is the same with the Pagan-Gentiles I know no reason why we so long as we remaine in our naturall condition should have greater priviledges then they unlesse the holy Ghost had any where given commission for is in Scripture And therefore untill you can prove a difference between them and us by nature you in effect as good as say nothing Answer Here as a man more then confident of his cause you seem to grant your antagonist more then is required Here you have found out an argument which in your opinion is more then demonstrative And oh how happy is your Church in having so mettalsome a champion that is able to say something that your Apostolicall fraternity be not troden down of the Idolatrous paedo-baptists But however your words may passe in your Church as oracles yet wee the maintainers of Gods Covenant judge your assertion in all this prattle to be but an aspersion And either make your charge good or else we will look upon you as an agent for the devill and not for Christ Prove that all the children of beleeving parents are open and professed enemies to God Shew where the Scripture so termes Infants of Christian parents seeing such are borne Christians and called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Saints I Cor. 7.14 You shew your selfe to be an open and professed enemy to the holy seed in casting so soule a reproach upon persons that God hath so highly honoured And as much may be said of the Infants of the Jewes namely that they were borne in originall sinne yet the Scripture termes them no where open and professed enemies to God though you say the promises made unto them were but temporary Nor did this estate debarre them from being sealed into Gods peculiar in their infancy by the seale of His holy and eternall Covenant Now if you say that infants in their infancy must not be baptized because they cannot understand the meaning of that mysticall Ordinance nor have saith to apply the promises therein held forth by the same reason the Infants of the Jewes should not have been circumcised for circumcision had in it the same essentiall mystery with Baptisme though held forth in a type And so your argument blames God Himselfe for preposterous dealing in prescribing the seale of the righteousnesse of faith to be imprinted on persons before they manifested or could manifest any faith at all by profession or practise And circumcision was a seale of the same righteousnesse of faith which we Christians build our eternall salvation upon and that is faith in Jesus Christ Rom. 4. and Rom. 5. Ob. But there was a speciall command for circumcision in the time of infancy Sol. But your reason I say blames God for that command because Infants of Jewes were as much in the state of nature as Infants of Christians So then the same reason that you alleadge to blame us for our practise doth blame God for His command Againe we answer that there was such a command for the circumcising of such Infants in their infancy whose parents were under Gods seale but no such command for Infants whose parents were not Profession of faith was needfull unto such whose parents were not under Gods foederall seale And so Abraham in whom the Church of the Jewes began had saith before hee had the seale for being uncircumcised or before circumcision hee had the righteousnesse of faith Rom 4.11 But no such thing afterward required of Abrahams seed but the contrary commanded namely that his seed should be circumcised in their infancy So for baptisme under the Gospell For such whose parents are not under the seale of Gods Covenant are not to be baptized but first to manifest the righteousnesse of faith And here as in Abraham the righteousnesse of faith must goe before the initiall seale but when parents as Abraham are once under the seale of Gods Covenant their seed as the seed of Abraham are to bee sealed unto God in their infancy by vertue of their Christian birth-right for by birth they are under Gods Covenant and that Covenant under which they were borne is to bee put under seale and ratified unto them as joint confederates with their parents and of Gods peculiar people with them For the expresse words of the Covenant are I WILL BEE THY GOD AND THE GOD OF THY SEED And therefore when God doth put the initiall seale upon the parents He doth enright the seed of such parents unto the Covenant and initiall seale thereof in their infancy as the Lord hath clearely resolved the case when He put His Covenant under seale with Abraham And therefore you Anabaptists are destroyers of Gods Covenant and will have it to terminate in the party baptized and not to extend to his or her seed as their Christian jointure by birth So then the Covenant that God makes with us Christians is not I will be thy God and the God of thy Seed jointly But I will be thy God and not the God of the seed untill they manifest faith in practice and profession and then I will be the God of thy seed also And so this Covenant will be no priviledge unto children of Christian parents at all for the children of Turkes shall bee received by Baptisme when they testify faith in christ and and repentance towards God And so Gods Covenant of Grace must alwayes terminate in the party baptized and goe no further And is not this mad Divinity that the children shall be excluded when God hath joyned parents and children as joint-partakers of the same Covenant and inheritance And are not you herein the devills attournies sent of purpose to wrangle children of Christian parents out of the spirituall inheritance unto which they are borne as Christians by birth The Lord plead the cause of His Covenant against these perverse disputers maintaine the inheritance of our seed and of-spring against the cursed machinations of these sacrilegious theeves and robbers which steale from God from us and from our children But you call for a difference beteeen us Christians and the Pagan-Gentiles by nature unles this be shewed nothing in effect is spoken against you or for us By nature that is by naturall generation this I beleeve is your meaning a notion indeed high enough for Anabaptists who look upon all Gods ordinances like sensuall beasts But upon that naturall generation of procreation of seed you may behold the Covenant of Grace established and set up had you any sparke of spirituall discerning in you for so did St. Paul Ephes 2.3 4. c. And had you learned the language of the Scriptures you might truly say that the children of Christians are Christians by nature and not sinners of the Pagans as the Apostle speakes of the Jewes saying we are Jewes by nature and not sinners of the Gentiles Gal. 2.15 Here Jewes by nature and sinners of the Gentiles are opposite members But how were they Jewes by nature Surely as St. Peter speaks because they were the
