Church visible but reprobates The argument to the contrary that only Jews are Abrahams seed according to the flesh is not good for these very Scriptures Gal. 3. 4. which they cite for its ground do distinguish the children of Abraham according to the flesh and according to the promise the children of Sarah and Hagar these that were born of the free-woman the Jerusalem above and the bondwoman Sinai and Jerusalem upon earth all this is applied to the Galatians who were Gentiles the one part of the distinction to those of them who were justified by faith the other to those of them who pleaded for a justification by the works of the Law and thereby lay under the bondage and curse of the Law If both parts of the distinction may not be applied to the Gentile Galatians the ground of the Apostle his argument and of his whole discourse is overturned This Arg. many ways absurd The other part of the minor is far more absurd That only actuall believers are the children of the promise for if so then first at one breath all Christian Infants are blown out of heaven none of them have any more interest in Christ in grace and in salvation then Turks and Pagans Thus farre the most of the Anabaptists wont not to goe but the Disputants professe it is their reall meaning their retortion here upon us is very silly that we do put Christian infants in as evill a condition as they by granting all infants to be born in originall sin for they know that we joyn to this a second assertion That the elect infants of believing Parents though born in sin and the children of wrath by nature as well as others yet by supernaturall grace and mercy are born under the new Covenant and have their right and interest both in the Covenant of grace and the seals thereof Secondly by this Doctrine the Disputants cut off all Jewish infants from any interest in the promises of grace Isaac himself Jacob and Joseph cannot be children of the promise in their childhood but according to the Disputants they must be children according to the flesh totally flesh without the Covenant of grace that so they behoved to remain till they came to those yeares wherein they did actually believe and by this actuall faith became children of the promise which promise before their actuall faith did no more belong to them then to any other of mankinde Thirdly by this argument Circumcision is made to be a seal only of a Covenant of works So Isaac and the rest of the Patriarchs by their Circumcision had no promise of grace sealed unto them all of them except Abraham at the time of their Circumcision and many years after were under a Covenant of works only all of them to the years of their discretion and actuall faith were incapable of any interest in the Covenant of grace strange absurdities Fourthly by this argument they must professe that none but true believers justified sanctified and elect persons are under the Covenant of grace that such onely have right to participate of the Sacraments the seals of that Covenant and that such only can be lawfull members of any true Church They reject our distinction of an outward and inward Covenant of grace We teach that the Covenant of grace in the outward administration thereof both in preaching the promises and applying the seals of the Sacraments is to be proponed by Gods appointment to all the outward visible members of the Church But the inward saving grace of this Covenant whether in preaching of the word or administring the Sacraments is by the holy Ghost conferred onely upon the true living invisible members of Christs mysticall body By this common and necessary distinction we escape easily that blot of Arminianism which they would lay upon us for although we put all whom we baptize and all to whom we preach as to Church members under the outward administration of a gracious Covenant yet do we not grant any true saving grace to any but the elect and regenerate who do never totally and finally fall away But the most of our adversaries are full grosse Arminians yea their refusing to distinguish betwixt the outward and inward Covenant or something equipollent does draw them to all these and greate absurdities Thâ— 7 8. and 9. Arg. are but repetitions Their seventh argument is a meer Battology Infant Baptism say they is unlawfull and will-worship because not administred according to the rule of the word having neither precept nor example nor rule for it Ans We need not repeat what was said before to the same thing only we observe that they insist upon the baptizing of true believers only for they speak here in terminis that they only of the Gentiles might be baptized who did sincerely believe and they prove this from Acts 8.37 so then it shall be as unlawfull to baptize the fairest professors if hypocrites as to baptize infants Their eighth argument is another Battology to wit that infant Baptism is unlawful because Christ did not command his Apostles to preach and practice it Their ninth argument is of the same nature That infant Baptism is unlawfull because it is no part of the revealed will of God to those tautologies our former answers need not be repeated The absurdities of every one of the nine arguments These be the nine great arguments wherewith the Ministers of the City were to be confounded their mouths for ever to be stopped and the peoples eies to be opened so clearly that with chearfulness they might renounce their old receive a new Baptism yet I am in the opinion that the keeping of those arguments within doors had served much more for the honour of the Authors for every one of them is clogged with its own proper absurdity The first makes example alone a full and compleat rule of practice in all ordinances The second is grounded upon a wilde logick notion of such an essentiall difference as makes a man in his riper years differ essentially from himself in his infancy The third cuts off all reasoning from Scripture but in terminis were the consequence never so clear The fourth makes Christ and the Apostles ordinary practice of clearing their doctrine from the Law and the Prophets to be no lesse a wickednesse then Antichristianisme and the deniall of the comming of Christ in the flesh The fifth makes the personall example of Christ a full and compleat rule of all Gospel ordinances The sixth denys Isaac Jacob Joseph or any of Abrahams elect seed when they were circumcised to have had any right at all in the covenant of grace also it imports that no infant either of Jew or Gentile had ever any interest in God more then a Turk or a Pagan before they come to so ripe years as actually to beleeve and repent The seventh eighth and ninth are meer repetitions of the third and import clearly the unlawfulnesse of the baptisme and
