of the Parents had not been a Beleever and so by his being a believer sanctified his unbeleeving Wife their children must have been Bastards whereas wee know their children had been legitimate being born in lawfull Wedlocke though neither of the Parents had been a beleever Marriage being a second Table duty is lawfull though not sanctified to Pagans as well as to Christians and the legitimation or illegitimation of the issue depends not upon the Faith but upon the marriage of the Parents let the marriage be lawfull and the issue is legitimate whether one or both or neither of the Parents be beleevers or infidels take but away lawfull marriage betwixt the Man and the Woman and the issue is legitimate whether one or both or neither of the Parents are beleevers or infidels withall if the children of Heathens be Bastards and the marriage of Heathens no marriage then there is no adultery among heathens and so the seventh Commandement is altogether in vaine in the words of it as to them Besides St. Pauls reason had no strength in it supposing the Text were to be interpreted as these men would have it Their doubt say they was that their marriage was an unlawfull wedlocke and so consequently their children Bastards now mark what kind of answer they make the Apostle give Were yee not lawfull man and wife your children were Bastards but because the unbeleeving wife is sanctified in the husband c. because your marriage is a lawfull marriage your children are legitimate What strength of reason is in this if this had been their doubt or question whether their marriage were not a nullity the Apostle by his Apostolick authority might have definitively answered without giving a reason your marriage is good and your children legitimate but if Paul will go about to satisfie them by reason and prove them to be mistaken it behoved him to give such a reason which should have some weight in it but this hath none set their doubt as these men frame it and the Apostles answer as these men interpret him together and you will easily see the invalidity of it We doubt say the Corinthians we are not lawfull man and wife and that therefore our children are bastards No saith Paul you are mistaken and I prove it thus Were ye not lawfull man and wife your children were bastards but because ye are lawfull man and wife your children are not bastards Is there any Argument or proofe in this Fourthly according to this their interpretation the Apostles answer could no wayes have reached to the quieting of their consciences there doubt was whether according to the example in Ezra they were not to put away their wives and children as not belonging to God as being a Seed whom God would not own among his people now what kind of quiet would this have given them to tell them that their children were not Bastards We know the Jewes did not put away their Bastards as not belonging to the Covenant of God Phares and Zarah and Jepthah and innumerable others though bastards were circumcised and not cut off from the people of God And whereas some object out of Deut. 23.2 That Bastards did not belong to the Covenant among the Jews because God there forbad a bastard to come into the Congregation of the Lord I Answer that is meant onely of bearing Office in the Church or some such like thing and not of being under the Covenant belonging to the Church as is manifest not only by what hath been now said of Jepthah and others who were circumcised and offered Sacrifices and drew nigh to God as well as any other but the very text alledged gives sufficient light that it cannot be meant otherwayes because in that place who ever is an Eunuch or wounded in his stones hath the same exclusion from the Congregation of the Lord and I hope no man will dare to say that none such are holy to the Lord if they should the Scripture is full enough against them That putting away in Ezra was of an higher nature then bare illegitimation and therefore it behooved the Apostle to give another manner of satisfaction to there doubtfull consciences then to tell them their children were not bastards Therefore I conclude that this holinesse being the fruits of one of the Parents being a beleever must be meant of some kind of holinesse which is not common to the seed of them whose Parents are both Unbeleevers and that is enough for our purpose Yet there remaines two Objections to bee answered which are made against this our interpretation First The unbeleeving wife is here said to bee sanctified as well as the childe is said to be holy and the Originall word is the same for both one the verb the other the noune if then the childe is holy with a federall holinesse then is also the unbeleeving wife sanctified with a federall sanctification and so the wife although remaining a heathen may be yet counted to belong to the Covenant of Grace I answer Indeed there would be weight in this objection if the Apostle had said the unbeleeving Wife is sanctifyed and no more as hee simply says the children are holy but that he doth not say he saith indeed the unbeleeving wife is sanctified in the beleeving husband or to the beleeving husband that is to his use as all other creatures are as the bed he lies on the meate he eats the cloathes he weares the beast he rides on are sanctifyed to him and so this sanctifyednesse of the wife is not a sanctification of state but only of use and of this use to be sanctifyed to the beleeving husband whereas the holinesse and sanctification that is spoken of the children is a holinesse of state and not only a sanctification to the Parents use That holinesse of the Children is here meant which could not bee unlesse one of the Parents were sanctifyed to the other which is