Infants right unto Baptisme why then do you not administer the Lords supper unto them also Answ Because the Lords Supper belongs onely unto such as can spiritually examine themselves and discerne the Lords body 1 Cor. 11.27 28 29. Now the summe of all is this viz. Children of Christian parents are holy by vertue of Gods holy Covenant in their infancie and therefore to be Baptised in their infancie Or thus more largely viz. Whensoever persons appeare unto the Church under the Gospell to be holy by vertue of Gods holy Covenant then the Church is to baptize such persons But Infants of Christians even in their infancie are persons that appeare unto the Church under the Gospell to be holy by vertue of Gods holy Covenant Ergo The Church under the Gospell is to Baptize infants of Christians in their infancie Quaest But how do Infants of Christians appeare unto the Church under the Gospell to be holy prove that say they and we have done Sol. I answer that persons may appeare to be holy unto the Church under the Gospell two wayes viz. 1. Sensitively by their words and pious actions and and this is the only way that the Anabaptists do know for they are altogether led by sense and thus Infants of Christians neither do nor can appeare unto the Church under the Gospell to be holy 2. Oraculously by vertue of a Divine Oracle and thus children of Christians appeare unto the Church under the Gospel to be holy The Holy Ghost hath engraven this Oracle 1 Cor. 7.14 upon such children And such children do utter this Oracle in the circumcised eares of all understanding Christians though Anabaptists heare no such voyce And let these suffice for our first ground Reason 2 Secondly Infants of Christians are to be baptized in their infancie because they are subjects capable of it Now that they are subjects capable of this initiall seale in their infancie appeares conspicuously by Gods expresse command that the infants of Jews their proselytes should be circumcised in their infancie If they had not beene subject a capable of it God would not have commanded it but God did command it and therefore they were subjects capable of it And these infants were not therefore capable because of Gods Covenant with Abraham and their Fathers which were sealed unto God by Circumcision and in Covenant with him For the Text saith not Thou shalt keepe My command therefore but thou shalt keepe My Covenant therefore thou and thy seed after thee in their generations Gen. 17.9 implying that this command had reference to the Covenant and was part of it For here God is to be considered as God in covenant with His people and all his commands are branches of His Covenant all grounded upon His free grace in Jesus Christ and therefore in the next verse viz. v. 10. Hee calls Circumcision by the name of His Covenant saying This is my Covenant which ye shall keepe betweene Mee and you and thy seed after thee every man-child among you shall be circumcised And to put the matter out of all doubt that Circumcision is called by the name of the Covenant the Lord speakes expresly afterwards saying And My Covenant shall be in your flesh v. 13. to teach us that the Covenant made infants capable of the seale and not Gods meere Mandamus as our abstracting Anabaptists play with notions And so they will consider God here in His absolute prerogative and not as in Covenant with this people Whereas the Seale can be nothing but a confirmation of the promises of Grace unto such as have the promises made unto them So then the promises of grace made these infants capable of having the promises confirmed unto them by Gods initiall seale Now what seale should be authentique in Heaven and seale up divine promises unto persons under the promises or in covenant with God that depended upon Gods institution Now God instituted Circumcision and commanded it to be imprinted on the flesh of his people in covenant as the proper subjects capable of the same So that the command that the Anabaptists talke of so much are the words of institution it being Gods prerogative incommunicable to institute Sacramentall signes because He onely can make them effectuall to supernaturall ends and give the things signified thereby Now Circumcision did bind the circumcised to the obedience of the whole Law Gal. 5.3 And this obligation was laid on very Infants before they could have any knowledge of the Law And againe Circumcision is a seale of the righteousnesse of faith in the Messias Rom. 4.11 And this seale was imprinted on very infants before they could have any actuall faith or knowledge of righteousnesse And unto this obedience and faith the Covenant under which they were borne had bound them though the initiall seale had beene denyed them Such an Anabaptisticall wickednesse could not have put these infants into the condition of aliens The Covenant it selfe would have bound them to faith and obedience And the Covenant it selfe would have made them capable of Gods saving mercy though the initiall seale had beene denyed them Such an Anabaptisticall cruelty could not have blockt up heaven against them Consider this you stout Champions for Hell which do what in you lyes to make Gods Covenant of free grace void and of none effect unto his people And to stop the course of Gods mercy unto the soules of men Well the being of infants in covenant under the Law made them capable of Circumcision the initiall seale of the Covenant To be in covenant then with God makes a man capable of the initiall seale in infancie according to the ministration of Christ under which he is borne i.e. whether the ministration be of Christ to be exhibited in the flesh or of Christ already exhibited in the flesh The substance is the same The Covenant is nothing but Christ ministred Whether it be mans Saviour to come that is ministred as to the Jewes and their proselytes in types or mans Saviour already come be ministred as to Christians without types in cleare demonstrations in the ordinances of Grace yet it is the same Saviour Jesus Christ The same yesterday to day and for ever Heb. 13.9 i.e. In the Ordinances of Grace in times past present and to come nothing hath beene is or shall be ministred for the eternall salvation of the soule but Jesus Christ The Covenant now and formerly with Jewes is the same in relation to the eternall welfare of the soule For 1. The foundation of the Covenant is the same as Gods free eternall and unchangeable love to his elect 2. The occasion of the covenant the same as mans misery by his fall in the loynes of Adam of which this Covenant of Grace is a pregnant and mercifull remedy 3. The Author is the same as God gracious mercifull flow to anger pardoning iniquity c. 4. The thing promised is the same as Christ the Redeemer and Saviour of mankind 5. The spirituall eflicacie
of the Ordinances the same as the mortification of the flesh and the renuing of the creature to Gods Image in Jesus Christ 6. The subject's the same as a people in Covenant with God to yeeld obedience to the faith 7. The end Cujus the same as the glory of Gods mercy to His Elect and the unexcuse of the Reprobate 8. Finally the end Cui the same as Good workes here in this life and the immortality of the soule and eternall blessednesse in the life to come Onely Gods manner of ministring Christ unto man for his eternall salvation is diverse according to the diversitie of Christ state viz. as not incarnate and to come or incarnate and already come and so the ministration is diverse in the Ordinances of Grace Before Christ was come in the flesh all the Ordinances of Grace directed the eyes of the faithfull unto Christ to be exhibited for their salvation redemption And therefore all the Ordinances of grace must needs be typicall And this did quiet their consciences and filled their hearts with joy And since Christ is come all the Ordinances of Grace serve to confirme the faithfull in this point and minister Christ exhibited in the flesh unto us And this causes us to rest in Him for Redemption and salvation and to expect no other Saviour Now if Infants under the typicall ministration of Christ were capable of the initiall seale of this Covenant because borne under this Covenant in their very infancie when they could declare no right they had unto it but their birth then Infants of Christians under the Gospel borne under the same Covenant of Grace are capable of the present initiall seale of this Covenant though they can shew no right they have unto it but their being born of such parents as are Christians The manifestation of faith is no more requisite to the administration of Baptisme unto such as are borne Christians than it was to the administration of Circumcision unto such as were born Jews But as such as were made Jewes had Circumcision administred unto them because they testified faith in the Messias and such as were borne Jewes had it by birth as children of parents in covenant So such as are made Christians are to have Baptisme ministred unto them upon the testimony of their faith but such as are borne Christians are to have it by birth as children of parents in Covenant with God and of his houshold and family For as it was a rule of old that nemo circumcidendus quà Infans or quà adultus but quatenus foederatus So now nemo baptizandus quà infans or quà adultus but quatenus foederatus Now if infants of Christians appeare unto us to be foederati as they do then we are to administer baptisme unto them in their infancie Baptisme herein answering to Circumcision And so the fond quaere of the Anabaptists is groundlesse What say they shall we seale a blanke But this question implies this blasphemie namely that Gods written Covenant is a blanke for Gods covenant is written upon the children of parents in covenant as Christian parents are in covenant And if so then their infants are in covenant otherwise the parents are not in covenant For though it follows not children are in covenant with God therefore their parents are in covenant with God for Abraham was in covenant with God but his father Terah was not yet it follows undeniably parents are in Covenant with God therfore their Infants are in Covenant with God Now then the Infants of Christian parents have the Covenant of Grace written upon them by birth because children of such parents And because their being in Covenant in their infancy appeares unto the Church therefore the Church is to baptize them in their infancy for when persons appeare unto the Church to be in Gods Covenant of Grace then the Church is to put the Covenant under seale unto them and t is their due and the Churches duty And so in the businesse of paedo-baptisme wee are not to looke to the righteousnesse inherent in the parents nor to the righteousnesse in the infant for of neither of these can we have certaine and infallible knowledge but to the righteousnesse of the Covenant or to the free grace of God in Christ as Rom. 4.11 where Circumcision is called the seale of the righteousnesse of faith And therefore the seale of imputative righteousnesse And hence is the grosse mistake of our Anabaptists They thinke that the efficacy of Baptisme is grounded on the practicall righteousnesse of the creature manifested in words or works which stinkes of Popery all over but orthodox Christians in the businesse of paedo-baptisme doe look to Gods Covenant of free Grace and so present their children unto Gods mercy and Fatherly love in Jesus Christ our Righteousnesse Covenant and attonement And albeit our infants have no inherent righteousnesse manifested unto us by their words or actions yet God hath righteousnesse to be imputed by vertue of His Covenant of Grace saying I will be thy God and the God of their seed in their generations And therefore we dedicate our children unto God in their infancy by Baptisme Now our Popish Anabaptists cannot endure to heare of Circumcision as if that should be to the Jewes before Christs incarnation the same with baptisme unto Christians since Oh they labour to cry downe this as the grossest absurdity that ever was uttered by the tongues of men But this is no new thing for the old heretiques heretofore did lead upstart punies in the right way how to fasten themselves to their owne errors and Popish pride But I pray what difference between these two save in the outward ceremony For was not Circumcision as sacrament of entrance into the true Church of God before Christs incarnation And is not Baptisme the same unto us Christians since Christs Ascension Why doth the Apostle call baptized Christians circumcised Christians and Baptisme by the name of Circumcision Col. 2.11 14. Was not Circumcision a seale of the same justifying faith as Baptisme is now unto us Rom. 4.11 And in a word did not Circumcision signifie the mortification of the flesh and the renewing of the mind and so bind over the Jewes unto the obedience of Gods will Rom. 2.28 29. Gal. 3.21 And doth not Baptisme the same now Rom. 6.3 11. 1 Pet. 3.21 Now shew us any substantiall difference between these two Sacraments for if there bee no substantiall difference then without controversy there is a substantiall union You say there is a wide difference for the one was the cutting off of the fore-skin of the flesh and the other is a washing with water So say we but this difference is but ceremoniall but as an initiall seale how differ they or in any other spirituall effect necessary unto salvation When we look upon Sacraments we doe not look upon them by halves as you Anabaptists doe and detaine our senses in the bodily part of them We look upon
the mysticall part of them as they are of spirituall use to confirm the Covenant of Grace and to further a man in the way to Heaven And so circumcision was that unto the Jewes before Christs incarnation as Baptisme is to Christians since Now to overthrow this Anabaptists usually alleadge two things viz. First they alleadge that Baptisme cannot be the same unto Christians since Christs incarnation as Circumcision was unto the Jewes before and why Because say they Circumcision was to be administred unto Infants on the eighth day but Baptisme is not to bee administred unto Infants on the eight day Sol. This objection proves nothing against the point in hand for the eighth day fell out to bee in such a time wherein the Infants could make no sacramentall use of the Sacrament of Circumcision and they were a blanke in their sense as much as our Infants Under the law they were to be kept from Circumcision untill the eight day for a ceremoniall reason Levit. 12.2 3. And this makes nothing at all against what we have said touching the substantiall identity of Circumcision and Baptisme For things that doe differ circumstantially may yet be altogether one in substance Secondly they alleadge that under the law females were not circumcised but under the Gospell they are baptized Sol. We answer that this neither makes nothing against the point in hand which is paedo-baptisme for grant that the proportion holds between Circumcision and Baptisme were it but in males this were enough to refute their owne conclusion For this would inferre that the state of infancy doth not make persons uncapable of the initiall seale of the Covenant of grace under the Gospell But they oppose paedo-baptisme in males and females But we answer that under the law the females were circumcised in the males as the Church is circumcised in Christ The males bearing the type of Christ upon their flesh and the males and females in matrimoniall conjunction representing Christ and His Church And unto this the Apostle alludes Ephes 5.22 33. And now such a typicall discrimination of sexes being removed Christ exhibited puts no difference in Baptisme between males and females Gal. 3.27 28. So then the argument stands good that Infants are capable of Baptisme because borne under the Covenant of Grace Reason 3 Thirdly Infants of Christians are to be baptized in their infancy because we have divine warrant for it For the text here Matth. 