them for he only admonishes us to be sparing cautious in our reasoning from proportion in positive and institute worship his advice we mind to follow as very reasonable for we doe not from analogy infer the institution of Baptisme or any other positive worship onely the application of Baptisme a worship instituted by an expresse command to a certain subject to wit infants and to reason thus far yea farther from proportions and analogies is the frequent custome both of Christ and his Apostles thus the Lord proves it lawfull for his Disciples to pluck the ears of corn on the Sabbath from Davids eating of the shew-bread and the Apostle proves the necessity of maintaining the Ministers from not muzling of the mouth of the Oxe that treadeth out the corn and their living by the Altar who serve at the Altar 1 Cor. 9.9 But the greatest stick is upon the antecedent Baptismes succession to Circumcision we therefore prove it from Col. 2.11 12. Baptisme succeeds to Circumcision Col. 2.11 12. In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands in putting off the body of the sinnes of the flesh by the Circumcision of Christ buried with him in Baptisme wherein also you are risen with him The Apostle here shewing our compleatnesse in Christ tels us that we have in him the main thing signified by Circumcision the spirituall Circumcision of the heart not made with hands the putting off of the body of sin also that in place of the abolished rite of Circumcision we have the new rite of Baptisme whose substance and signification was the very same with Circumcision a buriall with Christ and a resurrection with him a killing of the body of sin and quickning of the new man in the life of every grace The Apostle in this his parallel and comparison of the two Sacraments is clear in making the substance and signification of both to be really one In this also that Circumcision is put away and accomplished by the comming of Christ the body of all the old shadows but that Baptisme yet remains in the Christian church in place of Circumcision having the same ends and significations therewith Many dissimilitudes are here brought by some to hinder all proportion analogy and parallel betwixt these two Sacraments but how many soever can be brought they will prove no more but that those two are not one which was never affirmed by any things that are like and agree onely in some third cannot possibly be one for identity destroys analogy and similitude But if two concordances betwixt Baptisme and Circumcision be made good the third for which we reason will of its own accord follow if it be clear that Circumcision and Baptisme be both of them seals of the same covenant and both of them initiating seals it follows that if infants were capable of the one they are also of the other If the first two doe not clearly enough appear from the last passage of the Apostle there be many more Scriptures beside to make them evident The first similitude betwixt Baptisme and Circumcision is their sealing of the covenant of grace Circumcision did seal the Covenant of grace and the blessings therein contained this of Baptisme was never questioned but of Circumcision the Anabaptists did ever deny it we prove it first from Gen. 17.11 Gen. 17.11 and it shall be a token of the covenant between me and thee what covenant was this whereof Circumcision is here called a token or as the Apostle speaks Rom. 4.11 a sign and a seal Moses expresses it in the 7. v. calling it an everlasting covenant wherein God promised to be a God to Abraham and to his seed after him this covenant must be of grace since the Lord the fountain of grace and glory promises therein to communicate even himself to Abrahams posterity It is true according to the wise and wonderfull dispensation of the grace of God both under the Law and Gospel the promise is preached to the whole seed and all the members of the visible church whether elect or reprobate but what is offered to all in the Word and Sacraments is conferred onely upon the elect by the efficacy of his grace who works all in all according to the good pleasure of his will It is clear also from Deut. 30.6 Deut. 30.6 that Circumcision was a seal of the covenant of grace and the Lord thy God will circumcise thy heart and the heart of thy seed to love the Lord thy God with all thy heart and with all thy soul that thou mayest live here the thing signified by the rite of Circumcision is the sanctification of the Spirit and the planting of the love of God in the mortified heart which without all doubt are two of the principal promises of the covenant of grace Likewise Rom. 4.11 Rom. 4.11 is so clear that in reason it ought to stop all mouths from farther debating in this point and he received the sign of Circumcision a seal of the righteousnesse of faith Whence we reason The covenant that brings to Gospel justification to the righteousnesse of faith to remission of sins and happinesse is the covenant of grace But the Apostle