particulars thirdly Answered an Objection fourthly I come to the fourth thing which I promised which is to speak of the Assumption concerning which I need say no more then that it is plainly and fully proved in the Scriptures mentioned in the proposal of the Assumption and divers others setting forth the glory of Gospel-times Arg. Arg. 7 7. To whom the promise of the spiritual blessing represented and sealed in Baptism belongs Act. 2.38 39. to them the outward sign of Baptism it self belongs so the Apostle reasons and the sign and thing signified being correlatives must go together But the promise of Gods Spirit Act. 2.39 Isa 44.3 signified in Baptism and so of Regeneration Sanctification and Adoption belongs to the faithfull and their children Therefore Baptism it self belongs to them Arg. Arg. 8 8. If in the time of the Apostles when the gouernours of families beleeved their whole families thereupon were baptized with them Now also the children of beleeving parents being parts of their families are to be baptized But where the Apostles had drawn by the Ministry of the word governours of families to the faith they baptized with them their whole family Act. 16.14 15. 33 34. Therefore the children of beleeving parents are to be baptized For the clearing of the two last Arguments to avoid tediousnesse having been more large in the former then I intended I refer the Reader to what I have said in the Answer to the former Paper in the vindicating of those Scriptures Act. 2. 16. cited by the other party Arg. Arg. 9 9. They that are holy or Saints are to be baptized Children of beleeving parents are holy or Saints 1 Cor. 7.14 Therefore to be baptized See this Argument cleared in my first Book in Answer to A.R. and hereafter more may come forth for vindicating of that Scripture 1 Cor. 7.14 from exceptions Arg. Arg. 10 10. They that are members of the Church have right to Baptism for Baptism is a solemn sign or pledge of admittance into the Church 1 Cor. 12.12 13. Eph. 5.25 26. But the children of the faithfull are members of the Church 1. So they were amongst the Israelites and never yet dismembred 2. Such promises are made to them as none without the Church have right unto 3. Else they have no interest in Christs love no benefit by his death no purification and sanctification by his bloud nor is there any hope that if they die Infants they shall be presented holy and spotlesse glorious and unblamable before God all which are the peculiar priviledges of the Church not communicable to any but members thereof Eph. 4.25 26 27. So that if the children of Beleevers be not members of the Church they are without Aliens from the Common-wealth of Israel without hope without God whiles children which to affirm is most blasphemous to Gods grace Covenant and nature Therefore the children of Beleevers have right to Baptism Arg. Arg. 11 11. If the duties of the Covenant no lesse belong to Christian parents and their children in the time of the Gospel then they did to Jewish parents and their children under the Law It will follow that the Covenant it self and the priviledges and seal thereof do no lesse belong to them and their children then they did to the Jews and their children But the duties of the Covenant lie no lesse on Christian parents to teach and instruct their children Eph. 6.4 and on their children to learn the fear and nurture of the Lord now in the time of the Gospel then they lay on Jewish parents and children Therefore the Covenant its priviledges and the seal of admission no lesse belongs to Christian parents and their children then they did belong to Jewish parents and their children For the strengthening of the Proposition let these things be considered 1. Ordinarily and in the usual dispensation of the Covenant where God requires like duties he affords like priviledges I speak not of what God may do out of his prerogative or in some extraordinary case setting aside his dealing with men by way of command promise and threatning which is his way of transaction in Covenant 2. If there be any difference in the Christian Church compared with the Jewish and later dispensation of the Covenant compared with the former there is rather an increase of priviledges and lessening of burdens and duties then an increase of burdens and duties and lessening of priviledges 3. If you say otherwise Might not Christian parents if urged to the Religious education of their children by you answer By your judgement they are dogs and swine as being out of Covenant how can we offer holy instruction to them or exercise any Christian discipline over them bring them to publick assemblies or pray for them any otherwise then as Infidels were no this to cast Pearls to swine and give holy things to dogs Mat. 7.6 1 Cor. 5.12 What have we to do to pray with or exercise Discipline and Censure over those that are without What poor incouragements do you give us to bring them up for God when you tell us that they have no right to the Covenant of God Is not your practice in denying us the priviledge of the Covenant for our children and yet requiring the duties thereof worse then that of the false Apostles in putting a yoke on the Disciples necks which neither their fathers nor they were able to bear They indeed urged duties but allowed priviledges according to their apprehension and what had formerly been indeed a priviledge you urge duty but deny priviledges which do greatly ease burdens and facilitate duties But if you say that you do not urge the duty of Christian education of children c. as I fear practice speaks too loud What is this but to professe an intention to overthrow both the duties and priviledges of the