place wherein Christians had their name given them at the first wherein I find no such thing The proofe lyeth upon him who affirmeth it to be sufficient not upon me who deny it 2. The force of Negative Arguments from Scripture would be none at all if such answers were any thing worth For when in arguing against popish devises we bring them to the rule where no such thing is appoynted or approved by this evasion they might easily seeme to answer any such Argument For instance when to shew the unlawfullnes of chreame oyle spittle exorcisme c. in baptisme we bring them to the institution and to primitive patternes where such things were not appoynted nor approved how easily might they answer as he doeth how can it be proved from hence that such as used those things sinned in so doing 3. Suppose an Anabaptist should put him to prove from that text that infants were baptised or a Libertine should put him to prove from thence that those that were to be baptised were presented in the Congregation would not he thinck himselfe unreasonably dealt withall To conclude that place of Scripture sufficiently proveth that for which it was alleadged namely that beleiving and turning to the Lord are the characters of Christians and that joyning with a true particular visible Church where it can be done is an evidence of beleiving and turning to the Lord. For so I find them joyned in that Text. Act. 11.26 Let him prove all those whose infants are admitted to baptisme in that place to be such as in respect of externall profession may in the judgment of reasonable charity be judged such and their saying yea or nodding of the head or bowing the body shall make no difference betweene us 2. For the second text Gen 17.10 It can not be shewed sayth he that more questions were propounded in old times to circumcised parents that brought their children to be circumcised then are now propounded to those that bring their children to be baptised or that circumcision was denyed those who shewed their consent and willingnes to embrace the Covenant in such breife answers and gestures as we speake of Reply 1. The end for which that text was brought was to shew that none were circumcised but the infants of those that were in the Covenant How they declared their embracing of the Covenant if he demand the Scripture elsewhere sheweth viz by their joyning with the Church of God in walking according to the lawes delivered unto their fathers by the ministry of Moses And this they declared more by their workes in they re ordinary conversation then by words at Circumcision In which case we will not much stand upon words if the parties are joyned to any true Church now under the Gospell as they were then to the Church of the Iewes under the Law 2. This answer is as a sword wherewith he woundeth his owne cause For he sayth they were circumcised persons wbo brought their children to be circumcised and we know that such were of the Church of Jsraell But many for whose admittance he pleadeth are children of such parents as are of no Church and some of them may be such for aught he knoweth as never were baptised 3. Text. Rom 4.11 This Text was alleadged to shew that they must be beleivers at least one of them in externall profession whose infants may be admitted to baptisme which is as Circumcision was the seale of righteousnes that is by fayth Against this he answereth nothing and hereby doeth tacitly and implicitly confesse that the seale properly by due right may be administred to none but to beleivers to whom the righteousnes which is by fayth appertaineth so farr as men may by the judgment of charity conceive and apprehend from which how farr they are against whom we except is obvious to him that will judge by a rule Let us now consider what he sayth He sayth Abraham is there called the Father of them that beleive whether they were members of a visible Church or not And for aught we know that were not of his family nor under the government or guidance of any particular Church If a sonne or bondman of Ephron or of any Amorite or Canaanite were then brought unto the knowledge of the true God why might not the infant of such an one have bene circumcised though not living in a visible Church Reply 1. All these words are besides the matter For if all he sayth were granted yet it proveth not that all those may be called beleivers and so Christians whom they admitt to Baptisme which he should have done if he would have justified their custom of baptising their infants under the name of Christians children who can not be accounted beleivers according to the sense of this text 2. His wholl answer is made of mere conjectures which cannot establish the conscience of any man in a well grounded persuasion of the warrantablenes of that action concerning the lawfullnes whereof it doubteth that it may be done in faith Which to me is a cleare evidence of his want of a rule to beare him out therein which if he could have found his expressions would not have bene so conjecturall and uncertaine 3. To the particular conjectures First Whereas he sayth that Abraham is the Father of the faithfull whether they were members of a visible Church or not That the vanity of his conjecture in reference to the matter in question may appeare we must cōsider the drift of the place which is to confirme what he had formerly said concerning the speciall universality or community of the subject of justification whereof he began to speake in Chap. 3. v 22. and afterwards prosecuted v 29. shewing that one the same God is the God both of the Iewes and of the Gentiles and therefore doeth