the force of the Apostles arguing the unbeleever is sanctified to the beleever else were not the children holy but unclean but federall holinesse of children may be where the Parents are not sanctifyed one in or to the other as in bastardy Davids childe by Bathsheba Phares and Zarah Judahs children by Thamar the Israelites children by the Concubines Abrahams son Ishmael by Hagar c. in which cases the children were federally holy and accordingly were circumcised and yet the Harlot not sanctifyed in or to the Adulterer or Fornicator though a beleever I answer we must attend the Apostles scope wch is to shew that the children would be unholy if the faith or beleever-ship of one of the Parents could not remove the barre which lies in the other being an unbeleever against the producing of an holy seed because one of them was a Pagan or unbeleever therefore the childe would not be a holy seed unlesse the faith or beleevership of the other Parent could remove this bar Now
their Children belong to Gods family and kingdom and not to the Devils certainly the greatest treasure of Parents is their children and in them the salvation of their souls Now how uncomfortable a thing were this to Parents to take away the very ground of their hope for the salvation of their Children and I dare affirm it that we have no ground of hope for any particular person untill he be brought under the Covenant of grace All the world as I have formerly touched is divided into two kingdoms the kingdom of Christ which is his Church and the kingdom of Satan which is the rest of the world now so long as any person is visibly a member of the kingdom of Christ we have no cause to doubt their election salvation until they visibly shew the contrary although we know that there are some reprobate among them so on the other side although we know Christ hath many of his elect to be gathered out of the Devils kingdom yet we have no cause or ground to hope that any particular person is any other then a reprobate being a visible professed member of Satans kingdom untill he give hope to the contrary now what a most uncomfortable abridgment were this of the Covenant of grace thus apparently to cut off the Seed of Beleevers from their visible right in the Church of Christ and to put them in the visible Kingdome of Satan And Secondly as really unwilling must they look to find Parents to part with their childrens right to the Seale of the Covenant this their right to the Covenant being all the ground of hope that beleeving Parents can have that their Infants who die in their Infancy are saved rather then the Infants of Turkes had need bee sealed if they live untill they are grown men and give other signes of grace they may conceive good hopes of them though they were not sealed with a Sacramentall seale This therefore is apparent that the cutting off our priviledges and comfort in these two were a great abridgment of the priviledges of the new Covenant and would put the Seed of Abrahams faith into a farre worse condition in regard of their posterity then the Seed of his flesh were in And the Jews in Acts 2.39 if this Doctrine had been preached to them might have replied unto St. Peter when he exhorted them to be baptized for their Childrens good Nay Peter even therefore we will not be baptized for as yet we are sure our Children are in Conant with God and reckoned to his family but if we receive your new way our children must be counted to the kingdom of the Devill and so might they in Coloss. 2. when Paul told them they need not be circumcised because Baptism came in the room of it they might have replied that though they need not be circumcised themselves yet they would still circumcise their children because Bapâ—ism was not to be applied to them according to these mens Doctrine Upon these five Conclusions 1. That the Covenant of grace is alwayes the same 2. That the Infants of those in Covenant are alwayes reckoned Covenanters with their Parents 3. That our Baptisme succeeds in the room and use of their Circumcision 4. That by Gods expresse order their Infants were to be Circumcised as it was a seale of the Covenant And 5. that our priviledges for our selves and our Children are at least as honourable large and comfortable as theirs were The Conclusion follows undeniably that therfore the Infants of beleeving Parents are to be baptized Against this Argument the Anabaptists object many things They say the Covenant was not the same some of them say the children of the Jewes were not under the Covenant in relation to spirituall things They say Circumcision and baptism served not for the same ends and uses They say Circumcision was administred as a nationall badge and properly sealed temporal blessings They say whatever priviledges Infants of Beleevers had before Christs time they have now none at all and many such like things All which I have so fully cleared in this former Discourse that I suppose I need not adde any more the main and only Objection remaining which hath any colour of weight in it is this There is no command no expresse institution or cleare example in all the New Testament of baptizing of Infants And in the administration of Sacraments we are not to be led by our owne reason or grounds of seeming probability but by the expresse order of Christ and no otherwise If by institution command and example they meane an expresse syllabicall command c. I grant that in so many words it is not found in the New Testament no expresse command in the New Testament that they should be baptized no expresse example where Children were Baptized but I also adde that I deny the consequence that if in so many words it be not commanded in the New Testament it