28.19 imports that all the children of the Christian Church are to be baptized And Gods Covenant of grace with the parents put under seale unto them by Baptisme doth necessarily put the Infants of such parents under the same Covenant of grace as the seed of such parents For to grant that baptized parents are put under the Covenant of grace by divine warrant is to grant that the children of such parents are put under the same Covenant by the same warrant For the separating of Children from parents in Covenant is to dissolve that Covenant which God made with Abraham in the promised seed for the eternall salvation of Jewes and Gentiles Now the very being of the parents under the seale of this Covenant doth prove unanswerably that their infants are in this Covenant And if this proves the being of Infants in Covenant then it proves unanswerably their right of having the Covenant put under seale unto them by divine warrant and so by necessary consequence their divine right unto Baptisme For by birth they are in the Covenant because borne under the Covenant as children of such parents And admit the parents unto Baptisme upon the testimony of their faith and that brings the children of such parents into the Church by birth so then baptize the parents and thereby of necessity you make the Infants of such parents baptizable by divine warrant and it cannot be avoyded Now that Matth. 28.19 doth warrant our baptizing of Infants whose parents are baptized may thus be evinced and made good viz. All true members of the Christian Church are to be baptized by Christs warrant in Matth. 28.19 But all Infants of baptized parents are true members of the Christian Church Ergo All Infants of baptized parents are to bee baptized by Christs warrant in Matth. 28.19 The Minor proposition I thus prove viz. That proposition whose contradictory is false and absurd is a true proposition But the contradictory of this Minor proposition is false and absurd ergo This Minor proposition is a true proposition Now the contradictory of this Minor proposition is this viz. Some Infants of baptized parents are not true members of the Christian Church But this proposition is false and absurd and as much as to say as some Infants of baptized parents are Aliens Pagans and Insidels Thus then I argue viz. Infants of baptized parents are either true members of the Christian Church or else they are Aliens Pagans and Infidels there is no medium there is no neuter But Infants of baptized parents are not Aliens Pagans and Infidels Ergo. Infants of baptized parents are true members of the Christian Church And so by necessary consequence Christs Commission Matth. 28.19 is a divine warrant for the baptizing of Infants whose parents are baptized Now let the Anabaptists shew us any child or infant of baptized parents that is not a true member of the Christian Church and prove him by the word of God to be no member of the Christian Church and we will not baptize that child Again to contrive my Syllogisme in another mood which may as well accomplish my purpose and prove that Christs Commission for baptizing is for the baptizing of Infants whose parents are baptized as well as for the baptizing of the alien upon the testimony of his faith in Christ Thus I argue viz. All true members of the Christian Church are to bee baptized by vertue of Christs Commission in Matth. 28.19 But some Infants of baptized parents are true members of the Christian Church Ergo. Some Infants of Christian parents are to be baptized by vertue of Christs Commission in Matth. 28.19 Now that some Infants of Christians are true members of the Christian Church may thus be proved viz. All true members of Christ in the Church are true members of the Christian Church But some Infants of baptized parents are true members of Christ in the Church ergo Some Infants of baptized parents are true members of the Christian Church Now then if Christs Commission Mat. 28.19 be that we should baptize all true members of the Christian Church and that some Infants are true members of the Christian Church then some Infants of Christian parents are to be baptized by vertue of Christs Commission Mat. 28.19 And this proves that persons may be baptizable in their infancy and ought to be baptized And as for what you instance from the practise of the Apostles that will not serve your turne For the Apostolicall Ministery lay in gathering of a primitive Church from Judaisme and Paganisme But instance
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
the children of the Jewes were holy by vertue of the holy Covenant with their parents so also are the children of the Gentiles holy by vertue of the same holy Covenant with their parents an argument never too often to be inculcated And now having spoken of that text of 1 Cor. 7.14 already in our former discourse we will say some what for the sense and meaning of Rom. 11.16 which text must needs bee understood and meant of Abraham and his branches only Now the question is who are meant by Abrahams branches Well the point there to prove is that as Abrahams children among the Jewes were partakers of the priuiledges of the Covenant so among the Gentiles children engrafted into Abraham are partakers of the Covenant as well as the naturall branches of Abraham the Jewes And hence I inferred that as the Jewes receiving the faith of Abraham were circumcised so Gentiles receiving the faith of Abraham are to be baptized And as the Jewes that were not internally and inherently godly as long as they did not renounce Abrahams faith had a right to circumcision so the children of the Gentiles receiving the faith of Abraham were by Baptisme as Jewes by circumcision to bee admitted into the enjoyment of the priviledges of the Christian Church Peter tels the Jewes that the promise is unto them and their children Acts 2.39 Now the promise was not made to their seed because they did beleeve but the seed did beleeve because they were under the promise viz. I will be thy God and the God of thy seed If this must be restrained thus viz. I will be thy God and the God of thy seed too when thy seed shall beleeve then no more is promised to this seed then to the seed of the Gentiles for when the seed of any Gentile should make prosession of his faith in the Messias he was to be circumcised as well as the seed of Abraham But more was due by this promise to the seed of Abraham then to the seed of a Gentile therefore the seed of Abraham was under the promise in a peculiar manner and not the seed of a Gentile uncircumcised yea among the Jewes a parent who was orthodoxall in judgement albeit he shewed no proofe of justifying faith in his life yet he was put under the Covenant for him and his seed And the children of such had as much right to circumcision as the children of David So then externall subjection to the doctrine of faith doth entitle the parent and his seed to the right of the externall benefit of the Covenant The summe is that as Jewes were born Jewes so the seale of circumcision was their due not to put them under the Covenant but to seale up the Covenant under which they were borne So say I Christians children are borne Christians and a right to the Covenant is not given them by Baptisme but that right which they had by birth is put under seale The very Covenant under which a Christian Infant is born stands good unto him and bindes him to faith obedience and so albeit Anabaptists like so many enraged devills doe what in them lies to cancell the hand-writing of Almighty God by withholding Gods owne seale from Infants of Christian parents upon whom Hee hath engraven His Covenant and written His promises of grace and mercy by virtue of their being born of such parents A wickednesse so heinous so horrible so full of impiety and hellish cruelty that I want a parallel I want words to expresse it unto my reader yet Gods Covenant I say stands good unto them Now the Lord make you to understand what I have written and give you a sight of your wickednesse And thus you have my first reason vindicated Which is that Infants of Christians are Christians borne and therefore are to be baptized in their infancy The second Reason Anabaptist Againe your second reason is that children are capable of Baptisine and your ground is from circumcision Because children were circumcised therefore they may be baptized in their infancy Answer If children because borne under the Covenant before Christs incarnation were therefore capable of the initiall seale even by the sentence of Almighty God because born under that Covenant then children of Christians borne under the same Covenant of grace since Christs incarnation are capable of the initiall seale and 't is their due by virtue of their Christian birth-right Now that the Covenant before Christ with the Jewes and since Christ with the Christians is the same Covenant namely A Covenant which concernes mans deliverance from misery by sinne and mans restitution unto happinesse by Jesus Christ we have shewed before we will now instance only in three things Viz. 1. The Covenant of God with the Jewes before Christ caused the godly in Covenant to seek for immortality after death in heaven as their country and abiding city for ever Heb. 11.13 14 15 16. Acts 26.6 7 8. 2. All the ministrations of Gods Covenant with the Iewes tended to the debasement of nature and to the advancement of Gods free grace in the whole work of mans Redemption though in types 3. All the promises that God made to the Iewes looked towards Iesus Christ as the only Mediatour in whom all Gods promises are yea and Amen 2 Cor. 1.20 cum Heb. 13.8 and Gen. 3.15 Christ was the subject of Moses and the Prophets writings Job 1.45 And the Iewes were justified in the sight of God by the same righteousnesse of faith as we Gentiles are justified by Rom. 4.3.13 And this justification hath essentiall connexion with eternall salvation Rom. 5.9 10. And is not our Covenant the same for substance reducible to these three heads Quest Why then is the Covenant said to bee a better Covenant and established upon better promises Heb. 8.6 Ans It 's better only in regard of the ministration and permanency of which wee shall bee necessitated to speak more fully afterwards in due place Now if the Covenant be the same and the manifestation of this Covenant upon persons unto the Church bee the Churches warrant to minister the initiall seale unto them then if the Covenant manifested by God unto the Church to be upon Infants of persons in Covenant under the law was their warrant to administer the initiall seale that there God did appoint to be used then the like manifestation is a warrant for us to administer the initiall seale unto Infants under the Gospell whose parents are in Covenant But let 's consider your exceptions against this reason Anabaptist But we deny the sufficiency of this reason to prove Infants Baptisme and that upon this ground 1. They differ in the institution 2. In the signes 3. In the subjects 1. They differ in the Institution for the Institution of circumcision was that infants should be circumcised even all Abrahams lineall seed as well the seed of the bond woman as the free but the Institution of Baptisme is that they should first be taught
and they that did beleeve the word might and ought to be baptized and not else as we finde in all the Scripture and therefore every ordinance must be practised upon its owne institution and not how we please Now the Lord would sure have made some mention of childrens Baptisme if they had been the subjects of Baptisme and therefore from Christs owne charge and Commission to His Disciples Matth. 28 we are bound as strictly to observe Christs rule for Baptisme as the Jewes were to observe the order of circumcision Secondly they differ in the signes ut infra Answer How doe Circumcision and Baptisme differ in the institution seeing both of them are of divine institution annexed to the Covenant of free grace and the initiall seales thereof proper to the ministrations of Christ for they both seale Christ unto Gods Covenant people the one seales Christ to come the other seales Christ already come but both seale Christ But to your meaning I answer that for the institution of circumcision Abraham by the institution was not to bee circumcised till hee gave testimony of his faith in the Messias but then his seed was to be circumcised in their infancy before they could give any other proofe of their faith then their being borne of parents in Covenant And their being borne of parents in Covenant gave them right to the initiall seale as wee have shewed before So the Gentiles were not to be baptized as Abraham not to be circumcised till they did shew forth proofes of their faith But when the parent ba entred himselfe his children were to be baptized as Abrahams seed were to be circumcised before they could shew any more proofe of faith then their being borne of parents in Covenant Christ indeed Matth. 28.19 gave charge that whom His Apostles had taught they should bee baptized but that none should bee baptized but such as were first taught that 's your additionall and of that you neither doe nor can make proofe You were answered sufficiently that in raising a Church among Pagans faith must be the doore of admittance This was the Apostles case But when beleeving Pagans were baptized I desire proofe that their seed must bring a verdict of their beleeving ere they could be baptized Divines tell us that Heb. 6.2 where the Apostle speakes of Baptismes and imposition of hands By imposition of hands the Apostle meanes a practice then in use that such children as were baptized should after make profession of their faith and so be admitted by imposition of hands to the Lords Supper Now you will have profession of faith goe before and afford such as are borne Christians no more priviledge then meere Pagans borne out of the Church You say that by Christs charge and Commission Matth. 28. we are bound as strictly to observe Christs rule for Baptisme as the Jewes to observe the order of circumcision Right And therefore as Abraham was not and no Proselyte was to be circumcised till he gave testimony of his faith so no Alien no Pagan is to bee baptized till hee shew forth his faith But as the seed of Abraham and the seed of any circumcised Proselyte were to be circumcised while Infants so the seed of baptized Pagans while young are to be baptized Baptisme herein answering circumcision Anabaptist Secondly they differ in the signes for the signe of circumcision was the cutting off of the fore-skin of their flesh and that was a mark in their flesh for ever and so the parties that were circumcised I meane the Infants that were circumcised could make use of the signe afterward as well as at the present But the signe of Baptisme is water and so it must bee a signe to the party baptized in the present act thereof or not at all Now we know that Infants cannot discerne the signe in the present act and so consequently not at all and so the signe is given in vaine Answer What though they differ in the signes yet they accord in the thing signified and they both put the Covenant of grace under seale unto the children of the Church You reason like carnall Atheists as if all the benefit of Sacraments lay in what is obvious to our senses A perpetuall mark in the flesh which the circumcised though circumcised in infancy could after make use of But when When they came to years of discretion But what if they dyed before as many of them did What use then could they ever make of this marke But what marke or signe in the flesh meane you A sacramentall marke or signe Then verily a sealing signe But what did this marke or signe in the flesh seale unto the lineall seed of Abraham Redemption by Christ or the temporall inheritance of the land of Canaan You say the temporall inheritance of the land of Canaan If so then all Abrahams lineall seed circumcised must be possessed of the land of Canaan or else God must bee unfaithfull But Abrahams seed for the space of 440 yeares were kept out of Canaan after circumcision was instituted and practiced And so by this your Divinity all this while God was a lier and failed of His promise And must this sacramentall signe of circumcision seale the land of Canaan unto all Abrahams lineall seed Why then was Ismael and his posterity excluded What became of Abrahams lineall seed by Keturah The fonnes of Jacob became 12. tribes and the land of Canaan was divided unto them only And yet not to all these neither For two tribes and a halfe were setled on this side Iordan Fye Fye What mad stuffe is this Truly hee that hath any knowledge in Divine Mysteries may see evidently that either you read the Scriptures without observation or conclude that you maintaine untruths against your owne knowledge and consciences And then you come with another flim flam You tell me that water in Baptisme must be a signe to the party baptized in the present act or not at all That is as you expound it in the case of Infants that the party baptized must discern the signe in the present act or else that that signe is given in vaine And this Divinity is as spirituall as your Religion This argues that the efficacy of Gods ordinances of grace depends upon the act of the creature In this you may shake hands with Rome and exclude grace and set up works Here is much spoken of the act of man but not a word of the Act of God in His ordinances of grace But how doth this conclude Baptisme to be in vaine unto an Infant You say the Infant discernes not the signe in the present act of administration Thus you seem to argue Such as discerne not the sacramentall signe in the present act of administration have the sacramentall signe given in vaine But Infants of Christians doe not discerne the sacramentall signe in Baptisme in the present action of administration Ergo. Infants of Christians have the sacramentall signe of Baptisme given in vaine This argument
