how Satan will bestirre himselfe by his instruments and make use of the ignorance pragmaticalnesse pride and malice of some men this way we may see Gal. 3.1 2 3. Which things I having had some experience of and meeting with a Pamphlet intituled The vanitie of Childish Baptisme c. by A. R. and hearing that some are drawn away to admire and imbrace the opinions therein maintained and that others were unsatisfied concerning some things that are therein delivered I was troubled to see that such stumbling blocks should be laid before Gods people but not seeing a speedy remedie procured by that so much wished and prayed for way of a Synod of Gods faithfull Ministers to consider of those things that trouble the Church according to that example Act. 15. Neither having seene any thing purposely written upon this subiect Though of many the unfittest in regard of want of abilitie helps and time wherewith others abound I inclined my thoughts to answer the maine Arguments that the Authour brings against the baptisme of infants and to vindicate our Arguments against the Obiections here made Though I confesse considering the grosse and manifest errours the fantasticall conceits the taunts scoffes and raylings and evident absurdities wherewith the Booke is stuffed which shew with what a spirit the Authour was led it may seeme unworthy an answer yet because there are some truths scattered therein many Scriptures alledged though impudently perverted and much zeale and confidence pretended many iniudicious people may conceive there is some matter of weight and moment in it Therefore untill God shall be pleased to stirre up some fitter more fully to handle this subiect if this controversie be not rather to be buried in silence for the absurdnesse of the Adversaries opinions I have undertaken by the assistance of God and rule of the Scripture to examine this Authour In which examination I will not follow him in his extravagancies and impertinencies neither shall I I hope imitate him in his bold and confident yet groundlesse assertions much lesse in bitter taunts and reproachfull speaches which he useth towards our Ministers and Church If I sometime set forth the ridiculousnesse and weaknesse of his reasoning or retort on him his own language to shew how much fitlier it agrees to himselfe then those on whom he bestowes it I conceive I have warrant in Gods word Prov. 26.5 1 King 18.27 But in the feare and as in the presence of God I will make triall of his principall reasons and grounds so farre as God shall enable me by the light of his holy word not intending to defend all the Arguments which he undertakes to answer nor to reply to all his Answers of Obiections whereof some whether invented of himselfe or obiected by others I owne not seeing sometime the truth may be pleaded for upon unsound grounds The truth I stand for not the weake grounds But I hope that whatsoever he obiecteth with any shew of reason or weight I shall sufficiently answer and lay down grounds for the defending of the truth that may satisfie any intelligent Reader that seeks the truth So I come to his Preface to the Reader THE ANSWER TO SOME THINGS IN HIS Preface to the READR YOu say A. R. that In your serious thoughts you minded diverse places of Scripture which evidently set out Baptisme to be an undoubted pledge from God to all the right subiects to whom it is applied of the free pardon of sinnes Mark 1.4 16.16 Act. 2.38 and 22.16 1 Pet. 3.31 Answer Ans If in your serious thoughts you had compared what is said of circumcision which is answerable to baptisme you might have found that it was to the Iewes Gods Covenant Gen. 17.10 11. which comprehends all the blessings of the covenant Gen. 17.10 A token of the covenant vers 11. A signe or seale of the righteousnesse of faith Rom. 4 10. Rom. 4.10 And so doubtlesse a pledge of the free pardon and remission of sinnes which is comprehended in Gods covenant and in the righteousnesse of faith And yet circumcision was administred unto infants as the right subjects thereof Secondly A. R. Baptisme is designed to beleevers onely upon their making profession of faith and willing submission thereunto this you say you find Matt. 18.19 Ioh. 3.22 compared with 4.1 Act. 2.41 18.12.37.38 18.8 Answer Ans Neither you nor any one else hath found in those Scriptures that onely actuall beleevers and professours of their faith ought to be baptized and none else Where is I pray you the particle onely or any thing equivalent thereto None of those precepts or examples limite Baptisme for all times onely to such Though such as beleeved and professed the faith be there spoken of will it follow that none else have right to baptisme The Disciples are neither forbidden to baptize others but professours of the faith nor limited to those onely for ought that can be gathered from those places Abraham which first received the seale of circumcision Gen. 15.6 with Gen. 17.1 2 3 c. and in his own person actually entred into Covenant with God was endued with the righteousnesse of faith having not as a meere patient but as an agent accepted the Covenant Will you thence inferre that onely such ought to be circumcised under the old Covenant as had in their own persons as agents accepted of Gods Covenant and were endued with the righteousnesse of faith Gen. 17.10 11. whereof they were to make profession the Text will confute that inference Yet your collection is no better from some examples of persons of ripe yeers which were out of the new Covenant before and were now to be brought under it Who because they must beleeve and professe their faith before they were baptized therefore their children though borne of parents within covenant may not be baptized untill they actually beleeve and professe their faith For as upon Abrahams beleeving and receiving the Covenant and seale of circumcision his family was received into covenant and all his males circumcised so we have plaine examples in the New Testament of Governours of families who beleeving and being baptized had their whole families baptized also where yet there is no word of the faith and profession of any besides the Governours as Act. 16.15 31.32 33. 1 Cor. 1.16 as shall be shewed more fully hereafter God willing in due place A. R. Thirdly you say that The right subiects of Baptisme are not to be meerly passive Mat. 3.2.6 Mar. 1.5 Act. 22.16 Gal. 3.27 Col. 2.12 with 3.1 but to performe such duties as are incompatible to infants and persons destitute of understanding Answer Ans This holds true of those that were to enter first into Covenant as Abraham must not be circumcised before he could in his owne person accept Gods Covenant and actually beleeve but this was not necessary to his posteritie that were borne in Covenant The like was shewed of Baptisme in the
him into a state of salvation so farre as that now they are within the Covenant and so consequently have right unto the seale of initiation It is said indeed that they spake the word of the Lord unto him and all that were in the house viz. so many as were capable of instruction But there is no word of the actuall beliefe or repentance by expression word or action of any in the family except onely of the Iaylour himself whose repentance and faith at least initiall is expressed by the effects thereof viz. his humiliation and desire of salvation vers 29. and 30. and more fully by the fruits of them declared vers 33. in taking them the same houre of the night and washing their stripes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and then it is said that he and all his were baptized straight-way Which evidently sheweth that the governours faith and repentance or being within the Covenant doth sufficiently interesse their inferiours that are at their dispose to the Covenant of Grace and so to the Seale of entrance at least if they be not refractary wilfully and stubbornly refusing to be given up to God by their superiours The like may be said of Stephanus his family 1 Cor. 1.16 But most cleare and expresse is the example of Lydia Act. 16.14 15. When the Lord had opened her heart to attend to those things that were spoken of Paul she was baptized and her houshold Not a word spoken of preaching to or actuall faith and repentance of the rest So that it is apparent that as upon Abrahams faith and repentance and interest in God his whole Family whether those that were born in the house or those that were bought with money yea even his infants of eight dayes