ought not to be done this is not true divinity that Christians are not tyed to observe that which is not expresly and in so many words set down in the New Testament there is no expresse reviving of the Laws concerning the forbidden degrees of marriage in the New Testament except of not having a mans fathers Wife 1 Cor. 8. no expresse law against Polygamy no expresse command for the celebration of a weekly Sabbath are therefore Christians free in all these cases Yea in the Point of Sacraments there is no expresse command no example in all the New Testament where Women received the Sacrament of the Lords Supper there is no expresse command that the Children of Beleevers when they are grown shoud be instructed and Baptized though instructed by their Parents expresse command there is that they should teach the Heathen and the Jewes and make them Disciples and then baptize them but no command that the Children of those that are Beleevers should be baptized when they are grown men nor any example where ever that was done will any man therfore say that Christian women are not to be partakers of the Lords Supper nor the children of beleevers when growne men be baptized I think none will be so absurd as to affirm it If it be said though these things be not expressely and in terminis in the New Testament yet they are there vâ—rtually and by undeniable consequence I confesse it is true so have we vertually and by undeniable consequence sufficient evidence for the baptizing of children both commands and examples For first we have Gods command to Abraham as he was the Father of all Covenanters that he should seale his Children with the seale of the Covenant Now this truth all our Divines defend against the Papists that all Gods commands and institutions about the Sacraments of the Jewes bind us as much as they did them in all things which belong to the substance of the Covenant and were not accidentall unto them as because circumcision
obedience towards God To conclude this All their externall promises in case of obedience all outward blessings which were to bee injoyed by them the Land of Canaan and all the good things in it all outward punishments and threatnings losse of their Countrey going into Captivity all their Sacrifices their Washings their Sprinklings their holy Persons holy Feasts and holy things were all of them but so many Administrations of the Covenant of Grace Earthly things then were not onely promised or threatned more distinctly and fully then now they are to them who are in Covenant but were figures signes types and Sacraments of spirituall things to bee injoyed both by them and by us as might bee cleared by abundance of particulars Take but that one instance of the Land of Canaan which albeit in it selfe it was but like other Lands yet was it by the Lord sanctified to spirituall ends where he would have his Tabernacle pitched and Temple built out of which Land when the ten Tribes were carried captive hee is said to have put them out of his sight the very Land being figuratively holy and a signe of Gods presence the resting of Gods people there a signe of their eternall rest in Heaven into which not Moses the Lawgiver but Joshua or Jesus the type of their true Jesus was to bring them neither did the Lord promise them entrance into or continuance in that Land but upon the same conditions upon which hee promiseth eternall life as true Faith in the Gospel with the love and feare of God and obedience of his Commandements Godlinesse having then as it hath now and alwayes the promise of good things for this life and the life to come of earthly things then more distinctly and fully and typically but of heavenly things more generally and sparingly whereas now on the contrary there is a more cleare and full revelation and promise of heavenly things but the promise of things earthly more generall and sparing Now this externall Administration of the Covenant is not the same with us as it was with them but the Covenant is the same they were under the same misery by nature had the same Christ the Lambe slaine from the beginning of the World the same conditions of Faith and repentance to bee made partakers of the Covenant had the same graces promised in the Covenant Circumcising of their heart to love the Lord c. Theirs was dispenced in darker Prophecies and obscurer Sacrifices types and Sacraments ours more gloriously and clearely and in a greater measure the cloathes indeed doe differ but the body is the same in both As is apparent if First you look but into the Prophecies that were made Jer. 31.33 Isaiah 59.21 Joel 2.32 and many other places where the same things are promised to the Gentiles when the Gospel should bee preached unto them which were first promised to Abraham and to his seed but more fully if you looke into the New Testament where you shall find Luke 1.54 55 69 70 72 73. Luke 2.31 32. that Christ and the kingdome of grace by him is acknowledged to bee the summe of the oath and Covenant which God had promised to Abraham and to his seed So Matth. 21.41 43. the same Vineyard that was let to the Jewes should afterward be let to the Gentiles the same kingdome of God which was formerly given to the Jews should be taken from them and given to the Gentiles So Rom. 11. the Gentiles were to bee ingraffed into the same stocke in which formerly the Jews had growne and from which they were now to bee cut off and into which in the end they should bee ingraffed againe So Gal. 3.8.14.16 Abraham had the same Gospel preached to him which is now preached to us the same blessing bestowed upon Abraham comes on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ that they as well as he might receive the promise of the Spirit through Faith they who receive the promise of the Spirit through faith have the blessing of Abraham come upon them as cleare is that Ephes. 