particulars thirdly Answered an Objection fourthly I come to the fourth thing which I promised which is to speak of the Assumption concerning which I need say no more then that it is plainly and fully proved in the Scriptures mentioned in the proposal of the Assumption and divers others setting forth the glory of Gospel-times Arg. Arg. 7 7. To whom the promise of the spiritual blessing represented and sealed in Baptism belongs Act. 2.38 39. to them the outward sign of Baptism it self belongs so the Apostle reasons and the sign and thing signified being correlatives must go together But the promise of Gods Spirit Act. 2.39 Isa 44.3 signified in Baptism and so of Regeneration Sanctification and Adoption belongs to the faithfull and their children Therefore Baptism it self belongs to them Arg. Arg. 8 8. If in the time of the Apostles when the gouernours of families beleeved their whole families thereupon were baptized with them Now also the children of beleeving parents being parts of their families are to be baptized But where the Apostles had drawn by the Ministry of the word governours of families to the faith they baptized with them their whole family Act. 16.14 15. 33 34. Therefore the children of beleeving parents are to be baptized For the clearing of the two last Arguments to avoid tediousnesse having been more large in the former then I intended I refer the Reader to what I have said in the Answer to the former Paper in the vindicating of those Scriptures Act. 2. 16. cited by the other party Arg. Arg. 9 9. They that are holy or Saints are to be baptized Children of beleeving parents are holy or Saints 1 Cor. 7.14 Therefore to be baptized See this Argument cleared in my first Book in Answer to A.R. and hereafter more may come forth for vindicating of that Scripture 1 Cor. 7.14 from exceptions Arg. Arg. 10 10. They that are members of the Church have right to Baptism for Baptism is a solemn sign or pledge of admittance into the Church 1 Cor. 12.12 13. Eph. 5.25 26. But the children of the faithfull are members of the Church 1. So they were amongst the Israelites and never yet dismembred 2. Such promises are made to them as none without the Church have right unto 3. Else they have no interest in Christs love no benefit by his death no purification and sanctification by his bloud nor is there any hope that if they die Infants they shall be presented holy and spotlesse glorious and unblamable before God all which are the peculiar priviledges of the Church not communicable to any but members thereof Eph. 4.25 26 27. So that if the children of Beleevers be not members of the Church they are without Aliens from the Common-wealth of Israel without hope without God whiles children which to affirm is most blasphemous to Gods grace Covenant and nature Therefore the children of Beleevers have right to Baptism Arg. Arg. 11 11. If the duties of the Covenant no lesse belong to Christian parents and their children in the time of the Gospel then they did to Jewish parents and their children under the Law It will follow that the Covenant it self and the priviledges and seal thereof do no lesse belong to them and their children then they did to the Jews and their children But the duties of the Covenant lie no lesse on Christian parents to teach and instruct their children Eph. 6.4 and on their children to learn the fear and nurture of the Lord now in the time of the Gospel then they lay on Jewish parents and children Therefore the Covenant its priviledges and the seal of admission no lesse belongs to Christian parents and their children then they did belong to Jewish parents and their children For the strengthening of the Proposition let these things be considered 1. Ordinarily and in the usual dispensation of the Covenant where God requires like duties he affords like priviledges I speak not of what God may do out of his prerogative or in some extraordinary case setting aside his dealing with men by way of command promise and threatning which is his way of transaction in Covenant 2. If there be any difference in the Christian Church compared with the Jewish and later dispensation of the Covenant compared with the former there is rather an increase of priviledges and lessening of burdens and duties then an increase of burdens and duties and lessening of priviledges 3. If you say otherwise Might not Christian parents if urged to the Religious education of their children by you answer By your judgement they are dogs and swine as being out of Covenant how can we offer holy instruction to them or exercise any Christian discipline over them bring them to publick assemblies or pray for them any otherwise then as Infidels were no this to cast Pearls to swine and give holy things to dogs Mat. 7.6 1 Cor. 5.12 What have we to do to pray with or exercise Discipline and Censure over those that are without What poor incouragements do you give us to bring them up for God when you tell us that they have no right to the Covenant of God Is not your practice in denying us the priviledge of the Covenant for our children and yet requiring the duties thereof worse then that of the false Apostles in putting a yoke on the Disciples necks which neither their fathers nor they were able to bear They indeed urged duties but allowed priviledges according to their apprehension and what had formerly been indeed a priviledge you urge duty but deny priviledges which do greatly ease burdens and facilitate duties But if you say that you do not urge the duty of Christian education of children c. as I fear practice speaks too loud What is this but to professe an intention to overthrow both the duties and priviledges of the Covenant and so bring in Atheism which if it take place in families will soon overspread the whole Church and particular persons 4. The Jews indeed were bound to circumcise their children and observe all those laws Ceremonial and Moral concerning them which were appointed by Moses but they had this ease and encouragement their children were in Covenant and had the seal thereof and they might expect the priviledges and blessings of the Covenant on their children by vertue of Gods promises Covenant and seal Now no such priviledges are allow'd to Christian parents in behalf of their children if these mens opinion stand and the Proposition hold not Obj. But if parents by their care bring them to actual faith and so under the Covenant then they shall enjoy the priviledges of the Covenant and seal thereof Ans 1. If that be all then by your opinion if they dye before actual faith as thousands of the children of the faithfull do in their infancy they perish as Aliens to the Covenant 2. The only way revealed in Scripture for parents first bringing their children under the Covenant is by faith
to accept the Covenant for themselves and their children Gen. 17.7 They that hold out a new way must shew some Scripture for the abolishing of the Old and establishing the New or must expect no regard from those that are not willing to be deluded 3. Shew the ground of this distinction Jewish children were to be educated for God as being under Covenant and seal but the children of Christians only that they may be brought under the Covenant and seal when they come to actual faith professed in their own person What Scripture or reason puts such a vast difference between them that those should be brought up Religiously as actually in Covenant and sealed these only as in a remote possibility to be brought to the Covenant and seal 5. The fifth consideration will not only strengthen the Proposition but also further answer the foregoing objection It 's this If the children of the faithfull be not already actually in Covenant from their infancy and so interested in the priviledges of the Covenant not only parents may be afraid to instruct them in Scripture Catechise and pray with them require their presence in the Congregation and family duties and their sanctification of the Lords day which are both duties and priviledges of the Covenant least they should cast Pearls to swine and judge them that are without But also the children if urged hereunto may demand of their parents What have you to do to require of us any Christian duties or to correct us for the neglect thereof or for the commission of any sin against the Gospel as profanation of the Lords day blaspheming Christ Christian Religion or the Scripture c. Might not they plead liberty of conscience and say What have you to do to judge us that are without we are to chuse our Religion and as free to worship Mahomet as Christ The Jews indeed had authority to bring up their children in the Jewish Religion as being devoted thereto from their infancy by the Covenant and seal thereof under which they were but now we children of Christians are under no such priviledges nor ingagements Which practice I fear will be the genuine fruit of this opinion argued against and swallowed down as no absurdity by those that are poisoned with Anabaptisticall fancies but must needs be detested by all that prize the Covenant of God and love Christ sincerely or their own and childrens souls spiritually To clear the Assumption let these things be considered Gen. 18.19 Exod. 12.26 27. Iosh 24.15 Psal 78.5 6. Prov. ◠3 4 5. 2 Tim. 3.15 1. How can it be doubted but that all those morall duties that lay upon Abraham and his children and the Israelites and their children enjoining the one party to teach and the other to learn the way and commandments of God lye now upon Christian parents and their children 2. Paul greatly commends Timothies happinesse and his parents care in that he had been brought up from his infancy in holy Scripture which he would not have done if either Timothy had not been in Covenant from his infancy for what have those to do with the tables of the Covenant that are strangers or aliens to the Covenant or that example had not been of moral equity to be imitated by Christian parents and their children in the time of the Gospel 3. That Scripture cited to prove the Assumption contains a full expresse charge which lies on all Christian parents to teach 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and children to learn the fear and information of the Lord Eph. 6.4 which argues also that children of the faithfull are disciples of the Lord to be trained up in his school being dedicated to his discipline and nurture 4. Were not this so that moral Law which the Apostle in special manner above all the rest urgeth upon Christians children would be abrogated or greatly weakened as to the children of Christian parents at least untill they come to actual faith Children saith he obey your parents in the Lord. Eph 6.1 2. And Honour thy father and mother which is the first commandment with promise For how can they obey them in the Lord when the parents have no authority to command them any thing in the name of the Lord they not being under his yoke and Covenant How can parents challenge honour from their children by virtue of Gods command when they bring not up their children for God and to his honour Or how can children Religiously and Christianly honour their parents that have left them in the state of Infidels Especially considering this commandment Honour thy father c. as it was given to the Israelites supposed their children to be in Covenant with their parents and to have the like interest with their parents in the Covenant and its seal and the like ingagement to the duties thereof in respect of outward dispensation which is denied now to the children of Christians unlesse the Assumption yea and the main point in controversie be granted Twelfthly I argue thus Arg. 12 Children of beleeving parents must either be baptized while children or while able to professe the faith or not at all 1. This last your practice shews you will not hold and it were unreasonable to think that their being born of beleeving parents should deprive them of this priviledge seeing in the Old Testament this procured to children the seal of entrance 2. That they should be kept without Baptism untill they be able to make a profession of faith is no where commanded neither can any Scripture-example or good reason be given for it 1. Not commanded for the command which was given for baptizing of professours of faith and repentance did expressely and immediatly belong to those Jews and Gentiles which had not been born of Christian parents 2. Neither is there Scripture-example for it for the examples we reade of were according to Commission none as we reade in Scripture that were born after their parents were Christians were baptized when grown Scripture speaks only of those that had been Jews and Infidels children that were baptized by the Apostles 3. Neither stands it with right reason that Beleevers children should be left untill they professe their faith in the same state with Jews Turks and Infidels considering Gods promises and Covenant Therefore it remains that they must be baptized while Infants this being most agreeable 1. To Gods dealing with Abraham the father of the faithfull that children while Infants should be admitted with their beleeving parents and that Covenant and seal thereof 2. To the nature of this Sacrament which is to be administred the first opportunity to persons known to be in Covenant and members of the Church 3. To all those commands and examples of baptizing new converted Jews and Infidels for as their conversion did put them into the Covenant of grace whereupon they had right to the seal of entrance So these Infants being born of Christian parents doth inright them to the Covenant