justifye them boath one and the same way to wit by fayth though the one be circumcised the other not which he proveth by the example of Abraham to whom faith was imputed for righteousnes being uncircumcised and when he was circumcised it was not that he might be justified by circumcision but that the righteousnes which he had by fayth being uncircumcised might be sealed to him by that signe Now in that Abraham was justifyed by fayth before he was circumcised hence he became the father of all those that beleive among the Gentiles who are uncircumcised and in that he was circumcised afterwards that the righteousnes of fayth might be sealed to him hence he became the father of those who beleived among the Iewes and were circumcised Thence the conclusion followeth Therefore according to Abrahams example righteousnes is imputed to those that beleive among the uncircumcised Gentiles as well as among the circumcised Iewes But in what order cometh Abraham to be a father to the beleiving Iew In what sense is Abraham called their father As he is an example of fayth v 12. and of righteousnes imputed by fayth in this 11. v. And they
men in Scripture will be found to be a sinne Secondly that this practise agreeth not with the good customes and practises of the Churches of Christ will appeare if we examine the story of times from the first institution of this ordinance First in the Iewish Church circumcision whereunto Baptisme answereth being a Sacrament of the same use that it was of was by Gods appointment Gen. 17.7.8.9.10 11.12.13 Acts. 7.8 Rom. 9.11 a token of the covenant made with Abraham and with his seed after him to be a God unto him and to his seed after him which the Apostle calleth a seale of the righteousnes which is by fayth and therefore by Gods ordinance it was limited to the men children of eight dayes old of his seed or that were borne in his house or bought with his money of any stranger which was not of his seed So that to circumcise any others who were not of that seed to whom this covenant belonged was a sinne And therefore the holy fathers were carefull to follow this rule in keeping this signe joyned with the covenant in those whom they circumcised Mat. 3.6.7 c. Mark 1.4.5 c. Luke 3.3.16 Afterwards Iohn Baptist walked in the same stepps and by the same rule mutatis mutandis administred Baptisme in that Church whereof he was a member requiring of all that came to his baptisme a profession of repentance and amendment of life for remission of sinnes whereof Baptisme was the seale preached Christ unto them This ordinance our Lord Christ after his resurrection established to continue in the Christian Churches giving a commission to his disciples to preach the Gospell to the Gentiles Mat. 28.19 Mark 16 15.16 to gather Churches amongst them and to baptise all such as should beleive throughout the world as a testimony to them that the righteousnes of fayth did belong to them also and not to the Church of the Iewes only Acts. 2.37.38.39.40.41 42.44.46 47. Accordingly the Apostles servants of Christ were carefull to observe this rule in their administring baptisme Thus Peter when he saw those 3000 soules pricked in their hearts preached unto them concerning repentance remission of sinnes Christ the promise baptisme fayth and amendment of life baptised those that gladly received his word and testifyed the same by joyning together in the profession thereof Act. 8.12.13.14 The same course Phillip tooke with the Church that was gathered in Samaria where many were baptised but none till they professed their beleife of the Gospell Act. 9.11 13.14.15 16.17 and their receiving the word of God and therefore it is said expresly when they beleived Phillip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God and the name of Iesus Christ they were baptised both men and woemen when Ananias was comanded to goe and baptise Paul he objected against it at first till the Lord assured him that he was one to whom that seale of the covenant belonged Act. 10 43.44.47 48. and then he went and did it When Peter and those that came with him sawe that the Holy Ghoast fell on Cornelius and those that were assembled at that time in his house whilest he spake these words To him give all the Prophets witnesse Act. 8.36 37.38 Act. 16 31.32.33 that thorough the name of Iesus whosoever beleiveth in him shall receive remission of sinnes Peter demanded Can any man forbid water that these should not be baptised which have received the Holy Ghoast as well as we And then they were baptised To conclude this catalogue Phillip did not baptise the Eunuch though he desired it till he had given him satisfaction by professing his fayth in expresse words nor Paul the Iaylour and his house-hold till it appeared unto him that they beleived on the Lord Iesus Nor is there any example in the Scripture varying from this course to warrant such a promiscuous administration of baptisme in a place where such heterogeneall mixtures are of people of all sorts sects as Amsterdam is In the times after the first Century what care was taken concerning the persons whom they admitted to baptisme The storyes are cleare concerning those that were adulti though we find litle or nothing concerning infants only that they were baptised by vertue of that right they had to it in their beleiving parents But that which we find concerning the course which they tooke with those of yeares may serve to shew their high esteeme of this ordinance and how farr they were from this promiscuous manner of administring it though we purpose not to examine whether the first simplicity used by