2.13 to the end of the Chapter the partition wall which severed us from the Jewes is now broken downe and the Gentiles who formerly were afarre off are now taken in and made Inter-Commoners with the Jews the Apostle alluding to the manner of the Jewish worship where beyond the Court wherein the Jews did worship there was another Court divided from it by a sept or wall which was called Atrium gentium immundorum the Court of the Gentiles and of the uncleane nearer then which none of them might approach unto the Temple but now saith he The partition wall is broken downe and wee are no more Strangers and Forainers but made felow-Citizens with the Saints and of the houshold of God and with them grow up unto an holy Temple in the Lord all which shews that the very selfe same priviledges formerly made peculiar to the Jews are now through Christ communicated to the Gentiles And this will yet more fully appeare if wee consider how St. Paul to the Galatians shews that the same seed of Abraham so much spoken of in the Covenant made with him is now found among the Gentiles as 〈◊〉 was formerly among the Jews there you shall find three sorts of Abrahams seed First Christ Gal. 3.16 the root and stock the head and Elder brother of all the rest Secondly all true beleevers are Abrahams seed cap. 3.29 these onely are made partakers of the spirituall part of the Covenant Thirdly you shall find another seed of Abraham who were onely circumcised in the flesh and not in the heart who though they were either borne of Abrahams seed or professed Abrahams faith and so were Jews facti though not nati made though not borne Jews becomming Proselytes yet never came to make Abrahams God their All-sufficient portion but placed their happinesse in somewhat which was not Christ either by seeking justification by the works of the Law being ignorant of Gods righteousnesse and going about to establish their own righteousnesse did not submit themselves unto the righteousnesse of God or placed their happinesse in satisfying the lusts of their flesh going a whoring after the creature and so though they were Abrahams seed by profession and outward cleaving to the Covenant yet were to be cast off with the rest of the uncircumcised of whom Ishmael and Esau were Types Gal. 4.22 c. Even so is it now in the times of the Gospel we have now Jesus Christ the Elder brother the first-born of the Covenant we have also true beleevers who are brethren and Co-heires with him who are properly the heires by promise and wee have also some who are onely a holy seed by externall profession Gal. 4.29 who either with the false Teachers which Paul there speaks of mingle justification by the Law and Gospell together or with others 2 Tim. 3.5 though they have a forme of godlinesse yet deny the power
of it in their lives and conversations So much for the first Conclusion that the Covenant of grace for substance was alwayes one and the same Ever since God gathered a distinct select number out of the world to bee his Kingdom City House-hold in opposition to the rest in the world which is the kingdom city house-hold of Satan he would have The Infants of all who are taken into Covenant with him to bee accounted his to belong to him to his Church and Family and not to the devils As it is in other Kingdoms Corporations and Families the children of all Subjects borne in a Kingdome are borne that Princes Subjects where the Father is a free man the childe is not born a slave where any are bought to be servants their children born in their Masters house are born his servants Thus it is by the Laws of almost all Nations and thus hath the Lord ordained it shall be in his kingdome and family the Children follow the Covenant-condition of their Parents if he take a Father into Covenant he takes the Children in with him if hee reject the Parents out of Covenant the children are cast out with them Thus without all question it was in the time of the Jews Gen. 17.9 c. and when any of any other Nation though a Canaanite or Hittite acknowledged Abrahams God to be their God they and their children came into covenant together And so it continues still though the Anabaptists boldly deny it Act. 2.38 39. when Peter exhorted his hearers who were pricked in their hearts to repent and be baptized for the remission of sins he useth an Argument to perswade them taken from the benefit which should come to their posterity for the Promise saith he is unto you and unto your children and to all that are afarre off even as many as the Lord our God shall call if once they obey the call of God as Abraham did the promise was made to them and to their children whether they who obey this call were the present Jews to whom he spake or were afarre off whether by afarre off you will meane the Gentiles who as yet worshipped afar off or the Jews or any who as yet were unborn and so were afarre off in time or whether they dwelt in the remotest parts of the world and so were afarre off in place the Argument holds good to the end of the world Repent and be baptized for the remission of sins and ye shall receive the Holy Ghost For the Promise is made to you and to your children they shall bee made free of Gods City according to Abrahams Copy I will be thy God and the God of thy seed Let Zacheus the Publican once receive Christ himselfe be he a Gentile as some thinke he was be he a great sinner esteemed as a heathen as wee all know he was let him professe the faith of Christ and the Covenant of Salvation comes to his house for now he is made a sonne of Abraham that is