there affirms Circumcision to have been a seal of such a covenant Ergo. It 's true the covenant of grace The covenant of grace has been diversly administred but ever the same and never mixed in its administration before Christs comming in the flesh was cloathed with many shadows of now abolished ceremonies and had adjoined to it upon mount Sinai the old covenant of works to be a severe paedagogue for the pointing out the way to Christ unto the very unruly children of Israel and for keeping them in awe and terrour by its threats and curses also for alluring them to obedience by its temporall promises we grant because of those adjuncts the covenant of grace is sometimes spoken of as an old covenant and is distinguished from its very self as it was administred by Christ after his incarnation the old dresse of Sinai being changed as of an old garment but that the thing was ever the same advised Christians must be loath to doubt for if the covenant which the Lord made with Abraham and his seed under the Law be not truly and substantially the new covenant of grace we desire to know by what means they obtained either grace or glory and to put all the Fathers of the Old Testament in so beastly a condition as excludes from grace and glory who dare be so insolent Now if we grant them a covenant which did bring them to a state of grace in this life and of glory hereafter how can we deny it to be gracious That which they speak of a mixed covenant is not much to the purpose we did never deny the adjunction of ceremonies and temporall promises and the whole covenant of works unto the covenant of grace under its first administration yea under the very New
propositions may be denyed there is no necessity of the major for although the commission of teaching and baptizing goe together yet this infers not any necessity of applying these two commands to the self same persons be it so that these two acts are ever conjoined and that teaching must ever goe before baptizing for the parents ought to be instructed before the children be baptized and in the right administration of baptisme the nature of the covenant is always declared before the seal of the sacrament be appended yet it follows not that the same persons who are to be baptized are at that same time to be taught as in the commission for Circumcision Gen. 17. all the precepts concern not the self same persons but some the parents onely some the infants only and some both v. 12. he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you this belongs onely to infants but the 11. v. ye shall circumcise the flesh of your fore-skin this belongs onely to the parents and those of age for no other could obey this injunction and v. 10. every man-child among you shall be circumcised belongs alike both to old young Even so that in the Law of Baptism some of the injunctions should belong only to the Pastors as the act of preaching and baptizing and others onely to the elder people that are to be baptized as that of being taught and others as that of being baptized to the younger also who are not able to bee taught there is no absurdity The minor also is denyed upon divers grounds Infants are Disciples I speak not of that which divers maintain of the actuall faith of children and of the application to infants of that of Isaiah they shall be all taught of God from the least to the greatest But I desire that to be considered which many more affirm and divers of the Anabaptists themselves doe presse that the word which Christ uses in his commission to the Apostles is matheteuein which signifies say they not to teach but to make Disciples now infants may very well goe under the name of Disciples for they are brought to the School of God the visible Church and there they are dedicate to Gods discipline and have their names given up to be the Lords subjects and scholars Sundry scriptures also are produced where infants are counted Disciples as Act. 15.10 why tempt ye God to put a yoke upon the neck of the Disciples Circumcision is the yoke whereof the Apostle is speaking now they on whose neck ordinarily that yoke was put were onely infants A third reason for the proving of our first minor is this Infants have interest in the Trinity To whom the form and end of Baptisme expressed in the place in hand does belong to them the commission set down in Mat. 28.19 does extend But to some infants the form and end of Baptisme expressed in that place does belong Ergo. The minor is grounded upon the words of the text for they make the form and end of Baptisme to be a dedication of the person baptized to the Father Son and holy Ghost and an interessing of the three Persons in the baptized party now the necessity to dedicate christian infants to their Creator Redeemer and Sanctifier and the interest of all the three Persons in the infants of their servants so dedicated unto them is evident A fourth reason for the probation of that first minor whosoever may lawfully be baptized to them Infants may be lawfully baptized the commission in hand does extend for the baptism of women of old men of Kings of Beggers and of all sexes ages and conditions is grounded upon this command though neither their names nor their qualities be therein expresly set down nor can be fetched frō thence but only by consquence Now we assume that some infants may lawfully be baptized this both the present argument and the two former and these that follow doe prove and the Apostle Peter Acts 2.39 does evince by this argument To whom the chief ground of Baptisme does belong they may lawfully be baptized But to some children the chief ground of baptisme does belong to wit the promises of the new covenant those says he belong to you and to your children and upon this as a principall foundation he builds his exhortation to them to be baptized Arg. 4. from the Baptism of