the children of the Jewes were holy by vertue of the holy Covenant with their parents so also are the children of the Gentiles holy by vertue of the same holy Covenant with their parents an argument never too often to be inculcated And now having spoken of that text of 1 Cor. 7.14 already in our former discourse we will say some what for the sense and meaning of Rom. 11.16 which text must needs bee understood and meant of Abraham and his branches only Now the question is who are meant by Abrahams branches Well the point there to prove is that as Abrahams children among the Jewes were partakers of the priuiledges of the Covenant so among the Gentiles children engrafted into Abraham are partakers of the Covenant as well as the naturall branches of Abraham the Jewes And hence I inferred that as the Jewes receiving the faith of Abraham were circumcised so Gentiles receiving the faith of Abraham are to be baptized And as the Jewes that were not internally and inherently godly as long as they did not renounce Abrahams faith had a right to circumcision so the children of the Gentiles receiving the faith of Abraham were by Baptisme as Jewes by circumcision to bee admitted into the enjoyment of the priviledges of the Christian Church Peter tels the Jewes that the promise is unto them and their children Acts 2.39 Now the promise was not made to their seed because they did beleeve but the seed did beleeve because they were under the promise viz. I will be thy God and the God of thy seed If this must be restrained thus viz. I will be thy God and the God of thy seed too when thy seed shall beleeve then no more is promised to this seed then to the seed of the Gentiles for when the seed of any Gentile should make prosession of his faith in the Messias he was to be circumcised as well as the seed of Abraham But more was due by this promise to the seed of Abraham then to the seed of a Gentile therefore the seed of Abraham was under the promise in a peculiar manner and not the seed of a Gentile uncircumcised yea among the Jewes a parent who was orthodoxall in judgement albeit he shewed no proofe of justifying faith in his life yet he was put under the Covenant for him and his seed And the children of such had as much right to circumcision as the children of David So then externall subjection to the doctrine of faith doth entitle the parent and his seed to the right of the externall benefit of the Covenant The summe is that as Jewes were born Jewes so the seale of circumcision was their due not to put them under the Covenant but to seale up the Covenant under which they were borne So say I Christians children are borne Christians and a right to the Covenant is not given them by Baptisme but that right which they had by birth is put under seale The very Covenant under which a Christian Infant is born stands good unto him and bindes him to faith obedience and so albeit Anabaptists like so many enraged devills doe what in them lies to cancell the hand-writing of Almighty God by withholding Gods owne seale from Infants of Christian parents upon whom Hee hath engraven His Covenant and written His promises of grace and mercy by virtue of their being born of such parents A wickednesse so heinous so horrible so full of impiety and hellish cruelty that I want a parallel I want words to expresse it unto my reader yet Gods Covenant I say stands good unto them Now the Lord make you to understand what I have written and give you a sight of your wickednesse And thus you have my first reason vindicated Which is that Infants of Christians are Christians borne and therefore are to be baptized in their infancy The second Reason Anabaptist Againe your second reason is that children are capable of Baptisine and your ground is from circumcision Because children were circumcised therefore they may be baptized in their infancy Answer If children because borne under the Covenant before Christs incarnation were therefore capable of the initiall seale even by the sentence of Almighty God because born under that Covenant then children of Christians borne under the same Covenant of grace since Christs incarnation are capable of the initiall seale and 't is their due by virtue of their Christian birth-right Now that the Covenant before Christ with the Jewes and since Christ with the Christians is the same Covenant namely A Covenant which concernes mans deliverance from misery by sinne and mans restitution unto happinesse by Jesus Christ we have shewed before we will now instance only in three things Viz. 1. The Covenant of God with the Jewes before Christ caused the godly in Covenant to seek for immortality after death in heaven as their country and abiding city for ever Heb. 11.13 14 15 16. Acts 26.6 7 8. 2. All the ministrations of Gods Covenant with the Iewes tended to the debasement of nature and to the advancement of Gods free grace in the whole work of mans Redemption though in types 3. All the promises that God made to the Iewes looked towards Iesus Christ as the only Mediatour in whom all Gods promises are yea and Amen 2 Cor. 1.20 cum Heb. 13.8 and Gen. 3.15 Christ was the subject of Moses and the Prophets writings Job 1.45 And the Iewes were justified in the sight of God by the same righteousnesse of faith as we Gentiles are justified by Rom. 4.3.13 And this justification hath essentiall connexion with eternall salvation Rom. 5.9 10. And is not our Covenant the same for substance reducible to these three heads Quest Why then is the Covenant said to bee a better Covenant and established upon better promises Heb. 8.6 Ans It 's better only in regard of the ministration and permanency of which wee shall bee necessitated to speak more fully afterwards in due place Now if the Covenant be the same and the manifestation of this Covenant upon persons unto the Church bee the Churches warrant to minister the initiall seale unto them then if the Covenant manifested by God unto the Church to be upon Infants of persons in Covenant under the law was their warrant to administer the initiall seale that there God did appoint to be used then the like manifestation is a warrant for us to administer the initiall seale unto Infants under the Gospell whose parents are in Covenant But let 's consider your exceptions against this reason Anabaptist But we deny the sufficiency of this reason to prove Infants Baptisme and that upon this ground 1. They differ in the institution 2. In the signes 3. In the subjects 1. They differ in the Institution for the Institution of circumcision was that infants should be circumcised even all Abrahams lineall seed as well the seed of the bond woman as the free but the Institution of Baptisme is that they should first be taught
and they that did beleeve the word might and ought to be baptized and not else as we finde in all the Scripture and therefore every ordinance must be practised upon its owne institution and not how we please Now the Lord would sure have made some mention of childrens Baptisme if they had been the subjects of Baptisme and therefore from Christs owne charge and Commission to His Disciples Matth. 28 we are bound as strictly to observe Christs rule for Baptisme as the Jewes were to observe the order of circumcision Secondly they differ in the signes ut infra Answer How doe Circumcision and Baptisme differ in the institution seeing both of them are of divine institution annexed to the Covenant of free grace and the initiall seales thereof proper to the ministrations of Christ for they both seale Christ unto Gods Covenant people the one seales Christ to come the other seales Christ already come but both seale Christ But to your meaning I answer that for the institution of circumcision Abraham by the institution was not to bee circumcised till hee gave testimony of his faith in the Messias but then his seed was to be circumcised in their infancy before they could give any other proofe of their faith then their being borne of parents in Covenant And their being borne of parents in Covenant gave them right to the initiall seale as wee have shewed before So the Gentiles were not to be baptized as Abraham not to be circumcised till they did shew forth proofes of their faith But when the parent ba entred himselfe his children were to be baptized as Abrahams seed were to be circumcised before they could shew any more proofe of faith then their being borne of parents in Covenant Christ indeed Matth. 