old had so farre interest in God that upon his tendring them up unto God according to his gracious appointment now they had right unto the Seal of Circumcision after God had once instituted it so Christian governours of families or parents by their faith and repentance are meanes of bringing salvation to their families and interessing those that are under them to God and Christ so farre as that they have right unto Baptisme at least except they stubbornly refuse the Seale and reject the Covenant A. R. To this Argument especially the Scriptures brought to confirme the assumption you answer There might be no Infants there viz. in those families which were baptized and my negative say you is as good as your affirmative Answer This toucheth not the force of mine Argument which hath shewed that upon parents or governours of families receiving the Gospel their families were accepted unto Baptisme their superiours tendring them thereunto Whether Infants or not there is no exception of Infants or others But you say your Negative is as good as our Affirmative without proofe and that you bring Scripture for your negative as Act. 18.8 which Scripture maketh nothing against us For first if Crispus beleeved in the Lord with all his Family it doth not follow that these families which we mentioned had none but actuall beleevers in them before they were baptized Secondly Crispus may be said to beleeve he and his houshold and so to be baptized though they were not all indued with actuall faith as Abrahams Family was a Family of beleevers even the whole Family when the Seale of the righteousnesse by faith had been set upon all the Males therein although they did not all actually beleeve You adde the example of the Iaylour Act. 16.31 32 c. Answer We have already sufficiently considered what is contained in vers 31 32 33. viz. though Paul and Silas preached the word unto all in the family viz that were capable of instruction yet the faith and repentance of none but of the Iaylour himselfe is manifested But you say He and all his houshold beleeved in God as it is vers 34. Answ If you looke into the Originall you shall finde that that verse makes nothing for your purpose It is word for word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And he rejoyced with all his house having beleeved in God or when he had beleeved in God But because the English cannot so fully and clearely give the sense of the place it may be noted 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 having beleeved being the Masculine gender and singular number as the Grammarians speake cannot be referred to that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 alone or taken with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the keeper So that the sense should be the whole house beleeved or the Iaylour and the whole house beleeved I say the words cannot beare this sense as the skilfull in the language may easily see and therefore in the translation beleeving or rather having beleeved in God is to be read within a parenthesis so that those words with his whole family is to be referred onely to the word rejoyced Thus And rejoyced beleeving or having beleeved in God with all his house So that though our Translatours did well render the words yet the want of observing the parenthesis causeth the words at the first sight otherwise to sound then indeed they do to those that looke on the Originall Laetatus est cum omni domo credens Deo So Arias Montanus But under correction and with submission to better judgements if I might be so bold I conceive it might be rendered more agreeably to the signification of the words the scope of the place and for the avoyding of ambiguitie And having beleeved in God he rejoyced exulted or testified his joy openly by outward actions in all his family or through his house or all his house over For 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 beleeving and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 rejoyced are both the singular number and so have reference to one alone viz. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Iaylour 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 rendred with all his house is an adverbe and so according to the ordinary use of that part of speech is referred to the verbe to shew how the thing was done not by whom Beside the scope of the place seemes to favour this Interpretation for it is said in the words before that he brought them into the house and set meat before them or made them a feast so that he expressed his rejoycing in his whole house by making a solemn feast in all the family as it were celebrating that night as his spirituall birth-dayes solemnitie Now you come to compare that Scripture mentioned which you apprehend to speake of whole families beleeving before they were baptized with these that speake of baptizing families where yet none are said to beleeve save the heads and thence you gather That it cannot be reasonably imagined but that the Apostle did baptize these families according to commission c. and those other places which are more silent must be expounded by this which is more plain and not this by those Answ First No question the Apostle baptized according to commission but that their
Gen. 17.23 Gen. 22. Gen. 18.19 For example God commanded Abraham to walke before him and be perfect This binds us as well as Abraham though Abrahams circumcision of himselfe and his family his purpose and endevour to offer up his sonne Isaac his commanding and teaching his children and houshold not onely in morall duties but also ceremoniall in respect of circumcision and sacrifices were parts of his walking before God and being upright yet we may not imitate him in those very particulars But in those duties required in the New Testament which are analogicall and proportionable to these as giving up our selves and ours unto God in the use of those Ordinances which he for the present hath appointed in denying our selves in our dearest comforts and bringing up our children in feare and information of the Lord. And so whereas God promiseth to Abraham to be his shield and exceeding great reward and his All-sufficient God we may apply these promises to our selves though our condition be not the same in all things with Abrahams though we be not in danger of having the nations to rise up against us for rescuing Lot c. So God promiseth to be God to Abraham and his seed and requires that he should lay hold on the promise by faith not onely for himselfe but also for his children and so give up his children unto God in circumcision which is a ground sufficient for Christian parents to lay hold on the promise of God for themselves and their children give them up to God God in baptisme notwithstanding some circumstances wherein the promise and command made to Abraham differ from them as they are applied unto us So God gave a command and a promise unto Ioshua I will be with thee Josh 1.5.6 to the 9. I will not faile thee nor forsake thee Be strong and of a good courage c. This promise and command we may and ought to apply to our selves in any worke that God calls us unto as if it had beene made unto us in particular Heb. 13.5 Though we be never made Captaines of hosts to goe against Canaanites or take possession of a promised land or be types of Christ the true and reall Ioshua or Iesus all which were peculiar to that Worthy yet the command and promise concern us as well as him as the Apostle in that place sheweth Else if you will not grant that we are bound to beleeve promises and obey commands made to Abraham or some other speciall persons unlesse we observe all circumstances and particular actions in obeying the command and jumpe with their estate in every particular qualification in receiving the promises you will deny that we have any thing to doe with any command or promise of God and so go about to overturne all the consolation of the faithfull and discharge them of all their dutie But seeing none I hope is so foolish as to follow such absurdities we may safely hold notwithstanding what you object that Abrahams promise for his children and command to circumcise them is a good ground for Christian parents to lay hold on the covenant for their children and to present them to God in baptisme Thirdly whereas you say As Abraham did what God commanded him so must we doe as he commandeth us and again we must baptize infants when we are commanded and not before Answ I hope your meaning