whole families Our fourth main argument is this The blessing which God bestows on whole families without exception of any infant ought not to be denyed to all infants But baptisme is such a blessing Ergo. The major is grounded on that laudable conformity which ought to be in all men with God when hee is good our eye without reproof may not be evill the minor is proved from divers Scriptures where the Apostles did baptize not only them who are declared to beleeve but with them their whole household whose actuall beleeving is not at all expressed Acts 16.15 Acts 16.15.31 when she was baptized and her houshold ibid. v. 31. thou and thy house shall be saved and v. 33. he and all his were baptized and 1 Cor. 1.16 1 Cor. 1.16 I baptized also the houshold of Stephanas No exception here is made of infants and if any should except them because they cannot hear the Word and beleeve they must exclude them also from the other spirituall benefits mentioned in these places even from salvation it self for as our Saviour speaks to Zacheus Luke 19.9 This day is salvation come to this house and the Lord shewed by the Angel to Cornelius that Peter should tell him words whereby he and all his house should be saved Acts 11.14 So Paul tels the keeper of the prison that upon his faith himself should be saved and his house Act. 16.31 How great a wrong it were to exclude infants either from the promise or from the seal of salvation when both are conferred upon whole housholds whereof infants are the most innocent parts may be seen in all the preceding practises of God from the first institution of any initiating sign to that day What ever man either Jew or Gentile was moved by God to joine himself to the visible church as himself did hear and make profession of his faith and receive the seal of Circumcision so also all his male infants were circumcised though they could neither hear nor beleeve This bounty and kindnesse God did never afterward retract and for any man to doe it it were a great presumption for so the Jews in the New Testament where their comforts are enlarged should be in a more sorrowfull condition then the very Gentiles were in the Old for then the Proselytes upon the profession of their faith had all their infants though unable to beleeve taken within the covenant and all their children admitted to the seals thereof but according to our adversaries position the Jews themselves in the New Testament though never so zealous of the faith must
charitable mercies unto every creature of Angels spirits and mankinde likewise because all power is committed to the holy Ghost to manifest Christ a spirituall Christ and all-saving Jesus therefore the holy Ghost speaking to Christ as just Judge condemning damning and tormenting a part of his creation c. XXXXX Divine light p. 7. Esau's world of the curse is now almost passed away and the world of Jacobs blessednesse is now entring in Ibid. p. 14. Christ in his private kingdome sate Judge over the quick and dead to condemne and execute torments upon the rebellious whom he held as prisoners for a time but Christ in his publick kingdome by the power of the holy Ghost shall raign for ever to bring up all to life and immortality Christs publick Monarchicall kingdome is now appearing now the waters of troubles are abated and in the new heavens and new earth of Christs publick kingdome there shall be no more sea of Antichristian mysteries onely the old heavens and earth of Antichrists wickednesse must be burnt up with the fire of Gods Spirit yea all things naturall and supernaturall must bee changed at these resurrections now comming YYYYY Divine light p. 7. In the world of Jacobs blessednesse now entring in the reprobate condition of men and Angels shall be regained death and hell shall be destroyed all shall be created of new to life and immortality the damned Prisoners shall be sent forth out of the pit Ibid. p. 11. For a time millions of thousands were damned by their Antichristian works yet not damned to perish for ever for there is none can be damned totally all the generations that are deceased in the old world of Esau shall arise by glorious resurrections ZZZZZ Ibid. p. 11. This true Christian vocall faith is to beleeve the Covenant of generall redemption Ibid. Those which believe and maintain the Covenant of generall redemption are onely the true Church of whom Christ is the head AAAAAA Ibid. p. 11. All the damned that did not or doe not receive it must be saved by this faith Ibid. p. 13. Although there were but three persons beleevers in the earth with Christ yet God will have his whole Creation although not any else did beleeve but these three in and with Christ Ibid. p. 14. Such sons and daughters of God onely by beleeving are made instruments of blessing unto the whole Creation although there should be but three in the whole earth BBBBBB A description of Familism and confutation of the Familists by Benjamin Bourn to the Reader Many of them being such formerly as were to be beloved and delighted in Give me leave to speak according to men were ye not once as reall for Christ as you are now for Antichrist yea I will be one witnesse what close communion you had with God and how many times you have to the refreshing of many drooping spirits made a large acknowledgement of the manifestations of Gods love and favour toward you in Jesus Christ CCCCCC The discovery of Familism p. 10. Let not the Familists say it is not M. Randall and we only that teach this doctrine of Henry Nicholas there have been and are great Doctors of Divinity so called yea and some great Peers and persons of quality and estate in this Land DDDDDD The discovery of Familism p. 2. Whosoever shall teach and perswade the people that the perfection and resurrection spoken of by Paul 1 Cor. 15. are to be attained in the fulnesse and perfection of them in