interest in Christ or the Covenant of grace constitutes a Christian for the joint and orderly profession of faith and interest in that Covenant or Gods owning a people to be his in Covenant is that which constitutes them a Church 2. Baptism is not essential to the constituting of a Church being but adventitious or additional as a sign or pledge of peoples admission into the Church The penitent thief on the Cross was a true Beleever though unbaptized and a multitude of such penitent ones jointly professing Christ should be a true Church Act. 7.38 though they wanted opportunity to be Baptized as that Penitent did The Israelites in the wilderness were a true Church Iosh 5.5 6. though they wanted Circumcision for fourty years 3. This Church or these Churches of England received its or their constitution in or anon after the Primitive times when by the Ministry of the word some were converted from heathenism to Christianity at which time we grant persons of years were Baptized upon their profession of faith or repentance Gen. 12.4 Gen. 15.6 Gen. â—7 1â— 3 4 c. 7. and for they and their children received into Covenant As Abraham at the first setting up of a Church with a seal of admittance thereinto in his family was Circumcised when he had professed or declared his repentance faith and obedience and then his children and posterity were Circumcised whiles Infants by vertue of the Covenant into which they were taken with their fathers Now that being the first constitution of a Church in this Land which never yet was overthrown though many waies depraved through Antichrists usurpations of whom it was foretold that he should sit in the Temple of God for a time 2 Thes â— 4 but being after through the rich mercy of God repaired it hath continued still the same Church having been never rased to the foundation and so we need not a new constitution and therefore we deny that our Church was constituted by Infant-baptism any more then the Church of Israel was constituted by Infant-circumcision 2. Whereas you say that National-Churches are constituted by Infant-baptism or sprinkling Ans Ans 1. I know none that you oppose to plead for the constitution of National-Churches by Infant-baptism 2. Though we boast not of National-Churches nor is there any necessity that the mention of National-Churches should come into this dispute yet are we not ashamed of the name of a National-Church But seeing you urge it upon us as odious we desire you with us to consider these things 1. Gen. 22.18 Did not God promise to Abraham that all the Nations of the earth should be blessed in his seed Gen. 12.2 viz. Jesus Christ And how can Nations be blessed but by being made Churches as that one Nation which descended from Abraham was blessed by being a Church and people of God Psal 2.8 Hath not God promised to give to Christ the Nations for his inheritance and utmost parts of the earth for his possession Psa 22.27 28. and that all the ends of the earth and kindreds of the Nations shall turn to the Lord and worship before him Isa 49.23 That Kings shall be nursing fathers Queens nursing mothers to the Church And that Christ Jesus whose visage and form was marred with his bloud trickling down the same Isa 52.14 15. when crowned with thorns nailed to the Crosse and pierced into the heart shall sprinkle many Nations Mat. 28.19 Did not Christ bid his Apostles go into all Nations make Disciples and Baptize Rev. 11.15 Was it not foretold that the Kingdoms of the world should become the Kingdoms of God and his Christ and that the saved Nations should walk in the light of the New-Jerusalem Rev. 21.24 26. and that the Kings of the earth should bring their light to it and should bring the glory and honour of the Nations to it Why then should the name of National-Church be so odious 2. And surely if 1. A company of Beleevers in one house have been justly called a Church domestical Rom. 16.15 1 Cor. 16.19 Col. 4.15 Phil. 2.2 And if the number of Beleevers in a smal Village or Town may be called a Church Congregational Rom. 16.1 3. And the multitude of Beleevers in one City imbracing the truth in so great number that no one room or place could contain them all at once for the ordinary orderly edifying administration of Gods Ordinances may be called the Church of a City or Classicall 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the Church of Jerusalem which increased into many thousand yea many ten thousand and yet was but one Church Act. 2.44.47 Act. 5.14 15. 6.1 Act. 21.20 4. And multitudes of Beleevers scattered in many and several countries are still the flock and Church of God and an holy Nation 1 Pet. 2.1 with chap. 2.11 and chap. 5.2 1 Cor. 15.9 5. And if the whole company of the faithfull on earth consisting for the most part of many particular visible Churches may be called the Church Oecumenical Mat. 16.18 1 Cor. 12.28 6. Lastly If all the Beleevers in heaven and earth comprehending the militant and triumphant Church may yet in a more comprehensive sense be called the Church Catholick Heb. 12.23 I think no good reason can be given why men should make it so shy without scorn or reproach to call the faithfull in a whole Nation especially when the whole Nation doth generally profess the truth a National-Church 3. The National-Church was not constituted by Infant-baptisme but by the preaching of the Gospel God was pleased to call some in the Primitive times in this land and they became a Church Mat. 13 3â— 3â— 33. which was the first constitution of this Church Afterward the leaven of the Gospel seasoning the whole lump and that little grain of mustard seed growing up into a great tree and the Primitive Beleevers of this Land increasing into a Nation Ezek. 16.13 as Abrahams family did the Church did grow up into a Nation as was said before National Oecumenical Domestical or Congregational being accidental not essential to a Churches constitution or continuance Thirdly Whereas you say The National Churches of Spain England France and Rome were constituted by sprinkling of Infants I answer 1. This is a poisonous insinuation whereby the Church of England is put by you into the same condition with the Churches of Rome Spain France c. wherein you do not only wrong Gods holy people which have striven and continue striving for Reformation against Antichrist in matching them with the popish rabble and slander those Ministers and Ordinances of Christ amongst us by whose means if you have any knowledge of Christ and his truth you have received the same by equalling them with popish Ministers and superstitions but also blaspheme God himself at whose call and through whose grace we have come out of Babylon have attained some and breath after more Reformation How
that you call for plain and positive Scripture without syllogism or consequence to prove that children or infants by name should be baptized or sprinkled why may not we require of you plain and positive Scripture without syllogism or consequence that H.H. and J. Br should dip men and women When you shew us expresse Scripture for the one we will for the other 2. But it may be you will say It will follow by good consequence from these Scriptures that your Baptism is the Baptism of Christ Ans 1. It is well if you be not afraid of syllogisms consequences and argumentation 2. Yet you have drawn no syllogisms nor arguments hence and untill we see them we cannot answer them 3. If you take liberty to use reasonings and consequences you cannot rationally deny to us the like liberty 4. If you will have these Scriptures brought home by any just consequence for the proving of your Baptism to be the Baptism of Christ you must undertake an hard task for beside your skill in Logick c. you must either prove your selves Apostles or Evangelists for to such were these commands given and of such were these histories Mat. 2â— 19 20. and that you have power and authority to preach to the whole world power to speak with strange tongues to any Nation whatsoever and to work miracles and that you ought to preach to none Mat. 16.15 16 17. Act. 2. 8. Rom. 16 15â— but or at lest principally to Jews and infidels not building on others foundations for these things belonged to those first founders of Churches Or else at least you must prove that you are Pastors or Teachers whom God hath appointed to succeed those extraordinary primitive Ministers who were imployed in founding and constituting Churches Ephes 4 11 12 13 14. which are to build on the Apostles foundation for perfecting of the Saints set apart for the work of the Ministry and for edification of the mysticall body of Christ And if so you must make it appear that upon due trial and examination of your gifts Act 14 23. 1 Tim. â— â— 2 3 4 5. 〈◊〉 1 Tim. 4.14 5 22. Tit. 1.7 8 9. Act. â—0 28 1 Tim. â—â—3 14 15. and fitness in point of knowledge and holiness you have been set apart to that Office by the approbation or imposition of hands of the Presbytery for that is the Gospel-order You must make it appear also that you have a Flock to oversee and watch over and that you give your selves wholly to reading meditation and study and that you fully discharge your Ministry in the Flock of Christ if you will with any comfort to your selves and satisfaction to others that are godly and judicious apply the Scriptures which you have cited to your selves Besides if you be Apostles why do you build on others foundations If Pastours what talk you of constituting Churches as if that were your work 3. The reason is not in all things the same of a Church to be constituted and of a Church constituted already as I have shewed before in the example of Abraham when his family was to be made a Church under the dispensation of the Covenant sealed by Circumcision upon his professed faith and repentance he was circumcised with his whole family and after this his Domesticall Church grew up into a National his posterity being acknowledged members of the Church by Circumcision in Infancy were not to stay for Circumcision untill they actually beleeved after Abrahams example The same course was taken with Proselytes Exod. 12.48 49. they at first were to professe faith and afterwards their children to be circumcised in Infancy In like manner in the New Testament when Governours of families were baptized Act. 16.14 15. 31 32 33 34 their whole families were baptized with them of which hereafter When men are infidels they and their seed are aliens from the Common-wealth of Israel and therefore must actually repent and beleeve before they and their children be admitted to the Covenant But having by faith laid hold on the Covenant for themselves and theirs their children are interested therein at least externally so far as to have right to the seal of entrance There is not the same reason of the foundation and superstruction in all things nor of planting trees and their growing up and nourishing Indeed at the first planting of a Park Vineyard or Orchyard there must be a rooting or fastning of the first stock stemme or branch immediatly in that ground or grafting stock but afterward it is not necessary or fit that every sprig that sprouts forth thence should be cut off and immediatly rooted in the earth this course would hinder growth and fruitfulnesse So the first receivers of the Gospel being planted into Christ his Covenant and Church by faith do successively convey according to the tenour of the Covenant of grace the blessing to their children whiles succeeding parents the offspring of those first Beleevers continue in the faith so far forth as that their Infants have right to the Covenant and seal of entrance which runs thus Gen. 17 7. I will be thy God and the God of thy seed after thee Thus it was unquestionably from Abrahams unto Christs time the Apostle using the like similitude tels us that some of the Jews were broken off from the Olive tree by unbelief for a time Rum 11.17 else they might with their seed still have partaked of the root and fatnesse of the Olive tree as before which priviledge doubtlesse those that were not broken off by unbelief did retain and these unbeleevers when they shall return to Christ by faith shall recover and the beleeving Gentiles being for the present planted in in their room must enjoy Ephes 3 5. The same Apostle saith that the beleeving Gentiles are fellow-heirs and of the same body with beleeving Jews and so partakers of the same priviledges It is true some things are common to the constituting and founding of a Church with its continuance and superstruction these must be alike observed in both cases some things are proper to each and here heed must be taken of confounding these Heb. 6.1 2 left if we be alwaies laying the foundation we never come to perfection 4. Whereas your practice is to perswade beleeving parents to forbear baptizing of their children untill they can actually repent and beleeve Where do you prove that Christ commanded or his Apostles practised this I am sure those Scriptures which you set down mention no such thing The Apostles according to Christs command preached to Jews and infidels and having converted them baptized them with their families but no where bid them keep their children untill they professe their repentance and faith and then baptize them this you practise without any Scripture-warrant 5. Neither do any or all these Scriptures prove that it is according to Christs institution to baptize or dip those which have been already baptized Into