the Apostles was in all things observed by them nor how exactly they followed the rule in every particular They divided those that were turned from Gentilisme to imbrace the Christian Religiō into three sorts whom they distinguished by severall names 1. Whilest they were to be catechised and instructed in the grounds of Christan Religion they were called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Audientes Catechumenists hearers 2. Afterwards having bene compeleatly instructed and earnestly now desiring to be admitted to the Sacrament they were called Competentes petitioners 3. Being found meet they were baptised and then and not before they were called fideles and perfecti perfect and beleivers viz in respect of the outward state and order of the Church with reference to those degrees whereby they must come to be baptised And when they did baptise them a publick tryall was made of their fitnes which aftertimes called Scrutinium the Scrutiny and hereof there were two parts 1. an abrenunciation 2. a profession of fayth 1. The abrenunciation was expressed by the party desiring Baptisme solemnly in expresse words in the Greeke Churches 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And this part they accounted of so much importance as that without it either in word or deed expressed they accounted none fit to be baptised 2. The profession of the fayth was openly made and in the hearing of the people by him that desired baptisme some times in a continued speech but more frequently by way of Dialogue and by certaine articles Ambros de Sacram lib. 2. C. Credis in Deum patrem omnipotentem Credo Credis in Dominum Iesum Christum Credo Credis in Spiritum Sanctum Credo This custom at first instituted for and used only by those of yeares who being converted from Gentilisme to Christianity desired baptisme was in aftertimes applyed to the baptisme of infants whose suretyes answered for them Beza epist 8. This came in by abuse sayth Beza and giveth too much advantage to the Anabaptists For if baptisme may not be administred without a profession of fayth present in the infant which if they meane not why is the infant asked concerning its fayth in the suretyes at that time sayth he why stay we not with the Anabaptists which God forbid till the child can professe its owne fayth And therefore elsewhere sayth Beza Beza epist 12. As
are called his children who are justifyed according to his example by beleiving And these his children are of two sorts 1. Invisible to men but knowne to God onely Of these the question is not 2. Visible to mē in respect of outward profession manifesting their fayth And concerning these if the question be In what order is he the father of a beleiving Iew and he his child It will be answered he must professe the fayth of Abraham and testifye it by being circumcised Now none were circumcised but those who were joyned to the visible Church of the Iewes In like manner if it be demanded In what order is he visibly the father of a beleiving Gentile and he his child The answer will be He must receive baptisme a signe and seale of righteousnes by fayth which is come into the place of circumcision and this belongeth onely to those infants whose parents testifye their fayth by being joyned to some visible Church among the Gentiles as circumcision belonged to those onely whose parents were joyned to that visible Church of the Iewes So that though Abraham may be a father in some sense of many that beleive who neither are joyned to any Church or baptised yet visibly and so farr as appeareth to men he is not a father to such much lesse to such as regard not baptisme or refuse willfully or carelesly neglect to be joyned to a particular visible Church For of those the question is So much of his first conjecture His second conjecture he thus expresseth For aught we can find there might be some beleivers in Abrahams time not of his family nor under the government or guidance of any particular Church Reply To what use this conjecture serveth I know not It may be there were and it may be not In such cases a man may safely be ignorant of that concerning which the Scripture is silent But suppose there were what will he inferr thence That they were circumcised though not of the Iewish Church How will that follow There may be many beleivers now in some parts of the world that are not yet baptised and so there might be beleivers then that were not circumcised If we speake de posse it will not be denyed What then Will he gather thence that they aught to be circumcised though they were not of Abrahams family nor joyned with that Church I deny it for this reason Circumcision was a seale of the Covenant which God made with Abraham concerning Christ that should come as concerning the flesh of Isaack and so of Iacob of whom were the 12 tribes who were the Israelites Rom 9.4.5 to whom pertayned the Adoption and the glory and the Covenants and the giving of the law and the service of God and the promises whose are the Fathers and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came as Paul sheweth So that as in Abrahams time none were bound to be circumcised but those that were of his family as being borne there Gen 17.12.13 or bought and so brought thither which were not of his seed So afterwards none were bound to be circumcised which were not borne in the family of Iacob and the Patriarchs or joyned to them and after their coming out of Aegipt none were bound to be circumcised but the children of the Iewes then the onely Church of God and those that desired to joyne unto them His third conjecture is to as