proves that the sacramentall signe of circumcision was given to the Jewish Infants in vaine also for they could not discerne that signe as a Sacrament for though they had bodily feeling of the cutting off of their flesh yet they could not in the present act of administration discerne the signe as sacramentall and so our Infants have bodily feeling of the water too And so your quarrell is against God as well as against us But as such as were borne Jewes were to have the initiall seale of the present ministration imprinted on them in their infancy to seale up the Covenant under which they were borne unto them though they could have no such discerning as you seem to require in the present act of administration so such as are borne Christians are to have the intiall seale of the present ministration imprinted on them in their infancy to seale up the Covenant under which they are borne unto them though they can have no such discerning as you require and yet the ordinance effectuall unto them too I thought that Baptisme had been a continuall act of Gods mercy and grace and that the saving efficacy and benefits thereof had not depended upon the Act of the receiver but upon the operative mercy of God and Merits of Christ But it seems your Divinity shewes me a new way But why must Infants of Christians discerne the signe of water in Baptisme in the present act What Because water leaves no impression upon the body but shortly after the act is over the body is as dry as if it had not been washed at all And when the child is come to yeares hee findes no visible mark upon his body to assure him that he is sealed into Gods peculiar Oh! Is this it I pray what mark is there left upon your flesh since you were washed in Severne though you were duckt over head and eares Is a mark in the flesh and a sensitive discerning of the signe the excellencies of circumcision and Baptisme When the Iewes came to yeares of discerning God called not for the circumcision of their flesh but for the circumcision of their hearts It was the mark of circumcision upon the heart that God looked upon for many had the mark of the flesh which were as bad as Ethiopians So for us Christians when wee are come to yeares of discretion it s the mark of the Spirit and of the blood of Christ upon the heart that God calls for and looks upon For a man may have the signe of water and discerne the signe in the very act with the eye of his flesh and yet be a vile Anabaptist deny originall sinne in Infants deny the Christian Sabbath and set up the Iewish deny Christs taking flesh of the Virgin MARY deny the power of the Magistrate and a 1000 such like abominations and a man be baptized in his infancy and want your discerning and yet when hee is come to yeares of discretion he may be an holy and mortified Christian sound in judgement regular in all his practices and sincere in all his aimes And therefore this your rotten stuffe will not serve to make a sorry garment for to cover your shame But you have a third thing to alleadge I pray speak on that we may consider that also Anabaptist Thirdly they differ in the subjects for the subjects of circumcision were all Abrahams lineall seed according to the flesh and strangers bought with his money too And why Because God had promised Abraham a temporall inheritance for him and for all his lineall seed as they were borne and circumcision was the signe thereof But the subjects of Baptisme as are set forth to us by Commission are only beleevers and none else as wee finde and therefore we may not dare to cast off the Commission of Christ and practice of the Apostles for to set up inventions of our owne as an ordinance of Christ where we have neither precept nor president for it in all the book of God Againe ut infra Answer For the subjects of circumcision and Baptisme I know no substantiall difference for persons as in Covenant with God are the proper subjects of them both Now men are brought into Gods Covenant either by instruction or borne under this holy Covenant as the seed of persons in Covenant with God Thus Abraham and his Proselytes became the subjects of Circumcision by profession of their faith in the Messias But the seed of circumcised Abraham and of the circumcised Proselytes were such by birth as children of parents in Covenant So when the Apostles in primitive times planted foundations of the Christian faith among the Pagans These Pagans were made subjects capable of Baptisme by instruction but the seed of these baptized Pagans were capable of Baptisme by birth as joint heires with their parents of the same holy Covenant and that Covenant under which they were borne was to bee put under seale unto them So then as Abrahams seed and the Proselites seed were to be circumcised when and while Infants for Christians children are to be baptized when and while Infants such Infants being not Infidels ergo beleevers as afterward you shall see in due place And so the baptizing of Christian Infants is no invention of man but grounded on the Covenant of God with parents and their children And this the book of God warrants every where And whereas you say that the promise to Abraham and all his lineall seed was of a temporall inheritance and that circumcision was a signe of that That is false if you meane only or chiefly of a temporall inheritance the temporall inheritance was theirs not as temporall neither but as typicall for 1. Circumcision was a signe and seale of the righteousnesse of faith in the Messias 2. The Proselytes with their children were circumcised to whom right unto that temporall inheritance of the land of Canaan did not appertaine 3. Neither did it belong unto all Abrahams lineall seed as before we have shewed And so all this is as it is unsound so fallacious and absurd Anabaptist Againe the Infants might be more capable of circumcision in their infancy then when they were of riper age because they here to be only patients in the act be they great bee they small there was not any act required in them as we finde but only to receive the signe upon them But in Baptisme they must bee agents acting faith in the action Againe ut infra Answer Abraham and the Proselytes who were to be first received into the Covenant were to be agents acting faith in the Action of administring Circumcision as well as Pagans at their first receiving into the Church were to be agents acting faith in the Action of administring Baptisme unto them And as no such thing was required of the seed of circumcised Abraham nor of the seed of the circumcised Proselytes but circumcision was administred unto them in their infancy as the holy seed being borne of such parents so no such
thing is to bee required of the children of baptized parents but as holy by birth being borne of such parents are to be baptized in their infancy because in their infancy God hath made them holy and declared so much unto us The Covenant under which children are borne makes them capable of the initiall seale according to the ministration under which they are borne whether of a Saviour to come or of a Saviour already come Anabaptist Againe there is difference in the persons for there were none but males circumcised but wee have example of male and female baptized Further c. ut infra Answer This is no argument at all against paedo-baptisme for males were circumcised in their infancy and the Covenant with the Jewes and us Christians is the same spirituall and eternall Covenant binding to divine faith and obedience assuring us and them of eternall happinesse through Gods mercy in the merits of Jesus Christ Now if Male Infants had the seale of such an inheritance and Covenant upon such spirituall grounds in Such a Saviour binding the circumcised Infant to divine faith universall obedience though he could discern none of these matters then Male-Infants of Christians being borne under the same holy Covenant of grace are subjects capable of the initiall seale thereof as children of parents in Covenant with God and of the holy seed by birth So then to exclude females grant males to bee capable of Baptisme upon the ground of circumcision is to conclude against your owne principle But all Israelites females as well as the males stood in Gods acceptation for circumcised as appears in the story of Sampson who seeing a woman of the daughters of the Philistines in Timnath fell in love with her and spake to his Father and Mother to get her for him to wife Then his Father and his Mother said unto him Is there never a woman among the daughters of thy brethren or among all my people that thou goest to take a wife of the uncircumcised Philistines Judges 14.1 2 3. Now if the women of Israel had been reputed uncircumcised then as good for Sampson to chuse one as well as the other as good a woman of the daughters of the Philistines as a woman of the daughters of his brethren What cause then had his Father and his Mother to blame him for his choice As good one uncircumcised woman as another More of this is to be seen in our Sermon-notes to which as yet I have received no answer But I beleeve that this concerning females is none of your maine foundations you build your Religion upon Anabaptist Further they differ in the time for they were to bee circumtised the eighth day but we have no set time for Baptisme but when they doe beleeve then they are to be baptized And therefore if you rightly consider these things and the maine differences hereof I think there is no reasonable man that understands himselfe and the Scripture will goe about to parallell circumcision with Baptisme in respect of the practising of it Answer We shewed you out of Levit. 12.2 3. that there was a speciall reason why the man-childe should not be circumcised till the eighth day And this reason you passe by untouched because you couldnot answer it And I finde no such reason why baptisme now should be forborne untill any set time Now if circumcision had beene forborne untill the eighth day because till then infants could not and then they could beleeve this were to the purpose But I see you faulter in all things You say much and prove nothing If you aske Physitians why in time of the Law infants were not to be circumcised till the eighth day They will tell you that untill the seventh day being a criticall day and so a dangerous day were past no wound was to be made in the flesh of a tender infant But you say that under the Gospell when persons beleeve then they are to be baptized But I say that Infants of Christians in their infancie are not Insidels but Saints and of the holy seed and therefore beleevers and so are to be baptized in their infancy unlesse you can shew where the Scripture calls the Infants of Gods people in Covenant Vnbeleevers And therefore if you rightly consider these things and the substantiall agreement betweene Circumcision and Baptisme I thinke there is no reasonable man that understands himselfe and the Scripture but will judge your exceptions to be frivolous and that this Argument stands firme which is that Baptisme is unto us as Circumcision was to the Jewes Col. 2.11 The Covenant the same the ends and significations the same for substance Infants were admittable there Ergo here else children in worse case since Christ than before Reason 3 The third Reason Anabaptist Thirdly you seeme to draw a reason from divine Authority for Infants baptisme and you seeme to prove it out of Mat. 28.19 But here give us leave to tell you plainly that you are foulely mistaken and you wrest the Text For Christ bids them goe and teach all Nations and them that are taught must be baptized For Christ doth not say goe and teach all Nations and so baptize all the Nation but goe teach them Now you know there is great difference betweene preaching to a people and teaching of a people for you may preach to a thousand people and it may be not above two or three of all those taught And therefore Christ bids teach them first and then baptize them But however c. ut infra Answer My third Argument for Paedo-baptisme from Mat. 28.19 runs thus The Commandement of baptizing is universall to the whole Church but Infants of Christian parents are members of the Church and therefore the command of baptizing is to be extended unto them as before we have amply declated Now if Infants of such parents be not members of the Church then so dying they cannot be saved sithence none can be saved but by Christ and Christ came to save his Church onely Ephes 5.26 Wherein now I pray am I so fouly mistaken and wherein doe I wrest the Text Christ saith indeed that such as are taught must be baptized but Christ saith not that none must be baptized but such as are taught Prove that or let this Text alone The Text saith baptize all in the Church therefore Infants of baptized parents unlesse you can shew a place that exempts them Christ doth not say goe teach all Nations and so baptize all the Nation Neither did I nor will unlesse the whole Nation shall embrace the doctrine of Christ And then the whole Nation must be baptized and their seed after them in their infancy as Christians by birth Ob. But the baptized must believe and repent Acts 2. Matth. 3. c. Sol. Those Texts must bee restrained to the persons in hand So 1 Thess 3. He that labours not must not eate i.e. men that can labour Children though they cannot labour yet must eate Infants