this present time before the common death of the body doth herein teach the deceitfull doctrine of Familism taught by Henry Nicholas but M. Randall does so teach as sundry persons that heard him can witnesse and so he does destroy the hope of the Saints as touching the personall comming of Christ in his glory to judge the quick and the dead and of the resurrection of the bodies of the Saints and of the glory of life everlasting of body and soule hereafter EEEEEE Ibid. p. 2. M. Randall delivered that a man baptized with the holy Ghost knew all things even as God knew all things which himself greatly admired as a great mystery Ibid. p. 7. Henry Nicholas says of himselfe God hath made me alive through Christ and anointed me with his godly beeing manned himself with me and Godded me with him FFFFFF Discovery p. 4. M. Randall turns the holy writings of Moses and the Prophets of Christ and the Apostles and the proper names persons and things mentioned and contained therein into allegories and gives them out to be the mystery and spirituall meaning of the same GGGGGG Benjamin Bourns description and confutation p. 6. Their first errour is that there is but one spirit or life in all things both in heaven and earth and that is absolutely and essentially God HHHHHH Ibid. p. 7 8. Is this a universall Christ as Antichrist cals him that is the flesh and blood of the whole world which the Godhead assuming makes out a discovery of himself to himself in and by all creatures whatsoever IIIIII Description p. 13. Whether all things are the act of God yea or no whether every creature in all its actions be acted and ruled by the Spirit of God The errour is explicated and confuted KKKKKK Gangren second Part p. 7. When the Committee of Lords and Commons was in Guildhall companies of thirties and fourties vented boldly all sorts of opinions some maintained that no mortall spirit could sin or be capable of sinne and it being objected What say you to the Devils they denied the Devils either sinned or could sin LLLLLL Gangren first Part division second p. 24. Nichols did justifie to M. Greenhils face that God was the Author of all sin that no man was sent to hell for any sins but cast thither onely because God would have it so MMMMMM Bourns description p. 24. These spirits that we call good and evill Angels they call good or evill motions of mans minde NNNNNN Ibid. Their third errour is that nothing shall remain eternally but the essence life and Spirit of God which is now in all creatures OOOOOO Ibid. Their fourth errour is this that the Scriptures are a confused allegory a meer shadow a false history and ought not to be any mans foundation no more then any other Book or the Apocrypha PPPPPP Bourns description p. 36. The comming death resurrection ascension and intercession of our Lord Jesus is absolutely denied by all the principall writings and doctrines of the Familists Ibid. p. 38. I will take here in their other errour that there is no resurrection nor last judgement for the world QQQQQQ Ibid. p. 24. They say sixthly that all ordinances are but meat for babes that a man should live above them without the use of them RRRRRR Ibid. p. 53. The first branch of their seventh Chap. shall be handled in this Chap. by way of question whether perfection in the highest degree both of grace and glory be attainable in this
and Elders the Independency of every Congregation from Presbyteries and Synods the thousand years of Christs visible raign upon earth All this new light did shine first and still burns most brightly among the Anabaptists Although many of the Tenets mentioned in the former Chapter be dissembled and denied by divers of this Sect Their Antipaedobaptisme and dipping shall here bee briefly and plainly considered yet all of them will acknowledge as their own what ever almost is practised either by the Independents or Brownists and besides two Tenets more Antipaedobaptism and Dipping all who carry the name of Anabaptisme though through ignorance they know not or through better instruction they dissent from many positions of their Brethren yet will avowedly and oft with passion professe their minde against the sprinkling of infants paedorantisme to all of them I ever heard of is an abomination It will not therefore be amisse before I leave them to speak something to those two points which all of them are content to take upon themselves as a Characteristick distinction from any other Sect. Let us then consider First whether it be lawfull to baptize any infant Secondly whether sprinkling be sufficient or if it be necessary to dip over head and eares all who are baptized Concerning the state of the first Question The state of the first question we need not controvert the quality of the infants to be baptized Whether they must be the children of true beleevers or onely of professors without scandall whether of Church members only or if it be enough that their Parents be Christians in the largest signification all this belongs to another place The onely point pertinent here is Whether any infants may be baptized The champions for the Anabaptists side in their Declaration of the publick Dispute intended by them with the City Ministers for their Tenet set down their These in these expresse terms No infants ought to be baptized The formall contradiction hereof is Some infants ought to be baptized for this Position I propone some few Scripturall reasons Who have leisure to see this point debated at length may look upon the worthy and judicious Writs of M. Marshall M. Black M. Geere M. Ainsworth also in his last Writ and M. Cotton in his latest learnedly and zealously maintain this truth against the Anabaptists The first reason for the affirmative My first reason I frame thus Who ever have a good right to the first Sacrament of the New Testament ought to be baptized But some infants