleevers This makes them uncertain what to say of infants dying before conversion some save them all H others incline to the damnation of them all I others professe the uncertainty of the thing whether infants before their conversion be within the kingdom of Satan or that of God K Many of them deny originall sin and assert all the articles of Arminius Fourthly many of them stumble upon originall sin some deny it altogether as if infants were not born with any sinfull corruption L or what ever sin they are born in they will have it taken away by vertue of Christs universall redemption in all mankinde as well Pagans as Christians M making baptism no more needfull in the one nor in the other for the removing or sealing of the removall of that which is removed without the means either of Word or Sacraments by vertue of a generall Covenant made with all mankinde in Adam after the fall From this ground they are drawn away to all the Tenets of Arminius Others of them flie out to the contrary extremity avowing that Adam before the fall in his very creation was corrupted with sin N and by a huge blasphemy make the very humane nature of Christ to be sinfull O and God to be the Creator of sin both in the first and second Adam P They separate from all who renounce not paedobaptisme Fiftly by their rejecting of infant Baptism they fall into the errour of rigid Separation they baptize none but actuall beleevers such as give them satisfaction of their actuall faith and holinesse thus far going along with the rigid Separatists Q But hence they proceed to another ground whereupon they leave the Separatists and 〈◊〉 who follow them not to Anabaptism R they take Baptism f●● a Sacrament of initiation for a door and mean of entring into the Church these who are not baptized they count not Church members infant Baptism they pronounce a nullity and such a disobedience to the Gospel as infers Antichristianism and a reall deniall that Christ is yet come in the flesh S So the Separatists who are all baptized in their infancy and refuse to be rebaptized to them are no better then unbaptized and Antichristian rebels not capable of Church membership or of any Church communion Upon this ground as their great Patron acknowledgeth they are forced to declare the Independent and Brownistick Congregations how dear otherwise soever to be but Antichristian Synagogues and no true Churches T But here self-love does much blind them Yet they admit into their Churches many much worse then these from whom they separate for they who are so precise as to separate with the Brownists from all the reformed Churches because of their impure admissions and from the Brownists also because of their infant Baptism are notwithstanding ready to receive into their Churches those who for life and doctrine are much more impure then many from whom they separate if so be they are willing to renounce their paedobaptism as they call it and to receive of them a new true Baptism V In this they stick not to their own principles nor to the practise of their fathers for so strict were they that a small scandall in life or a little difference in doctrine would have quickly procured a cutting off from the Church by the censure of excommunication but now the world abroad may hear both of adulteries and thefts and the grossest heresies of their members without any ejection from their Churches Sixtly they esteem sprinkling no Baptism at all Sprinkling to them nullifies baptisme they will have the whole body to be plunged over head and ears in the water X this circumstance of plunging they account so necessary and essentiall to Baptism that the change thereof into sprinkling makes the Baptism to be null That such a plunging draws upon some sicknesse and death and upon women great shame and scandall while they are stripped and must stand altogether naked in the presence of men and of the whole Congregation these and other inconveniences they do not much regard Y Seventhly M. Tombs new way of those who impugn paedobaptism some go a new way of their own wherein as yet they have very few followers if any at all for to this day I have heard of ●one M. Tombs a learned and very bold man at this time when so many new ways are in hand hath thought meet to make a hotch-potch of many of them together first He is a rigid Antipaedobaptist yet

condition as the children of Turks c. It was Adams disobedience in eating the forbidden fruit that put all his posterity equally into a sinfull and miserable condition H Storming of Antichrist p. 53. This opinion puts all infants of beleevers into the same condition with Turks and Indians Answ As the infants of Turks and Christians dying infants are all alike free from actuall sin being onely guilty of originall why may they not partake of the same benefit of free grace why may we not have charitable thoughts concerning the salvation of Turkish infants seeing we know nothing of their damnation and we reade not of any one in Scripture damned meerly for originall sin the innocency of all infants so dying is the same in respect of actuall sin I Bakwels Answer p. 2. Here I doubt they exclude all infants that die in their infancy from salvation because they are not capable of such knowledge of God and Christ you answer saying you know not what is this knowledge neither hath the Scripture revealed any such that were saved K Tombs Apology p. 64. The truth is I neither leave infants in the Devils nor Gods visible Kingdome for I conceive they are in neither Kingdome visibly till they declare by their profession to whom they belong visibly Ibid. p. 66. I suppose in reference to the present point this is the truth that however every infant is either in the invisible Kingdome of God or Satan that is elect or reprobate yet no child till he make profession doth visibly belong either to the one or to the other I