is not that we must have immediate revelation from God as Abraham had for if untill then we sit still we shall never obey nor beleeve Otherwise so many as are the children of Abraham acknowledge themselves bound by Gods command to him to give up himselfe and his children unto God to doe the like though they have no new revelation from God neither are bound to observe all circumstances that Abraham was You bring us in objecting God gave to infants circumcision which was a signe or seale of the righteousnesse of faith and regeneration Gen. 17.11 Rom. 4.11 and we know God gave no lying signe nor sealeth a covenant to any persons that are not therein Therefore infants are in the covenant have faith and regeneration and so ought to be baptized now as well as circumcised then To which you answer It is true God gives no lying sign nor sealeth to any persons that they are in covenant when they are not and therefore seeing that Ishmael was circumcised after that God had declared and made it knowne that he was not in covenant Gen. 17.18 19 20 21. it must follow that circumcision was not by God ordained nor by Abraham understood to be to the persons circumcised a seale of their being in covenant and much lesse of their being in the faith and regeneration Wherefore Gen. 17.11 Rom. 14.11 which this objection is grounded upon of necessitie must be understood as it is applied by the Apostle to wit that circumcision received both upon himselfe and his seed was to him and to them a signe and seale that righteousnesse should be by faith Rom. 4. vers 3.11 12. to 24. Answ God doth not declare there Gen. 17.18 19. and cited by you nor any where else that Ishmael was not in covenant for though the covenant was established with Isaac so that he and his posteritie should continue in covenant untill the promised seed should come of his posteritie yet Ishmael was outwardly in covenant Gen. 17.10 11 12 13 14.23.25 untill he discovenanted himselfe Secondly whether is it fit that we should beleeve you or God himselfe speaking Gen. 17. and Paul interpreting that place Rom. 4. who had the mind of Christ and the Spirit of God you say that circumcision was not ordained by God nor understood by Abraham to be to the person circumcised a seale of their being in covenant much lesse of their being in the faith and regeneration though we say not that it was so God saith Gen. 17.10 11. This is my Covenant which ye shall keepe between me and you and thy seed after thee every manchilde among you shall be circumcised and you shall circumcise the fore-skinne of your flesh and it shall be a token of the Covenant betwixt me and you And Paul saith that Abraham received the signe of circumcision a seale of the righteousnesse of faith c. Let men judge whether of these two parties testimonies is more worthy credit Thirdly It is not to be questioned but those Scriptures Gen. 17.7 Rom. 14.11 must be understood as the Apostle applieth them But so farre is the Apostles application there from excluding or denying our interpretation of those Scriptures viz. that God ordained and Abraham understood circumcision to be a seal of their being in Covenant and so a seale of faith and regeneration to those that worthily used it that the Apostles application presupposeth this and therefore gathers because circumcision was a signe of the Covenant and a seale of the righteousnesse of faith that righteousnesse comes by faith not by workes Fourthly If the same was not the
use of circumcision to Abraham and his posteritie for the substance to wit to be a signe of their being in covenant and seale of the righteousnesse of faith in your opinion why doe you not shew the difference of Abrahams circumcision and theirs If you say it was to Abraham a seale of his faith righteousnesse and regeneration that he had already to them of that which they were to have I answer this is but a circumstantiall difference and gives what we desire and maintaine If you say that many who were circumcised were never justified by faith or regenerated this was mans abuse and fault who being received into such a Covenant wherein God promised to be his God and was ready to performe his promise yet would not performe the conditions required in the covenant For if some that received circumcision were never internally in Covenant nor indued with the righteousnesse of faith that hinders not but that circumcision was a signe of their being outwardly received into that covenant wherein God was ready to bestow faith and regeneration if through their owne default they did not deprive themselves thereof Besides if there was not the same use of circumcision to Abraham and his children circumcised by Gods appointment How doe you say in your Preface to the Reader That baptisme is an undoubted pledge from God of the free pardon and remission of sinnes to the right subjects thereof sith it may with as good reason be said though it were so in our Saviours time yet it is not so now as you seeme to beare men in hand Though circumcision was a seale of the righteousnesse of faith and a signe of the covenant between God and him to Abraham yet it was not so to his posteritie though they were the right subjects thereof whom God had appointed to be circumcised But if you rightly gather that Baptisme is an undoubted pledge of the pardon of sinne to the right subjects thereof now because it was so to those which were first baptized we may as well gather that circumcision was a signe of the Covenant and seale of the righteousnesse of faith to those infants which by Gods appointment received it as it was to Abraham Hitherto of those Arguments of ours whereunto this Disputant answers As for the other Arguments and Objections which he brings and answers I shall leave them to defend them that owne them I will adde briefly one or two Arguments more 4. Arg. Arg. 6. If the baptizing of Infants born of Christian parents or parents within the new covenant be not according to the rule of Gods word then there is no rule or warrant in the Scripture for baptizing the posteritie of beleevers under the New covenant at all and so consequently the children of beleevers must not be baptized at all neither young nor old for we must do nothing without Scripture warrant But that the posteritie of Christian parents ought not to be baptized at all is most absurd and false as I think will be acknowledged of all that beare the names of Christians For how can it be supposed that the faith and Christianity of the parents should be so prejudiciall to the children as to deprive them of the pledge of the remission of sinnes though they repent and beleeve when yet the posteritie of Infidels may be baptized upon their faith and repentance Therefore the Antecedent must needs be false viz. that the baptizing of infants of Christian parents is not according to the rule of the word and consequently the contradictory thereto true viz. that the baptizing of infants borne of parents in covenant is according to the rule The Assumption I conceive needs no proofe seeing Christ hath appointed that the Sacraments of the New Testament should be perpetuall to the end of the world Matth. 28.19.20 1 Cor. 11.26 to those that should be in Covenant For the confirmation then of the proposition and making cleare its consequence Consider first there is no command example or other testimony in Scripture can be given to shew that the children of testimony in Scripture can be given to shew that the children of beleeving parents should be kept from baptisme untill they could in their owne persons actually repent beleeve and make confession of their faith But still when parents were converted to the faith and baptized their whole families were baptized with them Neither is there any word concerning the posteritie of Christian parents who were borne of them being in covenant to have been baptized in riper yeares Secondly those commands and examples of baptizing them that repented beleeved and professed the faith are all of such as had before been out of the New covenant and were come of parents that had never been under the covenant of the Gospel and therefore with lesse reason can be applied to the posteritie of Christian parents when they come to yeares of discretion then when they were infants For those examples and commands shew that so soone as one is in covenant with God in the time of the Gospel he hath right unto baptisme Neither can it without sinne to God and injurie to the person be denied