29.9 10 11 12. proves either that there were no little children in that assembly or that they had no right to the Covenant both which are expresly contradicted in the context vers 9. Keep therefore saith Moses the words of this Covenant and do them that ye may prosper in all that ye do Vers 10. Ye stand this day all of you before the Lord your God your Captains of your Tribes your Elders and your Officers with all the men of Israel Vers 11. Your little ones your wives and thy stranger that is in the Camp from the hewer of thy wood to the drawer of thy water Vers 12. That thou shouldest enter into Covenant with the Lord thy God and into his Oath which the Lord thy God maketh with thee this day c. Now as Moses made this exhortation to all Israel though the little children amongst them were not able to understand it and be affected with it for the present and yet were present to be admitted into Covenant and had right to the seal of entrance thereinto and this exhortation was for their good as their parents embracing it were with their children received into Covenant and put in minde of their duty in devoting their children to and bringing them up for God and as it might serve for the childrens instruction when they should come to age So Paul and Silas might speak to the whole family amongst whom might be little ones who though they understood not the doctrine and exhortation propounded for the present yet might upon the parents imbracing of this doctrine be received into Covenant with them and to the seal of entrance thereinto and afterward by their parents instructed in that doctrine which for the present they understood not 4. It is said that he and all his were baptized straitway There is no expression or intimation that every one beleeved and made a profession of his faith for themselves severally 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but when the Jaylour had manifested his repentance and faith he and all his were baptized straitway It seems that the faith and profession of the head of the family was sufficient to give right to the members at least to those that did not express their dissent or refusal of it 5. The word having beleeved vers 34. is of the singular number and masculine gender and must be referred to the Jaylour only according to the Grammatical construction 6. Though it should be granted that he and his whole house may be said to beleeve which yet the words of the text prove not It may be well understood so as Abraham and all his family were beleevers in Covenant and circumcised Gen. 18.19 even those that were Infants the Head having made profession of his faith and ingaged himself to take care of all his family should be instructed in the faith and obedience of God And this last answer beside divers of the former general and special may serve for the last Scripture viz. Act. 18.8 And Crispus the chief Ruler of the Synagogue beleeved in the Lord with all his house and many of the Corinthians beleeved and were baptized And indeed how can it be thought probable that such families as the Jaylours the Rulers of the Synagogue and Lydias whose houshold was baptized upon her hearing and beleeving of the word no mention being made of the rests hearing or beleeving should have no children in them Hence I gather thus If at the first preaching of the Gospel the faithfull with their whole families were baptized so soon as God had opened the hearts of the governours to receive the word and beleeve then now the families and children of those that have long professed the Gospel at least so many in their family as do not stubbornly reject Jesus Christ are to be acknowledged within the Covenant and admitted to Baptism the seal of entrance But the former is true Therefore the later Whereas you conclude your first Paper thus Having proved by positive and plain Scripture what we affirm we conclude with the doctrine of the Church of England which maintains the same viz. That repentance and faith is required in persons to be baptized and that Infants by reason of tender age can neither repent nor beleeve which we leave to your consideration and desire your answer Ans How positive and plain the Scriptures cited by you to prove what you affirm and practise are we have seen and leave to the judgement of others 2. In your concluding with the doctrine of the Church of England you might have done well to have told us what you mean by the Church and in what book or place that doctrine is main ained and then we should have given answer thereto if the very citation of the place be not sufficient to answer it and make you ashamed of your citing of it But in the mean space you have our consideration and answer to what you bring out of Scripture By me William Cooke You Preface to your second Paper thus IN stead of an expected answer in writing H.H. and J.B. to this our Paper according to promise we have received another verbal request from you viz. That we would give some reasons why Infants should not be baptized By which we conclude you can give no reason why you baptize them we having so much urged you herein to prove your practice by Scripture having given you so large a proof of our practising the contrary by so many plain truths wherein you may finde reason enough against yours if you have any minde without further cavil to answer them Answer 1. IT was agreeable to reason and equity that seeing you had so fully and frequently expressed your selves against Infant-Baptism you should give your reasons thereof especially we having been so long in possession and being by you charged to want right it was fit that you should be required to produce the grounds of your charge 2. Whereas you conclude so hastily that we can give no reason of our practice we see that though you dislike syllogisms you are pleased with sophisticall Enthymems making a conclusion from so weak a premise 3. How much the many plain written truths prove for your own judgement and practice or against ours we wish you to review in the foregoing Answer and you will there finde that without cavils we had a minde to answer You proceed But that you may see how really we intend the discovery of truth and to satisfie you in every desire that may any way tend thereto we give you these further in answer 1. Because Christ hath no where commanded it And whatsoever is practised as an ordinance of his without institution is Will-worship and Idolatry Ans This your reason in its full strength stands thus Whatsoever is practised as an Ordinance of Christ without an institution is Will-worship and Idolatry But baptizing of Infants is practised as an Ordinance of Christ without any institution Therefore it is Will-worship and
Idolatry The assumption which would by us be denied you back thus It hath no command from Christ Therefore it is without an institution Ans In answer to this I desire you to take notice of two distinctions necessary to remove mistakes 1. We must distinguish between the essentials of an Ordinance and the accidentals and circumstantials in respect of the application of it to such or such persons in such a time place or manner This is necessary to be observed Christ instituted the Ordinance of the Supper or Communion of the body and bloud of Christ but never expresly commanded that it should be administred to women It 's sufficient that it may be gathered from Scripture He hath instituted Baptiâ—â— but nâ—ver expresly commanded that it should be administred to or by Ta 〈…〉 Wâ—avâ—rs Jersey-combers or Coblers If from general rules of Scriptuâ—◠〈…〉 that this Ordinance is to be applied to or by such persons thâ—â— being found to have such qualifications as the Scripture requires in these cases it is sufficient It is an Ordinance of Christ that his people should reade the Scripture but it 's no where expresly commanded that such as understand not the original should reade it in a translated printed English Bible it sufficeth that this may be proved out of Scripture by good consequence The second distinction is this An Ordinance in respect of circumstantials or applications may be said to be instituted by Christ either expresly and immediatly or so as that the institution is to be gathered by consequence of this later kinde is a beleeving womans receiving the Sacrament of the Communion of the body and bloud of Christ and meer English-mens and English-womens reading the Scripture for spiritual instruction and edification in a printed English Bible distinguished into Chapters and Verses There is no expresse command for admitting women to the Lords Table nor for the translating and printing of Scripture for the help of ignorant people yet these are not Will-worship and Idolatry It may be sufficiently proved from Scripture that these are good and warrantable and that Gods people should be greatly wronged if women should be driven from the Communion and those that are ignorant of Hebrew and Greek should be debarred from reading the Scripture I answer therefore 1. By granting the proposition taken in a right sense viz. That whatsoever is practised as an Ordinance and worship of Christ without an institution from him at least in respect of the essentials yea whose essentials and circumstantials may not be gathered out of the Scripture either expresly or by good consequence is at least Will-worship if not Idolatry and therefore unlawfull to be maintained or practised But I deny the assumption for the essentials and substantials of Baptism are expresly commanded in Scripture Mat. 28.19 20. Mar. 16.15 16 c. The particular application of Baptism to Infants though not expresly in so many words in Scripture yet may be gathered therefrom by good consequence as shall appear hereafter God assisting Therefore the assumption being false in that sense wherein the proposition is true nothing can be concluded I come now to your second argument which is this It cannot be proved that Christ or his Apostles practised Infant-Baptism Which reason stands in its whole strength thus What cannot be proved that Christ and his Apostles practised that is unlawfull in Gods worship But it cannot be proved that Christ and his Apostles practised Infant-baptism Therefore it is unlawfull Ans The proposition is not universally â—rue we may not argue from the practice of Christ and his Apostles universally either affirmatively or negatively not affirmatively for they might do some things as such eminent persons which it is not the duty of nor possible for all Ministers or Christians ordinarily to do so Nor negatively for there may be some things which are the duties of inferiour men which yet were below Christ and his Apostles We reade not that they practised or submitted to the Office of Pastors Elders or Deacâ—â—â— properly so called will it follow therefore that these are Will-worshiâ— They never as can be proved translated Bibles or read the Scripture 〈…〉 â—â—unded the text of a Sermon out of a translated printed Bible nor took thâ— notes of Sermons Are these therefore Will-worship If they being busied in laying the foundation of Churches practised not some things which are agreeable to our work which is for the superstruction we need not to be troubled having warrant or institution either immediate or to be gathered by consequence Neither is the assumption so clear as to be easily granted and though it might suffice for the present to deny the main proposition yet take also this answer to the assumption Though Christ did not baptize Infants nor any at all in his own person and therefore if his example is to be followed herein by Ministers Ioh. 4.2 or those that may be conceived to have authority to baptize none at all must be baptized by them Yet he did that for Infants which is at least equivalent to baptizing or layeth sufficient ground to warrant their baptizing he laid his hands on them blesseth them pronounceth them to have right to the Kingdom of God or Covenant of the Gospel and gives command to his Apostles to disciple all Nations and baptize them The Apostles acted according to this Commission held forth the promise whereof Baptism is a seal or pledge as belonging to the faithfull and their children and baptized Beleevers and their whole families of which more largely partly before partly hereafter Your third Argument is this Because they are uncapable subjects having neither understanding reason nor faith and whatever is not of faith is sin Being put into form it stands thus Subjects uncapable of Baptism are not to be baptized But Infants are subjects uncapable of Baptism Therefore not to be baptized The proposition is granted the assumption denied you endeavour to prove it thus They that have neither understanding reason nor faith are subjects uncapable of Baptism But Infants have neither understanding reason nor faith Therefore subjects uncapable of Baptism 1. I answer to the proposition by denying it if by understanding reason and faith you mean ripe actual and visibly exercised and professed understanding reason and faith such as is in persons of ripe years and I give these two reasons of my denial 1. The children of the Jews when they wanted the actual use of understanding which belongs to persons of age were not uncapable of Circumcision which was of the same use to Jews Gen. 17.7 Rom. 4 1â— Deut. 30.6 as Baptism is to us Christians viz. to be a seal of the Covenant and of the righteousnesse of faith and a sign of renewing and sanctifying the heart 2. That they are capable I prove it by the parts Reason and even sense and experience shews that they are capable of the outward sign there being required a meer passion of them in the Ministers application