28.19 gave charge that whom His Apostles had taught they should bee baptized but that none should bee baptized but such as were first taught that 's your additionall and of that you neither doe nor can make proofe You were answered sufficiently that in raising a Church among Pagans faith must be the doore of admittance This was the Apostles case But when beleeving Pagans were baptized I desire proofe that their seed must bring a verdict of their beleeving ere they could be baptized Divines tell us that Heb. 6.2 where the Apostle speakes of Baptismes and imposition of hands By imposition of hands the Apostle meanes a practice then in use that such children as were baptized should after make profession of their faith and so be admitted by imposition of hands to the Lords Supper Now you will have profession of faith goe before and afford such as are borne Christians no more priviledge then meere Pagans borne out of the Church You say that by Christs charge and Commission Matth. 28. we are bound as strictly to observe Christs rule for Baptisme as the Jewes to observe the order of circumcision Right And therefore as Abraham was not and no Proselyte was to be circumcised till he gave testimony of his faith so no Alien no Pagan is to bee baptized till hee shew forth his faith But as the seed of Abraham and the seed of any circumcised Proselyte were to be circumcised while Infants so the seed of baptized Pagans while young are to be baptized Baptisme herein answering circumcision Anabaptist Secondly they differ in the signes for the signe of circumcision was the cutting off of the fore-skin of their flesh and that was a mark in their flesh for ever and so the parties that were circumcised I meane the Infants that were circumcised could make use of the signe afterward as well as at the present But the signe of Baptisme is water and so it must bee a signe to the party baptized in the present act thereof or not at all Now we know that Infants cannot discerne the signe in the present act and so consequently not at all and so the signe is given in vaine Answer What though they differ in the signes yet they accord in the thing signified and they both put the Covenant of grace under seale unto the children of the Church You reason like carnall Atheists as if all the benefit of Sacraments lay in what is obvious to our senses A perpetuall mark in the flesh which the circumcised though circumcised in infancy could after make use of But when When they came to years of discretion But what if they dyed before as many of them did What use then could they ever make of this marke But what marke or signe in the flesh meane you A sacramentall marke or signe Then verily a sealing signe But what did this marke or signe in the flesh seale unto the lineall seed of Abraham Redemption by Christ or the temporall inheritance of the land of Canaan You say the temporall inheritance of the land of Canaan If so then all Abrahams lineall seed circumcised must be possessed of the land of Canaan or else God must bee unfaithfull But Abrahams seed for the space of 440 yeares were kept out of Canaan after circumcision was instituted and practiced And so by this your Divinity all this while God was a lier and failed of His promise And must this sacramentall signe of circumcision seale the land of Canaan unto all Abrahams lineall seed Why then was Ismael and his posterity excluded What became of Abrahams lineall seed by Keturah The fonnes of Jacob became 12. tribes and the land of Canaan was divided unto them only And yet not to all these neither For two tribes and a halfe were setled on this side Iordan Fye Fye What mad stuffe is this Truly hee that hath any knowledge in Divine Mysteries may see evidently that either you read the Scriptures without observation or conclude that you maintaine untruths against your owne knowledge and consciences And then you come with another flim flam You tell me that water in Baptisme must be a signe to the party baptized in the present act or not at all That is as you expound it in the case of Infants that the party baptized must discern the signe in the present act or else that that signe is given in vaine And this Divinity is as spirituall as your Religion This argues that the efficacy of Gods ordinances of grace depends upon the act of the creature In this you may shake hands with Rome and exclude grace and set up works Here is much spoken of the act of man but not a word of the Act of God in His ordinances of grace But how doth this conclude Baptisme to be in vaine unto an Infant You say the Infant discernes not the signe in the present act of administration Thus you seem to argue Such as discerne not the sacramentall signe in the present act of administration have the sacramentall signe given in vaine But Infants of Christians doe not discerne the sacramentall signe in Baptisme in the present action of administration Ergo. Infants of Christians have the sacramentall signe of Baptisme given in vaine This argument
onenesse with Christ viz. 1. Of Spirit 1 Cor. 6.17 2. Of image Gal. 4.19 3. Of carriage Gal. 2.20 Now if wee are thus one with Christ Christ will be Alsufficient unto us against every evill and for all good things of soule or body in life and death that we shall stand in need of Vse 5 This consideration may lastly afford precious matter of substantiall and lasting joy Psal 118.22 23 24. Ps 149.2 And let this suffice for the Preface Wee are now to treat of Christs glorious Commission unto His Legates and Apostles Wherein before we come unto the particular scanning of the whole text we will premise two things in Generall which will appositely reach the present controversy between us and the Anabaptists 1. The first Generall is this viz. That the Apostles and first planters of the Gospell must no longer keep within the precincts and borders of Iudea but goe out among the Pagan-Gentiles and instruct them in the Mystery of the Gospell and so seale them also into Gods peculiar by baptisme 2. The second Generall is this viz. That the Apostles had a Commission from Christ to goe unto all Nations without limitaion and were not to take up their setled residence in any one Nation but to travell from Countrey to Countrey their Commission was so large and ample They were for Spaine they were for Rome for Italy for Corinth for Asia for Macedonia for Philippi c. And in this they had a peculiar Commission which was to plant foundations where Christ was not named to beare the Name of Christ before lewes and Gentiles to be the immediate pen-men of the Holy Ghost to deliver unto them the immediate will of God concerning faith and worship and to confirme their doctrine by miracles as part of their extraordinary Commission Now let the Anabaptists shew us any such Commission among all the mopping apes of their Apostolicall instructers by whose miraculous endowments they hope to see all the world brought to the obedience of their faith Now this second observation we shall not speak of here in this treatise for such was the impetuous madnesse of the Anabaptists at their first entrance into their new way for young beginners are most fiery that I thought