if nothing how dare they deny the initiall seale of this Covenant unto the children of this Covenant Now many honest-hearted Christians carried away with the faire shew of these men doe not see the high iniquity of this practice 3. The practice of debarring infants of baptized parents from baptisme for the loose lives of their parents is no better than high sacriledge For such children being not Pagans borne out of the Church but Christians borne within the Church and of the holy seed borne I say under the Covenant of Grace are therefore to have as their birth-right that Covenant under which they were borne put under seale unto them For the miscarriage of the parents cannot deprive the children of their portion in Gods Covenant of Grace seeing workes are not the ground of that right of theirs but Gods free grace in Christ and the childe hath as primitive a right unto this Covenant as the parent For the words of the Covenant are I will be they God and the God of thy seed after thee in their generations And therefore however vitious parents are to bee kept backe from the Lords Supper for their reformation yet their infants cannot be kept backe from Baptisme and so put a stop unto the Covenant of Grace where God puts none Fourthly and lastly as this is a new way so it 's grounded upon new-Divinity which none of the orthodox Divines in the Church of England were ever principled in in the Schooles of the Prophets for if that the personall sinne of the immediate parent be a barre against insants baptisme then there are more sins imputed besides the first sinne of Adam but there is no other sinne imputed but onely the first sinne of Adam And thus you see that I am as great an adversary against those whose practises doe any way oppugne the nature of the Covenant of Grace as I am against you For my purpose is to maintaine the quarrell of Gods Covenant against all opposers as 't is my duty and office and I hope my Brethren and Fathers in the Universities and in the Countrey will assoord me their pious ayde and assistance And that all good Christians will beseech God at the Throne of Grace to carry on His owne worke in me and in all that shall endeavour to hold forth the Truth of God unto His people that godly hearts and tender consciences may not bee mis-led by the good words and faire speeches of Satans agents And for you that are carried away into this way of re-baptizing the Lord give you to see where you are And for those of the Separation the Lord shew them wherein they doe exceed for their wayes are not right before the Lord nor justifiable by His Word And now for you to say that you will turne neither to us nor to those of New-England unlesse you see better grounds We must tell you that you must bring better exceptions against the grounds that wee have laid for Paedo-baptisme or else we must conclude that you blaspheme the Name of God in desiring his helpe for to strengthen you in your way Anabaptist Againe you alleadge the qualisications of some men that hold against as which you say are as good as any of the Anabaptists and as loving is one another as any of the other side But this we confesse may be But Sir this doth ill appeare sometimes for there be some of your coate that are ready to bite and devoure one another for a small triste many times and that good men too for which they are too blame Answer To what end I alleaged the qualifications of good men you may see in my fourth reason and what doth all this prove But that good men yea Ministers sometimes have their failings for which you say well they are too blame But what This is one of your expletives to fill up your paper and to make your answerer work Anabaptist Nay you said further that they were as humble as the proudest Anabaptist of them all Now Sâ— you did well to compare the best of your selves to the worst of them For wee account him that is proudest to bee the worst man of them And you compare your humble men with our proud men but we passe by this and take it only to be your mistake in the heat of your expressions and not any way to bee the meaning of your intentions Answer If I said any such thing I was mightily overseen indeed for Anabaptists are all so proud as if each particular strove for the supremacy And I was much mistaken in you also for I thought you had been truly burthened in conscience and would only have alleadged such things as might have tended to the satisfaction of conscience about paedo-baptisme but now I see nothing but scorning and sleighting of what you cannot â—â—fell I pray pardon me this mistake too But it should seem that this merry passage is none of the arguments you build your faith upon but passe it by as a null and judge it a mistake in the heat of expressions as wee judge of your baptizing in Severne to bee a null and mistake in the heat of your fiery zeale and therefore you chose so cold a season and so great a river to allay it Anabaptist Further you demand of us where we can bring any example of any Church gathered that did deny Infants Baptisme But we will quickly answer you that we have no example of any Church gathered or ungathered that did baptize their Infants And so your question is frivolous and as you said to us wee returne the like to you where the Holy Ghost hath no tongue wee will have no eare Answer You say no Church gathered or ungathered doth baptize Infants but ere now you speak of reformed Churches and here no Church baptizeth Infants Your meaning is that Baptisme is the forme of a Church and so no Baptisme no Church and Baptisme of Infants is no Baptisme as though you were members of no Church till you were baptized If of no Church then no members of Christ and so dying not to be saved but haply I mistake your meaning You confesse that you can bring no example of any gathered Church in the new Testament that did deny Baptisme unto Infants whose parents were baptized and in the state of Christianity Neither doth the Holy Ghost any where in the new Testament either expressely or by necessary deduction deny Baptisme unto such children And therefore Anabaptists in denying Baptisme unto children of baptized parents are not therein led by the Spirit of God The Holy Ghost speakes expressely that children even of one beleeving parent are Saints 1 Cor. 7.14 and no such thing was predicated of any Gentiles children before faith in Christ put that honour upon them and yet many yea most of them borne in wedlock And Lamb your Master doth acknowledge the married spoken off 1 Cor. 7.14 to bee married nay lawfully married before faith came to make either their marriage
in the practise of ordinary pastours in a Church gathered as the Church of Corinth or any other mentioned in the new Testament and bring me thence but one instance that any children whose parents were baptized and in the state of Christianity were held back from baptisme untill they could give an accompt of their faith in person and then you will speak to the present condition of Gods Church in these times But this you cannot doe and therefore in drawing extraordinary instances into an ordinary canon to binde all the Churches of God unto like practise is to overthrow the nature of Gods Covenant of Grace and to make that a personall Covenant i. e. to terminate in the person baptized which God hath made sociall i. e. to beleevers and their seed jointly saying I will be thy God and the God of thy seed in their generations Now for this Commission in the 28. of Matth. verse 19 20. It s a full and univerfall Commission belonging to all the Ministers of Christ under the Gospell unto the worlds end And of these Ministers some are extraordinary and to cease and some are ordinary and to continue So then in this short Commission here is somewhat Apostolicall and peculiar to extraordinary Ministers which cannot be applyed unto nor expected from ordinary pastours in setled Churches As to plant foundations to work miracles as proofes of their immediate calling from God to be led by an unerring spirit in delivering immediate oracles from Christ as standing canons of divine faith and worship c. And so their practise was extraordinary and no such thing is to be expected from ordinary pastours but to build upon the foundation which the Apostles laid Now the Apostles committed the Churches gathered unto ordinary pastours and teachers which must proceed in the work of the Ministery where the Apostles left for the edifying of the body of Christ c. And that this is such an universall Commission as we speak of the Apostle Paul makes cleare and puts it out of all doubt Ephes 4.8 13. where he expoundes the meaning of this Commission For whereas Christ in this text here saith All power is given unto Me goe yee therefore and teach all Nations c. Paul upon the same ground and occasion saith when He ascended up on high meaning Christ He led captivity captive and gave gifts unto men c. And He gave some Apostles some Prophets and some Evangelists and some pastours and teachers for the perfecting of the Saints for the work of the Ministery for the edifying of the body of Christ c. For how long Vntill the end of the world saith Christ Vntill we all come in the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Sonne of God unto a perfect man unto the measure of the stature of the fulnesse of Christ sayes Paul See then what confusion the Anabaptists doe speak when they urge from this text Apostolicall imitation in ordinary pastours without distinguishing of what is herein peculiar to extraordinary Ministers and what is common to Apostles and ordinary pastours This I thought good to speak to prevent a mischiefe that might befall unstable soules through the jugling fraud cunning craftinesse of the Anabaptists for want of a right understanding of our Saviours mind in this text For they will hence take occasion to cry up Christs Commission unto His Apostles in Matth. 28.19 20. viz. of making men Disciples before they could bee capable of Baptisme putting no difference between those that are to be made Christians of Aliens and those that are borne Christians of Christians and also putting no difference between the Apostolicall ministration and the Pastorall ministration and so by a confused urging of the text in the strict letter they seduce many an unstable soule unto their hereticall practise of rebaptizing Whereas could they but look upon this Commission as an universall Commission they would soone discerne the fraud of these men and would not bee carried away by them Christians then in these dayes should labour to be men in knowledge and not bee alwayes children tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine by the sleight of men and cunning craftinesse whereby they lye in waite to deceive Ephes 4.14 Seducers have a sleight whereby they can deceive children i. e. men of little knowledge in divine mysteries and of an unstable and wavering mind These seducers can use the Scriptures as the juglers use their dice. For as the jugler hath a sleight to make his dice to turne up what may serve his turne to defraud such as he playes withall so seducers have a sleight when they deale with men of little knowledge and of a wavering minde to make the Scriptures speak their owne language for to winne men unto their party And the metaphor is here by the Apostle taken from the jugler for hee saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Men deceive novices and ungrounded Christians But how In the dice-playing of men And so our Anabaptists meeting with Novices and ungrounded christians will make this and other Scriptures speak their own principles and language to deceive men and lead them into error And therefore I thought good to acquaint you with the true meaning of this text which the jugling Anabaptists pervert to their own ends and doe not make it speak the mind of Christ but the language of their own seduced and seducing hearts and t is blasphemy to say that any text of Scripture doth speak their hellish principles Simple ones may be carried away with their good words and faire speeches but grounded Christians know and see their juglings and method of deceiving well enough The text warrants and commands the baptizing of all true members of the Christian Church And therefore it warrants the baptizing of Infants of baptized parents and this Inference cannot be avoyded And so much for this third reason for paedo baptisme Reason 4 Fourthly we baptize Infants of baptized parents because the Lord doth ordinarily make our baptizing of Infants effectuall to the proper ends whereunto true Baptisme is appointed in the Gospell Now the ends are to put on Christ Gal. 3.27 To dye unto sinne and to live unto God Rom. 6.3 4 5. 1 Pet. 3.21 And God doth ordinarily make Baptisme effectuall unto these ends in persons that were baptized in their infancy For among those that were baptized in their infancy wee have as humble meek and mortified Christians men and women as any among the Anabaptists to say no more We have those that dye dayly unto sinne and are vexed in soule to see the abominations of others Againe wee have those that beare upon them the markes of the Lord Jesus Their lives are holy and lovely They are sound in the faith grave in their behaviour and ready unto every good work They deny themselves they advance free grace they afflict their soules and seek the peace of Hierusalem Ordinarily our ministery doth gaine them and sweetly
children of the Prophets and of the Covenant because borne under the holy Covenant Act. 3.25 And how were not the Jewes sinners of the Gentiles Surely Divines whom you may seem sooner to refute then understand tell us that such as were borne Jewes had not their sinnes imputed unto them otherwise they were borne in originall sinne as well as the Gentiles but the holy Covenant of Grace was establisht upon them which Covenant was appointed as a remedy to fre e them from originall corruption and to restore them to Gods favour But this is a kind of language which you Anabaptists haply doe not understand For had you any knowledge this way you would not reason so wildly and turne Gods Covenant out of doores by putting no difference by nature between such as are born Christians in the Church under the holy Covenant and such as are born Pagans out of the Church strangers from the covenant And therefore seeing by nature there is so wide a difference between such as are born Christians and such as are born Pagans you in effect as good as say nothing For God bath engraven His Covenant upon the Infants of Christians and made this knowne unto his Church and therefore the Infants of Christians are to have the priviledge of Baptisme in their infancy But God hath not engraven His Covenant upon children of Pagans therefore they are not to have it untill they testify faith and repentance And this covenant written upon children of Christians in their infancy is the Commission that the Holy Ghost hath given in Scripture for baptizing Infants of Christians in their infancy 1 Cor. 7.14 And now I pray put your heads all together and let me heare what you can say against this But goe on Anabaptist Againe further This argument of yours is but from humane conception and doth tend to the overthrow of a divine institution which may not nor ought not to be unles you can prove where and when the holy Ghost hath or doth expresly lay down or give commission for the alteration of that expresse institution that Christ gave unto His Disciples to teach and instruct all Nations to observe and follow the rule that they left them And therefore the alteration of times and state is not sufficient to alter a divine institution untill it be altered by divine Authority by which it was at first commanded As for instance Suppose the King should establish a Law and an Act of Parliament for the practising of any particular action in the Land and the cause may be removed for which this Law was established yet this Act doth still remaine in force to be practised untill the Author thereof doth disanull it by proclamation or alteration So in like manner Christ hath established an Institution for Baptisme and confirmed it by the Apostles practice according to their commission and therefore untill Christ doth disanull this Institution or alter it wee may not nor dare not to alter it upon paine of open rebellion against the King of Heaven let the time alter never so much that is not a ground sufficient to alter an Institution And this for answer unto your first and chiefest Argument Now to passe by many groundlesse and sensuall arguments which are not worth answering because they savour of nothing but censuring we desire to come to your chiefest reasons wherefore Infants should be Baptized Answer No Argument that is truly deducted from the Scriptures of God is from humane conception But this Argument of mine against which you except is truly deducted from the Scriptures of God Ergo This Argument of mine against which you except is not from humane conception And then againe thus viz. No Argument that is deducted from the Scriptures of God can overthrow a divine Institution But this Argument of mine against which yee except is truly deducted from the Scriptures of God Ergo This Argument of mine against which you except cannot overthrow a divine Institution Now let mee but prove the Minor Proposition and you are overthrowne irrecoverably though you seeme to be armed with Law and Gospell against us Well the point that I have to make good is this namely that the Argument I here used was truly deducted from the Scriptures of God And to make this good the very rehearsall of what I said will be enough without any more adoe The summe of what I said was that the state of the Pagan Gentiles before the Apostles planted the Gospell among them was not the same in point of religion as is the state of the Christian Gentiles where the Gospell is embraced and they baptized Now I represented the state of the Pagan-Gentiles unto you in two particulars 1. I told you that before the Gospell came among the Pagan-Gentiles they were without Christ being aliens from the Common-wealth of Israel and strangers from the covenants of promise having no hope and without God in the world Ephes 2.12 And I am sure this is no humane conceipt unlesse the Oracles of God are humane conceipts 2. I said againe that before the Gospell came among the Pagan-Gentiles they were carried away to dumbe Idols even as they were led 1 Cor. 12.2 Neither is this any humane conceipt Then finally the Gentiles where the Gospell is planted are not of this condition in point of religion but in covenant with God and of Gods family and houshold as you may see in any Sermon-notes prefixed If this Argument doth overthrow the sense that you give of Matth 28.19 then you doe not give the right sense of the text For no argument truly deducted from the Scripture can overthrow the true meaning of any Scripture And so if your manner of baptizing which you would have to be warranted by that of our Saviour Matth. 28.19 will not stand with the nature of Gods covenant of Grace among the Gentiles where the Gospell is planted then Christ meanes not your way of baptizing in Churches where the Gospell is planted So then this argument of mine tends not to the overthrowing of any institution of Christ in Mat. 28.19 but layes a ground for the refuting of your wrong interpretation of the text the true meaning of which text you may afterwards see in due place For it should seem this is the keeping of your song and afterwards iterated againe and againe And for me to run over the same things againe and againe would argue me to be as void of mater as you are of reason But I pray one thing more What are those sensuall and groundlesse arguments of mine that you so sleightly passe over as not worth the answering I termed Anabaptists indeed a monstrous broode sacrilegious theeves Bellarmines Disciples c. Doe these savour of nothing but censuring Are these the sensuall and groundlesse arguments you mean But I argued that the promises of God made unto the Jewes in the Messias were spirituall and eternall promises Mat. 23.32 Act. 3.25 26. Heb. 11.16 And this you passe by untouched