acknowledge that in the visible Church of the Jews the infants were reckoned to the Church and the reason was from the peculiar Church State of the Jews L Gangren first Part p. 20. There is no originall sin in us only Adams first sin was originall sin M Ibid. p. 1. of the second division Henry Den in a conference with M. Strong delivered that Christ did satisfie for the sins committed against the first Covenant Being urged that the Heathen then must all be saved because their sins against the first Covenant were pardoned and they had never sinned against the second which was never revealed to them he answered the Heathen had Christ preached to them in the creatures Sun Moon and Stars N Ibid. p. 110. The Independent Churches in Somersetshire deliver that a Minister baptizing Infants is a false Prophet also that Adam was created in sin and that he was as sinfull before his fall as after and that Christ was a sinner his nature being defiled with sin as well as the nature of other men is O Vide supra N. P Gangren first Part second division p. 24. Nichols in Moore-fields maintained that God was the Author of all sin Q Treatise of Baptisme p. 148. It is not a hope you must goe upon for the giving of Ordinances and holy seals but a judgement Paul called the Saints positively faithfull and elect when we come to admit members if they give but onely ground of hopes we let them stay for their own profit and the discharge of our duty till they can give us the ground of a judgement the Apostle says positively they are holy you ought to assure your self they are so Ibid. p. 252. A male infant is the subject of circumcision but a beleever is the subject of Baptisme R The vanity of childish Baptism first Part p. 29. They of the separation grant that no children save onely beleevers children are in the Covenant or have right to Baptism their Parents by their own acknowlegement being ungodly whence it will follow that they themselves being baptized in their infancy had not the baptism of Christ and so by consequence are yet unbaptized persons Garner of Baptism p. 14 15. Beleevers by Baptism do orderly enter into the body or congregation of Christ hence I may take occasion to satisfie such if the Lord please as are opposite unto beleevers baptism and their entrance into the Church by baptism and contend much for their entrance into a Church estate by Covenant or contract without baptism S Declaration by Cocks c. p. 13. The baptizing of infants doth deny Christ to be come in the flesh T Tombs Apology p. 66. I confesse that they who hold that members are added to the Church by baptism and not otherwise and hold a nullity of paedobaptism must needs say the Churches that have no other then infant baptism are no true Churches nor their members Church members but those points of the necessity of right baptism not onely to the right order but also to the beeing of a visible Church and Church member and so voluntary separation barely for the defect of it I have ever disclaimed V Gangren second Part p. 8. A godly Minister related that Oats an Anabaptisticall Emissary was followed in Essex by many loose persons he spoke it upon his knowledge that notorious whoremongers and drunkards follow him such as have been convicted by witnesses and taken notice of by the Countrey and are such still yet go after him where he preaches from place to place X Vanity of childish Baptism p. 8. The institution of Christ requireth that the whole man be dipped all over in water whosoever is not dipped is not baptized and he that is only sprinkled or hath water onely imposed upon him is not dipped whence this consequence clearly results That all those that have the administration of Baptism either by sprinkling or by any washing without dipping have not the Baptism of the New Testament and by consequence are unbaptized persons Y Vide Gangren first Part second division p. 5. Z M. Tombs exercitation presented to the Chairman of a Committee of the Assembly of Divines and an Apology for the two Treatises against the unjust censures of Doctor Homes M. Geere M. Marshall M. Lee M. Hussey M. Black M. Calamy M. Vines AA Tombs Apology p. 64. Why doth he make my opinion odious as if I put all the children of the whole Church out of the Covenant of grace as I do the children of the Turks and acknowledge no more promise for the one then for the other whereas when he hath said as much as he can for them he can bring no more promise for them then I doe nor dares reject the limitations I restraine them by M. Marshals defence pag. 85. To my understanding you here clearly yeeld the infants of beleevers to be in the same condition in reference to the Covenant of grace which the infants of Turks and Indians are in no more promise for the one then for the other which so oft as you consider me thinks your Fatherly bowels to your own children should be moved within you Ibid. p. 98. I confesse I suspect you have a further meaning not onely because you here mention the temporall blessings before the spirituall and call the land of Canaan the Covenant made with Abraham but especially that expression which you own from Cameron