it prudence to forbear the further prosecuting of this text for their objections would have been so many that in answering of them I should have spent whole sermons and so have deprived mine auditory of more necessary instructions and therefore I resolved to deale with them by writing and to publish my Sermon-notes or at least the summe of them upon this first Generall this being the very hinge upon which the controversy betwixt us and the Anabaptists is turned The first Generall point then is this viz. That the Apostles and first planters of the Gospell were no longer to keep within the borders and precincts of Judea but to goe out among the Pagan-Gentiles and instruct them in the mystery of the Gospell and being so instructed to seale them into Gods peculiar by Baptisme Now as this point stands clearely upon the text so other Scriptures suffrage with it as Mark. 16.14 18. Act. 10.34 38. Act. 13.47 48. And this primitive administration of the Gospell unto the Pagan Gentiles is called a bearing of Christs name before them Act. 9.15 And an opening of a doore of faith unto the Gentiles Act. 14.27 1 Cor. 16.9 And here faith must be the doore of admittance But to make briefe way to the clearing of the truth against the obstreperous clamours and darkening cavillations of the Anabaptists or opposers of paedo-baptisme we are to consider what the state of the Gentiles was in point of religion before the Gospell was preached among them by the Apostles and first planters of Christs Kingdome and then what their estate is now where the Gospell is planted and they baptized in point of Religion The state of the Pagan-Gentiles in point of religion before the Gospell was planted among them may be presented unto you in two Generalls viz. 1. They were without Christ aliens from the Common-wealth of Israel strangers from the Covenants of promise having no hope and without God in the world Ephes 2.12 2. They had their visible and Country-Idols and they were carried away to dumbe Idols even as they were led 1 Cor. 12. 2. Rom. 1.18 32. Psal 115.2 8. Thus the Sidonians had their Astaroth the Moabites their Chemosh the children of Ammon their Milchom 1. Cor. 11.33 The Philistines their Dagon 1 Sam. 5.1 2. The Ephesians their Diana Act. 19. And the Athenians their Hotch potch This was their state in point of religion And therefore is there any reason that these should be baptized before they were turned from their Idols and called to faith in Christ and repentance towards God Surely none And therefore Christ would that such should be first made Disciples before they should be baptized into the name of the sacred Trinity And the Apostles did so For it s expressely said that many of the Corinthians hearing beleeved and were baptized And there is good reason for this for First its fit that meere aliens and professed Idolaters Gods professed enemies should manifest their faith and repentance before they should be sealed into Gods peculiar by baptisme Secondly none of their kindred were ever before in the state of Christianity from whence they might claime right unto Gods seale of Admittance But now a Church was to be raised of persons growne up to yeares and so confession of faith must be the ground of their baptisme their parents being not baptized before and in the state of Christianity But secondly the condition of the Gentiles where the Gospell is embraced and they baptized into the Name of the holy Trinity is not now the same in point of religion For 1. First it cannot be said that such Gentiles are aliens from the Common-wealth of Israel without Christ strangers from the Covenants of promise having no hope and without God in the world 2. It cannot be said that such Gentiles have their Countrey-Idols by which they are carried away seeing they are turned from them 1 Thess 1.9 3. It must needs be acknowledged that such Gentiles are not farre off but in Jesus Christ made nigh by the blood of Christ Ephes 2.13 having accesse unto the Father through Christ by the Spirit verse 18. 4. It must needs be acknowledged that such Gentiles are no more strangers and forreiners but fellow-citizens with the Saints and of the houshold of God and are built upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets Jesus Christ himselfe being the chiefe corner-stone Eph. 2.19 20. 5. It must needs be acknowledged that such Gentiles are all baptized into Christs body 1 Cor. 12 13. Gal. 3.27 28 29. Now bring me any such Gentiles as these among the Pagan-Gentiles before the Gospell came among them and was embraced by them And therefore these things being considered who but a stupid dolt and perverse wrangler can
Infants right unto Baptisme why then do you not administer the Lords supper unto them also Answ Because the Lords Supper belongs onely unto such as can spiritually examine themselves and discerne the Lords body 1 Cor. 11.27 28 29. Now the summe of all is this viz. Children of Christian parents are holy by vertue of Gods holy Covenant in their infancie and therefore to be Baptised in their infancie Or thus more largely viz. Whensoever persons appeare unto the Church under the Gospell to be holy by vertue of Gods holy Covenant then the Church is to baptize such persons But Infants of Christians even in their infancie are persons that appeare unto the Church under the Gospell to be holy by vertue of Gods holy Covenant Ergo The Church under the Gospell is to Baptize infants of Christians in their infancie Quaest But how do Infants of Christians appeare unto the Church under the Gospell to be holy prove that say they and we have done Sol. I answer that persons may appeare to be holy unto the Church under the Gospell two wayes viz. 1. Sensitively by their words and pious actions and and this is the only way that the Anabaptists do know for they are altogether led by sense and thus Infants of Christians neither do nor can appeare unto the Church under the Gospell to be holy 2. Oraculously by vertue of a Divine Oracle and thus children of Christians appeare unto the Church under the Gospel to be holy The Holy Ghost hath engraven this Oracle 1 Cor. 7.14 upon such children And such children do utter this Oracle in the circumcised eares of all understanding Christians though Anabaptists heare no such voyce And let these suffice for our first ground Reason 2 Secondly Infants of Christians are to be baptized in their infancie because they are subjects capable of it Now that they are subjects capable of this initiall seale in their infancie appeares conspicuously by Gods expresse command that the infants of Jews their proselytes should be circumcised in their infancie If they had not beene subject a capable of it God would not have commanded it but God did command it and therefore they were subjects capable of it And these infants were not therefore capable because of Gods Covenant with Abraham and their Fathers which were sealed unto God by Circumcision and in Covenant with him For the Text saith not Thou shalt keepe My command therefore but thou shalt keepe My Covenant therefore thou and thy seed after thee in their generations Gen. 17.9 implying that this command had reference to the Covenant and was part of it For here God is to be considered as God in covenant with His people and all his commands are branches of His Covenant all grounded upon His free grace in Jesus Christ and therefore in the next verse viz. v. 10. Hee calls Circumcision by the name of His Covenant