that all those to whom the promises of the Kingdome of heaven are made unto shall have it made good unto them and so consequently all the children of one beleeving parent at least shall also goe to heaven by this rule Answer This we say that all the children of one beleeving parent shall goe to heaven for ought you or I know We are in charity so to judge so to hope You can say no more for such as professe themselves to bee beleevers then that you hope the best So may so must we hope of such children Could wee tell which were which and did wee know that such a child neither had grace nor ever should have grace but were a reprobate we must not baptize that child But sith that is morethen wee know or can know Therefore we stand bound to baptize all children of Christians least wee should deny to elect children the scale of the Covenant Answer But we affirme that the Apostle doth not speak of such an holinesse in that place but of such an holinesse as is opposite to uncleannesse For the Apostle doth answer an objection as some of the believing Corinthians might make concerning their present condition as whether they might live with their wives now they being converted and their wives infidels Now the Apostle doth answer them that they might live together for conversion doth not disanull matrimony If so then your children were unclean but now they are holy That is they are your children being lawfully descended and borne of your loines and so are your children and being so borne are accounted holy in the Apostles estimation Answer And we affirme the same with you that children of Christian parents are holy as holinesse is oposite to uncleannesse and Pagans are said to be uncircumcised and uncleane which is of larger extent then bodily uncleannesse But I conceive your meaning is that children of Christian parents are holy that is they are no bastards but lawfully begotten and so holinesse here shall be opposite to adulâ—ery fornication and bodily uncleannesse only And so Lawb your founder in his directions to you expounds the place But aske that asse â—ow he can make good his exposition And his letter will answer you that you must take it upon his word or else he knowes not what to say to you And I beleeve you had this deep Divinity from that letter for that letter beares date Feb. 11. Anno 1641. And your papers beare date March 22. Anno 1641. So that allowing a considerable time for the coming of his letter from London to you you might have time enough to make use of your instructions And so as your Religion is grounded upon Scripture perverted so it must bee maintained by Scripture perverted perversenesse being the foundation of your Church perversnesse must bee your weapon of defence But in this exposition both you and your master seem to affirme a strange paradox namely that children borne of unbeleeving parents are all bastards which may overthrow all succession in Kingdomes and inheritances and by this Divinity all the primitive Christians were bastards because borne in Paganisme And Abraham the Father of the faithfull was a bastard too because his Father was an Idolater But I pray how doth your reason prove your assertion You say in effect that children of one beleeving parent are not bastards but legitimates and that this is meant by the holinesse the Apostle here attributes to children And why Because say you that the Apostle doth here answer an objection as some of the beleeving Corinthians might make concerning their present condition whether they might live with their wives now they being converted and their wives infidels You say the Apostles answer to this is that they might live together because conversion doth not disanull matrimony Well this reason confutes your owne assertion for it implies that infidels may live together in matrimony how then can the children of such be bastards Must not then their children lawfully deseend and be borne of their loines Thus you speak contradiction And where find you any such language as yours in the Scriptures What authours have you consulted for the meaning of that text viz. 1 Cor. 7.14 Paraus tells us that such children are not uncleane but holy i. e. saies he not Pagans but Christians Tremelius saith that the children are said to be holy because they are partakers of the holinesse of God in the Church ex foedere by the Covenant Beza saies the children are holy i. e. In promissione censeantur c. they are judged to be in the promise because unto every beleever it 's said I will be thy God and the God of thy seed Peter Martyr thus This holinesse is beleeved to bee that these children doe appertaine to the Church of Christ Calvin ut sancti in in Ecclesia reputentur i. e. That they might be reputed Saints in the Church And you confesse that such children are holy in the Apostles estimation And if the Apostle esteemes them holy then God judgeth them to bee holy and for holy children of Gods Covenant-people wee must take them to bee according to the constant phrase of the Scripture For where faith is there Christ is where Christ is there the holy Covenant is but faith is with the beleeving parent therefore Christ and the holy Covenant is with him also and the Covenant is I will be thy God and the God of thy seed Therefore the holinesse of children that the Apostle here speaks of must needs be holines peculiar to the children of faithfull parents But holinesse of children by legitimation is not peculiar unto children of beleeving parents For among the civill heathens and Pagans have not men their own wives and women their own husbands Are not these joined together in lawfull matrimony And are not the children that issue from men and women so joined their own children lawfully descended and borne of their loines And are not such children so begotten of persons in wedlock therefore holy because lawfully descended and borne of their loines If to bee meere legitimates bee to bee holy then the Apostle doth predicate no peculiar thing of the children of Christians more then may be said of the children of Pagans begotten and borne in wedlock Then the Apostle need not to have said that now they are holy seeing one of you is a beleever for they were holy before if legitimation would make them holy But let Pareus Tremelius Beza Peter Martyr and Calvin hold their peace and let us a little heare what your worthy Founder Th. Lamb saies for the true meaning of the Apostle in this text viz. 1 Cor. 7.14 Thus saith he As for the 7 Cor. 14. I say that the holinesse of the children did not arise from that one parent was a beleever as our opposites say but from this that the unbeleever was sanctified by or to the beleever which could not have been if they had not been lawfully married before therefore the
first baptized were denied Baptisme untill they could give account of their faith or else you speak not to the point seeing children borne of Christian parents are Christians by birth but such as you instance in were not And is this faire dealing think you And what talke you of an imputed holinesse in a child that it should draw from it parents What imputed holinesse is it you meane Imputative righteousnesse Doe you think that imputative righteousnesse is in us How differs it then from inherent righteousnesse The words imply a contradiction And had you ever been rightly grounded in the principles of our Religion you would never have vented so absurd a passage For the children doe not draw holinesse from their parents in Covenant but as companions in Covenant with their parents are primitively holy as well as their parents by vertue of the same Covenant For the expresse words of the Covenant are I will be thy God and the God of thy seed Here the Covenant puts parents and children both in equall relation unto God But here you renew your old quarrell against the Covenant of grace like an old trotting horse let never so skilfull a rider use his best art to bring him into a better pace yet the carrion will fall into his old joulting trot againe so you tell us againe that circumcision was not administred unto Abrahams seed by vertue of any holinesse imputed unto Infants by the Covenant but by vertue of Gods command This is your meaning however your expressions be And we answer againe that because they were an holy seed that therefore the Lord commanded them to be circumcised For the Covenant in order of nature must goe before the confirmation and seale thereof So that the ground of Gods commanding Abrahams seed to be circumcised was their being in the holy i. e. a seed set apart unto God from other nations And therefore the Lord doth not barely command Abraham to circumcise his males but He brings it in with a THEREFORE to shew that the Covenant having made them an holy seed therefore they wereto have the initiall seale imprinted on those holy persons For marke the words Gen. 17.7 12. of the Covenant I will establish my Covenant between 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 will give unto thee and thy seed after thee the land wherein thou art a stranger all the land of Canaan for an everlasting possession and I will be their God verse 7 8. And hereupon God said unto Abraham thou shalt circumcise thy males therefore Not barely thou shalt circumcise thy males but thou shalt circumcise thy males therefore i. e. Because of the foregoeing Covenant in the 7. and 8. verses This inference we have verse 9. in these words viz. Thou shalt keep my Covenant therefore thou and thy seed after thee in their generations And then whereas they might have asked the Lord what that Covenant was which He would have them to keep The Lord answers in the to verse after this manner viz. This is My Covenant which yee shall keep between Me and you and thy seed after thee every man-child shall bee circumcised c. Here circumcision is called by the name of the Covenant because the Covenant is the ground of it And circumcision did but put the covenant under seale in which Covenant those children were before by birth being borne of parents with whom God had stricken Covenant And so this lame shift will not serve your turne And to conclude as little to the purpose is it which you say concerning Baptisme for you say that Baptisme is not to be given by vertue of holinesse imputed to the child but by vertue of Christs Commission as if holinesse imputed unto a child by vertue of an holy Covenant were not Christs Commission The nations which Christ sent His Apostles unto were not said to bee holy and therefore by teaching they must make them holy before they baptize them But the children of those holy ones were holy by birth and so called by God himself and therefore to be put under the initiall seale of Gods holy Covenant as their right and priviledge by nature and birth Anabaptist Againe the Apostle doth not so much as any way make mention of baptisme in that place viz. 1 Cor. 7.14 and therefore your reason is groundlesse from this place for Baptisme of Infants Answer How groundlesse this exception is he that hath but halfe an eye may see As if to be holy by vertue of Gods holy Covenant were not a sufficient reason to argue a mans right unto the initiall seale of this holy Covenant according to the ministration of the covenant under which he is born doth live Now the initiall seale of the Covenants ministration under the Gospell is Baptisme but children borne of Christian parents under the Gospell are holy by vertue of Gods holy Covenant and therefore children borne of such parents have right unto Baptisme The Covenant of God is engraven upon them by birth and therefore the initiall seale is their present priviledge And so the place proves it And the reason is substantiall And it proves you to bee sacrilegious theeves and robbers for denying Infants baptisme in their infancy And by Gods help I 'le maintaine this charge against you before the dreadfull tribunall of the Lord Jesus Christ at the last day And in the interim I shall endeavour to preserve as many as I can from being seduced by your faire pretences Anabaptist Againe you parallell this place with Rom. 11.16 where you say that is the root be holy so are the branches Now this root if you take it in the litterall sense as it is spoken then it is meant of Abraham only and he was the root and the beleeving Jewes the branches and therefore Abraham is called the Father of the faithfull and in this sense beleevers are his seed and branches But if you take it in a more spirituall sense then it may be meant of Christ being the root and all beleevers are His members But we conceive to be chiefly meant of Abraham the root and beleevers the branches and so will this make nothing to the purpose neither is it the same with the other place in Corinthians 1 Epist cap. 7. verse 14. Answer If I paralled Rom. 11.16 and 1 Cor. 7.14 to prove that the children of parents in Covenant are holy by vertue of Gods holy Covenant I shall not draw my lines awry Seeing the expresse words of the Covenant are I will bee thy God and the God of thy seed And both places prove that both parents and children are holy by vertue of Gods holy Covenant with them And so both places are coincident to prove the same thing though there may be some circumstantiall differences The place then in Rom. 11.16 makes much for my purpose For my purpose was to prove that as