Abrahams promise now reacheth him Neither can the evidence of this place be eluded by saying the promise here meant is of the extraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghost to speake with tongues c. For we all know that all who then beleeved and were baptized did not receive those extraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghost and beside this Argument remaines still in force to be used to the end of the world Who ever beleeves and is baptized shall receive remission of sinnes and the gift of the Holy Ghost Which was not true if by the Holy Ghost was meant onely those extraordinary gifts Nor secondly can it be avoyded by that shift of others who interpret it thus To you and your children as many of them as the Lord shall call that is say they whether your selves or your children or any other whom the Lord shall call if they repent and be baptized they shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost for it is plaine that the strength of this Argument lieth in this That if they did repent and were baptized the promise should be made good to them and to their children and what comfortable argument can this be taken from respect to their children if the Apostle must be interpreted as these men would have him viz. You and your châ—ldren have hitherto beene an holy seed but now if you beleeve in Chrâ—st your selves your children shall bee in no better condition then the rest of the Pagan world strangers from the Covenant of God but if afterward any of them or any of the Heathen shall for their parts beleeve and be baptized their perticular persons shallbe tooke into Covenant but their children still left out Had this thinke you beene a comfortable Argument to perswade them to come in in relation to the good of their children after them The plaine strength of the argument is God hath now remembred his Covenant to Abraham in sending that blessed seed in whom he promised to be the God of him and his seed doe not you by your unbeliefe deprive your selves and your posterity of so excellent a gift And except in relation to the Covenant there was no occasion to name their children it had beene sufficient to have said a promise is made to as many as the Lord shall call As plaine it is out of the 11. of the Rom. 16. c. where the Apostles scope is to shew that we Gentiles have now the same graffing into the true Olive which the Jewes formerly had and our present graffing in is answerable to their present casting out and their taking in in the latter end of the world shall be the same graffing in though more gloriously as ours is now Now all know that when they were taken in they and their children were taken in when they were broken off they and their children were broken off when they shall be taken in in the latter end of the world they and their children shall be taken in and that because the root is holy that is Gods Covenant with Abraham Isaac and Jacob extends yet unto them when their unbeleefe shall be taken away The root being like Nebuchadnezzars tree the tree hewen downe and the root bound with a band of yron untill seven times were passed over it and then the bands should be broken and the root should spring and the tree should grow againe so their present Nation like this tree is cut downe and this holy root the Covenant made with their forefathers is suspended bound with an iron barre of unbeliefe blindnesse being come upon them untâ—ll the fulnesse of the Gentiles be come in and then all Israel shall be saved And marke that in all this discourse the holinesse of the Branches there spoken of is not meant of a personall inherent holinesse but a derivative holinesse a holinesse derived to them from their Ancestors the first fruit is holy the lumpe holy the root holy the braâ—ches
alledge that though Circumcision was to be applyed to their Infants yet it was not as a seale of the spirituall part of the Covenant of Grace but as a nationall badge a seale of some temporall and earthly blessings and proviledges as of their right to the land of Canaan c. and that Ishmael though he was circumcised for some temporall respects yet he was not thereby brought under the Covenant of Grace which was expresly said to be made with Abraham in relation to Isaac and his seed I answer there is nothing plainer then that the Covenant whereof Circumcision was the signe was the Covenant of Grace Abraham received Circumcision a signe of the righteousnesse of faith and the Jewes received it not as a Nation but as a Church as a people separated from the world and taken into Covenant with God It is true indeed that Circumcision bound them who received it to conforme to that manner of administration of the Covenant which was carried much by a way of Temporall blessings and punishments they being types of spirituall things but no man can ever shew that any were to receive the Sacrament of Circumcision in relation to these outward things onely or to them at all further then they were administrations of the Covenant of grace sure I am the Prosolytes and their children could not be circumcised in any relation at all to the Temporall blessings of the Land of Canaan as they were temporall because notwithstanding their Circumcision they were not capable of receiving or purchasing any inheritance at all in that Land sojourne there they might as other strangers also did but the inheritance of the Land no not one foot of it could ever bee alienated from the severall Tribes to whom it was distributed as their possession by the most High For all the land was divided unto twelve Tribes and they were not any one of them allowed to sell their lands longer then till the yeare of Jubilee Levit. 