Covenant and so bring in Atheism which if it take place in families will soon overspread the whole Church and particular persons 4. The Jews indeed were bound to circumcise their children and observe all those laws Ceremonial and Moral concerning them which were appointed by Moses but they had this ease and encouragement their children were in Covenant and had the seal thereof and they might expect the priviledges and blessings of the Covenant on their children by vertue of Gods promises Covenant and seal Now no such priviledges are allow'd to Christian parents in behalf of their children if these mens opinion stand and the Proposition hold not Obj. But if parents by their care bring them to actual faith and so under the Covenant then they shall enjoy the priviledges of the Covenant and seal thereof Ans 1. If that be all then by your opinion if they dye before actual faith as thousands of the children of the faithfull do in their infancy they perish as Aliens to the Covenant 2. The only way revealed in Scripture for parents first bringing their children under the Covenant is by faith
are so sacred that they cannot without high offence to his Majesty Deut. 4.1 great wrong to Gods people and extream danger to their own souls be denied by any to those to whom they belong God no lesse forbidding detracting from then adding to his word and so much the more dangerous is diminution in this case as it tends to darken the glorious grace of God in the times of the Gospel which times he hath reserved for the more full illustration thereof above former times 2. That those main priviledges which God granted ordinarily to persons in Covenant before Christ as That their children should be in Covenant and admitted to the seal of entrance thereinto should cease in the time of the Gospel is so unagreeable unto the wisdom and goodnesse of God which reserves his greatest and choicest blessings for the last times to be bestowed on his people so contrary to the nature of the Covenant of grace which under Evangelical dispensation is far more glorious and comfortable to the faithfull then under legall so contrary to the end of Christs coming which was to multiply increase and ratifie not cut off diminish or abolish blessings and priviledges to his Church and so contrary to the promises and prophecies concerning the glory of the Church in the times of the Gospel that he deserves to be abhorred of all that know God and Christ and his Covenant that should tell us of a great fall and diminution of priviledges in Evangelicall times compared with legall and yet can bring no pregnant and pertinent Scripture to prove a repeal of those priviledges 3. I grant that where God hath repealed priviledges of the Old Testament which whiles they continued unrepealed were priviledges yet cease to be so when greater answerable thereto yet more sutable to the Gospel-dispensation are vouchsafed in their place in the New Testament they in respect of that old administration are not to be accounted priviledges neither are priviledges in this case properly revoked but altered and inlarged when the old administration indeed is abrogated but the same spiritual blessing is given in a more comfortable manner under a new dispensation As when Christians 1 In stead of the Old Testament Scriptures in the Jews mother tongue which was the Jews priviledge have both Old and New Testament Scriptures translated into a known tongue 2 In stead of the Jews seventh-day-Sabbath Ioh. 19.36 2 Cor. 5.7 have the first day or Lords-day-Sabbath 3 In stead of the Passeover which to the Jews was a Type of Christ to come have Christ exhibited and now represented in the blessed Communion And 4 in stead of Circumcision have Baptism And 5 generally when Christians in stead of the old Legal dispensation of the Covenant of grace which the Jews had have the new Evangelical dispensation of the Covenant Here the same priviledges are continued with inlargement under a new and different garb or dresse 4. It 's granted also that when men have wilfully rejected priviledges and therefore God hath cast them off neither they nor theirs lying under that obstinacy may lay claim to obstinatly rejected priviledges as in the case of the body of the Jews and their seed at this day To the Minor 1. Gen 17.7 Exod 12.48 Ezek. 16.10 21. Mat. 2.15 Act. 3.25 It 's plain that from Abrahams time and so forward to the last of the Prophets yea to the time of our Saviour Christ unto which time Circumcision of children was in force the faithfull had interest in this priviledge that their children were in Covenant and had the seal of admission 2. It 's plain also Gen. 17 10 11 12 13. Rom. 4.11 Rom 3.1 2. Phil. 3.5 that this was a great priviledge or prerogative to the people of God and their children that they were in Covenant and had Circumcision which is called the sign of the Covenant yea the Covenant and the seal of the righteousnesse of faith As to be an Hebrew and Israelite was a great priviledge before Christs coming so to be circumcised 3. That God hath not recalled this grant of Beleevers children having right to the Covenant and seal of entrance it is evident for neither the Scriptures of Old or New Testament speak any such thing but rather the contrary heightning the priviledges of the Gospel above those of the Law but never depressing them Obj. But Circumcision is repealed and abrogated Ans 1. True Ob. in regard of the outward ceremony Ans 1 so the former dispensation of the Covenant of grace in regard of the Legal manner of administration Doth the Covenant it self therefore and duties and priviledges therefore which are essential and perpetual cease Womens going up to