must have meate though they know not what belongs to meate In Painswick children that know not what they doe are taken Tenants by a rod or pen by the custome of the Manour This stands good bindes the Lord of the Manour and bindes the childe to Courts and Orders and Priviledges of the Manour Paul challenges priviledges of Romans by birth and children of baptized parents challenge baptisme by birth as individuall associates with their parents in covenant As for your descant about preaching and teaching it s a frogge of your owne slime and were a man as sicke of body as you are of fancies it were high time to send to the Clerke or Sexton to tole the bell The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Matth. 28.20 shewes what Christ meanes by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 v. 19. and Mar. 16.15 where the same commission is rehearsed the word ΚΗΡΥΞΑΤΕ i.e. preachthe Gospell doth the same The Church of Gentiles was to be raised by men and women of yeares and when they came in they brought in their children by course with them as Abraham and his Proselytes did theirs Were we disposed to shift as you doe we might say that in Mat. 28. they were to be made Disciples by baptizing first because it is said in the next verse v. 20. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 teaching them And againe it is not said goe make disciples and baptize them but make disciples baptizing them to intimate that by baptizing them they made them disciples Chiefly considering that Mar. 1.4 it 's said that John in whom baptisme was first instituted did baptize in the wildernesse and then preach as though he did baptize first and then preach Besides to exelude such children from being disciples is harsh sith they were borne under the Covenant and Christians by birth and to be disciples and to be Christians are synonymaes Acts 11.26 Anabaptist But however if this answer will not serve to confute your seeming reason yet here is another will I thinke which is this You confesse unto us that the word in the originall is Matathusita that is goe make disciples and baptize them Now you know who are disciples they that believe and these by your owne confession must be baptized and none else from that place nor else-where as we finde and therefore you are much deceived in this reason Againe c. ut infra Answer If it were but a seeming reason you should doe well to shew where the fallacie thereof lies the word in the originall doth not unloose the joynts of my Argument But what your monster Matathusita may doe I know not but for you to say that children of baptized parents are nop believers is harsh as we have said before because they are borne under the Covenant and so by birth are not infidels therefore believers I say that such children by birth are either believers or insidels but not infidels therefore believers And therefore you are much deceived in this exception And who are to come into the Church upon confession and who by birth we have shewed you And to raze the foundation of Paedo-baptisme that we have laid you must have better workemen and better engines And for you to cry out against a seeming reason and to conclude a falleris upon so poore a ground argues rather a rash head than deliberate reason Anabaptist Againe you doe plainly deserve Mt Wynnell to have the same scandalous terme cast upon your selfe as you cast upon us which was that we were Juglers but I submit unto any reasonable Judgo whether this is not plaine jugling for you to turne your tongue and Text to your owne purpose and preach that confusion and wrest the Scripture Nay further c. ut infra Answer I said indeed that Anabaptists were Juglers and this you take to your selves and so now I know where to have you and what to call you though formerly you have declined the name And for what I have herein done I have done in love to my Nation and doe commit the same to the view of all my brethren and doe submit unto their censure promising to rectifie whatsoever is herein amisse if any just blame may be found out And I shall desire you also to maintaine Gods covenant of free grace and to submit unto your lawfull governours which you Anabaptists refuse to doe Anabaptist Nay further you affirmed diverse times over that considering the estate and condition of the Pagan Gentiles that they were in you said that there was no reason in the world why any of those should be baptized without confession of Christ and the Gospel and yet here you bring a groundlesse argument that all the whole Nation should be baptized where the disciples did preach the Gospel yet before you affirmed that there was no reason in the world why any of these should be baptized before they had confessed Christ and beleeved the Gospel Now if this be not grosse confusion I know not wat is Againe c. ut infra Answer What I said before I will rehearse over and over againe if that will serve your turne And that is that there is no reason why the Pagan-Gentiles should be baptized untill they had given testimony of their faith in Christ but I said that the children of those so baptized are holy by birth and so are to have the Covenant put under seale by baptisme in their infancy This is all I said and so I spake distinctly without confusion The point that I insisted on was that children borne of Christian parents are to be baptized in their infancy and therefore you bring a groundlesse accusation and make me the Author of your owne forgeries And that I spake no such thing as this aspersion doth import is cleare by this viz. A near neighbour of mine after the Sermon against which you have brought these exceptions came to me and told me that you apprehended I meant that the whole Nation was to be baptized upon the very bringing of the Gospell among them I answered I intended no such thing but that such as were to be baptized of the Pagans where the Apostles came to lay the first foundations must give testimony of their faith and that the children of baptized parents onely were to be baptized And this answer was immediately returned unto you But either you have forgotten or you conceive that slandering may helpe your cause when you want better arguments And my hearers at that time who without passion tooke my Sermon-notes can note you for a slanderer but haply you learned that tricke of your brethren of the separation before you left them Anabaptist Againe we may casily see this overthrowne by other Scriptures as Mar. 16.15 16. There the Disciples are commanded to preach the Gospell to every creature that is reasonable creatures and he that did beleeve was to be baptized Now it were a strange folly in us to thinke that Christ would so strictly charge his Disciples to preach to every creature before
baptisme if the preaching to the Nation would bring all the rest to have right to baptisme Then the Disciples did bestow labour in vaine by this rule Againe c. ut infra Answer You now sight with your own shadow and that is a strange folly indeed And what is it that may be so easily overthrowne by other Scriptures your owne fancy and forgery downe with it enough it shall have no countenance from me But had I said as you affirme how would that helpe your cause or wound ours It would have argued my weaknesse unlesse the whole Nation had received the Gospell but not have established the grand principle of your sacrilegious religion which is Anti-paedo-baptisme As for that of Mar. 16.16 we shall still grant that as such as were to be made Jewes were first to be taught the Covenant and then to enjoy the Seale but such as were borne Jewes were first to be sealed and then taught afterwards so here Christians-made must first be taught and then be sealed but Christians-borne of those made-Christians are first to be sealed by baptisme and afterward taught for this Scripture doth barre children no more from baptisme than it doth from heaven Thus out of the Text you argue viz. He that beleeveth and is baptized shall be saved But infants doe not beleeve Ergo Infants are not to be baptized Thus I argue viz. He that beleeves not shall be damned as it followeth in the Text. But say you Infants beleeve not Ergo Infants shall be damned Answer this and you answer you selves Now some of your side say for answer thus viz. He that is of years and believes not shall not be saved and so say I he that is of yeares and believes not is not to be baptized And this is all that I require namely that made-Christians must first testifie their faith before baptisme but borne-Christians not so Anabaptist Againe if this Commission had been from divine authority then the Apostles had not dared to omit the practice thereof but we have not any example of one person in all the Scripture that was baptized but what had the Gospell first preached unto him and did beleeve it Againe further you say c. ut infra Answer The non-practice of the Apostles doth not argue the non-divinity of our warrant for paedo-baptisme from Matth. 28.19 For the businesse of the Apostles lay in planting of foundations and in erecting of Churches consisting of persons of yeares And the Apostles baptized but a poore few of the multitudes that were converted by their ministry 1 Cor. 1.13 17. Now if these words Mat. 28.19 must be urged in the strict letter then it had beene a sinne for the Apostle not to baptize such as by his preaching he converted but this is no sinne for then he would not have thanked God that he baptized none of the Corinthians but Crispus and Gaius 1 Cor. 1.14 And yet Paul did beget the Corinthians in Jesus Christ by his preaching 1 Cor. 4.15 Or he made them Disciples but baptized very few of them and therefore the text cannot be urged in the strict letter Againe to dispute negatively from the Scripture in a matter of fact viz. we doe not reade that the Apostles or any else baptized any Infants therefore there were none baptized by any of them is a kinde of arguing fit for fooles not for schooles and yet this is the onely Divinity of your Church Upon this ground I argue upon more probable reason We doe not reade in the story of the Church from the Baptist to the end of the Acts that the Apostles or any others did baptize a childe of any Christian when he was growne up to yeares but the baptized Christians being millions had many children in that great tract of time and baptized they were Now we reade not that it was done in their growth on profession of their faith and therefore in theiâ— infancie Wee reade of aboundance that were converted from Jews and Pagans who on profession of their faith were baptized but we reade no such thing of the children of any baptized Jew or Gentile but that such children were holy by birth This shewes a maine difference between them and their children viz. That such parents became children of the Church by instruction but the children of such baptized parents were holy and the children of the Church by birth Anabaptist Againe further you say that this Commission was partly circumstantiall as for to goe from Nation to Nation Wee would know how you can prove it so by what Scripture or where ever Christ did say so For Christ gave this Commission in particular to his Disciples and they were to goe unto all Nations to preach the Gospell and so they did fulfill the Commission that Christ gave them And as they were to doe this so they were to teach all Nations to observe the like rules of them as they had from Christ For Christ bid them to teach the Nations to observe whatsoever he commanded them So they were to leave the like Commission with every Nation as they did teach Now we see Christ commanded the Disciples to teach and make them Disciples before they should baptize them and so the Disciples were to teach all Nations to follow the same rule and so the Apostle doth exhort to follow their rule and example as they left us Answer Thomas Lambe your deare brother and messenger of Jesus Christ put apart to preach the Gospell-grace as he stiles himselfe in his letter to you his brethren and prisoners of Jesus Christ was as he writes in that letter to goe to Norwich in February last Anno 1641. about the Lords worke as he had beene with you about the like worke Now the substance of this worthy instruments commission is the Lords worke in erecting Churches and planting new foundations but his going to Norwich and comming to Gloucester and Painswicke and Cranham is but a circumstance of this mans commission as things concerning time and place about actions may be termed circumstances of such actions without any text of Scripture to warrant the expression I told you that Christs Commission in Mat. 28.19 20. was a full Commission to all Christs Ministers under the Gospell extraordinary and ordinary and that this Commission was that the Word should be preached and that the Sacraments should be administred and that ordinary Pastours and Teachers in seâ—led Congregations did execute this Commission fully though they went not from Nation to Nation and from place to place Now if such a circumstance may be dispensed withall without violation of the Commission then the Commission of Christ there given bindes not all Ministers in every circumstance For wee told you that this being a full Commission to all the Ministers of Jesus Christ to direct them in the worke of the Ministry and the Ministers of Jesus Christ being partly extraordinary and partly ordinary therefore in this Commission here must be something peculiar unto the
ignorant concerning some things in the worship and service of God then it 's very probable that fooles and unlearned men may be blinde and ignorant concerning some things in the worship and service of God much more But your meaning is that you have a priviledge of not erring That indeed is a thing that your Church holds And why say you that Apollos was deceived about the same point of baptisme and that Aquila and Priscilla a couple of private persons did instruct him in the perfect way of the Lord Was it paedo-baptisme that Apollos was deceived about If not how the same point of baptisme For the point in controversie betweene you and us is paedo-baptisme And what meane you in saying that Apollos was instructed in the perfect way of the Lord by Aquila and Priscilla a couple of private persons That your way of baptizing is the perfect way of the Lord and that Ministers must be instructed by you being private persons in this point And for Nicodemus you doe well to wonder where his wisdome was when he talked so carnally of regeneration as if hee were to returne unto the state of infants-unborne before he could be truely regenerated as we wonder where your wisedome was when you talked so carnally of baptisme as if you Christians by birth and baptized in your infancie must returne into the state of Pagans and Infidels and so come into the Church by confession before you could be truely baptized And what talke you of Balaam that went to curse the people of God and of his Asse that saw the Angell of the Lord in his way It must be granted that you are the people of God and that I am Balaam that curse you because I preach against you But are you mine Asse that see the Angell of the Lord viz. your baptisme in my way Surely they are silly fooles that will ride upon Asses where Horses are so plentifull I have many good books to enforme me and many grave Ministers learned and godly to advise withall if need were And I must tell you that I am so farre from scrupling about paedo-baptisme that I see the impression of the Holy Ghost upon it But to what purpose all this is alleadged by you here in this place I know not it shewes onely that men may erre and so may you And now let all men see your folly in charging me of folly for rendring of this reason Reason 5 The fift and last Reason Anabaptist Also you bring the practise of true Churches against us but this argument is as weake as the others For we have examples in Scripture of true Churches that have beene deceived in some things and held grosse things and great disorders and yet true Churches too as the seven Churches of Asia most of which held grosse things and so the Church of Corinth with others Therefore we see it possible and practicall for true Churches to be out Answer Your meaning is that all other true Churches as you call them are out in this point of baptisme and that you onely are right This is a very compendious and pithy refutation of the argument drawne from the example of other true Churches But looke upon this argument in my Sermon-notes and you shall finde that the matter will not be so easily put off as you seeme to intimate For in this last reason I said that we baptize children of Christian parents because it 's the practice of other reformed Churches which God hath blessed in that way with great increase of heavenly gifts Now if we should forbeare baptizing of infants by vertue of a divine restraint then we should lay iniquitie upon whole Kingdomes and godly societies where Paedo-baptisme is practised And this would make a mighty division rent and schisme betweene us and other true Churches with whom we should endeavour to hold communion and fellowship as companies of Saints that stand as immediately under Christ as our selves Now you will say that In sinne we are not to hold communion with other Churches But to hold communion with other Churches in the practice of Paedo-baptisme is to hold communion with other Churches in sinne Ergo We are not to hold communion with other Churches in the practice of Paedo-baptisme Prove say they that baptizing of infants is a sinne We prove it thus say you To baptize those that are not baptizable is a sinne But infants of baptized parents are not baptizable Ergo To baptize infants of baptized parents is a sinne Well you will prove the assumption thus viz. Onely beleevers are baptizable But infants of Christians are not beleevers Ergo Infants of Christians are not baptizable They now will tell you that the minor proposition is false for the Scripture doth no where terme persons unbeleevers for the habit of unbeliefe negatively but for the habit of unbeliefe positively And to be a beleever in your sense is requisite unto baptisme for a made-Christian but not for a borne-Christian And to say that infants of Christians are not beleevers is absurd And therefore however you may seeme to passe over this argument as a sleight thing you shall sinde there was more weight in it than ever you can answer But you say well however in saying that this argument of mine is as weake as the others I beleeve it indeed and so as the others doe stand upon such a foundation as you cannot undermine so let this And now let all men see how well your boasting and your answering doe agree together for you have boasted up and downe that you have answered all mine arguments and I thinke all as well as any But let us now proceed and consider your miscellance rhapsodie that followes in your papers Anabaptist Againe there is as much controversie among you Ministers concerning who should be baptized as it is betweene you and us For you and Mr Capeâ— and Mr Marshall and diverse others of the best Ministers doe hold that all the children within the Nation should be baptized and the Ministers of New-England and other reformed Churches doe hold that none should be baptized but the children of beleevers who are judged to be beleevers at least Now here is as much difference among you as between you and us And therefore we may justly say goe and reconcile your selves and you may doe the better with us For if we should yeeld unto you we cannot tell to which of you to turne unto whether to you that hold all to be baptized or those that hold some to be baptized But the truth is unlesse you give us better grounds then any yet we see we shall turne to neither of you with Gods helpe to strengthen us Answer We all agree in the point of Paedo-baptisme namely that children of beleevers are to be baptized in their infancie and so in this point the difference is not so wide as betweene you and us Herein you lay a false imputation upon us a thing too frequent in you and that which your