of water That they are capable also of the spiritual grace of Baptism Gods many promises of circumcising the hearts of the faithfull seed and pouring his Spirit upon them c. prove as also the example of Jacob and John the Baptist whereof the one was beloved of God the other filled with the holy Ghost while little ones 2. I answer to the assumption by distinction of the first second act of reason faith The power or faculty of understanding or reason which we may call the first act Infants have else they were bruits and unreasonable creatures though the actual exercise thereof which is in man they want so a seminal virtual habitual faith implied in regeneration and the gift of the holy Ghost they have not a professed faith of ripe Beleevers 2. If men will needs have actual professed faith for the admission of persons to Baptism I answer Gen. 17.7 Act. 2.39 As parents by faith accept the Covenant for themselves and children according as Scripture propounds the Covenant Gen. 17.7 Act. 2.39 which is agreeable to the usual way of contracts and Covenants amongst men that parents take a Lease for themselves and infant-children and binde themselves and children to the condition as infant-children are parts and adherents of their parents having no use of power reason or will to provide for or dispose of themselves in their own persons untill they come to years of discretion so the faith of their parents may be said to be their faith as the parents act in taking a house or making a bargain may be called the childes act as no lesse beneficiall and obliging to the childe then to the parent at least untill he come to the use of reason where in his own person he may by some voluntary act ratifie or disannul it And here observe a second distinction of faith namely actual and professed It is this professed faith may be distinguished into Personal and private which is required of all persons which are at their own dispose at their first entrance into Covenant and admission to the seal of entrance and Common or publick faith which in a common or publick person may suffice in the behalf of those that are wholly under his power and at his dispose as Infants are to their parents This is sufficient for such to interest them in the Covenant and seal of admittance as we see in Abrahams and the Jewish Infants and Christians children which are holy by virtue of their parents faith 1 Cor. 7.14 and in this respect they may be said to have actual professed faith viz. of their parents If the Jews with their children were broken off by unbelief as the Apostle affirmeth Rom 11.29 then by faith they and their posterity had continued implanted untill their posterity should by actual professed unbelief break off themselves and their posterity The same is the case of the ingraffed Gentiles and will be of the Jews that are to be reingraffed vers 20.23 24 25. that by virtue of the faith of the parents infant-children should be in Covenant and beleevers even professedly by the profession of parents as it had been with Gods people for many generations before Christ for the Apostle speaks of such a growing up in the Olive tree that the implanted Gentiles and reimplanted Jews must expect as was that which the Church of the Jews had enjoyed to that time And sure if the unbelief of professed Infidels leave their infant-children in the case of professed infidelity and estrangement from the Covenant untill by their own personal individual faith they embrace that Covenant no lesse must the saith of beleeving parents leave their Infants in the state of professed or known Beleevers and persons in Covenant until by their own wilfull voluntary act they reject the Covenant for Gods promises to the faithfull and their posterity are no lesse full then his curses to the wicked and their posterity Exod. 20.5 6. 3. How ignorantly and impertinently that sentence is added by you Whatever is not of faith is sin any one may see And thus for the answer to your Arguments You prevent an Objection thus But you will say H. H. and J.B. Where doth the Scripture forbid That your Ministers will say is an unreasonable and unlearned question there being no proving negatives for then where doth the Scripture say You shall not worship the Pope go to Masse you shall not reade the Common prayer book or wear the Surplesse But it doth forbid Idolatry Will-worship which is that if you have no Scripture rule for the same and teaching for doctrine the commands of men which is this being only traditionall and that acknowledged by one of your Ministers lately in this Town that it was Ecclesiasticall and not Apostolicall Ans Deut. 4.2 Prov. 30.6 Iam 4.11 17. Rev. 22.8 9. The Scripture is such a perfect rule to Gods people of faith worship and holy walking both affirmatively and negatively that nothing may be urged as a duty Divine worship or truth but what is there commanded or taught nor charged as a sin Will-worship or errour but what is there forbidden or condemned either particularly and expresly or at least in general and to be gathered by good consequence 2. They are very ignorant and rash that will condemn worshipping the Pope going to Masse c. and yet cannot finde them forbidden in the Scripture yea they are too great friends to the Pope Masse and other superstition that will say or but insinuate that the Scripture doth no where condemn them or that will match Infant-baptisme with them 3. Forbear charging us with Will-worship Idolatry and teaching for doctrines the commands of men untill you have heard what Scripture grounds we can bring for our judgement and practice in this particular 4. Why do not you name the Minister which acknowledged this traditional and Ecclesiastical not Apostolical If there were any such let him answer for himself The Papists indeed call it a tradition of the Church to prove the imperfection of the Scripture and necessity of tradition Our Protestant Writers confute them in this shewing that it is grounded on Scripture not on tradition If any whom you call one of our Ministers speaks as the Papist against the whole current of Protestant Divines we are no more bound to stand to his principles or to defend him therein or answer for him then we are bound to do it for you and the Papists which agree with him in that opinion Now before I lay down our Arguments I must for the clearing of the truth confirm one thing which I have partly touched already It 's this That it is not only lawfull but necessary to argue from Scripture by way of consequence or deduction for the finding out of the truth neither must we alwaies expect expresse and immediate commands in Scripture for the particular circumstances and applications of the Ordinances of God or for the justifying of every matter of judgement and
are so sacred that they cannot without high offence to his Majesty Deut. 4.1 great wrong to Gods people and extream danger to their own souls be denied by any to those to whom they belong God no lesse forbidding detracting from then adding to his word and so much the more dangerous is diminution in this case as it tends to darken the glorious grace of God in the times of the Gospel which times he hath reserved for the more full illustration thereof above former times 2. That those main priviledges which God granted ordinarily to persons in Covenant before Christ as That their children should be in Covenant and admitted to the seal of entrance thereinto should cease in the time of the Gospel is so unagreeable unto the wisdom and goodnesse of God which reserves his greatest and choicest blessings for the last times to be bestowed on his people so contrary to the nature of the Covenant of grace which under Evangelical dispensation is far more glorious and comfortable to the faithfull then under legall so contrary to the end of Christs coming which was to multiply increase and ratifie not cut off diminish or abolish blessings and priviledges to his Church and so contrary to the promises and prophecies concerning the glory of the Church in the times of the Gospel that he deserves to be abhorred of all that know God and Christ and his Covenant that should tell us of a great fall and diminution of priviledges in Evangelicall times compared with legall and yet can bring no pregnant and pertinent Scripture to prove a repeal of those priviledges 3. I grant that where God hath repealed priviledges of the Old Testament which whiles they continued unrepealed were priviledges yet cease to be so when greater answerable thereto yet more sutable to the Gospel-dispensation are vouchsafed in their place in the New Testament they in respect of that old administration are not to be accounted priviledges neither are priviledges in this case properly revoked but altered and inlarged when the old administration indeed is abrogated but the same spiritual blessing is given in a more comfortable manner under a new dispensation As when Christians 1 In stead of the Old Testament Scriptures in the Jews mother tongue which was the Jews priviledge have both Old and New Testament Scriptures translated into a known tongue 2 In stead of the Jews seventh-day-Sabbath Ioh. 19.36 2 Cor. 5.7 have the first day or Lords-day-Sabbath 3 In stead of the Passeover which to the Jews was a Type of Christ to come have Christ exhibited and now represented in the blessed Communion And 4 in stead of Circumcision have Baptism And 5 generally when Christians in stead of the old Legal dispensation of the Covenant of grace which the Jews had have the new Evangelical dispensation of the Covenant Here the same priviledges are continued with inlargement under a new and different garb or dresse 4. It 's granted also that when men have wilfully rejected priviledges and therefore God hath cast them off neither they nor theirs lying under that obstinacy may lay claim to obstinatly rejected priviledges as in the case of the body of the Jews and their seed at this day To the Minor 1. Gen 17.7 Exod 12.48 Ezek. 16.10 21. Mat. 2.15 Act. 3.25 It 's plain that from Abrahams time and so forward to the last of the Prophets yea to the time of our Saviour Christ unto which time Circumcision of children was in force the faithfull had interest in this priviledge that their children were in Covenant and had the seal of admission 2. It 's plain also Gen. 17 10 11 12 13. Rom. 4.11 Rom 3.1 2. Phil. 3.5 that this was a great priviledge or prerogative to the people of God and their children that they were in Covenant and had Circumcision which is called the sign of the Covenant yea the Covenant and the seal of the righteousnesse of faith As to be an Hebrew and Israelite was a great priviledge before Christs coming so to be circumcised 3. That God hath not recalled this grant of Beleevers children having right to the Covenant and seal of entrance it is evident for neither the Scriptures of Old or New Testament speak any such thing but rather the contrary heightning the priviledges of the Gospel above those of the Law but never depressing them Obj. But Circumcision is repealed and abrogated Ans 1. True Ob. in regard of the outward ceremony Ans 1 so the former dispensation of the Covenant of grace in regard of the Legal manner of administration Doth the Covenant it self therefore and duties and priviledges therefore which are essential and perpetual cease Womens going up to Jerusalem to the sacrifices and Passeover ceaseth Must not they therefore come to and partake of the Lords Supper The Church of the Jews which understood the Scriptures of the Old Testament without translation is cast off Must not Gods people now have the Scriptures in their mother language by translation because there is no direct expresse Scripture for that purpose The Jews Sabbath being the seventh day of the week with us called Saturday is abolished Must we not therefore have a Christian Sabbath or Lords day Nay rather we may well gather from the Jewish-beleeving womens priviledge to partake of the Passeover and sacrifices in the Old Testament the priviledge of Christian women to come to the Lords Table and from Jewish Beleevers liberty to have the Scriptures in a known tongue we may gather against the Papists the priviledge of Christian common people of the like nature though in a different way they by the Originall writing we by Translation and from the Jews Sabbath of the seventh day that being appointed by the moral Law we may gather our Christian Sabbath and so from the Jewish infants priviledge to have the seal of initiation into the Covenant and Church we may gather the like priviledge to belong to Christians Infants though in a different ceremony if we compare those priviledges of the Jews in the Old Testament with what is spoken in the New Testament concerning Gospel-priviledges that are analogicall and succedaneous to these legal priviledges and lay together other common grounds warranting unto them these priviledges though there be no expresse immediate particular command for womens partaking at the Lords Table nor for the common peoples enjoying vernaculous translations of the Scripture nor for the Christian Sabbath nor for the baptizing of Infants 2. I answer to this objection If it had been the pleasure of God and Christ that children should in the time of the Gospel lose their former interest in the Covenant and seal thereof and their priviledge of Church-membership as well as he would have Circumcision abolished he would have no lesse revealed that in the Scripture then this But he hath no where revealed either expressely or to be gathered by consequence that whereas untill Christs time Infants of Beleevers were in Covenant Gods children Church-members