to him but ought to be administred so soone as it may conveniently be had And therefore as they that had beene out of covenant before so soone as they had repented and beleeved at least professed so much which was necessary to their being taken into covenant ought to be baptized as soone as might be conveniently Act. 8.36 37 38. Act. 10.47 Act. 22.16 and might not without injurie be hindred by others or sinne in themselves neglect it So the children of Christian parents being in covenant as hath beene proved and cannot be denied with any shew of truth that I say not without blasphemy cannot without injurie be denied baptisme so soone as it may expediently be administred to them This Argument for more evidence and clearenesse may be propounded thus The posteritie of beleevers either must be baptized in their infancie or when they are able to make a profession of faith and do it really or they must not be baptized at all But to hold that they should not be baptized at all but that all the children of beleevers should be debarred baptisme though they prove never so godly is absurd and wicked that they should be baptized onely when they come to yeares of discretion and make profession of faith and repentance there is no warrant in Scripture neither by command practise or otherwise as hath been shewed Therefore they are to be baptized in infancie Arg. 7. If Christian women that are under the new covenant have right to the Sacrament of the Lords Supper and may and ought to be admitted thereunto neither can without great injurie be detained therefrom notwithstanding their sexe though there be no cleare expresse direct and immediate command or example in the Scripture for the same then may and ought infants of Christian parents being in covenant to be admitted to
their externall confession of sinne and profession of faith and repentance they shewed themselves to be externally in Covenant and so to have right to the outward seale which they therefore administred to one as well as to another So though we are not bound to think that all the children borne of parents in covenant are or shall be sanctified yet because they are outwardly in covenant and under the promise which promise God makes good as seemeth good in his eyes therefore the Minister that is not to judge of the inward worke of sanctification on the heart whether present or future but of the outward estate neither if he could discerne the inward estate might he withhold the outward priviledge from any though wanting inward grace that hath right thereunto by being under covenant outwardly may and ought to administer baptisme to the children of all Christian parents under his charge that requires it so long as by wilfull Apostasie from the faith or just excommunication wherein they obstinately continue they with their children are not discovenanted Obiect If any should object That those promises of the Spirit or Gods teaching c. made to the seed of the faithfull to all both small and great c and the promise made to the faithfull and their children belong onely to the spirituall seed of the Church viz. those that are borne againe in the wombe of the Church Answer I Answer 1. These promises made to the Christian Church are like to that promise made to the Iewish Church Deut. 30.6 And the Lord thy God will circumcise thine heart and the heart of thy seed to love the Lord thy God Now this they were to understand not onely or principally of Proselytes that should be converted to the Church nor onely of their posteritie when they came to the use of reason but even of Infants as may appeare in that God appointed them to circumcise their Infants For circumcision of the flesh was a sign of circumcision of the heart which if infants had not been capable of God would not have commanded the outward signe to have been administred unto them And so these promises made to the Christian Church to their seed to their seeds seed to their children from the least to the greatest appertain to infants in the Christian Church as well as others The universall note being understood De generibus singulorum not de singulis generum as they say of all sorts sexes ages and condition some though every individuall of all sorts be not comprehended therein And therefore Baptisme sealing such promises belongs to Infants in the Christian Church as well as circumcision did in the Iewish Secondly I answer It is absurd to understand these promises onely of the spirituall seed as if they belonged only to the regenerate For what is it to be taught of God and have the Spirit powred but to be converted or regenerated and drawn to Christ so that by this interpretation the meaning of these promises should be this much I will powre my Spirit on whom I have or shall powre my Spirit and they shall be taught of God that are or shall be taught of God It is true God may here well promise a greater measure of the Spirit and illumination where he hath given some measure But withall it is certaine here is promised the Spirit and illumination also to those that are quite destitute and so to such as are not yet the spirituall seed of the Church Thirdly I answer What matter of consolation can this be to beleeving parents if not withstanding their prayer for and religious education of their children none of these or the like promises belong to them but onely to the spirituall seed of the Church that is such as are already converted and declare their conversion by actuall faith What ground of prayer for or hope of the salvation of their children have they more then of the Heathens if this be admitted 2. Argument If Governours of families upon their beleeving and tendring up themselves and theirs to God and Christ were not onely themselves baptized but all the persons in their houshold and which were under their government of what age soever were baptized also so that where there is no mention of preaching to or the beliefe of any but the Governours themselves yet their whole housholds were dedicated unto God in Baptisme Then it is lawfull yea a dutie to Christian parents to tender their children being part of their family unto God in Baptisme and Ministers have good ground yea ingagement for baptizing such But Governours of Families upon their beleeving and tendering up themselves and theirs unto God and Christ were not onely themselves baptized but all the persons in their houshold or which were under their government so that where there is no mention of preaching to or the beliefe of any but the Governours themselves yet their whole housholds were dedicated unto God in Baptisme Act. 16.14 15 and 31 32 33. 1 Cor. 1.6 Therefore it is lawfull yea the dutie for Christian parents or governours of families to tender their infants which are part of their houshold unto God in Baptisme and Ministers ought to baptize such being tendred of their parents The Major needs no confirmation it being granted by all yea by the Adversaries themselves as I conceive taken for an undeniable principle that the Apostles example in baptizing is a sufficient warrant for us and that such are to be admitted to Baptisme now as were admitted by the Apostles For most of their reasoning is grounded hereupon and they hence condemne our baptizing of Infants because say they it is not agreeable to the practise of the Apostles so that that Baptisme which is agreeable to the Baptism of the Apostles is warantable by their own grants and so the sequele standeth firme and good If in the Apostles times whole families of beleeving governours were baptized they ought so now and so consequently the infants of those families which are parts thereof if there be any such For as Abraham and his Family was a pattern unto all such as should enter into the Covenant of grace during the time of circumcision that as he and his Family were circumcised so should all whether of his posteritie or proselytes circumcise all their Males even the babes So those primitive Converts that were the first fruits of the Gentiles and when they beleeved were baptized with their whole families are examples for the beleevers of all Ages to follow in consecrating themselves and theirs to God in Baptism As for the Minor those places of Scripture cited prove it Act. 16.31 32 33. To the Iaylour demanding what he should doe that he might be saved Paul and Sylas answer bidding him beleeve in the Lord Iesus Christ promising that he should be saved and his houshold Teaching that the beleefe of a father or governour of a family is sufficient to bring a whole family that is at his disposing and to be ruled by