25.13 c. Yea I may boldly say that their Circumcision was so farre from sealing to them the outward good things of the Land that it occasioned and tyed them to a greater expence of their temporall blessings by their long and frequent and chargeable journeyes to worship at Hierusalem And as for what was alledged concerning Ishmael the answer is easie God indeed there declares that Isaac should bee the type of Christ and that the Covenant of grace should bee established and continue in his family yet both Ishmael and the rest of Abrahams family were really taken into Covenant untill afterward by Apostasie they discovenanted themselves as also did Esau afterward though he were the Son of Isaac in whose family God had promised the Covenant should continue Fifthly and lastly the priviledges of beleevers under this last and best administration of the Covenant of grace are many wayes inlarged made more honourable and comfortable then ever they were in the time of the Jewes administration many Scriptures speake of the inlargement of their priviledges not one for the diminishing or depressing or extenuating of them that yoke that hard and costly way of administration which neither they nor their Fathers were able to beare is taken off from our shoulders our Covenant is said to be established upon better promises the glory of theirs had no glory in respect of ours they were under the bondage of Infants under age in comparison of our freedome we as well as they are called a holy Nation a peculiar people a chosen generation separated to him from all other people to whom as well as to them belongs the adoption the Covenant the promises we as well as they injoy him to be our Father and with his dearest Son our Lord are made Co-heires of the Kingdome of glory we have all these things with advantage not onely in the clearnesse of the administration but in some sense in greater extent to persons with us there is neither male nor female Some indeed goe about to shew that in some things the Jewes had greater priviledges then Wee have as that Abraham had the priviledge to be called the Father of the faithfull that Christ should bee borne of his flesh Mary had the priviledge to be the Mother of Christ and the whole Nation this priviledge that God will call in their seed againe after they had been cast off for unbelief many hundred yeers which priviledges say they none of the Gentiles have or can have Answ. But these things have no weight we are inquiring for priviledges which are branches of the Covenant of grace which every man who is in Covenant with God may expect from God by vertue of the Covenant were he a Jew or a Proselyte not for any particular or peculiar favour to a particular man or woman or family or tribe All these forementioned things and many other of the like kind as the Ministery of the Tabernacle and Temple to belong to one Tribe the Kingly office to one family such and such men never to lack a man of their house to stand before God proceeded indeed from Free-grace but were no parts of that Covenant of grace which God made to Abraham and all his Seed For could every man in Covenant challenge these things at Gods hand and that by vertue of the Covenant Could every one of them promise to himself that Christ should be born of his flesh Or every one of their women that she should be the Mother of Christ Could every one whom God owned to be in Covenant with him promise by vertue of the Covenant that their children if cast off by unbeleefe should after many hundred yeers be again called in We speake only of such priviledges as were universall and common to all who were in Covenant for which by vertue of the Covenant they might relie upon God Let any man shew out of the Scripture where our priviledges under the Gospel are cut short in any of these things and he saith somwhat and in particular for the Case in hand concerning our Infants right to the Covenant of grace and the seale of it once we are sure the Infant Children of all Covenanters were within the Covenant and the seale also belonged to them and by vertue of the Covenant which is still the same we plead their interest in it Let any man shew when and where this was taken away when the Infant-children of beleevers were expunged out of the Covenant of grace certainly whoever will go about to deprive them of it to cut off such a great part of the comfort of Beleeving parents must produce cleare testimonies before they can perswade beleevers to part with either of them either their right to the Covenant or to the seale of the Covenant For first their Infants interest in the Covenant next to glory of God and the salvation of their own souls is the greatest benefit of the Covenant of grace even this I say to have
hands upon them and blesse them because the Kingdom of God belongs to them who have such like qualities who resemble children in some select properties By the very same ground if any had brought doves and Sheep to Christ to put his hands upon them and blesse them the Disciples had been liable to the same reproofe because of such is the Kingdome of God such as are partakers of the Kingdom of God must be indued with such like properties Beside what one thing can be named belonging to the initiation and being of a Christian whereof Baptisme is a seale which Infants are not capable of as well as grown men they are capable of receiving the Holy Ghost of union with Christ of adoption of forgivenesse of sins of regeneration of everlasting life all which things are signifyed and sealed in the Sacrament oâ— baptism And it is further considerable that in the working of that inward grace of which baptism is the sign and seale all who partake of that grace are but meere patients