them by the coming of Christ contrary to the Propheticall predictions Evangelical Proclamations and all the faithfuls expectation if whereas before Christs coming their little ones were in Covenant had God for their God and were sealed with the sign of the Covenant now upon this imbracing of Christ whether on the first offer of the Gospel to them by the Apostles as in Act. Act. 2.37 38 39 40 c. Rom. 7 26 27 2. or at their conversion in the latter end of the world Rom. 11. their Infant-children should be left out of the Covenant in Satans Kingdome 3. I will answer one Objection once for all which may seem to have some force to take away those untheological and unevangelical absurdities that these men fall into which here and elsewhere it 's shewed their opinion leads them to it 's this Obj. In the Old Testament indeed the Church had many external visible priviledges consisting in Rites and Ceremonies and therefore they were circumcised and their children but now in the Gospel the priviledges are more spiritual and invisible and therefore it will not follow If some of those visible priviledges be withdrawn that the Gospel-dispensation is not more excellent then the Legal and so if Baptism be denied to Christians children that their state is worse then the state of the Jews Ans This Objection which would seem to take off the former absurdities will appear anon to bring in other absurdities as great or greater or leave the force of the former Arguments untouched For though it be true that amongst the Jews was a worldly Sanctuary and carnal ordinances Heb. 9.1.10 which are now abolished and no visible ordinance left to Christians in the place thereof Yet generally to say that Jews priviledges consisted in Rites and Ceremonies and Christians are spiritual and invisible is to deny spiritual priviledges to the Jews and the outward profession of religion to Christians which is equally to overthrow the power of godlinesse and truth of religion in both then which what more dangerous or absurd 2. But if they will leave generals and come to the point in hand they must either deny that there is any such outward ordinance as Baptism left to the Church of the New Testament being of the same use for the main and in the place of Circumcision Col. 2.11 12. which to do were to contradict plain Scripture or if they grant it their shifting distinction of visible and spiritual priviledges cannot help them for here by their own concession it cannot take place seeing that they yield that in this case a visible priviledge is afforded alike to both Churches Jewish and Christian 3. This Objection should be acknowledged to say something to the purpose if it could be proved 1. That the Jews were only under an external Covenant without spiritual graces 2. That their priviledges were only external 3. That Christians have now only spiritual blessings bestowed on them 4. That ordinarily God now gives his Covenant and spiritual blessings thereof without any visible means or external way of dispensing the same All or any of which to assert were very false and wicked But when it is acknowledged or at least may by plentifull Scripture be proved 1. That the Jews and their children had interest in spiritual blessings of the Covenant as truly as we though in a different manner and measure 2. That we Christians are under a visible dispensation as well as they 3. That both dispensations have had alike each a visible sign seal or pledge of admission into Covenant 4. That to enjoy these signs and seals have been and still are a great benefit to them that have them according to Gods appointment 5. That now Beleevers have need of the seals of the Covenant to them and their children to confirm their faith in Gods mercy to them and theirs and ingage and incite them to obedience as well as the beleeving Jews That for themselves Beleevers need a seal or pledge is granted by all parties that acknowledge that God who institutes nothing needlesse or superstuous in his Church hath instituted Baptisme as a standing Ordinance for Christians And that for their children they need a seal as well as the Jews for their children or Christian Professours for themselves may appear thus 1. Have not Christians children souls capable of salvation as well as the Jews 2. Is it not for Gods glory to be visibly known the God of Christians children as well as of the Jews 3. Aâ—e Christian parents better able to beleeve Gods fatherly federall love to their children and devote them to his worship without his applying a seal unto them then they can beleeve his love to themselves and devote themselves to God without a seal or pledge If they can sufficiently beleeve in God for their children and devote them to Christ without the seal for a pledge or ingagement surely they might as well have beleeved and obeyed without a seal for themselves if so no seal had been instituted at all for God will make no superâ—â—uous institutions But a seal is instituted therefore they needed it if for themselves then for their children 4. Are Christian parents more carelesse of their childrens salvation or Gods being glorified by their children then the Jews were that none may say Then sure they no lesse need to see them sealed into the Covenant wherein they may be ingaged to glorifie God and God to save their souls Or 5. have Christians more obscure and sparing discovery by promise and precept concerning their own priviledges and duties that they should need the seal and pledge of Baptism for themselves but more full and clearer promises and commands concerning their childrens priviledges and duties then either the Jews had for their children or Christian Professours have for themselves that in the case of Christians children there should be no use of a seal and pledge though the Jews children did and Christian Professours do need a seal I think none will say this 6. That no Scripture or reason can be given to prove that Beleevers children in the time of the Gospel are debarred from the Covenant and seal thereof of which the beleeving Jews children had been long in possession and some more eminent priviledge bestowed on Christians children which the Jews children never had to compensate that losse of being driven from the Covenant and seal when I say these six things are at the least for the greater part acknowledged and the other may be easily proved at least so many as are necessary for this purpose it must needs be a very contradictory thing to say That the Gospel-dispensation is more glorious and comfortable then the Legal and beleeving Gentiles as much or more blessed then the Jews and yet Christians children driven from the Covenant of grace and seal thereof which the Jews children were under 4. Having first propounded something in general for the clearing of the whole Argument secondly confirmed the Proposition by some
whereupon they have right to the seal of entrance Arg. Arg. 13 13. That doctrine and practice is to be abhorred which puts the Infants of Christians into the same condition with the children of Turks and Infidels leaves them in the visible kingdom of the devil as no visible members of the Church denies to them reasonable souls and cuts them off from all hopes of salvation whiles they are Infants This doctrine and practice I say is to be abhorred as most contrary to the Covenant of God set forth in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament contrary to the hopes prayers and comforts of Christian parents concerning their children while Infants and contrary to reasons and natures light which shews that Infants are reasonable creatures But the doctrine and practice of these Anabaptists leaves Christians children in the same condition with the children of Turks and Infidels as casting them out of Gods Covenant and Christs Kingdom which is the Church and denying to them the seal of admittance thereto and so leaving them in the visible kingdom of the devil denying to them faith without which they must certainly perish and reason without which they are bruits and so cut off from all hopes of salvation Therefore their doctrine and practice is to be abhorred Thus you have seen our Arguments or at least some of them Now before I conclude I will Answer two or three Questions or Objections Obj. 1. But if children of Beleevers have right to the Covenant Christ the promises and gift of the holy Ghost How can we know this Men of years if they beleeve and repent can make profession but how can children make profession in the Covenant that we may have sufficient warrant to baptize them Ans It 's true they cannot make profession of their interest in the Covenant and promises but that is done sufficiently for them by God the Father Son and holy Ghost speaking in Scripture as Gen. 17.7 Exod. 20.6 Psal 102.28 and 103.17 18. Psal 112.2 and 127.3 4 5. Es 44.3 Mar. 10.14 Act. 2.39 1 Cor. 2.14 c. These and many other Testimonies are given in Scripture by God himself concerning the right of the faithfuls children to the Covenant promise and Kingdom of God which I wish the Reader to turn over unto and observe Surely this testimony of God for children is not lesse then the testimony of men of years for themselves So that if parents when they bring their children to Baptism make a due profession of their repentance faith and resolution to walk with God in Covenant and both to accept Gods Covenant for themselves and their children and give up themselves and theirs to God in Covenant the Ministers and Congregations may have satisfaction concerning their childrens right to the Covenant and promise by vertue of these Scriptures and so to Baptism Obj. 2. If children of beleeving parents have title to the Covenant and promises either all have this title or some only If some only how will you distinguish them that those only may be baptized If all how is it that many prove wicked which were baptized in infancy Do you hold falling away from grace Ans The promises and Covenant belong to all the faithfuls children in regard of outward station in Covenant and right to the seal of entrance which is the thing now in question the inward efficacy we leave to the good pleasure of God The whole body of Israelites aged and children 1 Cor. 10.5 were Gods people by Covenant and under the promise Yet with many of them God was not well pleased The Churches of the New Testament are called Saints said to be in Christ and yet many persons therein proved wicked and eâ—roneous as may appear in those Epistles that are written to them giving them the title of Saints The Covenant and promises as they are outwardly dispensed are conditional neither doth God therein any further binde himself to his people then as the condition of regeneration holinesse repentance faith or obedience are found in them or performed by them Indeed the inward working of regeneration drawing to and giving Communion with Christ giving a new heart and spirit faith c. are absolutely bestowed according to Gods good pleasure upon what number of these persons externally in Covenant he seeth good according to the election of grace agreeably to those Scriptures Rom. 9.15 16 18. 2. Here is no more necessity then possibility of distinguishing between Elect and non-elect Infants their being members of the visible Church gives them right to the priviledge of new admitted members 3. Neither do we hold falling from the inward efficacy of grace Ioh. 13. â— 2 Per. 2.1 Rev. 3.1 7. Heb. 6.4.5 6. as from true solid Sanctification Justification and Adoption though we grant men may fall from the outward dispensation of the Covenant of grace and turn Apostates or continue under the outward dispensation and yet fall short of the saving efficacy of grace Mat 25.29 Yea moreover that those which have seemed to themselves and others to be Justified Sanctified and Adopted may fall from what they seemed to have and utterly perish 4. The Objection will hold as strongly against the baptizing of the professours of faith for not all those whom the Apostles or any others baptized upon their profession have held our many proved wicked and reprobate none can certainly distinguish among professours which are elect and which not Must they not therefore be baptized To conclude therefore They that by their own profession or Gods profession for them are discovered to have right to the outward dispensation of the Covenant let them enjoy it without gainsaying and let us leave the inward efficacy of the Covenant to God to whom alone it belongs Obj. 3. But what need you write so much in answering so little It seems your cause is not good you take so much pains about it Why did not you Answer as briefly as the other party Propounded Ans 1. The truth oft lies deeep and will not easily be found out as it is more precious then gold and silver Pro. 3 13 14. so it requires more diligent search Gold Mines are not obvious to every eye much skill and labour are requisite to finde them out and bring the gold to light 2. Though the other party have but briefly propounded their judgement and grounds thereof in their now-Answered Papers yet it is known what large discourses they have made amongst the people and how many Treatises are written on this subject 3. It is not an argument of a bad cause to be somewhat large in clearing it the better the cause is the more it deserves diligence in handling of it least we should wrong God his people and truth by sleightinesse A cup of poison may be prepared drunk down and dispersed into the body in an hour which the wisest Physitian can hardly expell out of the body with all his skill and pains in many moneths A desperate