this holinesse or unholinesse of children proceeds not from the holinesse or unholinesse of parents but from the lawfull or unlawfull conjunction of parents in the begetting of children for the Apostle in this place speakes of all men universally Answ Let any indifferent man judge whether this be not an uncleane illegitimate and spurious interpretation of and drawing conclusions from the Scripture For first What comfort or resolution had this beene in the scrupulous parent to tell him that his children were holy that is legitimate and no bastards but legitimates because they were begotten in lawfull matrimony that had beene contracted before conversion whereas by your interpretation of these Scriptures if they had continued still unconverted both of them their children had beene as holy that is legitimate and no bastards Secondly how can this place Marriage is honourable in all c. and the bed undefiled be understood of all men universally as you say viz. unbeleevers as well as beleevers Tit. 1.15 When the Apostle saith Vnto the pure all things are pure but unto them that are defiled and unbeleeving is nothing pure but even their mind and conscience is defiled how can the marriage bed then be undefiled to such It is evident therefore that we make not the Spirit of God contradict it selfe that the universall note all men is to be restrained to the subject matter viz. all sorts of beleevers for to such he wrote of what qualitie condition or calling soever Thirdly But I pray you see and if you will not let others consider how all this while in interpreting this Scripture 1 Cor. 7.14 and wresting wiredrawing and pulling in as it were obtorto collo other Scriptures which you would force to favour your interpretation you have directly and manifestly contradicted the Apostle and corrupted the Text. The Apostle tells the beleeving yoke-fellows that their children are holy though their yoke-fellows were unbeleevers because they are sanctified to them viz. by their faith you say therefore the children are holy because their matrimonie was lawfull If the Apostles meaning were that which you would have it he should have said You were lawfully married therefore are your children holy But he saith The unbeleever is sanctified by or to the beleever else were your children uncleane let their marriage be never so lawfull Paul gathers the holinesse of children from grounds peculiar to the faithfull viz. the faith and being in covenant at least of one of the parents shewing plainly that were it not for this the children must needs be uncleane You would draw it from grounds common to Infidels viz. lawfull matrimony affirming that whosoever is borne of parents though infidels lawfully married is holy in the Apostles sense Thus when men set themselves to maintain errours they are not afraid nor ashamed plainly to contradict the Spirit of God You have somewhat further which you call an objection It seems then that the holines here of the children ariseth not from the holinesse or faith of the parents but meerly from the lawfull marriage and conjunction of the parents and then you answer It is even so and goe on to repeat what you have said and adde such like stuffe not worth reading Answ It is even false though you dictate it as è cathedra or è tripode and a manifest contradicting of plain Scripture as hath beene before demonstrated Your two next objections doe not concern us and therefore I passe them by Yet one more objection you bring us in making Have the children of beleevers no more priviledge then the children of Heathens Turks and Infidels you answer In respect of the Covenant of grace and salvation none at all and bring those Scriptures Ioh. 3.7 8. Act. 10.34 35. to shew that the Covenant of grace cometh not by any naturall birth but by a new birth Onely their priviledge you say is in respect of the meanes of salvation for beleeving parents may be a means to bring their children to the knowledge and faith of Christ Answ What Christian heart doth not abhorre this assertion as being directly contrary to the tenour of Gods Covenant Gen. 17. of which more hereafter and repugnant to Gods gracious promises frequently inculcated in Scripture Exod. 20.5 6. Act. 2.39 Esa 59.21 Doth not this strike at a maine pillar of a Christians comfort grounded on those precious promises so that by this tenet if the children of Christian parents die before they be capable of the outward meanes of salvation or their parents be taken from them before they come to yeares of discretion they must be parted with as the children of Turkes or Infidels as being out of the state of salvation as being in a lost and hopelesse condition as having no right to the Covenant notwithstanding all the gracious promises that God hath made to the faithfull to be their God and the God of their seed to shew mercy to their posteritie even to thousands that the promises doe belong unto them and their children that his word and Spirit shall abide on their seed and their seeds seed Let men judge whether the father of lies can speake more contradictorily to Scripture for the extenuating of Gods rich grace and dashing the comfort of Gods people Thus have I vindicated the ground of my third argument Yet notwithstanding all shifts we see this truth remaines firme that the children of Christian parents are faederally holy and members of the Church and so have right to the seale of admission into the Church 4. Arg. 4. Arg. To those that are in Covenant with God the Sacrament or seale which God hath instituted to represent and seale admission into Covenant is to be administred Gen. 17.10 11. Exod. 12.48 But children of beleeving parents are in Covenant with God Gen. 17.7 Exod. 12.48 Esa 59.21 Therefore children of beleeving parents are to be admitted to the seale of entrance into the Covenant which now is baptisme in the time of the Gospel For the confirmation and explication of the former proposition I conceive it is hardly questioned but that when God hath made a Covenant with his people and appointed a seale to signifie and represent admission into the same then the seale or signe belongs to those which have entred into Covenant under what kinde of administration soever the Covenant be dispensed So Philip reasons If thou beleeve with all thine heart thou maist be baptized So Peter Can any one forbid water that these should not be baptized c. For actuall faith at least in profession was necessary to those that at first entered into the new covenant and received the sign or seale thereof to wit baptisme as well as it was necessary to Abraham who entered first into the old Covenant which was sealed by Circumcision though actuall faith was not required of his posteritie as necessarie to their being in Covenant Neither for ought that I see doth the Adversarie deny this proposition Yet if it be questioned it is fully
proved in Abraham Gen. 17.10 11. with whom we read that God first made an expresse and formall Covenant and instituted a signe or seale to signifie enterance into that Covenant and distinguish the Church from other Societies And this was not required of Abraham alone and his family but of all foreiners also that so soone as they should enter into covenant they should have this signe and seale of admittance Exod. 12.48 And still in the New-Testament as soone as men had given evidence of their entrance into the new Covenant they were baptized Now here is to be noted that the Covenant of grace was ever one and the same for substance though for the manner it have beene variously dispensed Heb. 11. through the whole Chapter and Heb. 13.8 Ephes 4.5 as shall be shewed God willing more fully hereafter Secondly before Abrahams time we read not of any distinct and full manifestation of the Covenant of grace expresly in the termes of a Covenant nor of any gathering of a Church out of the world as a distinct body whereunto the faithfull were to joyn themselves nor of any visible seale or sacred signe of admission into Covenant with God though God had a people in covenant from the beginning yet the covenant was more sparingly obscurely and implicitly revealed and no distinctive outward note of entrance into covenant that we read of appointed Thirdly since the Covenant was made with Abraham and the signe of circumcision instituted in the old and new Covenant there hath still beene a solemne signe