Jerusalem to the sacrifices and Passeover ceaseth Must not they therefore come to and partake of the Lords Supper The Church of the Jews which understood the Scriptures of the Old Testament without translation is cast off Must not Gods people now have the Scriptures in their mother language by translation because there is no direct expresse Scripture for that purpose The Jews Sabbath being the seventh day of the week with us called Saturday is abolished Must we not therefore have a Christian Sabbath or Lords day Nay rather we may well gather from the Jewish-beleeving womens priviledge to partake of the Passeover and sacrifices in the Old Testament the priviledge of Christian women to come to the Lords Table and from Jewish Beleevers liberty to have the Scriptures in a known tongue we may gather against the Papists the priviledge of Christian common people of the like nature though in a different way they by the Originall writing we by Translation and from the Jews Sabbath of the seventh day that being appointed by the moral Law we may gather our Christian Sabbath and so from the Jewish infants priviledge to have the seal of initiation into the Covenant and Church we may gather the like priviledge to belong to Christians Infants though in a different ceremony if we compare those priviledges of the Jews in the Old Testament with what is spoken in the New Testament concerning Gospel-priviledges that are analogicall and succedaneous to these legal priviledges and lay together other common grounds warranting unto them these priviledges though there be no expresse immediate particular command for womens partaking at the Lords Table nor for the common peoples enjoying vernaculous translations of the Scripture nor for the Christian Sabbath nor for the baptizing of Infants 2. I answer to this objection If it had been the pleasure of God and Christ that children should in the time of the Gospel lose their former interest in the Covenant and seal thereof and their priviledge of Church-membership as well as he would have Circumcision abolished he would have no lesse revealed that in the Scripture then this But he hath no where revealed either expressely or to be gathered by consequence that whereas untill Christs time Infants of Beleevers were in Covenant Gods children Church-members
29.9 10 11 12. proves either that there were no little children in that assembly or that they had no right to the Covenant both which are expresly contradicted in the context vers 9. Keep therefore saith Moses the words of this Covenant and do them that ye may prosper in all that ye do Vers 10. Ye stand this day all of you before the Lord your God your Captains of your Tribes your Elders and your Officers with all the men of Israel Vers 11. Your little ones your wives and thy stranger that is in the Camp from the hewer of thy wood to the drawer of thy water Vers 12. That thou shouldest enter into Covenant with the Lord thy God and into his Oath which the Lord thy God maketh with thee this day c. Now as Moses made this exhortation to all Israel though the little children amongst them were not able to understand it and be affected with it for the present and yet were present to be admitted into Covenant and had right to the seal of entrance thereinto and this exhortation was for their good as their parents embracing it were with their children received into Covenant and put in minde of their duty in devoting their children to and bringing them up for God and as it might serve for the childrens instruction when they should come to age So Paul and Silas might speak to the whole family amongst whom might be little ones who though they understood not the doctrine and exhortation propounded for the present yet might upon the parents imbracing of this doctrine be received into Covenant with them and to the seal of entrance thereinto and afterward by their parents instructed in that doctrine which for the present they understood not 4. It is said that he and all his were baptized straitway There is no expression or intimation that every one beleeved and made a profession of his faith for themselves severally 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but when the Jaylour had manifested his repentance and faith he and all his were baptized straitway It seems that the faith and profession of the head of the family was sufficient to give right to the members at least to those that did not express their dissent or refusal of it 5. The word having beleeved vers 34. is of the singular number and masculine gender and must be referred to the Jaylour only according to the Grammatical construction 6. Though it should be granted that he and his whole house may be said to beleeve which yet the words of the text prove not It may be well understood so as Abraham and all his family were beleevers in Covenant and circumcised Gen. 18.19 even those that were Infants the Head having made profession of his faith and ingaged himself to take care of all his family should be instructed in the faith and obedience of God And this last answer beside divers of the former general and special may serve for the last Scripture viz. Act. 18.8 And Crispus the chief Ruler of the Synagogue beleeved in the Lord with all his house and many of the Corinthians beleeved and were baptized And indeed how can it be thought probable that such families as the Jaylours the Rulers of the Synagogue and Lydias whose houshold was baptized upon her hearing and beleeving of the word no mention being made of the rests hearing or beleeving should have no children in them Hence I gather thus If at the first preaching of the Gospel the faithfull with their