litle purpose If a sonne of Ephron the Hittite or of a Canaanite were brought to the knowledge of the true God why might not the infant of such an one be circumcised though not living in a visible Church Reply It concerneth him to shew prove that he might For I deny that Circumcision by Gods ordinance belonged to any in Abrahams time but to those that joyned with his family or after his time to any but to those that joyned with the onely visible Church that then was in his posterity descending from Isaack and Jacob lineally and this assertion I ground upon the institution of Circumcision expressed in Gen. 17. But as any one then so joyning to that Church might be circumcised so now they that professe a right fayth testifye it by joyning with any Church so professing may be baptised The 4. Text is Act. 2.39 which was alleadged to shew that they must be called at least one of them whose infants may be admitted to Baptisme because the promise belongeth onely to such whereof baptisme is the seale And the context sheweth that those 3000 soules declared that they were called 1. By theire being pricking in their hearts for crucifying Christ v. 37. 2. By their joyfull receiving the word that Peter spake to them concerning repentance baptisme the promise and those other words wherein he exhorted them to save themselves from that froward generation vers 38.39.40 Which joyfull receiving of this word was declared by their joyning together into a Church communion wherein they continued steadfastly in the Apostles doctrine and fellowship and in breaking of bread and prayers vers 42. And to this Church the Lord added dayly such as should be saved vers 47. Now let us see what he sayth to this Text. He granteth that the promise is made unto such as are called But concerning the characters of those that are called he seemeth too large in his judgment for thus he sayth Who can shew that such are not to be accounted outwardly called and in some measure within the priviledge of the Covenant who being themselves already baptised and withdrawing themselves from other sects and Churches doe bring their infants unto the true Church to be baptised being there also ready to make a publick profession of their fayth before the wholl Congregation Reply That I may say no worse the answer is too slight whether the subject of the question be respected or the words of the Text. For. 1 he supposeth that they are persons already Baptised But say I how shall that appeare in persons unknowne if there be not liberty of a praecedent examination 2. He supposeth that they withdrew themselves from other Sects But what advantageth it that a man withdraw him selfe from all Sects when he joyneth himselfe with no true Church Is not he as farr from being justly accounted one that is called who is of no Religion as he that is of a false Religion Who knoweth not that in calling there are two termes not onely that from which men are called namely the kingdom and power of darknes Rom. 1.6 1. Cor. 1.2 but also that whereunto a man is called namely the kingdom of Christ which is visibly set up in Church assemblies whereunto when men have bene orderly joyned they are said to be called Gal. 1.6 Coll. 3.15 and to be called in one body And so how can a company of Atheists and Libertines who reject all Church communion be accounted persons called in this sense 3. He supposeth that those persons thus withdrawing themselves from all sects
it is not safe vllius jurare in verba magistri to rest upon the authority of any man without a warrant from the Scripture Secondly Compare what was alleadged out of Beza himselfe in my 1. Reason in this Section with this passage and what Mr Cartwright answereth to some part of this in the same Section the Reader will see that it may easily be declared that this sentence will not helpe the Advocates for promiscuous baptizing Thirdly Consider the state of the question as Beza maketh it and it will appeare that the infants for whose Baptisme he pleadeth are of such as we may rationally judge to be ingrafted into Christ and elect of God only being fallen by infirmity are delivered unto Sathan that godly sorrow may worke in them repentance But what is this for the justifying of a promiscuous administration of Baptisme to all that are offered in such a place as Amsterdam concerning many of whom we can not rationally have any such persuasion Fourthly The foure things supposed by Beza as cases wherein he dare not give liberty of baptising serve to discover the evill of this custom whereunto that wrighting would have bound me For if all that are presented though they refuse to make knowne before who or what they are must be received may not the infāts of many whose case is desperate in the judgment of the Church who are not only Apostates from it but persecutors yea even the children of Iewes Mores and others such like without the parents consent be offered to baptisme and so be baptised which were to profane the Sacrament 2. Observe how timerously Beza expresseth himselfe about the parents on whom the right of the infant to baptisme dependeth in this case whereby it may seeme that he was not fully cleare in it himselfe Fifthly The cautions and provisoes which Beza giveth to be observed in the baptising of such children of excommunicates as he there speaketh of doe strongly condemne the disorder of that place where the father is so farr from being admonished publickly of his sinne that he is not so much as knowne or inquired after and where they are so farr from taking care for the holy education of the child that they regard not by whom