or Sacrament of admission to which all that were in Covenant had right so that Abraham that was the first expresse Covenanter is called the father of the faithfull or of those that were in covenant with God and is to be imitated by the faithfull in all those things that are essentiall to the covenant For the Assumption The words of the Text are cleare First that God made the Covenant with Abraham and his seed Gen. 17.7 Secondly that we should not thinke that that externall covenant belonged onely to those that imitated his faith it is made with his naturall seed all that should be begotten of him Gen. 17.10 Even all that seed wherein God promised to make Abraham fruitfull should so farre be in Covenant as to have right to the onward signe untill they should fall away from the outward covenant by wilfull Apostasie vers 6 7 10. Thirdly that you may see this was not peculiar to Abraham and his posteritie alone that proceeded from his loines the same is commanded concerning his servants borne in his house or bought with his money that the males who onely were capable should receive the seale of the Covenant vers 12 13. Fourthly that you may know that this did not belong onely to Abrahams family but was a thing common to all that should enter into covenant viz. that their children should be acknowledged to be in Covenant also by having the seale of entrance administred to them see Exod. 12.48 Lastly that we may understand that this was not proper to the old covenant in the Legall dispensation but common to the Covenant of grace under whatsoever dispensation as well Evangelicall as Legall a promise of the same priviledge is made to beleeving parents even from the time of the Gospel Esa 50.20 21. compared with Rom. 11.26 27. A. R. Now I come to your answers which is That neither Abraham nor his seed was circumcised because the Covenant was made with him Answ Who denies this or what is this to the purpose we know that God might have made a Covenant without a seale if it had pleased him They were circumcised because God did institute circumcision for a seale and appointed it to those that were admitted into Covenant The faithfull we know were in covenant before Abrahams time though there be no formall or full expression of the covenant nor of any signe or Sacrament of entering thereinto You adde a reason of your assertion For the covenant was made with Abraham above twenty yeares before circumcision was instituted as may appeare by comparing Gen. 12.2 3. with Gen. 16.3 17.25 Answ No such thing appeareth in the places cited It appeareth indeed that God had made a promise to Abraham long before of making him a great Nation and blessing him but there is no word of the Covenant or that God would be a God to him and his seed in those places before Gen. 17.2 though we know that Abraham from his first call was in covenant with God as were Abel Enoch Noah and all the faithfull before Abraham as the covenant is generally taken But here we speake of the Covenant in regard of its expresse manifestation and speciall administration with Abraham and afterward since the institution of a seale thereunto And it appears that in Gen. 17. vers 2. is the first expression of Gods making a covenant with Abraham at which time also circumcision was instituted And if God had made a covenant never so long before with Abraham neither he not his seed must have used circumcision untill God had instituted it But after God had appointed it all that were in covenant were to be circumcised that were capable even all males of eight dayes old and upward You say The covenant was not made with Abraham for his being a faithfull man but for his being such a faithfull man whom the Lord was pleased to chuse and set out as a patterne to all beleevers Rom. 4.23 24. and to be a father of many Nations Rom. 4.17 18. and in whose seed all the Nations of the world should be blessed Act. 5.25 13.23 to wit in Christ who was to come of his flesh Answ We know that the Covenant was not made with Abraham for his being a faithfull man neither yet for his being such a faithfull man c. as you would have it But Abraham was made by God a faithfull man and taken into covenant of Gods free grace that he might be a patterne to future beleevers and a father of many Nations c. Abrahams faithfulnesse so qualified was not the cause why God took him into covenant But Abrahams faithfulnesse acceptance into covenant and being a patterne of beleevers a father of many Nations in whose seed all Nations are blessed were effects of Gods good pleasure and free grace Secondly neither doe those places of Scripture produced by you yeeld the least shew of proofe that Abraham was taken into covenant and his seed for being such a faithfull man as God was pleased to choose and set out a patterne to all beleevers c. Thirdly seeing Abraham was taken into covenant that he might be or at the most as being I dare not say with you for being such a faithfull man whom the Lord was pleased to choose and set out a patterne to all beleevers and to be a father of many Nations and in whose seed all the Nations of the world should be blessed then
be saved But this must not be extended to all persons and times for then it should follow that no child of Christian parents dying before yeares of discretion and actuall faith could be saved which is directly contrary to those Scriptures that shew that God will be a God to the faithfull and their seed will shew mercy to thousands of their posteritie to the childrens children of those that keepe covenant Psal 10â— 1â— 18. that the promise is to the faithfull and their children that their children are holy and such places before cited which will not suffer any one that beleeves Gods word to hold that the children of the faithfull dying in their minoritie must unavoidably be damned all of them Fourthly I adde for answer to this Scripture that infants of Christian parents as they are within the covenant and are holy so they may be said to have a virtuall faith or that which is analogicall thereto that giveth them right to baptisme as much as the converted heathens profession for being in covenant with God and being holy cannot be conceived to be without answerable faith or somewhat equivalent At last you having triumphantly concluded your dispute come to shew your disciples what they may see by what you have taught them I will examine a few of your words Say you By this we may partly see the grosse mistake of all such great clarks of our times which confound those two Covenants of Law and Gospell and make them both as one in substance and different only in circumstance as in administration only or degrees the one more darke the other more light whereas indeed they are no lesse different then old and new works and faith the administration of condemnation and the administration of righteousnesse or then the letter killing and the spirit giving life 2. Cor. 3.6.7.8.9 or then a state of bondage and a state of sonnes Gal. 4.21 Answ Yes we may see what you inferre as we may see false shapes by false glasses or one falshood by another Secondly may not ignorant phantasticks possiblely fall into grosse errours assoone as great clarks Thirdly as for the differences that you put between the Covenant of the Law and of the Gospell as you call them First we grant that the Covenant which God made with the Iewish and that which he made with the Christian Church differ as old and new But this is too narrow a difference to make them diverse in substance as he that was of old a child is a new become a man yet differs not in substance from what he was but is the same person God gave that old commandement to the Iewes Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thy selfe Lev. 19.18 Christ saith to his Disciples A new commandment I give unto you that you love one another Ioh. 13.34 Must these commandements needs differ in substance or must they be accused of grosse mistake that hold that these commandements agree in substance as being the same The Apostle Iohn 1. Ioh. 2.7 saith he writes no new commandement but the old yet vers 8. he saith he writes a new commandement Will you say That great clark Iohn was grossely mistaken in saying that he wrote no new commandement but an old and yet presently saying he wrote an old commandement Because in your conceit old and new so farre differ that the same thing cannot be said to be old and new though in different respects and in regard of some circumstances