saying This is my Covenant which ye shall keepe betweene Mee and you and thy seed after thee every man-child among you shall be circumcised And to put the matter out of all doubt that Circumcision is called by the name of the Covenant the Lord speakes expresly afterwards saying And My Covenant shall be in your flesh v. 13. to teach us that the Covenant made infants capable of the seale and not Gods meere Mandamus as our abstracting Anabaptists play with notions And so they will consider God here in His absolute prerogative and not as in Covenant with this people Whereas the Seale can be nothing but a confirmation of the promises of Grace unto such as have the promises made unto them So then the promises of grace made these infants capable of having the promises confirmed unto them by Gods initiall seale Now what seale should be authentique in Heaven and seale up divine promises unto persons under the promises or in covenant with God that depended upon Gods institution Now God instituted Circumcision and commanded it to be imprinted on the flesh of his people in covenant as the proper subjects capable of the same So that the command that the Anabaptists talke of so much are the words of institution it being Gods prerogative incommunicable to institute Sacramentall signes because He onely can make them effectuall to supernaturall ends and give the things signified thereby Now Circumcision did bind the circumcised to the obedience of the whole Law Gal. 5.3 And this obligation was laid on very Infants before they could have any knowledge of the Law And againe Circumcision is a seale of the righteousnesse of faith in the Messias Rom. 4.11 And this seale was imprinted on very infants before they could have any actuall faith or knowledge of righteousnesse And unto this obedience and faith the Covenant under which they were borne had bound them though the initiall seale had beene denyed them Such an Anabaptisticall wickednesse could not have put these infants into the condition of aliens The Covenant it selfe would have bound them to faith and obedience And the Covenant it selfe would have made them capable of Gods saving mercy though the initiall seale had beene denyed them Such an Anabaptisticall cruelty could not have blockt up heaven against them Consider this you stout Champions for Hell which do what in you lyes to make Gods Covenant of free grace void and of none effect unto his people And to stop the course of Gods mercy unto the soules of men Well the being of infants in covenant under the Law made them capable of Circumcision the initiall seale of the Covenant To be in covenant then with God makes a man capable of the initiall seale in infancie according to the ministration of Christ under which he is borne i.e. whether the ministration be of Christ to be exhibited in the flesh or of Christ already exhibited in the flesh The substance is the same The Covenant is nothing but Christ ministred Whether it be mans Saviour to come that is ministred as to the Jewes and their proselytes in types or mans Saviour already come be ministred as to Christians without types in cleare demonstrations in the ordinances of Grace yet it is the same Saviour Jesus Christ The same yesterday to day and for ever Heb. 13.9 i.e. In the Ordinances of Grace in times past present and to come nothing hath beene is or shall be ministred for the eternall salvation of the soule but Jesus Christ The Covenant now and formerly with Jewes is the same in relation to the eternall welfare of the soule For 1. The foundation of the Covenant is the same as Gods free eternall and unchangeable love to his elect 2. The occasion of the covenant the same as mans misery by his fall in the loynes of Adam of which this Covenant of Grace is a pregnant and mercifull remedy 3. The Author is the same as God gracious mercifull flow to anger pardoning iniquity c. 4. The thing promised is the same as Christ the Redeemer and Saviour of mankind 5. The spirituall eflicacie
of the Ordinances the same as the mortification of the flesh and the renuing of the creature to Gods Image in Jesus Christ 6. The subject's the same as a people in Covenant with God to yeeld obedience to the faith 7. The end Cujus the same as the glory of Gods mercy to His Elect and the unexcuse of the Reprobate 8. Finally the end Cui the same as Good workes here in this life and the immortality of the soule and eternall blessednesse in the life to come Onely Gods manner of ministring Christ unto man for his eternall salvation is diverse according to the diversitie of Christ state viz. as not incarnate and to come or incarnate and already come and so the ministration is diverse in the Ordinances of Grace Before Christ was come in the flesh all the Ordinances of Grace directed the eyes of the faithfull unto Christ to be exhibited for their salvation redemption And therefore all the Ordinances of grace must needs be typicall And this did quiet their consciences and filled their hearts with joy And since Christ is come all the Ordinances of Grace serve to confirme the faithfull in this point and minister Christ exhibited in the flesh unto us And this causes us to rest in Him for Redemption and salvation and to expect no other Saviour Now if Infants under the typicall ministration of Christ were capable of the initiall seale of this Covenant because borne under this Covenant in their very infancie when they could declare no right they had unto it but their birth then Infants of Christians under the Gospel borne under the same Covenant of Grace are capable of the present initiall seale of this Covenant though they can shew no right they have unto it but their being born of such parents as are Christians The manifestation of faith is no more requisite to the administration of Baptisme unto such as are borne Christians than it was to the administration of Circumcision unto such as were born Jews But as such as were made Jewes had Circumcision administred unto them because they testified faith in the Messias and such as were borne Jewes had it by birth as children of parents in covenant So such as are made Christians are to have Baptisme ministred unto them upon the testimony of their faith but such as are borne Christians are to have it by birth as children of parents in Covenant with God and of his houshold and family For as it was a rule of old that nemo circumcidendus quà Infans or quà adultus but quatenus foederatus So now nemo baptizandus quà infans or quà adultus but quatenus foederatus Now if infants of Christians appeare unto us to be foederati as they do then we are to administer baptisme unto them in their infancie Baptisme herein answering to Circumcision And so the fond quaere of the Anabaptists is groundlesse What say they shall we seale a blanke But this question implies this blasphemie namely that Gods written Covenant is a blanke for Gods covenant is written upon the children of parents in covenant as Christian parents are in covenant And if so then their infants are in covenant otherwise the parents are not in covenant For though it follows not children are in covenant with God therefore their parents are in covenant with God for Abraham was in covenant with God but his father Terah was not yet it follows undeniably parents are in Covenant with God therfore their Infants are in Covenant with God Now then the Infants of Christian parents have the Covenant of Grace written upon them by birth because