have a good right to the first Sacrament of the New Testament Ergo Some infants ought to be baptized The major is naturally clear it needs no more for its proof but the explication of the terms of the Proposition for Baptism and the first Sacrament of the New Testament are one thing and ought to be baptized is nothing else but to have a good right to Baptism Who have right to the chief promises have right to some of the seals which God has appointed to be a means of assurance of these promises unlesse the Lord himself have made a speciall exception All the question lies in the minor which thus I prove Who ever have right to the chief promises of the New Testament they have right to the first Sacrament of the New Testament if the Lord have not put some impediment to their participation of that Sacrament But some infants have right to the chief promises of the New Testament and the Lord has put no impediment to their participation of that Sacrament Ergo. About the major I see one and but one makes some velitation all the rest give it for granted for it is grounded likewise on the nature of the terms of the proposition the chief promises of the New Testament and the first Sacrament this is the sign and seal that the thing signified The reason proceeds not from every thing signified to every sign but from the chief thing signified to the first sign some of the blessings which Circumcision did seal belonged to Melchisedek to Lot to Job and others who were not so farre as we reade circumcised but the main promises sealed by Circumcision In thy seed all the Nations of the earth shall be blessed The Messias comming of the posterity of Abraham Isaac and Jacob the Covenant of grace as it was administred under the figures of the Ceremoniall Law did belong to the people of Israel alone and to the proselytes who joyned themselves to their body Nor do we speak but of the first sign for unlesse there be a right to this there is a right to none and where the Lord has appointed signes to seal up thereby the assurance of his promises to deny to them whom God wil have to be assured of the promise the use of all the seals which he has instituted to be the spirituall means of that assurance were on mans part a great unjustice except the Lord himself have put a barre to the participation of these seals as in the Sacrament of Circumcision of old he did to women and to male infants before the eighth day and to all born in the Wildernesse during the time of their fourty years wandering therein But it is upon the minor that our Adversaries bestir themselves to purpose they deny stoutly both its parts Infants have good right to the promises of the Covenant of grace all the Scripturall objections which they can make against infants baptism they count impediments put by God to paedobaptism and upon this ground they deny the last part of the minor this we shall consider when we come to answer their objections it were not so pertinent in this place The first part likewise of the minor they deny affirming that no infants have right to any promise of the New Testament before the time of their actuall faith which they say cannot possibly be in them before the years of their discretion This is the greatest and most dangerous knot in the whole debate for we do not so much contend for the outward Sacrament to infants as for their spirituall right in God and his promises all our adversaries deny to all infants all right in God all interesses in his promises and Covenant as much as they do to Turks and Pagans Some of both say they may be elected and saved but neither of both have any place in the Covenant of grace or any Gospel promises till they be called by the Word and by an actuall faith have embraced the Gospel If therefore we make good the right and interest of any infants in the chief promises of the New Testament we establish the main hinge of this whole controversie For this end we will endeavour to clear from Scripture these four propositions First that the infants of the Jews had reall and true interest in the Covenant of grace even before the comming of Christ Secondly that the infants of the Jews had that same right in the Covenant of
Testament where the administration is much changed the new covenant wants not both its sacramentall ceremonies and the promises of this life but none of those adjuncts doe change the state and nature of the principall it remains ever a covenant of pure grace without any mixture it is neither in the whole nor in any substantiall part turned into a covenant of works it may not lose its denomination if it keeps its nature it may neither be counted wholly a covenant of works nor a mixed covenant of grace and works For the other part of the similitude that Circumcision and Baptisme as they are seals of the same covenant so they are both initiating seals Both Circumcision and Baptisme are initiating seals ceremonies whereby the first solemn entry into this covenant is made is scarce controverted by any of circumcision the thing is evident whatever covenant it sealed it was an initiating seal thereof for it was the very first ceremony exercised about any person they of age at their profession of the faith were circumcised and infants in the eight day of their life no uncircumcised person might enter the Tabernacle or Temple or eat of the Paschall supper The same is true of Baptisme upon those of age who professe faith Christ immediately puts Baptisme Goe preach and baptize none may participate of the Lords Supper who is not before baptized this was the order of the Apostolick Churches Acts 2.38.41 42. The Apostle exhorts his hearers first to repent and be baptized this being done thereafter they goe to the breaking of bread M. Tombs the over-turner of this order is deserted herein as in many other of his notions by all the Anabaptists I know Thus