whole families were baptized so soon as God had opened the hearts of the governours to receive the word and beleeve then now the families and children of those that have long professed the Gospel at least so many in their family as do not stubbornly reject Jesus Christ are to be acknowledged within the Covenant and admitted to Baptism the seal of entrance But the former is true Therefore the later Whereas you conclude your first Paper thus Having proved by positive and plain Scripture what we affirm we conclude with the doctrine of the Church of England which maintains the same viz. That repentance and faith is required in persons to be baptized and that Infants by reason of tender age can neither repent nor beleeve which we leave to your consideration and desire your answer Ans How positive and plain the Scriptures cited by you to prove what you affirm and practise are we have seen and leave to the judgement of others 2. In your concluding with the doctrine of the Church of England you might have done well to have told us what you mean by the Church and in what book or place that doctrine is main ained and then we should have given answer thereto if the very citation of the place be not sufficient to answer it and make you ashamed of your citing of it But in the mean space you have our consideration and answer to what you bring out of Scripture By me William Cooke You Preface to your second Paper thus IN stead of an expected answer in writing H.H. and J.B. to this our Paper according to promise we have received another verbal request from you viz. That we would give some reasons why Infants should not be baptized By which we conclude you can give no reason why you baptize them we having so much urged you herein to prove your practice by Scripture having given you so large a proof of our practising the contrary by so many plain truths wherein you may finde reason enough against yours if you have any minde without further cavil to answer them Answer 1. IT was agreeable to reason and equity that seeing you had so fully and frequently expressed your selves against Infant-Baptism you should give your reasons thereof especially we having been so long in possession and being by you charged to want right it was fit that you should be required to produce the grounds of your charge 2. Whereas you conclude so hastily that we can give no reason of our practice we see that though you dislike syllogisms you are pleased with sophisticall Enthymems making a conclusion from so weak a premise 3. How much the many plain written truths prove for your own judgement and practice or against ours we wish you to review in the foregoing Answer and you will there finde that without cavils we had a minde to answer You proceed But that you may see how really we intend the discovery of truth and to satisfie you in every desire that may any way tend thereto we give you these further in answer 1. Because Christ hath no where commanded it And whatsoever is practised as an ordinance of his without institution is Will-worship and Idolatry Ans This your reason in its full strength stands thus Whatsoever is practised as an Ordinance of Christ without an institution is Will-worship and Idolatry But baptizing of Infants is practised as an Ordinance of Christ without any institution Therefore it is Will-worship and
them by the coming of Christ contrary to the Propheticall predictions Evangelical Proclamations and all the faithfuls expectation if whereas before Christs coming their little ones were in Covenant had God for their God and were sealed with the sign of the Covenant now upon this imbracing of Christ whether on the first offer of the Gospel to them by the Apostles as in Act. Act. 2.37 38 39 40 c. Rom. 7 26 27 2. or at their conversion in the latter end of the world Rom. 11. their Infant-children should be left out of the Covenant in Satans Kingdome 3. I will answer one Objection once for all which may seem to have some force to take away those untheological and unevangelical absurdities that these men fall into which here and elsewhere it 's shewed their opinion leads them to it 's this Obj. In the Old Testament indeed the Church had many external visible priviledges consisting in Rites and Ceremonies and therefore they were circumcised and their children but now in the Gospel the priviledges are more spiritual and invisible and therefore it will not follow If some of those visible priviledges be withdrawn that the Gospel-dispensation is not more excellent then the Legal and so if Baptism be denied to Christians children that their state is worse then the state of the Jews Ans This Objection which would seem to take off the former absurdities will appear anon to bring in other absurdities as great or greater or leave the force of the former Arguments untouched For though it be true that amongst the Jews was a worldly Sanctuary and carnal ordinances Heb. 9.1.10 which are now abolished and no visible ordinance left to Christians in the place thereof Yet generally to say that Jews priviledges consisted in Rites and Ceremonies and Christians are spiritual and invisible is to deny spiritual priviledges to the Jews and the outward profession of religion to Christians which is equally to overthrow the power of godlinesse and truth of religion in both then which what more dangerous or absurd 2. But if they will leave generals and come to the point in hand they must either deny that there is any such outward ordinance as Baptism left to the Church of the New Testament being of the same use for the main and in the place of Circumcision Col. 2.11 12. which to do were to contradict plain Scripture or if they grant it