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
And they put on the businesse with such peremptory boldnesse as if all the world had beene unable to gain-say their practice or refute their doctrine VVhereupon to clear my selfe and to satisfie others I undertooke the controversie at Cranham where they had left their poyson And when I undertooke it the Anabaptists from Gloucester and Painswicke came to heare mee and set upon mee in the open face of the Congregation as soone as I came downe out of the Pulpit I desired them to forbeare publique tumults and to send in their exceptions against what I had laid downe for Poedobaptisme And at first they sent mee in a paper with no hand to it but this I rejected and delivered back to them againe because I knew no one of them would stand to it when once the folly thereof was declared At length I received about two sheetes of paper and yet though it came in the names of them all there was but one hand unto the same and this Champion doth so stoutly mannage the matter that surely if his cause were suitable to his stomacke neither men nor Angels could stand before him It is high time then for us to bestirre our selves when condemned heresies shall find such bold abettours and that in the Land of light and truth The Lord put it into the heats of our Parliament to settle a Government among us with speed that out-facing impudencie may be called to an account that truth and peace may dwell in our Land And now Gentle Reader peruse the ensuing tractate wherein if thou find any benefit give God the glory and afford mee thy help at the Throne of Grace And so I have done and do thou begin Thine in the Truth T.W. ERRATA PAg. 6. line 1. for Cor. read King p. 8 l.7 for up r. upon p. 10. l. 21. r. Gods Covenant of Grace p. 11. l. ult adde of Gods command but because p. 16. l. 31. for their God r. thâ— God p. 36. l. 22. for under r. of p. 42. l. 16. dele not p. 81. l. 4. let Petitio principii be put in the Margin Ib. for disputationibus r. disputations Ib. l. 20 for well by r. well as p. 107. l. 14. for profession in the r. profession of faith in the. p. 110. l. 16. for as whatsoever r. as if whatsoever p. 111. l. 20. dele or p. 114. l. 17. dele saved and. p. 115. l. 22. for certifie r. rectisie p. 116. for to r. of p. 119. l. 6. â—or hearts 6.1 heart p. 122. l. 28. for not r. not the. THE COVENANTS Plea for INFANTS MATTH 28.18 19 20. All power is given unto Me in Heaven and in earth Goe yee therefore and teach all nations baptizing them in the Name of the Father and of the Sonne and of the Holy Ghost Teaching them to observe all whatsoever I have commanded you And loe I am with you alwayes even to the end of the world AMEN THE monstrous brood of Anabaptists in former ages and now in these our dayes have made and doe make this portion of Scripture their maine Fort and strongest Barricado to beat back poore helplesse and harmlesse infants from being consecrated into Gods peculiar by baptisme though born of Christian parents Now against these unjust oppressours and sacrilegious theeves I am now come into the field to maintaine the christian birth-right of infants whose parents are sealed unto God and of His Family And to set them into their own border possession and inheritance And because some of Satans troopers of late in mine absence have made an in-rode into this Parish and by perverting of this Scripture have carried away some and staggered many others therefore I have chosen to insist upon this Text to let all men see how it makes nothing at all for the establishing of their wicked purpose This whole Chapter contains the History of our Saviours resurrection and a Rehearsall of what He did on earth between the time of His triumphant resurrection and His glorious Ascension The former we omit for brevities sake In the latter the Spirit of God relates how Christ being risen from the dead by vertue of His resurrection possessed of all power and authority over all things and persons in heaven and in earth gave a command and commission unto his Apostles to goe out among the Pagan-Gentiles and plant the Gospell among them and not confine themselves any longer within the precincts of Iudea And why Because all power is given unto Christ in heaven and in earth which before was not given unto him This is our Saviours preface and it is a materiall passage and the ground of our Saviours sending of His Apostles to plant the Gospell among the Pagan-Gentiles Now all power and authority concerning the Church of God was conferred on Him for ministring the kingdome of heaven among Jewes and Gentiles And hence observe this point for your instruction Doct. Viz. That all power and authority concerning the Church of God was given unto Christ and conferred on Him by vertue of His meritorious death and triumphant resurrection from the dead Eph. 1.19 23. Ps 2.6 9. compared with Acts 13.33 Heb. 2.9 10. Luk. 24.46 47. Reason And the reason is because thereby Christ vanquished the enemies of our salvation led captivity captive received gifts for men and became the head of the Church among Jewes and Gentiles Quest But had not Christ this power from the beginning Ans 1. He had it in the mind and decree of His Father for we were chosen in Him and He was still the head of His the Church 2. He had it vertually in His sufficiency to vanquish enemies and to deliver His chosen for Hee was a lambe slaine from the beginning 3. Actually and by way of execution among Iewes and Gentiles without difference He had it not untill the time of His glorious resurrection Acts 2.32 36. For then was Hee declared to be the sonne of God and the Jewes Messiat Rom. 1.4 Now this point may be put to sundry good uses Vse 1 It may serve to pierce the hearts and soules of all wicked men and move them to repentance and amendment of life Acts 2.36 37. Vse 2 It may serve to deterre all Church-enemies from their furious and vaine attempts against Christ and His Gospell Psal 2.1 8. Vse 3 This should teach us to yeild divine honour and worship unto Christ We are to set him up as the Lord of our faith having His warrant for what wee doe in His worship under the Gospell making Him our King and Law-giver and obey him in all things that He shall say unto us depending upon him alone for salvation as our All-sufficient Saviour Vse 4 Let us then labour to be so qualified and so to live as that all this power of Christ may be improved for our advantage Now if we would bee so qualified wee must see that wee are true members of Jesus Christ And the truth of this may be discerned by our threefold
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 enâ—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 himseâ—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
Apostles being extraordinary Ministers which did not nay could not be found in ordinary Pastours and Teachers Now ordinary Pastours must preach and baptize as well as the Apostles What then is peculiar to Apostles as being extraordinary Ministers in this Commission I answer that it 's peculiar to Apostles here being pen-men of the Holy Ghost inspired immediately by the Holy Ghost to plant foundations to deliver binding rules of faith and worship immediately from God unto the Churches which before were not given unto the sonnes of men By their preaching and working of miracles they were to convince Jewes and Gentiles that Christ the sonne of the Virgin Mary which the Jewes did crucifie was the true Messias and Saviour of mankinde the onely begotten sonne of God And such as did embrace the doctrine and faith of Christ they must baptize And many were called unto the obedience of the faith by the doctrine and miracles of the Apostles and these did fulfill their ministery when they had planted these foundations and delivered the full canon of the Gospell unto the Churches and so being thus planted they did deliver over the Churches unto ordinary pastours and teachers as holy companies in Covenant with God whereas before they were Idolaters and Pagans and murtherers Now I hope you expect not new canons of sacred Scriptures you doe not expect that ordinary Ministers should work miracles The practise of the Apostles is not then to be followed in things of extraordinary priviledge but in matters of ordinary faith and mortality Now ordinary pastours finde parents in the state of Christianity in Covenant with God and under His seale and therefore they doe and must baptize their children in their infancy The strict urging of Apostolicall imitation is wicked and plaine confusion something is here peculiar to extraordinary Ministers Anabaptist Nay further you grant us that Baptisme hath its Commission from this text Why then wee would know where and when Christ gave any Commission to alter it If any I pray shew it us If none how dare you or any man to alter and change the Commission and Commands of Christ Answer I told you that Baptisme was here mentioned occasionally and that it was instituted long before in John the Baptist Neither did Apostles now begin to receive a Commission to preach and baptize for they had received this Commission before and they did preach and baptize But now they had a Commission to goe unto all nations whereas before Christs resurrection they were to keep within the precincts of Judea And for an alteration of the commission by baptizing Infants of Christians we acknowledge none neither can you prove it an alteration but distinguish of what is peculiar to Apostles in this generall Commission and of what is common to Apostles and ordinary pastours and you are answered I say in this short summe of words we have the Apostolicall ministery and the pastorall ministery included The Apostolicall ministery being extraordinary and to bee but for a time is ceased and no ordinary Ministers are to exercise such a ministery as the Apostles did by vertue of their peculiar function neither doe we nor can wee expect any such Ministers because we ought not to expect any new canon of holy Scripture nor an alteration of the present Liturgy Heb. 8.6 The canon of the sacred Scripture is full and the present Liturgy is to continue unto the worlds end And therefore it 's absurd and impious for you to utter such confusion to use your owne phrase and urge the Apostolicall Commission upon ordinary pastours in the strict letter And you run it over againe and againe and still you have the Apostles Commission and practice up whereas if you look upon their Commission and practice as extraordinary and Apostolicall both are peculiar unto them and to cease with them And as I said before Apostles are not to be followed by us in things of extraordinary priviledge but in matters of ordinary faith and morality And so however your peevish reasonings may lead your selves into a fooles paradise yet they shall never drive us from the wayes of Christ Anabaptist Nay further those to whom Christ gave this Commission unto He said He would be with them unto the end of the world but wee know that the Disciples lived not to the end of the world And therefore the Commission doth still last to the end of the world Thus for your third reason Answer The Commission indeed may be meant of a succession of persons in the ministeriall function unto the worlds end But yet it cannot be denyed but that somewhat in this generall Commission is Apostolicall as to plant foundations and to have an immediate Commission from God for to be the pen-men of the sacred canon Ministers doe not now deliver a new canon of divine faith and worship nor doe they prove their calling by miracles They teach the Church of Saints only that which is left them by Apostles and Prophets Ordinary Ministers preach and baptize and God is with them and also will be with their survivers in that holy function unto the worlds end And thus my third reason is good and stand it will against the strongest assaults of Satan and his wicked instruments Reason 4 The fourth Reason Anabaptist Fourthly you reason from the fruites and effects of Baptisme saying that God did ordinarily blesse this Baptisme unto Infants But truly S wee cannot but wonder at your folly in rendring such a reason as this Well Seeing you have rendred it we desire to answer it You say c. ut infra Answer To see impudency in the face of an Anabaptist is a thing that I no more wonder at then to see fishes in the water or flying fowles upon the wing And to clamour where you cannot answer is an old trick that haply you learned of Can that great Cabalist for schisme while you were of the separation before you came to this perfection of impiety Were I to deale with reasonable men I should wonder to see them so bereft of all reason as to sentence that argument folly which the wisest in the schoole of Reason judge to bee demonstrative And that is an argument drawne from the effect Thus I argued we baptize children in their infancy because God doth ordinarily make our baptizing of Infants effectuall to the ends whereunto true Baptisme is appointed in the Gospell Now the ends whereunto true Baptisme is appointed in the Gospell are to put on Christ to dye unto sinne and to live unto God And certainly God would not ordinarily give testimony to a false Sacrament by making it effectuall to the ends whereunto a true Sacrament is appointed If this be folly then you doe well in excepting against it but if truth then you have verily the old proverb viz. That a fooles bolt is soone shot But let us heare your answer for refutation hereof Anabaptist You say it is effectuall but we would know wherein it doth appeare for