the parts of the analogy which we touch upon are made good as for our inference that Baptisme being an initiating sign of the same covenant in which Circumcision initiates therefore as Circumcision was administred to infants in their solemn admission to the covenant under the Law so baptisme ought to bee administred to infants in their solemn admission to the same covenant under the Gospel The main things objected against this conclusion are two first that neither under Law nor Gospel infants were admitted to any covenant of grace I grant if this exception were made not to the conclusion which is an informal way of answering but to the consequence or antecedent or some proposition it is very relevant if it were true but in the former argument I have demonstrated from divers clear Scriptures its falshood Their other exception is There needs not a particular command for the application of a sacrament to the divers ages and sexes and conditions of persons that the parallel were it most harmonious in never so many things yet if it be to the purpose it must hold also in this that as Circumcision had an express command for its application to infants so must Baptism We answer that this exception is the very point in question which this whole argument and the former and all that follows intend to prove that for the application of Baptism to infants there is so much of a divine commandment as is requisite in such a case That expresse cōmands are not required for the application of ordinances to the diverse ages sexes and conditions of subjects is clear in a number of instances Who ever did require a particular command or expresse institution for admitting of women to the Lords Supper for the baptisme of old men the baptisme of Kings of Queens of Merchants and so forth If the premises therefore be granted as we have proved them from Scripture that infants are in the covenant of grace that Circumcision was and Baptisme is a Sacramentall seal initiating and solemnly bringing into this covenant all who are admitted thereto and that Circumcision did initiate infants therein it will not in reason be avoided but Baptisme must still do the same and that to deny Baptisme the initiating seal of the covenant of grace to infants is nothing else but the excluding of them from the covenant of grace it self It is Mr Tombes remark that under the very Law Baptism was in use Infants Baptisme under the Law and Mr Marshall addes very judiciously from the Talmud from Maimonides and other Authors that who ever were circumcised among the Jews were also baptized infants as well as their parents women as well as men That this custome of baptizing all who were added to the church children as well as parents did constantly continue in all ages of the Christian church is proved by many without any satisfactory reply but we intend here to dispute from Scripture alone Our third argument we take from Mat. 28.19 The third argument from Mat. 28.19 Goe ye therefore and teach all Nations baptizing them in the name of the Father of the Son and of the holy Ghost Hence we reason thus To whom that commission of the Apostles to baptize did extend they are commanded to be baptized But to some infants that commission of the Apostles does extend Ergo. The minor only is questionable we prove it by these reasons first To whom the chief matter of that commission does belong to them the commission does extend But to some infants the chief matter of that commission does belong The promises of the Gospel belong to infants for the chief matter thereof was the glad tidings of salvation in Christ the holy covenant and mercy promised to the Fathers the oath sworn to Abraham as Zachary expounds it Luke 1.72 73. Now that the covenant and promise in the very tearms of it concerned infants as much as any appears by the words of God to Abraham Gen. 17.7 I will be thy God and the God of thy seed and Peter Acts 2.39 does preach expresly that this promise did belong as well to his hearers children as to themselves Infants are not in a worse condition under the Gospel then under the Law A second proof if this commission of the Gospel of salvation and its initial seal extend not to any infants then the extent of the covenant of grace should be much straiter among the Gentiles then it had been among the Jews for infants are a great part of every Nation and among the Jews the covenant in the promise of grace and of glory and in the seals of both was extended to infants as well as to any others so if among the Gentiles now under the Gospel infants were excluded it would be a very sensible and pitifull restraint of the covenant but a very absurd one for every christian Nation has the covenant of grace communicate to them in no worse but in much better tearms then the Jews of old All who are baptized needs not be capable of teaching The great objection against al this is this argument None are the objects of baptisme but who first are the objects of teaching But infants are not the objects of teaching Ergo. We answer that both the