children of such parents And because their being in Covenant in their infancy appeares unto the Church therefore the Church is to baptize them in their infancy for when persons appeare unto the Church to be in Gods Covenant of Grace then the Church is to put the Covenant under seale unto them and t is their due and the Churches duty And so in the businesse of paedo-baptisme wee are not to looke to the righteousnesse inherent in the parents nor to the righteousnesse in the infant for of neither of these can we have certaine and infallible knowledge but to the righteousnesse of the Covenant or to the free grace of God in Christ as Rom. 4.11 where Circumcision is called the seale of the righteousnesse of faith And therefore the seale of imputative righteousnesse And hence is the grosse mistake of our Anabaptists They thinke that the efficacy of Baptisme is grounded on the practicall righteousnesse of the creature manifested in words or works which stinkes of Popery all over but orthodox Christians in the businesse of paedo-baptisme doe look to Gods Covenant of free Grace and so present their children unto Gods mercy and Fatherly love in Jesus Christ our Righteousnesse Covenant and attonement And albeit our infants have no inherent righteousnesse manifested unto us by their words or actions yet God hath righteousnesse to be imputed by vertue of His Covenant of Grace saying I will be thy God and the God of their seed in their generations And therefore we dedicate our children unto God in their infancy by Baptisme Now our Popish Anabaptists cannot endure to heare of Circumcision as if that should be to the Jewes before Christs incarnation the same with baptisme unto Christians since Oh they labour to cry downe this as the grossest absurdity that ever was uttered by the tongues of men But this is no new thing for the old heretiques heretofore did lead upstart punies in the right way how to fasten themselves to their owne errors and Popish pride But I pray what difference between these two save in the outward ceremony For was not Circumcision as sacrament of entrance into the true Church of God before Christs incarnation And is not Baptisme the same unto us Christians since Christs Ascension Why doth the Apostle call baptized Christians circumcised Christians and Baptisme by the name of Circumcision Col. 2.11 14. Was not Circumcision a seale of the same justifying faith as Baptisme is now unto us Rom. 4.11 And in a word did not Circumcision signifie the mortification of the flesh and the renewing of the mind and so bind over the Jewes unto the obedience of Gods will Rom. 2.28 29. Gal. 3.21 And doth not Baptisme the same now Rom. 6.3 11. 1 Pet. 3.21 Now shew us any substantiall difference between these two Sacraments for if there bee no substantiall difference then without controversy there is a substantiall union You say there is a wide difference for the one was the cutting off of the fore-skin of the flesh and the other is a washing with water So say we but this difference is but ceremoniall but as an initiall seale how differ they or in any other spirituall effect necessary unto salvation When we look upon Sacraments we doe not look upon them by halves as you Anabaptists doe and detaine our senses in the bodily part of them We look upon
the mysticall part of them as they are of spirituall use to confirm the Covenant of Grace and to further a man in the way to Heaven And so circumcision was that unto the Jewes before Christs incarnation as Baptisme is to Christians since Now to overthrow this Anabaptists usually alleadge two things viz. First they alleadge that Baptisme cannot be the same unto Christians since Christs incarnation as Circumcision was unto the Jewes before and why Because say they Circumcision was to be administred unto Infants on the eighth day but Baptisme is not to bee administred unto Infants on the eight day Sol. This objection proves nothing against the point in hand for the eighth day fell out to bee in such a time wherein the Infants could make no sacramentall use of the Sacrament of Circumcision and they were a blanke in their sense as much as our Infants Under the law they were to be kept from Circumcision untill the eight day for a ceremoniall reason Levit. 12.2 3. And this makes nothing at all against what we have said touching the substantiall identity of Circumcision and Baptisme For things that doe differ circumstantially may yet be altogether one in substance Secondly they alleadge that under the law females were not circumcised but under the Gospell they are baptized Sol. We answer that this neither makes nothing against the point in hand which is paedo-baptisme for grant that the proportion holds between Circumcision and Baptisme were it but in males this were enough to refute their owne conclusion For this would inferre that the state of infancy doth not make persons uncapable of the initiall seale of the Covenant of grace under the Gospell But they oppose paedo-baptisme in males and females But we answer that under the law the females were circumcised in the males as the Church is circumcised in Christ The males bearing the type of Christ upon their flesh and the males and females in matrimoniall conjunction representing Christ and His Church And unto this the Apostle alludes Ephes 5.22 33. And now such a typicall discrimination of sexes being removed Christ exhibited puts no difference in Baptisme between males and females Gal. 3.27 28. So then the argument stands good that Infants are capable of Baptisme because borne under the Covenant of Grace Reason 3 Thirdly Infants of Christians are to be baptized in their infancy because we have divine warrant for it For the text here Matth. 28.19 imports that all the children of the Christian Church are to be baptized And Gods Covenant of grace with the parents put under seale unto them by Baptisme doth necessarily put the Infants of such parents under the same Covenant of grace as the seed of such parents For to grant that baptized parents are put under the Covenant of grace by divine warrant is to grant that the children of such parents are put under the same Covenant by the same warrant For the separating of Children from parents in Covenant is to dissolve that Covenant which God made with Abraham in the promised seed for the eternall salvation of Jewes and Gentiles Now the very being of the parents under the seale of this Covenant doth prove unanswerably that their infants are in this Covenant And if this proves the being of Infants in Covenant then it proves unanswerably their right of having the Covenant put under seale unto them by divine warrant and so by necessary consequence their divine right unto Baptisme For by birth they are in the Covenant because borne under the Covenant as children of such parents And admit the parents unto Baptisme upon the testimony of their faith and that brings the children of such parents into the Church by birth so then baptize the parents and thereby of necessity you make the Infants of such parents baptizable by divine warrant and it cannot be avoyded Now that Matth. 28.19 doth warrant our baptizing of Infants whose parents are baptized may thus be evinced and made good viz. All true members of the Christian Church are to be baptized by Christs warrant in Matth. 28.19 But all Infants of baptized parents are true members of the Christian Church Ergo All Infants of baptized parents are to bee baptized by Christs warrant in Matth. 