Secondly In your second and third difference you how great a Clark soever are grossely mistaken in calling the old Covenant made with the Iewes a Covenant of works and a Covenant of nature Where finde you the Scripture calling it so Will you perswade men that Abraham Isaac and Iacob Moses David and the faithfull before Christ where without faith and grace That either they were saved by works and nature for you will allow them to be under no covenant but works nature you exclude them from faith and grace or else to have perished remedilesly The one whereof must needs follow upon your tenet But of this we have heard before this your opinion is so absurd and unchristian that it deserves rather to be abhorred then confuted Thirdly whereas you call the old Covenant the administration of condemnation and a killing letter wherein you would have it contrary to the Gospell as being the administration of righteousnesse and spirit giving life and bring that Scripture 2. Cor. 3.6.7.8 9. I Answer First there is no such thing proved by that Scripture that the old covenant was the administration of condemnation and a killing letter Secondly neither can any such thing be conceived unlesse we shall say that all which were under the old Covenant were condemned and killed destitute of righteousnesse and life and that God made a Covenant with his people to kill and condemne them which will necessarily follow upon that tenet which were blasphemy Thirdly the Apostle indeed calleth the law which was an addition to the covenant of promise a killing letter the administration of condemnation not as it was given and intended by God primarily who gave it primarily and properly to humble that stubborne people drive them to the promise and exercise them in obedience and to be taken along with not apart from the promise and to traine them up for draw them to and direct them how to walke in Christ which is the end of the Law not to drive them from Christ But as it was in it selfe considered without the promise and without Christ so it was a killing letter and the ministrie of condemnation and as it was misunderstood and abused by false-teachers hypocrites and Iusticiaries who before the comming of Christ forsaking the promise and since his comming forsaking the Gospell both which held forth Christ in whom alone righteousnesse is to be sought or at least mingling the Law and Gospell together in point of justification sought righteousnesse by the works of the Law either alone or with the Gospell to them it became a killing letter And the addition of the Law to the promise was a testimony and an occasion of greater condemnation to such as they who abused it sought righteousnesse in it Rom. 7.12.14 Gal. 3.21 24. and made their boast of it but were not humbled nor driven to Christ thereby though in it selfe the Law was spirituall holy and good not contrary but subordinate to the promise As the Gospell is an occasion of greater condemnation even to those that are externally under the Covenant of the Gospell who abuse it 2. Cor. 2.16 Heb. 10.29 Iud. 1.4 Yet will it not hence follow that the Covenant of the Gospell or new Covenant is the ministry of condemnation though it turne to the greater condemnation of some for their abuse of it Fourthly As for your last difference that a state of bondage this a state of sonnes Answ T is true the Law given on mount Sinai for of that the Apostle
speakes as it was taken without the promise and that Covenant which God made with Abraham and as men sought justification by it whether without the promise before Christ or without the Gospell since Christ or whether they sought justification by the Law together with the promise or the Gospell which was not Gods end in giving the Law to his people but mans abuse of it so it brought men into a state of bondage and so the obstinate Iews that thus abuse the Law are cast out as Ishmael and Hagar And as the faithfull were under the discipline and padagogie of the Law they were in a servile condition in comparison of that great freedome from those intolerable burdens of ceremonies and great discomfort and feare accompanying the same which the faithfull have under the Gospel But notwithstanding their bondage they were sonnes and heires and lords of all Gal. 4.1 and so they were under a Covenant of grace though legally administred As for your following discourse wherein you talke your pleasure against Magistrates and Ministers and cry out of the Baptisme of Infants as the greatest delusion and a thing of as dangerous consequence as ever the man of sinne brought into the world and that the greatest maintainers thereof are the greatest deluders and that it is time for you to awake out of your drunken slumber and seek by whom and by what meanes you are so miserablely intosticated as you call it whether by an errour of the Printer or because you are so intoxicated with your drunken slumber that you cannot speake English with much other like raving talke wherein you abuse the Scriptures and shew what manner of spirit you are of Answ I account this wild talke being the evaporations of a giddy braine intoxicated with a drunken slumber whereof you complaine worthy no other answer but this Of every idle word you must give an account at the day of judgment Matt. 12.36 much more of speaking evill of those things you know not railling upon dignities and authorities despising dominions 2 Pet. 2.9.10.11.12 Iud. 4. 8 9. c. and of calling evill good and good evill putting darknesse for light and light for darknesse Es 5.20 Which places of Scripture I would intreate you when you shall awake out of your drunken slumber to consider and seriously ponder So much for the fourth argument and clearing it from exceptions Now I come to the fifth which is of affinity with the former and confounded with it by A. R. and therefore his answers to it mingled with his answers to the former but not the same and therefore we will consider it apart and set downe his answers of any weight and replie to them God willing and this is taken from circumcision 5. Argument If Infants of beleeving parents or parents in Covenant under the old Covenant might and ought to be consecrated unto God and initiated into Covenant by circumcision then Infants of beleeving parents under the new Covenant ought to be consecrated to God and solemnly entred into Covenant by Baptisme But Infants of beleeving parents under the old Covenant might and ought to be consecrated to God and initiated into Covenant by circumcision Gen. 17.10.11 Exod. 12.48 Therefore Infants of beleeving parents under the new Covenant ought to be consecrated unto God and solemnly entred into Covenant by Baptisme For the clearing and confirming of the sequele of the proposition for of the assumption there is no question I will lay downe two or three considerations First that the old and new covenant were one and the same for substance Abraham Moses David and all the faithfull before Christ were under the same Covenant that all the faithfull since Christ are under For since Adams fall there hath been but one way of salvation common to all that have been saved which way is revealed and exhibited only in the Covenant of grace as hath been partly shewed before see Rev. 13.8 14.6 Heb. 11. through the Chapter and 13.8 Hath been demonstrated by the godly learned and must be needs acknowledged by all that will without prejudice consider that Exod. 34.6.7 first God considered as a mercifu l Father a gratious long-suffering God abundant in goodnesse and truth Ezeh 16. is the Authour of the old Covenant as well as the new secondly Iosh 24. Exod. 33.19 That man considered as a miserable sinner yet weary of sinne desiring mercy professing and promising repentance faith and obedience Eph. 1.12 upon his being received into this Covenant is the other Covenantier or confederate in the old aswell as in the new Thirdly 1. Cor. 10.4 that Christ is the Mediatour in both being the Lambe slaine from the foundation of the world Gen. 3.15 Ioh. 8. Ps 110. Exod. 34.7 the promised seed who brake the serpents head whose day Abraham seeing rejoyced A priest for ever after the order of Melchisedek Fourthly that the principall good things promised in both were pardon of sinnes Ps 32.1.2 adoption sanctification perseverance and eternall salvation Fiftly Gen. 15.6 that the condition required is repentance faith and obedience in the old Covenant aswell as the new Sixtly that the end in both is the same Act. 15.10.11 to wit the glory of Gods rich mercie in powring spirituall temporall and eternall blessings upon his people And seventhly that the summe of the Covenant is the same viz Rom. 4. Exod. 19.5 6. Deut. 4.29 30. 