have all their children excluded not onely from the seals but from the covenant it self and all its gracious promises either of grace or glory and from every spirituall blessing It must be a very clear Scripture that ought to perswade so great a change of Gods administration of his covenant and its seals so much to the worse of that which is confessed was before his usuall practise and command A fifth reason Arg. 5. from Christs laying of his hands on infants and blessing them Whosoever by Gods expresse direction and practise is admitted to his favour and blessing and to the outward signs and seals thereof may be baptized But by Christs expresse direction and practise some infants are admitted to his favour and blessing and to the outward signs and seals thereof Ergo. The major is grounded upon the nature of baptisme which is a seal of Christs blessings they to whom the blessing of Christ and the outward seal thereof belongs why should they not be admitted to baptisme when once the Lord has solemnly declared his will to initiate all to whom his blessings belong by the seal of baptisme The minor is clear from Mat. 19.13 Mat. 19.13 Then were there brought unto him little children that he should put his hands upon them and pray and the Disciples rebuked them but Jesus said Suffer little children and forbid them not for of such is the kingdome of heaven and he laid his hands on them also Mar. 10.13 14 15 16. Mark 10.13 14 15 16. And they brought young children to him that he should touch them and his Disciples rebuked those that brought them but when Jesus saw it he was much displeased and said unto them Suffer little children to come unto me and forbid them not and he took them up in his arms put his hands upon them and blessed them Here the Lord commands children to be brought to him he is much displeased and reproves his Disciples for stopping of them he laid his hands upon them and blessed them declaring that of such was the kingdome of heaven Exceptions against these places tâ—ken off To this argument three things are answered First that the children mentioned were not infants but grown to such years as made them capable of instruction Secondly that their blessing was not spirituall but a temporall health Thirdly that the sign and seal mentioned is not baptisme but imposition of hands To the first we reply that the children were not of so many years as made them capable of instruction for the text cals them expresly young and little ones Secondly they were so young that they could not walk they were brought to Christ they did not come but in the arms of their parents Christ also took them up in his own arms Thirdly if they had been capable of instruction the Apostles could not have been offended for they knew that it was their masters office and delight to instruct all who were capable and the comming of such to the great Doctor could have given no offence To the second the text gives not the least hint that any bodily cure was either required or given Secondly the blessings given were such as Christ is desired to seek from the Father by prayer and these could not but be the best blessings even spirituall and everlasting Thirdly it 's expressed in the place that the greatest of all blessings was theirs even the very kingdome of heaven While this is denyed by the adversaries affirming that the kingdome of heaven belongs not to infants but onely to those who are like them the text refels this their shift for the kingdome of heaven must belong much more to themselves then to such who were onely like them The scope and intention of Christ in this place is not to speak of the condition of others like to infants but of infants themselves who were unjustly stopped by the Apostles to come to him and the Lord is pleading for the admission onely of infants to him upon this reason that heaven belonged to such which had been an impertinent argument for his conclusion if heaven had not belonged to infants at all who upon this reason are required to be admitted to him Farther if infants were to be admitted to Christ because heaven belonged to these who resembled them in some qualities it would follow that doves lambs serpents stones and trees might have been brought to him upon this reason as well as infants for men resembling these creatures in their good qualities are to goe to heaven As for their third answer it is very true that the signe in the place alledged was not baptism this was never alledged for we read nothing of the baptism of the parents of these infants who were presented to Christ as yet the command of baptism was not made so publick as afterward when the Lord at his ascension sent out his Disciples in the power of the holy Ghost to gather a formed Church and to baptize beleevers and their children the reason proceeded not from baptisme but to baptisme and that à loco disparatorum since imposition of hands a seal of Christs grace and blessing and of the kingdome of heaven belonged to infants that therefore baptisme a seal of that same kind when once the Lord had solemnly at his ascension appointed it to be the ordinary seal of initiation into his Church ought not to be denyed unto them A sixth reason Arg. 6. Infants under the Law were baptized Infants were baptized as well as their parents by Moses baptisme Ergo Infants as well as their parents ought to be baptized by Christs baptisme The antecedent is the Apostles 1 Cor. 10.1 2. 1 Cor. 10.1 2. M râ—over brethren I would not that ye should be ignorant how that all our fathers were under the cloud and all passed through the sea and were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the Sea The Father 's baptized in the cloud and in the sea were the whole people as well young as old for no doubt the infants went as well through the cloud and the sea as their parents The consequence is proved thus the reasons which may be brought for the exclusion of infants from being baptized with their parents by Christs baptisme militar as much against their being baptized with their parents by Moses baptisme Therefore if notwithstanding they were admitted to the one baptisme they may as well be admitted to the other If it be said that the infants did with their parents in the wildernesse eat of the Manna and drink of the rock yet may they not now be admitted with their parents to eat and drink at the Lords Table We answer there is no such necessary evidence of the infants eating of the Manna and drinking of the rock as of their passing through the cloud and sea this necessity was simple and absolute the other not so for infants may live on their mothers breasts and the milk of cattle without