nor diping is essential to the constitution of a true Church Seventhly You say or imply This baptizing or dipping is that whereby they became and were truly called Christians Ans This is false that men cannot be right Christians without your dipping Yea though we understand it of true Baptism for faith or interest in Christ properly maketh Christians Being interested in Christ though we should be hindered by death or other providence from Baptisme yet we are true Christians as the thief on the Crosse Those three thousand mentioned in the Acts when they had beleeved Act. 2 19 40. were Christians even before they were baptized so Philip before he came to the water Baptism is rather an effect or consequent then a cause or antecedent of our Christianity People are rightly baptized because Christians not Christians because baptized 2. Neither were men hence at first called Christians because baptized for many thousands had been baptized a long time before they were called Christians For whereas great multitudes had been baptized by John the Baptist Mat. 3.5 6. Ioh 4 5 6. See Act 2. 3. to the 7 chap. and more by the Disciples of Christ before his death and many thousands also after his ascension at Jerusalem Samaria and elsewhere Beleevers were not called Christians untill a good time after the Persecution and dispersion at Jerusalem For the faithfull were first called Christians at Antioch Act. 11. â—6 where Paul and Barnabas had taught an whole year and the number of Disciples was mightily increased there is not the least intimation that Baptism or dipping gave them the name of Christians but rather their famous profession of Christ Thus much for particulars observable in the main proposition Eightly From the whole proposition in respect of the matter let it be noted that besides your implicit fastning on us some things which we own not and asserting as your own some things which you neither have nor can prove The whole state of the Question is mistaken by you You speak of Baptism which is for the constitution of Churches whereas the Question is What Baptism is to be used amongst us who are a Church or Churches constituted already We grant that to the first constituting of Churches amongst Jews or Infidels which were never a Christian people a Profession of repentance faith or obedience must be made by men upon the preaching of the Gospel that they and their children may be accepted into Covenant and baptized As Abraham professed his faith before that he and his family were circumcised but after that his children were circumcised without requiring of actual faith and repentance from them as precedaneous to Circumcision They that will constitute new Churches amongst Infidels ought as we judge first to require actual faith and repentance of that people before they admit them and their seed as members of the Church But whatsoever you think of us we Christians in England know that we were through Gods grace a Church constituted long ago whose defects and corruptions though many yet have not been inconsistent with the being of a Church neither such hath been the indulgence of our Lord Jesus Christ the head and King of the Church were we ever unchurched If you will go and preach among Jews Turks and infidels and make it appear that you have a commission for it we will not gainsay your constituting of Churches amongst them and baptizing Professors of faith But in the mean space let me advise you to take heed lest whiles you talk of constituting Churches amongst Gods people Act. 1â— 3 2 Tim. 3.6 Tit 1. 11. Satan use you as his instrument to overthrow Churches by subverting souls and whole houses through speaking things you ought not for filthy lucre sake as he did those noted in the margin Ninthly Let it be also observed in the form of your propounding the whole state of the Question that you which would be accounted great disputers and discussers of the truth laying down a negative Proposition as is evident to any that can discern a negation from an affirmation in propounding it say we affirm when indeed you deny Will not these so grosse mistakes in the parts and the whole the matter and manner of this main question stated by you give just cause to judge that you are such men as those of whom the Apostle speaks in these words 1 Tim 1.5 6 7. Now the end of the commandment is charity out of a pure heart a good conscience and faith unfeined from which some having swerved have turned aside to vain jangling desiring to be teachers of the law understanding neither what they say nor whereof they affirm Whereas you say H. H J.B. If it be we desire you to prove it by plain Scriptures Ans We have nothing to do to prove that which we never affirmed but you falsly father upon us as it may seem that you may fight with your own shadow But we shall by Gods assistance prove upon solid Scripture grounds That the Infants of Christians which are members of a constituted Church or Churches have right to the Covenant of grace and so to Baptism the seal of entrance into the Covenant and that it is agreeable to Gods word that constituted Churches should be continued by baptizing of children that are members thereof But first let us hear what you say for your way You proceed thus That the Baptisme of beleeving men and women by us practised H.H. J.B. is the Baptism of Christ we prove by these Scriptures Ans For the answering of your Scripture-proofs taken from Christs command and the Apostles practice I will first propound some things in general to be considered secondly make answer to the several Scriptures 1. I answer therefore That neither any nor all these Scriptures do prove plainly positively immediatly and directly without consequence or syllogism which I take to be your meaning when you call for plain and positive Scripture which I have heard that some of your way abhor and protest against that the Baptism practised by you is the Baptism of Jesus Christ In none of these Scriptures it is expressely said The dipping of beleeving men and women practised by Henry Huggar and James Brown is the Baptism of Jesus Christ Nor do we reade in the Evangelists Go Henry Huggar and Ja. Brown teach all Nations and baptize c. Nor do we reade that Christ gave a command to you two to preach the Gospel to every creature Nor do we finde in the Acts of the Apostles that H.H. and J.B. said to the Jews Repent and be baptized or that the Samaritans heard you two preaching or that the Eunuch went down with you to the water or that the Jaylour or Crispus the Ruler of the Synagogue were baptized by you or either of you If you have any plain positive Scriptures mentioning your selves you may produce them Neither have you cause to take it ill to be urged thus Seeing
baptizing goes before saving Nay though Christ saith peremptorily He that beleeveth not shall be condemned you will not I think hence conclude that all Infants which you say cannot beleeve must necessarily perish in their Infancy though this might far more probably be concluded from the text then what you would conclude The words therefore are not to be taken so generally as to admit of no restriction but must be limited according to the subject-matter viz. that when professed infidels such as the Apostles were sent to are preached to they must be made disciples and beleeve and then be baptized and such as are quite out of Covenant and have no means of being taken into Covenant but by actual faith of their own must be condemned if they beleeve not 2. These Scriptures make much against you for while you urge them for your warrant you not only use no endeavours to go to the poor Nations and Heathens to preach the Gospel to Jews and Infidels as these Commissions require but are altogether unable for such a work For let me ask you Can you speak the tongues of all the people in the world of Indians Ethiopians Turks Scythians Jews c. Or can you work miracles which were so necessary for the laying of the foundation of Christianity amongst Infidels which power Christ promised to his Apostles to whom he directly gave this Commission and accordingly inabled them thereunto If you cannot do these boast no more of these Scriptures 3. Yea though you would insinuate that these Scriptures are much against our judgement and practice yet I hope it will appear anon that they are much for us Only let me first prevent an objection which is this Ob. If these Scriptures make not for the Anabaptists surely they cannot make for you The forenamed reasons hold as strongly against your selves as them for do you lay new foundations of Churches any more then they can you speak with all tongues and work miracles do you go amongst infidels to preach any more then they The difference of our judgement and practice from theirs Ans frees us from this objection which must necessarily press them For 1. Whereas they talk of constituting new Churches and so would lay a new foundation as if they were to deal with Jews and other Infidels We Ministers of Christ in this Nation and our brethren the Pastors and Teachers of Christian Churches in all other Nations build still on the old foundation laid by the Apostles and labour for the reformation increase and propagation of those Churches which were constituted by them or did flow from those first constituted Churches as branches from a stock so that we by virtue of these Commissions preach the word and baptize in all Nations where God is pleased to continue his truth not each one severally in all Nations but all of us distributively in several Churches and collectively in the whole visible Church each one looking to his proper charge and yielding mutual help upon occasion by which means the whole is provided for not inchoatively by way of founding or constituting but successively by way of edifying and propagating 2. Whereas we require of you to shew miracles speak strange languages because you profess on these Scripture grounds to constitute new Churches and lay the foundation of Christian Religion we have good reason for it sith miracles and tongues were necessary for this work to the Apostles and surely no lesse necessary for those that will undertake the same work now But seeing we build on the foundation laid by the Apostles labouring for the edification and propagation of the Churches constituted by them or at least which have by propagation flowed from those which they founded and seeing those Churches or that Church which we labour to edifie were first founded by them which had the gifts of languages and miracles and we teach a people that already professe Christ and are convinced of the truth of Christian Religion miracles are not necessary to us nor can be rationally required of us The same I may say of strange tongues 1 Cor. 15 2â— of which the Apostle saith that they are a sign not to them â—hat beleeve but to them that beleeve not We therefore that preach to Christians Beleevers and Church-members need them not but you who pretend to constitute Churches look on those that are not dipped by you as Heathens Infidels and without Christendom should speak with tongues that you may convince these Infidels of the truth of your doctrine 3. You bring these Scriptures as directly and without deduction or consequence belonging to you we argue from them so as to apply them to our selves by deduction and consequence By this it appears how justly we make use of these Scriptures being Ministers of those Churches which by a continued flux have been propagated from those founded by the Apostles and so may humbly boast of Mat. 16.18 Mat. 28.20 and lay claim unto those promises Mat. 16.18 On this Rock will I build my Church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it And Mat. 28.20 And to I am with you alway even to the end of the world which promises could not belong to the Apostles only for they continued not unto the end of the world in the work of the Ministry but to them and the Churches and Ministers which should succeed them For Christ promiseth to the Apostles that he will be with them in discipling baptizing teaching the things which he had commanded them unto the worlds end which work when the Apostles died they delivered up to succeeding Ministers I come now to shew how these places make for us 1. In Mat 28.19 That which you reade according to our Translation 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Teach is properly Make disciples or scholers Now not only aged persons which are come to discretion may be made scholers or disciples of Christ Isa 54.13 Ier. 31.34 Deut. 30.6 but also children 1. As God hath promised that in his Church where his Gospel and Covenant are dispensed he will teach his people from the least to the greatest all the Churches children shall be taught of God Gods Spirit shall not depart from their seed nor seeds seed c. 2. As they are with and by their parents devoted to God to be brought up in his School by outward instruction when capable and we know that little children which yet cannot learn being sent to school are called scholers Deut. 6.7 Eph. 6.4 2 Tim. 3.15 because they are in the school and intended for learning when capacity shall be given Thus children of Beleevers are from their infancy devoted to to Christs School to be brought in the nurture and information of the Lord and we know no age is uncapable of Gods teaching 3. It is said Act. 15. v. 1. compared with 10. that the false Apostles which urged Christians to be circumcised according to the law of Moses which we know was that children