grace after the comming of Christ in the New Testament Thirdly that the infants of the Gentiles under the old Testament when their Parents became proselytes had right to the Covenant of grace Fourthly that the infants of the Gentiles under the New Testament had that same right continued The first we prove from Genesis 17. ver 7 12 13. The infants of the Jews had reall interest in the Covenant of grace before the comming of Christ Gen. 17.7 12 13. I will establish my Covenant betwixt me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting Covenant to be a God unto thee and to thy seed after thee And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you and my Covenant shall be in all your flesh Here God enters in Covenant and promises not only things temporall but the chief of all spirituall blessings that he will be a God to Abrahams seed as well as to himselfe and this his seed is understood of infants as well as others for with all these this Covenant is made who carried the seal of it in their flesh and some of these are expresly said to be but eight days old this gracious Covenant was the ground of their Circumcision and of all the legal ceremonies exercised about them as true members of the Jewish Church The first males were holy to the Lord Christ as was the custome of other infants was brought to the Temple Luke 2. Luke 2. to be presented to the Lord and to have a sacrifice offered for him in the second command the Lord promises mercy to the children of faithfull parents not only in the third and fourth but in the thousand generation and although the Parents were wicked yet the Lord acknowledges his interest in the Jewish children and theirs in him Ezek. 16.20 21. Ezek 16.20 21 Moreover thou hast taken thy sons and thy daughters whom thou hast born unto me and these hast thou sacrificed unto them to be devoured thou hast slain my children Here the Jewish infants burnt by their idolatrous Parents and sacrificed to Molech are called Gods children and are said to be born to God The second proposition the continuance of this right to the Jewish infants under the Gospel some deny it but absurdly for Christ when he came was a Mediator of a better Covenant Heb. 7.22 Also after Christs comming under the new Testament Heb. 7.27.8 6. By so much was Jesus made a surety of a better Testament and 8.6 He is the Mediator of a better Covenant which was established upon better promises The Covenant of grace for the substance was ever the same but for the manner of its administration it was the longer the better and after Christs incarnation best of all but it had been evidently worse after that time in a very great and main particular if all Jewish infants which before were Church-members and partakers of the sacrifices and Sacraments as the elect ones of them were of the spirituall promises should have lost these priviledges after the comming of Christ and have been so far then unchurched that neither Covenant Sacrament Promise nor any such benefit could belong to them before their years of discretion But they who are resolute to controvert this point I hope will be content to be silenced by the Apostles determination Acts 2.39 The promise is unto you and to your children It is a vain elusion to say the Apostle is speaking of the promises of the extraordinary gifts of the holy Ghost for infants are lesse capable of those then of any graces and gifts in controversie also it is evident that the Apostle is speaking of the great promise of making Jesus crucified and risen from the dead Lord and Christ v. 36. the Author of remission of sins v. 38. of salvation v. 31. as well as of the extraordinary gifts of the holy Ghost Neither is their evasion better who would have no other children here understood then these who are called for so neither remission of sins nor salvation nor Christ nor any gracious promise should belong at all to any child of Abraham before he were called no not to Isaac nor Jacob the children of the promise in the time of their infancy which is expresly contrary to the former Scripture and to the common sense of all well advised Christians As for the third proposition the right of proselyte infants under the Law to the Covenant and the Sacrament which then did seal it it is clear from Gen. 17.12 The Infants of proselyte Gentiles under the old Testament had right in the Covenant of grace Gen. 17.12 He that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you every man-child in your generations he that is born in the house or bought with money of any stranger which is not of thy seed The infants of strangers bought with mony though not of Abrahams seed are commanded to bear the sign of the Covenant of the Lord in their flesh Exod. 12.48 49. Ex. 12.48 49. When a stranger shall sojourn with thee and will keep the Passeover to the Lord let all his males be circumcised and then let him come neer and keep it and he shall be as one born in the Land one Law shall be to him that is home-born and one to the stranger that sojourneth among you Here the stranger Gentile who is desired to joyn is admitted to the same Law and priviledge with the Jew The Infants of believing Gentiles under the New Testament have right in the Covenant of grace For the fourth that the infants of beleeving Gentiles have right to the promises of God under the New Testament it is clear from what is said for if it were otherwise then their condition after Christs incarnation should be much worse then before which may not be admitted but however this may be many places in the New Testament will decide the quarrell I cite but two Rom. 11.24 Rom. 11.24 For if thou wert cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature and were graffed contrary to nature into a good olive tree how much more shall these which be the naturall branches be graffed into their own olive tree Here the whole Church of the Gentiles is graffed into the root of the naturall olive and that the more room might be left for them the Jews are broken off Before the breaking off of the Jewish branches some of the Gentiles were ingraffed with them in the root Christ and then the infants of the Gentiles as well as their Parents enjoyed the priviledges of the new Covenant when the body of the Jews is broken off to this end that the Gentiles may grow in their place shall not the Gentiles then enjoy the Jewish priviledge at least their own priviledge which themselves enjoyed in worse times for as we have shewed under the Law the infants both of Jews and Gentile proselytes did live by the fatnesse of the root