10.16.19 11.22 I will be thy God and thou shalt be my people All which are undenyably the same in the old Covenant and new So that considering they agree in Author Object Mediator Good things promised Duties required End Effects in a word in Matter Forme and Definition there can be no essentiall difference Only they differ in some Accidents As there the Covenant was made in Christ to come Here in Christ already come There with a few people and after Abrahams or at least Moses his time only with the house of Israel and those that should joyne therewith Here with more even with all nations Then dispensed by darker prophesies and more obscure sacraments sacrifices and ceremonies or types now by cleare revelation and plaine or open ordinances without the vaile of shadowes types and darke ceremonies Then grace was more dimly scantly and with mixture of legall slavery ordinarily bestowed now more plainly plentifully comfortably and freely all which are but circumstantiall or graduall differences Secondly when the new Covenant succeeded the old then Baptisme succeeded in the place of circumcision as the Lords Supper in stead of the Passeover Exod. 12 48. Rom. 4.11 1 Cor. 12.13 Act. 22.16 Col. 2.11 12. I say Baptisme succeeded in the roome of circumcision and is to us of the same use that circumcision was to the Iewes to wit a signe of entrance into the Church a seale of the righteousnesse of faith which comprehends remission of sinnes Baptisme of the spirit and circumcision of the heart
which are the things signified in Baptisme Insomuch that the Apostle puts circumcision without hands in puting off the body of sinnes c. and buriall with Christ in Baptisme c. for one and the same thing implying that though we now want outward circumcision with hands yet we have inward circumcision without hands signified and sealed in Baptisme to so many as have Christ And so though the beleeving Iewes before Christ wanted the outward sacrament of Baptisme yet they were inwardly partakers of Baptisme without hands in remission of sinnes and mortification sealed by circumcision aswell as we So then if by being buried with Christ in Baptisme we are partakers of circumcision without hands It appeares that Baptisme is of the same use to us that circumcision was to the Iewes whereof one particular among the rest was to be a signe of entring into the Church or Covenant as may be seen in the generall use of both the Sacraments and which our Saviour it may seem would in speciall teach us by his example in that at the eight day he was circumcised as a professed Member of the Iewish Church but after when he would set up the new Covenant or Christian Church he was initiated thereinto by Baptisme So that though in some things circumcision and baptisme differ as first in the ourward ceremonies Secondly in regard of the sexes to which applyed for circumcision was applied only to males the females being uncapale and so being received into Covenant in or with the males whereas Baptisme is applied to both sexes being both alike capable of it Thirdly in the exact determinate time required in the one viz circumcision tied to the eight day but left free and undetermined in the other so that it be done as speedily as conveniently may be after the party is apprehended and acknowledged to be within the Covenant and so to have right to the sacrament And fourthly in the adjuncts or effects Circumcision with spilling of blood Baptisme without blood because the true blood of the Covenant is shed and therefore no more to be shadowed by bloody sacrifices or sacraments as aforetime Yet they agree in the maine end and use Circumcision and Baptisme being signes of entrance into the Church as the Passeover and the Supper signes of continuance and so consequently circumcision and Baptisme to be applied to those that were but newly in Covenant as to Infants of beleevers and infidels newly converted the other to be used by them that had attained to some growth Those to be applied but once to one person as signifying our spirituall birth which is but once but these often to be used as signifying spirituall nourishment and growth which must be often and continuall untill we come to perfection though we bee not bound to the distinct times in using Baptisme and the Lords Supper that were appointed for circumcision and the Passeover viz. the eight day from the birth for the one or the foureteenth day of the first moneth yearely for the other Thirdly consider that Gods bounty and grace on the one side or mans dutie and obligation on the other side is nothing diminished or straitned in the time of the New Testament in comparison of what was under the Old but rather much increased and inlarged in respect of manifestation more abundantly to Christians then Iewes as the whole course of the Scripture shews So that if God was pleased graciously to accept into covenant parents together with their children then and to become the God of the little infants as well as of the parents and to set the seale of the covenant upon the infants for the confirmation of faith and comfort of the parents for the time present and of the children for the future when they should come to understanding And if he were then pleased to binde parents to offer and dedicate their children unto him by the seale of entrance into covenant much more he vouchsafeth the former and requireth the latter now under the Gospel To this you answer A. R. God commanded Abraham to circumcise all the males in his house and every male childe at eight dayes old as well he that was borne in the house as he that was bought with mony of any stranger that was not of his seed Now it was both right and equall that Abraham should doe herein as God commanded him and it had beene sinfull in him to have done otherwise more or lesse And so likewise it is meet for us to doe as God hath commanded us to doe and no otherwise And afterwards to omit repetitions of the same things and some objections and answers which you make that either concerne us not or have beene sufficiently answered already you say we must baptize infants when we are commanded to doe it and not before notwithstanding their being capable of baptisme with all its significations Answer Ans It was shewed before that the restraining of circumcision to males and tying of it to the eighth day were accidentall and peculiar to circumcision as being the seale and sacrament of entrance into the old covenant whereas some things are essentiall and common to the seales of entrance in both covenants And therefore though the argument hold not from one Sacrament to another in those things that are accidentall and proper to the one yet it holds from one to another in those things that are common and essentiall as we justly maintaine against our adversaries the Papists that every Sacrament is a seale of the covenant of grace or of the righteousnesse of faith because circumcision was so to which you seeme to assent calling Baptisme a pledge of remission of sinnes though the name of pledge or seale be not expresly given to other sacraments in scripture Now we learne by the Israelites frequent using of the Passeover that the Sacrament of the Lords Supper is oft not once onely as Baptisme to be received by Christians though otherwise we have no expresse clear command for the oft receiving of it howbeit we be not restrained to one in the yeare onely nor to the time of Passeover nor to the use of unleavened bread and such things as were proper to the Passeover so though we doe not in baptisme observe the same ceremonie nor precise time nor sex that was peculiar to circumcision yet we justly gather that baptisme belongs to such persons for age viz. Infants though there were no expresse command in Scripture for it and that upon the grounds aforementioned Secondly Gods command to Abraham as he was the father of the faithfull is sufficient warrant for our actions though we have no speciall command for the same set downe in the New Testament much lesse brought to us by any speciall revelation as to Abraham even when in regard of some speciall acts and many circumstances we may not doe as Abraham did yet by vertue of Gods commandement to Abraham we are bound to doe that which is analogicall thereunto Gen. 17.1