28.19 The Minor proposition I thus prove viz. That proposition whose contradictory is false and absurd is a true proposition But the contradictory of this Minor proposition is false and absurd ergo This Minor proposition is a true proposition Now the contradictory of this Minor proposition is this viz. Some Infants of baptized parents are not true members of the Christian Church But this proposition is false and absurd and as much as to say as some Infants of baptized parents are Aliens Pagans and Insidels Thus then I argue viz. Infants of baptized parents are either true members of the Christian Church or else they are Aliens Pagans and Infidels there is no medium there is no neuter But Infants of baptized parents are not Aliens Pagans and Infidels Ergo. Infants of baptized parents are true members of the Christian Church And so by necessary consequence Christs Commission Matth. 28.19 is a divine warrant for the baptizing of Infants whose parents are baptized Now let the Anabaptists shew us any child or infant of baptized parents that is not a true member of the Christian Church and prove him by the word of God to be no member of the Christian Church and we will not baptize that child Again to contrive my Syllogisme in another mood which may as well accomplish my purpose and prove that Christs Commission for baptizing is for the baptizing of Infants whose parents are baptized as well as for the baptizing of the alien upon the testimony of his faith in Christ Thus I argue viz. All true members of the Christian Church are to bee baptized by vertue of Christs Commission in Matth. 28.19 But some Infants of baptized parents are true members of the Christian Church Ergo. Some Infants of Christian parents are to be baptized by vertue of Christs Commission in Matth. 28.19 Now that some Infants of Christians are true members of the Christian Church may thus be proved viz. All true members of Christ in the Church are true members of the Christian Church But some Infants of baptized parents are true members of Christ in the Church ergo Some Infants of baptized parents are true members of the Christian Church Now then if Christs Commission Mat. 28.19 be that we should baptize all true members of the Christian Church and that some Infants are true members of the Christian Church then some Infants of Christian parents are to be baptized by vertue of Christs Commission Mat. 28.19 And this proves that persons may be baptizable in their infancy and ought to be baptized And as for what you instance from the practise of the Apostles that will not serve your turne For the Apostolicall Ministery lay in gathering of a primitive Church from Judaisme and Paganisme But instance
holinesse of the children spoken of here can be no other but that which is opposed to bastardy Here this wise man maintains the contradictory of your opposites conclusion He saies that the holines of the children doth not arise from that one parent was a beleever But how proves be this Surely testimonium dicentis is full enâ—ugh he being a man of such an infallible a spirit that a bare I say must serve your turne But whence then doth this holinesse arise From this saies he that the unbeleever was sanctified to or by the beleever Very good because the unbeleever was sanctified to the beleever therefore the children of such were holy And why was the unbeliever sanctified to the believer Was it not because hee was a beleever and so made pure by faith and then unto the pure all things are pure Tit. 1.15 Now then because hee was a believer therefore the infidell was sanctified to him for conjugall societie and because the infidell was sanctified to the beleever for conjugall societie therefore the children of such were holy and so by necessary consequence because one of the parents was a beleever therefore the children were holy Faith made the conjugall societie holy the holy conjugall society made the children holy and therefore faith made the children holy Quest But how can the faith of the parent make the children holy Answ Surely not by infusing of sanctifying grace into the children but by putting the parent into Christ Now faith puts the parent into Christ and Christ puts the parent so put into Him into the Covenant of grace and the Covenant of grace is I will be thy God and the God of thy seed and hence is it that the children of such parents are holy namely because of the holy Covenant And therefore the holinesse spoken off here may be and is somewhat else then that which is opposed to bastardy namely the holinesse of the Covenant which the saith of the parent puts him into for himseâ—fe and his seed For Goodman-Cocks-combe how can the children of those be bastards that are lawfully married But you acknowledge that the parents of the holy children here spoken off were lawfully married before you meane while in the state of infidels And therefore it must be the holinesse of the Covenant of grace which the faith of the parent put himselfe and his children under But you say in the last paragraph of your letter to your Disciples that Infants were in the Covenant legally but not Evangelically and that when the law ceased this being in Covenant ceased with it But for so saying you deserve a pillory not a Pulpit You might be better imployed in looking to your Sope or Candles then in filling mens heads with such hellish notions If this be your care and diligence that you shew for your Disciples as you say in your foresaid letter you may sit still The devill himselfe can shew such care and diligence fast enough But how prove you that childrens being in Covenant with their parents is now ceased under the Gospell You say so And your I say must stand as an Oracle with such as are willing to be seduced by you And personall faith in your sense is no more requisite to the being of Infants in Covenant with their parents under the Gospell then under the law For it 's the same Covenant of free grace in Jesus Christ now as then And thus for ought I see your master and you are in hot emulation who shall excell in speaking of non sense And yet you are so confident of the truth of your cause that had you a 1000. lives you would lay them all downe for the confirmation of the same Stout words But should you lay downe that one you have for it it would bee judged rather madnes then martyrdome and you not a Martyr but a mad-man in so doing And truly if you can say no more for your cause give over writing and take Physick Talke no more of your conscience but see your folly Now say on Anabaptist For we have examples in Scripture where children that are borne of two parents that were lawfully yoked together were called to bee holy and a godly seed by birth As for instance Mal. 2. Ezra Levit. and other examples Answer The meer being of the two parents lawfully yoked together is not sufficient to denominate the children of such parents holy by birth but their being within the holy Covenant The Covenant under which the parents are is the cause why the children of such are holy by birth and so called by the Spirit of God in the Scripture and for that reason only And those very instances where you find them in the old Testament where children are said to be holy will cut the throat of your owne cause for you cannot shew that the Scripture doth so much as once call the children of the Gentiles and Pagans an holy seed as is doth the children of the Church The holy Covenant of God I say