it is presented nor what becommeth of it afterwards 2. De consc lib. 4. cap. 27. Secondly Dr. Ames commeth next to be considered and a passage in his booke of cases to be examined least some ignorantly others willfully wrest it to the countenancing of this disorder which to be farr from his meaning himselfe doeth abundantly declare in the same place For he so expresseth his opinion concerning the baptisme of diverse sorts of infants there mentioned as it may appeare that his judgment was against promiscuous baptising all that are brought according to the controverted custom which I demonstrate thus Resp 2 First he requireth 2. things in such infants as necessary to their admittance 1. That they be in the covenant of Grace in respect of outward profession and aestimation at least in one of the parents 2. That there is hope that they shall hereafter be educated und instructed in the same covenant Both which he affirmeth upon the same ground which we layd in the first Reason viz Because Baptisme is a signe and seale of the covenant But how can they be esteemed Christian parents or what hope can there be of the education of such infants in the covenant when both the parents sureties are altogether unknowne to the Church and that in such a place as Amsterdam where is such a confluence of people of all nations and Sects Resp 3 Secondly He affirmeth that Baptisme doeth most properly belong to those infants whose parents at least one of them is in the Church not out of it And this he affirmeth upon the former ground viz Because Baptisme is the seale of the covenant But who knoweth not that many people are in Amsterdam who are not in the Church but out of it in many respects yet none must be refused that are presented to Baptisme Thirdly He supposeth that those whose parents are unknowne are in charity to be accounted Christians when there is not just cause of presuming the contrary But howsoever this might carry some shew of reason with it in such places where all the inhabitants professe religion and are joyned to some Church yet in such a place as Amsterdam how can a man presume otherwise then the contrary of many that may be offered to Baptisme Fourthly He professeth that a difference must be put betweene the infants of those who in some sort by profession belong to the Church yet doe openly breake the covenant of God and the children of others in the manner of their admittance to Baptisme viz that for the former sort what is required by the Covenant and wanting in them must be supplyed by others And for this he giveth two Reasons 1. Because a distinction must be observed in all holy things betweene the cleane and uncleane 2. Because else the ordinances of God cannot be preserved from all pollution For these reasons he doeth not allow the Baptisme of excommunicates unlesse they have fit suretyes to undertake for their education nor of bastards unlesse their parents have professed their repentance or other godly persons will take upon them the care of their education nor of papists unlesse they be presented by fit suretyes who have power over thē for theire education But is any such care taken any such course observed about the admission of such to Baptisme in Amsterdam Thirdly Mr. Attersoll shall shut up this discourse of times Of the Sacram of Bapt. 2. booke ch 6 whom the Reader may suspect to favour this custom if something be not noated by us to prevent mistakes Now howsoever he may seeme to be some what large in his judgement this way and to yeeld more then either Mr. Beza or Dr. Ames have done in this point it may be more then himselfe would have done if he had fully understood the disorder against which we testifye yet the limitations and cautions which he propoundeth doe discover the evill of that practise concerning which the present question is P. 218 For 1. he denyeth that the infants of Turkes or Iewes may be baptised against the liking and good will of their parents But it is very possible and probable that some such may be offered to Baptisme by any that have stollē them or for some other reason for ought the minister knoweth or demandeth in that place P. 219. 2. In the case of the children of impaenitent persons he supposeth two things without which his plea for their Baptisme falleth 1. That they are so borne in the Church and of it that the Church may be said to be as it were their Mother 2. That they are in the Covenant in regard of their Elders of whom they discend as the Iewes were in Abraham though their next parents were wicked P.
220. 221. 3. That they have such suretyes as will undertake their education in the true knowledge of God and faith in Iesus Christ But Js it the manner of that place to be satisfyed about these things before they receive them to Baptisme Doe they enquire whether the infant was borne in the Church of what parents or forefathers or how the suretyes will undertake to educate the child in that faith To conclude that all misunderstanding of Mr. Attersoll may be prevented let the Reader consider one or two conclusions by the same Authour in the same chapter P. 211. 