their shifting distinction of visible and spiritual priviledges cannot help them for here by their own concession it cannot take place seeing that they yield that in this case a visible priviledge is afforded alike to both Churches Jewish and Christian 3. This Objection should be acknowledged to say something to the purpose if it could be proved 1. That the Jews were only under an external Covenant without spiritual graces 2. That their priviledges were only external 3. That Christians have now only spiritual blessings bestowed on them 4. That ordinarily God now gives his Covenant and spiritual blessings thereof without any visible means or external way of dispensing the same All or any of which to assert were very false and wicked But when it is acknowledged or at least may by plentifull Scripture be proved 1. That the Jews and their children had interest in spiritual blessings of the Covenant as truly as we though in a different manner and measure 2. That we Christians are under a visible dispensation as well as they 3. That both dispensations have had alike each a visible sign seal or pledge of admission into Covenant 4. That to enjoy these signs and seals have been and still are a great benefit to them that have them according to Gods appointment 5. That now Beleevers have need of the seals of the Covenant to them and their children to confirm their faith in Gods mercy to them and theirs and ingage and incite them to obedience as well as the beleeving Jews That for themselves Beleevers need a seal or pledge is granted by all parties that acknowledge that God who institutes nothing needlesse or superstuous in his Church hath instituted Baptisme as a standing Ordinance for Christians And that for their children they need a seal as well as the Jews for their children or Christian Professours for themselves may appear thus 1. Have not Christians children souls capable of salvation as well as the Jews 2. Is it not for Gods glory to be visibly known the God of Christians children as well as of the Jews 3. Aâ—e Christian parents better able to beleeve Gods fatherly federall love to their children and devote them to his worship without his applying a seal unto them then they can beleeve his love to themselves and devote themselves to God without a seal or pledge If they can sufficiently beleeve in God for their children and devote them to Christ without the seal for a pledge or ingagement surely they might as well have beleeved and obeyed without a seal for themselves if so no seal had been instituted at all for God will make no superâ—â—uous institutions But a seal is instituted therefore they needed it if for themselves then for their children 4. Are Christian parents more carelesse of their childrens salvation or Gods being glorified by their children then the Jews were that none may say Then sure they no lesse need to see them sealed into the Covenant wherein they may be ingaged to glorifie God and God to save their souls Or 5. have Christians more obscure and sparing discovery by promise and precept concerning their own priviledges and duties that they should need the seal and pledge of Baptism for themselves but more full and clearer promises and commands concerning their childrens priviledges and duties then either the Jews had for their children or Christian Professours have for themselves that in the case of Christians children there should be no use of a seal and pledge though the Jews children did and Christian Professours do need a seal I think none will say this 6. That no Scripture or reason can be given to prove that Beleevers children in the time of the Gospel are debarred from the Covenant and seal thereof of which the beleeving Jews children had been long in possession and some more eminent priviledge bestowed on Christians children which the Jews children never had to compensate that losse of being driven from the Covenant and seal when I say these six things are at the least for the greater part acknowledged and the other may be easily proved at least so many as are necessary for this purpose it must needs be a very contradictory thing to say That the Gospel-dispensation is more glorious and comfortable then the Legal and beleeving Gentiles as much or more blessed then the Jews and yet Christians children driven from the Covenant of grace and seal thereof which the Jews children were under 4. Having first propounded something in general for the clearing of the whole Argument secondly confirmed the Proposition by some
to accept the Covenant for themselves and their children Gen. 17.7 They that hold out a new way must shew some Scripture for the abolishing of the Old and establishing the New or must expect no regard from those that are not willing to be deluded 3. Shew the ground of this distinction Jewish children were to be educated for God as being under Covenant and seal but the children of Christians only that they may be brought under the Covenant and seal when they come to actual faith professed in their own person What Scripture or reason puts such a vast difference between them that those should be brought up Religiously as actually in Covenant and sealed these only as in a remote possibility to be brought to the Covenant and seal 5. The fifth consideration will not only strengthen the Proposition but also further answer the foregoing objection It 's this If the children of the faithfull be not already actually in Covenant from their infancy and so interested in the priviledges of the Covenant not only parents may be afraid to instruct them in Scripture Catechise and pray with them require their presence in the Congregation and family duties and