and contribute no more to it then a childe doth to its own begetting and therefore Infants as fit Subjects to have it wrought in them as grown men and the most grown men are in no more fitnesse to receive this grace when it is given them in respect either of any faith or repentance which they yet have then a very little childe it being the primary intention of the Covenant of Grace in its first worke to shew what Free Grace can and wil do to miserable nothing to cut miserable man off from the wild Olive and graffe him into the true Olive to take away the heart of stone to create in them a heart of flesh to forgive their iniquities to love them freely what doth the most grown man in any of these more then an Infant may do being onely passive in them all and of this first grace is the Sacrament of Baptism properly a seale and who ever will deny that Infants are capable of these things as well as grown men must deny that any Infants dying in their Infancy are saved by Christ Against this Argument severall things are objected which I shall indevour to remove out of the way First It is said that although Infants are capable of these things and they no doubt are by Christ wrought in many Infants yet may not we baptize them because according to the Scripture pattern both of Christs command Matth. 28. in his institution of Baptisme where this was injoyned and John the Baptist Christs Disciples and Apostles They alwaies taught and made them Disciples by teaching before they baptized any I answer First that of Matth. 28. is not the institution of Baptisme it was instituted long before to be the Seale of the Covenant it 's only an inlargement of their Commission whereas before they were to go onely to the lost sheepe of the House of Israel now they were to go unto all the world And beside it is no where said that none were baptized but such as were first taught and what reason we have to beleeve the contrary you have before seen Secondly It is said indeed that they taught and baptized and no expresse mention made of any other but the reason is plain there was a new Church to be constituted all the Jews who should receive Christ were to come under another administration and their Infants were to come in only in their right and the Heathen Nations who were to be converted to Christ were yet wholly without the Covenant of Grace and their children could have no right untill themselves were brought in and therefore no marvaile though both John and Christs Disciples and Apostles did teach before they baptized because then no other were capable of baptism but when once themselves were instructed and baptized then their children were capable of it by vertue of the Covenant If any in the Jewish Church had received Commission to go and make other Cities Proselytes to them their Commission must have run thus Go teach and circumcise would it therefore have followed that none might be circumcised but such as were first taught But it is expresly said That hee that beleeves and is baptized shall bee saved Faith in Christ is the Condition upon which men may be baptized and this is the most common objection among the Anabaptists Unbeleevers may not bee baptized children are unbeleevers therefore they may not bee baptized We have say they cleare evidence that Faith is a condition required in those that are to be baptized no evidence of any other condition that makes them capable of Baptism Others of them adde that under an affirmative command the negative is to be included beleeving is the affirmative unbeleeving is the negative therefore where beleevers are commanded to be baptized unbeleevers are forbidden to be baptized this objection they much glory in and some of them dare all the world to answer it I Answer first but if this argument have any strength at all against the Baptizing of infants it hath much more strength against the salvation of infants it is said expresly he that beleeveth and is baptized shall be saved but he that beleeveth not shall bee damned there yee have both the negative and affirmative set downe Hee that beleeves shall bee saved hee that beleeves not shall bee damned now I frame their owne argument thus against the salvation of infants All unbeleevers shall bee damned all infants are unbeleevers therefore they shall bee damned now look at what doore they will goe out for the salvation of infants at the same will we go out for the baptizing of infants how ever they will evade the one we shall much more strongly evade the other if they say this Text is meant of growne men of the way which God takes for the salvation of grown men Infants are saved another way upon other conditions the same say we of infants baptisme the Text means of the condition of baptizing of grown men infants are baptized upon other conditions if they say infants though they cannot have actuall Faith they may have virtuall Faith Faith in the seed and roote the same say we if they say though infants have not Faith yet they may have that which is Analogous to faith the same say we they have somwhat which hath analogy to faith and as effectuall to make them capable of baptism as of salvation Secondly I answer it is no where said Unbeleevers or rather Non-beleevers it should be said may not bee baptized it is said indeed hee that beleeveth and is baptized shall bee saved and it is said that he that beleeveth with all his heart may be baptized it is no where said that he that beleeveth not may not be baptized Therfore I deny the consequence if all beleevers must be baptized then no Unbeleevers or Non-beleevers may be baptized these two are not here intended by way of opposition Christ excludes Infants neither from baptism nor from salvation