1. Conclus That besides the joyning of the word to the outward signe there is necessarily required a fit person to be partaker of the Sacrament 2. Conclus Baptisme is a coÌ„mon seale But as all have not interest to the pasture herbage and priviledges of a coÌ„mons but only such as are Tenants according to the custom of the Manner so all have not title to Baptisme being a SacrameÌ„t of the Church but only such as are the Lords people according to the tenour of the Covenant Apply these conclusions to this custom against which we plead it will be granted that what ever may seeme to an unwary Reader in the slight and superficiall reading of that passage in his booke yet indeed it doeth not serve to justifye the practise about which the question is From the premises I argue thus If such a promiscuous administration of baptisme as the wrighting of those five ministers requireth be contrary to the good customs of the best Churches it is unlawfull But such a promiscuous baptising c. is contrary to the good customs of the best Churches Therefore it is unlawfull So much shall suffice for declaring the grounds whereupon I refused this custom Now let us consider their pretences for it 1. Pretences for it so farr as we can collect out of that wrighting of the five Ministers or otherwise Pretence 1 First pretence None will present their children to be baptised but Christians Ans 1. It is a conclusion amongst the schoolemen that Aq secund secundae art 12. conclu Non sunt infidelium pueri invitis parentibus baptisandi Children of infidells are not to be baptised without theyr parents consent Wherein they suppose that such a case is possible If so why may not the child of a Iew or Moore or Indian be brought by some one or other to baptisme without the parents consent or knowledge And the manner of Amsterdam is to refuse none that are presented by whomsoever whereby it is very possible that some infants may be baptised whose parents are no Christians though the parents would not have them presented 2. Even parents who themselves doe not receive christian Religion may be content to have theyr children baptised either for the gifts sake which are customarily bestowed by those whom they call Godfathers and Godmothers upon the children or for some other advantages respects which in those countryes where Religion hath the countenance of the higher powers may be expected thereby Gen. 34.3 21.22.2 Speed Chron. lib 7. Cap. 36. Have we not read of the Shichemites which were circumcised yet received not the Religion of the Jewes The Chronicles of our land can tell us how the Danes being vanquished propounded to Elfred the 24. Saxon Monarch in England for obtayning of their peace that their king should receive baptisme by which policy he got the country of the East Angles by the gift of K. Elfred his Godfather In those times it was usuall to make baptisme a condition and to compell men to baptisme as king Edmond did the Danes to make them become his subjects which being done they did soone cast off both fayth and fealty at once And are not many of the mind of that Roman pretext of whom Ierom speaketh who said scoffingly to Damasus Facite me Romanae â—rbis espiscopum ero protinus Christanus I will conclude this passage with the censure of learned Dr. Whittaker Whittak praelect de Sacram. p. 291. 292. Absurdè faciunt ij qui infidelium liberos baptizant si parentes volunt baptizari quasi ecclesia suo arbitrio quibus vellet baptismum dare posset They doe absurdly who baptise the children of infidells if the parents be willing to have them baptised as if the Church at their owne pleasure can baptise whom they will Pretence 2 Second pretence If the parents be no Christians yet the suretyes are Ans 1. The customary use of suretyes in baptising infants though it seeme ancient by the mention that is made of them in the Synod of Ments Synod Mâ—gunt Can. 47. Aug. Serm 116. 163. Epist 23. ad Bonif Tertull de Bapt. cap. 18. under the name of Compatres spirituales spirituall fathers and mothers and before that in Augustine under the name of Sponsores and fidejussores suretyes and before him in Tertullian under the name of offerentes presenters yet it is not from the Ancient of dayes it was not from the beginning neither in the first institution of baptisme nor the practise of the primitive Churches in the first Century The first originall of this custom seemeth to be this that they that tooke the child from the minister when it was baptised should be called spirituall fathers and mothers that the difference betweene the first and second birth of the child might be signifyed it being absurd as they thought that the same man should be the father of the child both in respect of generation and of regeneration Hence the Papists drew a spirituall kindred and multiplyed absurd inventions about it Which very originall and abuse it being not of Apostolicall institution should make the Reformed Churches suspect it especially seing it is not of necessary use the charge of educating the child lying upon the parents and the wholl Church being witnesses 2. Admit that in some cases there may be a lawfull use of speciall witnesses or suretyes yet can these give the infant a right to baptisme which had none in the parents That the Covenant is made with parents for themselves and their children Gen 17. 1 Cor 7. and that thereby the children are holy in the parents we read but where doe we read so much of suretyes 3. Admit that in some suretyes the children have a right unto baptisme viz such as were of Abrahams family Gen. 17.3 borne in his house or bought with his money and so such as are members of Christian familyes in a like state yet will it thence follow that such suretyes as many times present children to baptisme in that place partake of the same priviledge of whose familyes the infants are not members nor are their familyes ordered like Abrahams themselves also are some of them notoriously wicked others of them unknowne to the Church and many of them such as have no power to see the child educated and it may be shall never see it after that day Such an one