being taught or at least they would gather from Christs Commission they are uncapable of being preached to and taught Therefore of being baptized But this is not a sufficient cause why they should not be baptized For teaching the doctrines and commands of Christ should go after not before Baptism according to the order of Christs Commission It 's enough that persons be devoted to Christ upon the tender of the Gospel by those that have power externally to dedicate them to him and then they are to be baptized and as it were matriculated into his School and after taught all things that Christ hath commanded them the contrary course is a preposterous inverting of the order of Christ Therefore Baptism is not to be denied to the Infants of Beleevers But they are by their parents to be dedicated to Christ and then baptized and afterwards instructed and taught in all the doctrines and commands of Christ which way is most agreeable to the order of Christs Commission 4. Whereas it is said in Mark 16.16 He that beleeveth and is baptized shall be saved he that beleeveth not shall be condemned If you will take these words precisely as containing a generall and compleat rule by which we must judge who must be baptized and saved who not without limitation to the first calling of Jews and Gentiles to Christianity I reason thus against you from this Scripture Children even the Infants of Christians either beleeve or not If they beleeve Deut. 30.6 having faith though but seminal or virtual comprehended in regeneration or circumcision of the heart which God promiseth to the seed of the faithfull or maybe said to beleeve in their parents who accept of the Covenant for themselves and their seed then they are to be baptiye◠as this Scripture shews and your own argument against their Baptism yields this being your great reason against baptizing children because say you they cannot beleeve But if you say they do not cannot beleeve they are all damned by you from this Scripture which saith expressely Whosoever beleeves not shall be condemned Take which you will If you say the former the cause is yielded by you If the later viz. That all the children of Beleevers whiles Infants are condemned and that there is no hope of salvation if they die before grown years this being so contrary to the Covenant of God and his promises will make you deservedly abhorred of all those that know God his Covenant and Scriptures If you to avoid this dilemma say this Scripture belongs only to those of grown years as were those unbeleeving Jews and Heathens to whom the Apostles were immediatly sent and therefore the condemnation of Infants through want of actual faith cannot be hence concluded you answer your selves and might as easily see that the exclusion of Infants from Baptism for want of actuall personal professed faith cannot hence be gathered especially seeing these words are far more peremptory and expresse against the salvation then against the Baptism of non-beleevers Secondly You say What you practise is proved to be the Baptism of Christ by the practice of the Disciples in obedience to those commands as Act 2.38 Then Peter said unto them Repent and be baptized every one of you in the Name of Jesus Christ unto the remission of sins ver 41. Then they that gladly received the word were baptized and the same day added to the Church Ans You cut off in the citation of this Scripture a very material part namely the ground of the Apostles exhortation to them to be baptized which if you would have considered seriously might have made you afraid to urge this place for your purpose It seems you thought it good policy to omit it least others should see how little it makes for your purpose or rather how much against you The words you omitted are in ver 39. The Apostle having exhorted them to repent and be baptized in the Name of Christ for the remission of sin and that they might receive the gift of the holy Ghost adds this reason ver 39. For the promise is to you and to your children and to all that be afar off so many as the Lord our God shall call Using this argument to perswade them to be baptized and to expect the spiritual blessing signified in Baptism viz. the remission of sins and pouring of the Spirit on them for the promise saith he is to you and your children and least we should think that this priviledge was peculiar to the Jews to have their children interested in the promise with their parents he adds And to all that be afar off so many as the Lord your God shall call Noting that all that shall be called of the remote Gentiles shall enjoy the like priviledge namely that the promise shall belong not only to them but also their children Whence I reason thus To whom the promise of remission of sins and the gift of the holy Ghost belongs to the same also Baptism the pledge thereof belongs for this is the summe of the Apostles reasoning to be gathered out of the 38. and 39. verse But the promise is to the faithfull or people of God and their children whether Jews or Gentiles Deut. 4.2 Mat. 46. compared with Psal 91.11 12. even those that were afar off whom God shall call and therefore Baptism belongs to them and their children You know who forbids to add to or take from the word and who is the ringleader of that art of curtayling the word 2. Whereas it is said Those that gladly received the word were baptized It may be well understood as they received the word they received Baptism the seal and appendix of the word But they received the word of promise as it was propounded to them by the Apostles which was thus That it belonged to them and their children Therefore answerably the seal of the word viz. Baptism belonging to them and their children they were baptized and their children 3. Whereas you say They that received the word were added to the Church The text saith And the same day there were added to the Church three thousand souls It is not safe thus to make bold with and mis-report Scripture The next Scripture which you cite is Act. 8.1 But when they beleeved Philip preaching the things concerning the Kingdom of God in the Name of Jesus they were baptized both men and women To this I answer 1. Who knows not that the words men and women are names rather noting the sexes then ages and are appliable to Infants as well as grown persons Did not Eve when she had born her first childe say Gen. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I have gotten a man from the Lord Will you hence gather that because she cals him a man therefore he was at perfect age at the day of his birth When Christ saith that the woman when she is delivered of a childe Ioh. 16.21 remembred not her anguish for joy that a man
is born into the world doth it follow hence that the new-born childe is a full-grown man 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 No sure the word notes the species or kinde of man distinct from other creatures without difference of age or sex So then you cannot from the names of men and women conclude the ripenesse and perfection of years 2. If you object But they beleeved Remember what is said on Mar. 16.15 16. and Act. 2.39 and you may gather thence That when parents become Beleevers God accepts their Infant children as Beleevers and giveth them right to the Covenant and promise 3. But howsoever enough hath been said in the general considerations to shew how little help you can have from this or any other Scripture for your purpose The following proof is in Act. 8.36.37 The Eunuch saith Loe here is water what doth hinder me to be baptized And Philip said If thou beleevest with all thy heart thou maist Ans We grant that they which never lived in a Christian Church nor were born of Christian parents nor have interest in the Covenant by their parents faith which was the case of the Eunuch are to be baptized when they beleeve and not before But what makes this for your purpose 2. But what would you gather hence that none are to be baptized but they which beleeve with their whole heart If so I answer 1. Then you will condemn not only us Act. 8.12 13.21 but also the same Philip for baptizing Simon whose heart was not right in the sight of God and therefore he beleeved not with his whole heart you must condemn many of your own dippings for doubtlesse many come to you to be dipped for base ends You cannot promise to your selves more dexterity then was in the Apostles and Evangelists to baptize none but upright-hearted ones 3. If so you must not baptize any untill you see into their hearts 1 King 8.9 that they beleeve sincerely and then you must lay down your new trade of dipping for none but God leeth mens hearts whether they be upright or no. Your next Scripture is Act. 10.47 Then answered Peter Can any forbid water that these should not be baptized which have received the holy Ghost as we and he commanded them to be baptized in the Name of Jesus Christ Ans 1. It is plain that the Apostle gives this as a reason why they should be baptized because they had received the gift of the holy Ghost Act. 10.44 45. and 11.15 Now you can hence gather immediatly no warrant for your baptizing untill you can procure by your preaching the effusion of the holy Ghost in a visible and miraculous manner as it is evident that that in the text was 2. But if you say Indeed these visible and miraculous gifts of the holy Ghost cease with the Primitive times But God now pours his Spirit of sanctification ordinarily and invisibly on people and such as have received that may be baptized I grant it and assume The gift of the holy Ghost is promised to and bestowed on Infants in the Church not only extraordinarily as in the example of John the Baptist but ordinarily according to Gods promise Act. 2.38 39. Isa 44.3 4 5. Your following example is â—ct 16.32 33 34. And they spake unto him the word of the Lord and to all that were in his house And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their stripes and was baptized he and all his straitway And when he had brought them into his house he set meat before them and rejoiced that he and all his beleeved in God Ans To this I answer The last words are mis-cited And rejoiced that he and all his beleeved in God Our Translators render it And rejoiced beleeving in God with â—ll his house Which if the Parenthesis had been observed and in stead of beleeving they had read having beleeved or after he had beleeved had very fully and fitly set forth the emphasis of the Original which is thus word for word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He exceedingly rejoiced or exulted with in oâ— through his whole house after that he had beleeved in God or he having beleeved in God rejoiced in his whole house Here it is not said that the whole house beleeved in God but the words shew that the Jaylor when he had beleeved in God and he and all his were baptized he made a feast and shewed his exceeding joy through his whole house or with his whole house 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Syriack Translation reades it thus And he exulted and all the children of his house even all of them in the faith of God Now consider in this History these things 1. How that when the poor affrighted Jaylour saith What shall I do that I may besaved Paul and Silas answer Beleeve in the Lord Jesus and thou shalt be saved and all thine house They require faith of the Jaylour that he and his family might be admitted into a saving estate They said not that every one of his family must of necessity actually beleeve and professe that so his houshold might be saved with him but they tell him If he beleeve both he and his houshold should be saved Gen. 17.5 Luk. 19.9 As Abraham beleeved and all his family even Infants were taken into Covenant of salvation And when Zacheus beleeved salvation came to his house he being made a son of Abraham So God shews here by his servants that he would deal with the Taylour not standing for the present on strict terms of actual faith of all in his house If the Governour beleeve it is enough to put the whole family into a saving estate inchoatively at least in respect of admission into Covenant neither are any to be excluded but such as by stubborn refusal of the Gospel offered deprive themselves of that priviledge 2. It is said indeed that they spake to him and all in his house vers 32. the word of the Lord but whether it be meant of the prisoners in the Prison-house with Paul and Silas or of those of his houshold is not expressed the former seems very probable rather then the later 1. Those to whom they spake the word are said to be All that were in his house v. 32. Those that were baptized with him are said to be all his Now prisoners and strangers might be in his house but those only of his own family were his 2. Ver. 32. It is said they spake to all in the house and yet afterwards it is said ver 34. that he brought them into his house as if they had not been in his dwelling house before 3. If it be meant of his family to which they spake the word that proves not that there were no Infants in the family or that the Infants were not taken into Covenant and baptized with their parents any more then the exhortation of Moses to that great assembly of the Israelites mentioned Deut.