their sanctification of the Lords day which are both duties and priviledges of the Covenant least they should cast Pearls to swine and judge them that are without But also the children if urged hereunto may demand of their parents What have you to do to require of us any Christian duties or to correct us for the neglect thereof or for the commission of any sin against the Gospel as profanation of the Lords day blaspheming Christ Christian Religion or the Scripture c. Might not they plead liberty of conscience and say What have you to do to judge us that are without we are to chuse our Religion and as free to worship Mahomet as Christ The Jews indeed had authority to bring up their children in the Jewish Religion as being devoted thereto from their infancy by the Covenant and seal thereof under which they were but now we children of Christians are under no such priviledges nor ingagements Which practice I fear will be the genuine fruit of this opinion argued against and swallowed down as no absurdity by those that are poisoned with Anabaptisticall fancies but must needs be detested by all that prize the Covenant of God and love Christ sincerely or their own and childrens souls spiritually To clear the Assumption let these things be considered Gen. 18.19 Exod. 12.26 27. Iosh 24.15 Psal 78.5 6. Prov. ◠3 4 5. 2 Tim. 3.15 1. How can it be doubted but that all those morall duties that lay upon Abraham and his children and the Israelites and their children enjoining the one party to teach and the other to learn the way and commandments of God lye now upon Christian parents and their children 2. Paul greatly commends Timothies happinesse and his parents care in that he had been brought up from his infancy in holy Scripture which he would not have done if either Timothy had not been in Covenant from his infancy for what have those to do with the tables of the Covenant that are strangers or aliens to the Covenant or that example had not been of moral equity to be imitated by Christian parents and their children in the time of the Gospel 3. That Scripture cited to prove the Assumption contains a full expresse charge which lies on all Christian parents to teach 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and children to learn the fear and information of the Lord Eph. 6.4 which argues also that children of the faithfull are disciples of the Lord to be trained up in his school being dedicated to his discipline and nurture 4. Were not this so that moral Law which the Apostle in special manner above all the rest urgeth upon Christians children would be abrogated or greatly weakened as to the children of Christian parents at least untill they come to actual faith Children saith he obey your parents in the Lord. Eph 6.1 2. And Honour thy father and mother which is the first commandment with promise For how can they obey them in the Lord when the parents have no authority to command them any thing in the name of the Lord they not being under his yoke and Covenant How can parents challenge honour from their children by virtue of Gods command when they bring not up their children for God and to his honour Or how can children Religiously and Christianly honour their parents that have left them in the state of Infidels Especially considering this commandment Honour thy father c. as it was given to the Israelites supposed their children to be in Covenant with their parents and to have the like interest with their parents in the Covenant and its seal and the like ingagement to the duties thereof in respect of outward dispensation which is denied now to the children of Christians unlesse the Assumption yea and the main point in controversie be granted Twelfthly I argue thus Arg. 12 Children of beleeving parents must either be baptized while children or while able to professe the faith or not at all 1. This last your practice shews you will not hold and it were unreasonable to think that their being born of beleeving parents should deprive them of this priviledge seeing in the Old Testament this procured to children the seal of entrance 2. That they should be kept without Baptism untill they be able to make a profession of faith is no where commanded neither can any Scripture-example or good reason be given for it 1. Not commanded for the command which was given for baptizing of professours of faith and repentance did expressely and immediatly belong to those Jews and Gentiles which had not been born of Christian parents 2. Neither is there Scripture-example for it for the examples we reade of were according to Commission none as we reade in Scripture that were born after their parents were Christians were baptized when grown Scripture speaks only of those that had been Jews and Infidels children that were baptized by the Apostles 3. Neither stands it with right reason that Beleevers children should be left untill they professe their faith in the same state with Jews Turks and Infidels considering Gods promises and Covenant Therefore it remains that they must be baptized while Infants this being most agreeable 1. To Gods dealing with Abraham the father of the faithfull that children while Infants should be admitted with their beleeving parents and that Covenant and seal thereof 2. To the nature of this Sacrament which is to be administred the first opportunity to persons known to be in Covenant and members of the Church 3. To all those commands and examples of baptizing new converted Jews and Infidels for as their conversion did put them into the Covenant of grace whereupon they had right to the seal of entrance So these Infants being born of Christian parents doth inright them to the Covenant