warrantable ground for us to administer circumcision to all Male-Infants of Jewes because some particular Infants of them are elected then by the same reason it will follow that circumcision may lawfully bee administred unto every Male in the world because among them also we may judge that some are elected why then doest thou not command circumcision to be administred unto them also Surely to this God would say thus viz. If any among other nations in the world doe belong unto Mine election they shall become Proselytes unto the Church and come in by profession in the Messias but when these Proselytes are put under my seale their Infants shall be circumcised in their infancy though most of them be reprobates And so say wee if there be any of Gods elect among the aliens they shall become Proselytes to the Christian Church and so be baptized upon the confession of their faith in Christ but for the Infants of those Christian Proselytes they shall all bee baptized in their infancy as the children of the Covenant though most of them may be reprobates election and reprobation being not the ground of our ministration or not ministration but the Covenant under which persons are borne And thus you may see how wildly this Asse doth reason and yet what a great shew doth he make of his Greek But if he be the Authour of this pamphlet that some report to be then to my knowledge he is not overstored either with Greek or Latin And surely had he ever come to the passive voice of verbes in the Greek Grammar and learned to decline 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with his breeches downe about his heeles and a good sharp paedagogue doing justice upon his posteriors he would ever after have taken heed of playing such prankes as hee hath in his childish treatise wherein few things concerne our present businesse and in this tractate you may have matter sufficient to answer the Anabaptists about the point of paedo baptisme and to seale up their lips too But let us proceed Say on what else you have to alleadge Anabaptist Againe their being under the Covenant is not sufficient to give them the seale of Baptisme For if so then those Jewes in the second of the Acts who were within the Covenant might have been baptized all and wholly But wee finde there that though the Apostles preach't unto the Nation of the Jewes yet none were baptized but they that received the word gladly verse 41. So then we see that their being within the Covenant nor the Apostles preaching unto them could give them the seale of Baptisme but it was their receiving and beleeving of the word And so likewise of the Gentiles the Promise of the Covenant did belong unto the Gentiles too as well as to the Jewes yet I find not one example in all the book of God where Jew or Gentile was baptized but only upon their confession of Christ and beleeving the Gospell So that suppose wee grant you as much as you desire which is that we are under the Covenant yet this is not sufficient to give us proper right unto the seales and priviledges of the Covenant untill wee come to beleeve and confesse Jesus Christ Answer To be under the Covenant so as to acknowledge Jesus Christ the sonne of the Virgin Mary to be the Messias and Saviour of the world was sufficient to give men right unto the Sacrament of Baptisme But the Iewes did not so they denied the Holy One and killed the Prince of life Acts 3.14.15 They look't upon Him as one accursed and hanged Him on a tree And in this they renounced the Covenant and did depose themselves and their children from the title they had Matth. 27.25 Those Jewes were borne under the Covenant and so accordingly were circumcised but now in renounceing Christ they did renounce the Covenant they had title to by birth and so were not to have the new appointed seale of Baptisme till they should receive Christ Jesus The old ministration as it looked towards the Messias to come was now out of date and to be done away for the Messias was come And a new seale of entrance was set up which might assure them that He was Lord and Christ whom they put to death Acts 2.36 37. They were now to acknowledge that this was the Christ and so to bee baptized into His Name A Saviour they did look for and now this is He. So then this fetch will not serve your turne It proves firmly what is required of such as are to be made Christians but it will not reach unto born Christians That which is here spoken concerning examples is but a repetition of what you said before and there you are answered Anabaptist Againe you demand further of the Anabaptists where their Commission is to baptize As for the word Anabaptists we disclaime the sense of it but as it is a slanderous reproach that is cast upon us for the cause of Christ we therein rejoice in it But to answer your demand thus you would know where our Commission is we answer from the Commission of Christ Mat. 28.19 Where Christ bids His Disciples to teach all nations to observe whatsoever Hee commanded them Now Hee commanded to teach them before Baptisme and so the Disciples were to teach all nations to follow the like rule Answer I demanded whence you had your calling or Ordination to baptize at all Neither can you by the word of God justifie your practice of preaching and administring the Sacraments for you have neither extraordinary calling immediately from God as had John the Baptist and the Apostles nor ordinary from any Presbytery unto that weighty function which the ablest and holiest servants of God have been afraid to venture upon And for you to take your turnes and goe on in course as if it were a businesse for every Pedlar and Taylour lour and Felt-monger to meddle with argues clearely that you were never men of Gods sending but have your Commission from the devill and not from Christ as we have noted before And now you tell me a tale of a Tub that you derive your Commission from Matth. 28.19 where you say that Christ bids His Disciples to teach all nations to observe whatsoever He commanded them Where you would lay this foundation namely that if a man be a Disciple then he may teach and baptize and so the Ministeriall function shall be no peculiar function But if you look back upon the 16 verse of that chapter you shall sinde that the Disciples unto which Christ gave this Commission were the eleven Apostles called there by the name of the eleven Disciples And therefore you belie the Lord and pervert His word And then you shuffle in your owne confusions and glosses as whatsoever the Apostles did in their ministration all succeeding Churches and Ministers must doe which is most false and impious For as we have shewed before there were some things belonging to the Apostolicall ministration
Ergo Children of baptized parents are baptizable in their infancies The consequence is sound the antecedent may be thus evinced viz. Such children in their infancie are oftentimes regenerated Ergo Such children in their infancie are regenerable Now let us compact what you say and what we say touching this point together and contrive both into one entire Syllogisme and so meet as friends in the same conclusion thus viz. Such as goe to heaven and are saved are regenerated say we But elect Infants that die unbaptized goe to heaven and are saved say you Ergo You as well as we must say that elect Infants which die unbaptized are saved and regenerated And this confutes your owne conclusion for regeneration is the ordinary meanes of salvation and elect Infants that die unbaptized are saved by regeneration And hence thus I inferre the contradictory of your conclusion viz. Regeneration is the ordinary meanes of salvation But elect Infants that die unbaptized are saved by regeneration Ergo Elect Infants that die unbaptized are saved by the ordinary meanes of salvation And this refutes you and like a rod of iron dashes in peeces the earthen vessell of your chamption A. R. page 2.7 wherein in he seems to scoffe at our thanksgiving for baptismall regeneration of Infants whereas wee may without blushing give God thanks for the regeneration of an infant-Infant-christian after baptisme as for the regeneration of an alien after Baptisme that comes in upon the testimony of his faith For charity is the ground of our thanksgiving here and there And for his exception drawne from the calling of our Ministers that was needlesse for if Infants are not capable of Baptisme then let the Ministers calling bee never so right their baptizing of infants must be a nullity and they should sinne in baptizing of them And so his discourse concerning dipping and sprinkling is also needlesse for if children were dipped in their infancie yet their Baptisme must needs be invalide because Infants And so the Asse might have saved a great deale of labour and kept to the point of paedo-baptisme for the Anabaptists doe simply oppose paedo-baptisme not as ministred by such persons nor as administred in such a manner for they hold paedo-baptisme to be simply unlawfull in it selfe As for the controversie of the calling of Ministers you may read Bradshaw against Johnson and the Authour of the book entituled the unreasonablenesse of the separation a very precious book wherein Bradshaw deceased is vindicated against the calumnies of Can the Brownist Also two worthy treatises of famous Mr Ball deceased And lately Rutherford a famous and learned Scot and many moe which are not answered by any of the contrary partie And therefore for A. R. to speak at randome without refutation of these Authors argues his purpose rather to calumniate then to edisie and certifie conscience But to leave this senselesse monster either to repentance or to the judgement of the great day I return to you againe I tell you that all your redargutions are rather confirmations then refutations unto me And what misery is this All the ablest Ministers in the land are of my judgement about this point of paedo-baptisme that the Prophecie of Clem. Writer the Factour might be fulfilled saying that it's thought that Ministers should be the last men in the Church of England unto whom God would reveale this your light And his reason is a very materiall one because said he they know this light but doe hide it from the people and will not hold it forth unto them But to proceed A child say you is not capable of the ordinary meanes of salvation as the word and Sacraments I answer that a child indeed is not capable of Baptismall entrance into the Church by instruction but what Therefore not at all I deny that consequence for there is another way of baptismall entrance into the Church and that is by birth as a Christian-borne because borne of baptized parents and of this baptismall entrance a childe is capable Thus you seeme to argue viz. The Word and Sacraments are the onely ordinary meanes to salvation But elect infants are not capable of the Word and Sacraments Ergo Elect infants are not capable of the ordinary meanes of salvation This is your naturall sophistry and both propositions are unsound and liable to just exception But to the major we say that the Word and Sacraments are not the onely ordinary meanes of salvation for there is Christ and the Spirit of Grace which are ordinary meanes of salvation also And elect infants that die unbaptized are saved by Christ and the Spirit of Grace There are internall-ordinary means of salvation as well as externall-ordinary means of salvation And therefore though your Logicke hath made fooles of your selves yet it cannot make fooles of us Thus we argue against your Paralogisme and wicked fallacy and we challenge you to answer us viz. Christ and the Spirit of Grace are ordinary meanes of salvation But elect infants that die unbaptized are saved by Christ and the Spirit of Grace Ergo Elect infants that die unbaptized the saved by ordinary meanes of salvation Let elect infants die unbaptized yet they are saved by Christ and the Spirit of Grace and so by necessary consequence by ordinary meanes of salvation There is no fallacy nor sophistry in this Syllogisme and both propositions are undenyable and we need no such shifts to maintaine Gods truthes as you have to put a colour upon your heresies And this takes away your thicke covering whereby you went about to darken knowledge Againe you say that an elect infant can have no faith wrought by the ordinary means And this assertion is groundel too upon a false supposition for the outward ordinary meanes of faith are not the onely ordinary meanes of faith An elect infant may have faith by Christ the Author of faith and by the Spirit of Grace the Spirit of faith and Christ and the Spirit are ordinary meanes of faith And of availe too when the outward are wanting But the outward are of no availe where these are wanting And that an elect infant that dies unbaptized hath faith may thus be evinced You say That without faith we cannot please God then such as please God have faith Thus I argue then viz. Such as please God have faith But elect infants that die unbaptized do please God Ergò Elect infants that die unbaptized have faith The proposition I suppose you will not gain-say the assumption haply you require me to make good Thus then I prove it viz. Such as goe to heaven and are saved doe please God But elect infants say you that die unbaptized goe to Heaven and are saved Ergò Elect infants that die unbaptized say I do please God But haply you doe not so much deny their having of faith as their having of faith by ordinary meanes That then I thus evince viz. Christ and the Spirit of Grace are ordinary meanes of faith But elect
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
the Gospell is the initiall seale of that holy Covenant A seale by divine institution annexed unto that holy Covenant And unto this determination we desire either your brotherly subscription or rationall dissention from the same 3. Your third and last is Why and to what end we baptize Infants And this is answered already as in all our discourse so in our answers to your two former questions But further we say 1. That infants of Christians are part of Gods portion and inheritance and therefore we will not let them lie in the cursed condition of aliens but seale them into Gods peculiar For it were sacriledge to make those common and uncleane which God hath set apart unto himselfe as holy 2. For the childrens good we consecrate them unto Gods care by baptizing them into the name of the sacred Trinity God the Father is now their father and they are his children God the Sonne is their Saviour and they are his members God the Holy Ghost is their Sanctifier and they are his Temple Ob. But you say that the Covenant made them such before Sol. True and baptisme is nothing but a putting of the Covenant under seale unto them Ob. But you baptize all without difference if you baptized onely the elect the matter were more tolerable Sol. Though diverse borne within the Church are reprobates yet as they come one and one unto us we cannot say that this or that childe is a reprobate Hee may be an elect vessell for ought we know And the adaequate end of baptisme administred is not salvation of the baptized The glory of God is the principall end namely the glory of Gods singular mercy in the salvation of his elect and the glory of Gods Justice in the unexcuse of the reprobate as all outward ministrations in the Church serve for the glory of Gods mercy and justice We put them all under the initiall seale of the Gospell that they may be made subject to the Gospell and be judged by the Gospell For the secret of election and reprobation we leave that unto God Their being borne under the holy Covenant is sufficient to warrant our ministration And to know who are elect and who are reprobates is no more needfull to the ministration of baptisme than it was to the ministration of circumcision among the Jewes that being the initiall seale of the same holy Covenant unto them as baptisme is now unto us For they by circumcision were incorporated into Christ to come by that type of Christ upon their flesh and we by baptisme are incorporated into Christ already come And by our being washed with water in baptisme we are assured that Christ hath shed his bloud to wash away our sinnes and to make us cleane in Gods sight and that that Jesus the Sonne of the Virgin Mary which the Jewes put to death under Pontius Pilate and hanged him on a tree was the very Christ and that we doe depend on him alone for Salvation and doe looke for no other Saviour And now because you boast of a new light which God in former ages hath not held forth to his Church haply by this light you may answer Saint Augustines argument against re-baptizing Donatists which none of your side could ever answer hitherto to this day You say wee have no true baptisme in our Church because our baptisme is administred alwayes to persons in their infancy If no Baptisme then no Church saith Saint Augustine c. But to apply his argument to our Church against you Donatists If there be no Baptisme in our Church then no Church if no Church then whence had you your Church and Baptisme Shew us your Commission to set up a new Church and Baptisme new I wonder that your A. R. a man so throughly versed in the Fathers as he would make his reader beleive page 2. had not untyed this knot To say that Christ the head may be without a body for some time in this world is Arminianisme For if the Church and with it Baptisme was lost then for that time Christ had no body in this world And to say that the Church was lost here and not shew that you have derived your Commission else-where is to speake absurdly and to deale wickedly Shew out of Gods Word your Commission then I say not to baptize beleevers and persons growne up but to baptize at all Which Commission untill you produce I shall conclude that you are rather infatuated by the Devill than inspired by the Holy Ghost And now if you can reply any thing materiall you shall by Gods helpe be answered But for your giddy fooleries and idle non-sense I shall throw it aside among my waste papers FINIS