and signed with the seal of the Covenant now in the time of the Gospel they have no interest in God his Covenant or the seal thereof or Church-membership but are quite cast out from these priviledges 4. Infants of beleeving parents never did cast off this priviledge so that by any act of theirs all Infants should be deprived of it For to cast off Covenant-priviledges imports actually to rebell against the Covenant which children cannot do neither can any child's suppose him capable of actual rebellion and rejection of the Covenant or aged persons actual rebellion deprive all Infants of this priviledge unlesse he be the root head and fountain of all Beleevers Infants which is not supposable Anabaptists may cast themselves and their children out of Covenant but they cannot cast out the children of other Christian parents otherwise then by seducing the parents into the same errour and impiety with themselves or worse which oft fals out that those that compasse land and sea to make proselytes Mat. 23.15 help to make them twofold more the children of hell then themselves 5. Yea the Scriptures of the New Testament are so farre from repealing the priviledges of Beleevers Infants that they strongly confirm and advance them as expressely telling us that to such belongs the Kingdom of God Gospel-promises belong to them they are holy Mark 10.14 Act. 2.39 1 Cor. 7.14 c. of which hereafter 6. That now the same Covenant of grace for substance remains amongst Christians as that which the Jews were under that there is instituted a seal of entrance into this Covenant now in the time of the Gospel viz. Baptism That Baptism the seal of entrance into the new is come in the place of Circumcision the seal of entrance into the old as the new dispensation it self succeeds the old and is of the same use for the main Col. 24 12. 2 Cor. 3.6 7 8 9 c. Heb. 8 8 9 10 and that the priviledges of the Gospel-dispensation are more glorious and comfortable then those of the legal were are truths so clear that he is very ignorant of Scripture I had almost said scarce worthy to be called a Christian that questions them much more that denies them But for the clearing of this truth out of Genesis 17.7 a In my answer to A. R. I have written elsewhere and may further if it be thought needfull communicate b In answer to M.T. some things I have by me for vindication thereof Arg. 2. Those persons to whom Christ is so loving and gracious Arg. 2 that he would have them come or be brought to him and by no means kept from him have right to Baptism the sign and pledge of admission to Christ But our Lord Jesus Christ was Mat. 19.14 Mar. 10.14 Luk. 18.15 16. and is so loving to children of beleeving parents that he would have them come or be brought to him and cannot indure that they should be forbidden or hindred from him Therefore the children of beleeving parents have right to Baptism the sign and pledge of admission to Christ and so are to be baptized For the clearing and confirming of the Proposition I will propound some few things which I desire may be considered 1. That Christ refused commerce with or admittance of any persons to him with kinde entertainment but such as were in Covenant at least externally or in a way thereto by their attentive hearkning to his word and receiving his doctrine Mat. 15.23 24 25 28. He tels the woman of Canaan that he was not sent but to the lost sheep of the house of Israel and that the childrens bread was not to be given to dogs implying that the Canaanites out of Covenant were as dogs and not to be entertained by him neither doth he give any comfortable answer to that woman untill she had discovered by her faith that she had right to Christ and the Covenant Ioh. 4.15 19 The woman of Samaria indeed was received by Christ as ready to hear his doctrine and be humbled Pilate and Herod he would hardly or not at all answer much lesse familiarly and kindly invite to him Therefore whom Christ so kindly invites he looks on not as aliens to the Covenant but as having some interest in himself and the sign of admission to himself and the Covenant 2. We are said in Baptism to put on Christ Rom. 6 3 ◠Gal. 3.27 Col 2.12 Ioh. 5.40 be baptized into Christ and his death and to be buried with him which is for substance as much as to come to him and by coming unto him to be partakers of him and have Communion with him 3. There is now no visible way for children to come to Christ since his ascension ordinarily but by Baptism that being the first visible way of admission to Christ and that this coming of children was not confined to those children o◠that time of his humiliation will appear by the reason for theirs is the Kingdom of God but the Kingdom of God is dispensed since Christs ascension Therefore children must come of which anon Of coming to Christ in hearing the word prayer the Lords Supper they are uncapable of inward invisible coming to or being united to Christ we speak not now neither doth Christ here speak of it But by Baptism now as heretofore by Circumcision Infants may be brought to Christ and the Covenant in a visible manner For the illustration and strengthening of the assumption let these things be considered 1. These were properly little children or Infants which Christ would have brought to him and not hindered 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as may appear 1. By their titles Little children Young children Infants 2. By Christs manner of receiving them viz. in his arms which is proper to babes 2. They were children of beleeving parents in Covenant 1. It 's out of question they were children of Jews at least by outward profession of Religion which then were the peculiar people of God 2. They which brought them whether parents or other appointed by them had a reverend perswasion concerning Christ and beleeved that his blessing might profit the children 3. Our Saviour approves the act of them that brought them which he would not if it had not been done in faith Heb. 7.6 3. That Christ speaks not only of those children that were then brought to him but generally of the children of Beleevers or all parents that are willing to bring their children to Christ is plain in that he saith not Suffer those or these individual children to come unto me but Suffer little children generally or indefinitely 4. And moreover that these words of Christ are not to be restrained to those children only or their manner of coming only or to the time of Christs being on earth may be gathered 1. In that all the three Evangelists so carefully and fully set down that History with all its circumstances and holding forth Christs gracious expressions of
Nation and capable of being made disciples as was shewed in answer to the former Paper But all Nations were to be made disciples and baptized by the Apostles according to the command of Jesus Christ Mat. 28.19 20. Therefore the children of beleeving parents in those Nations were and still are to be baptized For the clearing of this ARgument I might suffice my self in referring the Reader to what I have written heretofore In Answer to A. R. In Answer to the first Paper for the vindicating of this Scripture Mat. 28.19 which is the ground of this Argument Yet briefly for the strengthening and clearing of the antecedent or Assumption contained in the text I shall propound these considerations to be remembred though some of them were touched before 1. That children are a very considerable part of Nations therefore comprehended under this command of discipling and baptizing Nations Especially considering 2. That no acception is made of them neither doth this or any other Scripture shew that they must be excluded out of this Commission Did ever Christ say or intimate thus much Though the children of Beleevers have heretofore been in Covenant and admitted to the sign of entrance thereto yet now in the time of the Gospel they are to be left out of Covenant and kept from the seals thereof as Infidels and Pagans till they professe their faith 3. They are not uncapable of being made disciples and baptized as hath been said 4. That one Nation of the Jews which unto the time of Christs giving this Commission to his Disciples Gen. 17.7 Exod. 12.42 had been in Covenant and enjoyed the seals thereof as his peculiar people had their children taken into Covenant with them and admitted to the seal of entrance which priviledge also Proselytes of other Nations had in common with the Jews 5. Not only among the Jews but also in all Nations Infant-children were alwaies devoted to the same God and religion as their parents and often if not alwaies by some solemn sign of initiation the devil not unfitly called Gods ape would have children with their parents dedicated to him Lev. 18.21 compared with 24 25 26. and it is so universal that children while Infants are still reputed to belong to the same religion and God with their parents as that the children of Papists Jews Turks and Indians c. are accounted from their mothers womb Papist Jews Turks and Indians c. untill by the use of reason and free-will they make defection from their fathers religion so that it seems to be of the very dictate of reason and law of nature that Infants should be esteemed to belong to the same God and religion as their parents whether true or false 6. The children of subjects and bondslaves are accounted the subjects and bondslaves to their Parents Sovereigns and Masters untill by some act of their own they cast off their yoke Now all Christians are subjects and servants to Christ their King and Lord therefore their children also are subjects and servants to God and Christ whiles Infants Lev. 25.41 42. Psal 116.16 7. Hence it cannot be rationally conceived that the Apostles did understand the Commission of discipling all Nations otherwise then so as to take in the children with their beleeving parents Arg. 6. Arg. 6 If all the Nations of the earth shall be blessed by Christ the seed of Abraham after his coming in the flesh as much or more then the Nation of the Jews were before the coming of Christ then surely the children of converted Nations must be in Covenant and have right to the seal of entrance thereinto for this was a great priviledge of the Jewish Nation before Christs coming It would be an hortible eclipsing of the blessednesse of the converted Gentiles and of the Jews when they shall be converted to have their children cut off from the Covenant and the seal thereof But the Nations of beleeving Gentiles shall be blessed as much or more in the time of the Gospel by Christ then the Jews were before his coming Gen. 22.18 Gal. 3.8 2 Cor. 3.7 8 9. Heb. 8.6 7. Therefore the children of beleeving Gentiles have right to the Covenant and seal of admittance thereinto which is Baptism For the fuller discovery of the strength of this Argument consider 4 things 1. What is said on the foregoing Argument is of use here also for the clearing of the extent and comprehensivenesse of the word Nation 2. Consider the several confirmations of the Proposition tending to clear the consequence 1. The Jews as hath been said had interest in the Covenant and seal of admission for their children in the Old Testament before Christs coming and this was in it self and their account doubtlesse a glorious priviledge Therefore Christians after Christs coming must have the same priviledge seeing no lesse but rather greater priviledges are promised to the beleeving Gentiles then the Jews had 2. Especially considering that now in the time of the Gospel this would be in it self and in the apprehension and desire of all godly parents accounted a most glorious priviledge now that their children should be in Covenant and admitted to the seal thereof and the contrary a fearfull losse I appeal to all that esteem the Covenant of God whether next to their own salvation they would not esteem their childrens being admitted to the Covenant of God and its seal an eminent priviledge what those that through the spirit of errour have cast off God his Covenant and truth judge we weigh not considering they are given over to a reprobate judgement It being unconceivable how those that ever tasted the goodnesse of God the priviledges of the Covenant and made right improvement of the seal thereof should not earnestly desire the same for their children whom nature and grace teacheth dearly to love Neither can any reason be given why this should be so great a priviledge before Christ and not remain a most desirable priviledge since Christs coming for parents to have their children in Gods Covenant and under his seal 3. Hence follows that it would be a sad eclipsing of the blessednessâ— comfort and glory of beleeving Gentiles if their children should be dashed oâ—â— from the priviledges of the Covenant which the Jews children had How could that of the Apostle be true Rom. 3.29 Is he the God of Jews only is he not also of the Gentiles yea of the Gentiles also if God have not as well taken the Gentiles with their children into Covenant as well as heretofore the Jews with their children How should the converted Gentiles rejoice with Gods people and praise him as well as the Jews according to the Prophecie cited by the Apostle Rom. 15.10 15. if they should be deprived of so grand a priviledge of Gods people which had been so long possessed by them and their Infants left out of Covenant and debarred the seal 4. What a lamentable fall and abatement of the beleeving Jews comfort and glory would befall