under which the parent or parents is or are is the onely cause why the Scriptures terme children holy And I challenge you to bring me one instance where children of parents are said to be holy for any other reason Anabaptist Againe we doe not find any warrant in Scripture for to give the seales of the Covenant of grace upon imputed holinesse but upon personall holinesse and confession Acts 16. Mat. 3. Mark 1. For the signe of circumcision was not given by vertue of any imputed holinesse in the child that it did draw from the parents but by vertue of Gods Commission unto Abraham that he gave him for to circumcise his seed and so ought the seale of Baptisme to be given by vertue of Christs Commission and not by vertue of any holinesse that is imputed unto the child Answer By imputed holinesse I conceive your meaning to be imputative righteousnesse And by personall holinesse inherent righteousnesse or holinesse in a mans personall practice and confession And by seales the initiall seales of Gods Covenant Now I finde the initiall seale of the Covenant of grace to be given upon the ground of imputative righteousnesse for the righteousnesse of faith is imputative righteousnesse but I find it to be administred upon this ground and therefore upon the ground of imputative righteousnesse And circumcision unto the Infants of the Jewes was a seale of righteousnesse but not of righteousnesse in their personall practice and confession and therefore of imputative righteousnesse And thus I have brought unto your hand what you could not finde And then for your instances Act. 16. Matth. 3. Mark 1. they will not serve to help you For the matter in controversie is whether children of parents already in the state of Christianity bee to bee baptized in their infancy or no And now you bring instances of such whose parents were not in the state of Christianity which is a quite contrary case But prove by Scripture that the children of the
thing is to bee required of the children of baptized parents but as holy by birth being borne of such parents are to be baptized in their infancy because in their infancy God hath made them holy and declared so much unto us The Covenant under which children are borne makes them capable of the initiall seale according to the ministration under which they are borne whether of a Saviour to come or of a Saviour already come Anabaptist Againe there is difference in the persons for there were none but males circumcised but wee have example of male and female baptized Further c. ut infra Answer This is no argument at all against paedo-baptisme for males were circumcised in their infancy and the Covenant with the Jewes and us Christians is the same spirituall and eternall Covenant binding to divine faith and obedience assuring us and them of eternall happinesse through Gods mercy in the merits of Jesus Christ Now if Male Infants had the seale of such an inheritance and Covenant upon such spirituall grounds in Such a Saviour binding the circumcised Infant to divine faith universall obedience though he could discern none of these matters then Male-Infants of Christians being borne under the same holy Covenant of grace are subjects capable of the initiall seale thereof as children of parents in Covenant with God and of the holy seed by birth So then to exclude females grant males to bee capable of Baptisme upon the ground of circumcision is to conclude against your owne principle But all Israelites females as well as the males stood in Gods acceptation for circumcised as appears in the story of Sampson who seeing a woman of the daughters of the Philistines in Timnath fell in love with her and spake to his Father and Mother to get her for him to wife Then his Father and his Mother said unto him Is there never a woman among the daughters of thy brethren or among all my people that thou goest to take a wife of the uncircumcised Philistines Judges 14.1 2 3. Now if the women of Israel had been reputed uncircumcised then as good for Sampson to chuse one as well as the other as good a woman of the daughters of the Philistines as a woman of the daughters of his brethren What cause then had his Father and his Mother to blame him for his choice As good one uncircumcised woman as another More of this is to be seen in our Sermon-notes to which as yet I have received no answer But I beleeve that this concerning females is none of your maine foundations you build your Religion upon Anabaptist Further they differ in the time for they were to bee circumtised the eighth day but we have no set time for Baptisme but when they doe beleeve then they are to be baptized And therefore if you rightly consider these things and the maine differences hereof I think there is no reasonable man that understands himselfe and the Scripture will goe about to parallell circumcision with Baptisme in respect of the practising of it Answer We shewed you out of Levit. 12.2 3. that there was a speciall reason why the man-childe should not be circumcised till the eighth day And this reason you passe by untouched because you couldnot answer it And I finde no such reason why baptisme now should be forborne untill any set time Now if circumcision had beene forborne untill the eighth day because till then infants could not and then they could beleeve this were to the purpose But I see you faulter in all things You say much and prove nothing If you aske Physitians why in time of the Law infants were not to be circumcised till the eighth day They will tell you that untill the seventh day being a criticall day and so a dangerous day were past no wound was to be made in the flesh of a tender infant But you say that under the Gospell when persons beleeve then they are to be baptized But I say that Infants of Christians in their infancie are not Insidels but Saints and of the holy seed and therefore beleevers and so are to be baptized in their infancy unlesse you can shew where the Scripture calls the Infants of Gods people in Covenant Vnbeleevers And therefore if you rightly consider these things and the substantiall agreement betweene Circumcision and Baptisme I thinke there is no reasonable man that understands himselfe and the Scripture but will judge your exceptions to be frivolous and that this Argument stands firme which is that Baptisme is unto us as Circumcision was to the Jewes Col. 2.11 The Covenant the same the ends and significations the same for substance Infants were admittable there Ergo here else children in worse case since Christ than before Reason 3 The third Reason Anabaptist Thirdly you seeme to draw a reason from divine Authority for Infants baptisme and you seeme to prove it out of Mat. 28.19 But here give us leave to tell you plainly that you are foulely mistaken and you wrest the Text For Christ bids them goe and teach all Nations and them that are taught must be baptized For Christ doth not say goe and teach all Nations and so baptize all the Nation but goe teach them Now you know there is great difference betweene preaching to a people and teaching of a people for you may preach to a thousand people and it may be not above two or three of all those taught And therefore Christ bids teach them first and then baptize them But however c. ut infra Answer My third Argument for Paedo-baptisme from Mat. 28.19 runs thus The Commandement of baptizing is universall to the whole Church but Infants of Christian parents are members of the Church and therefore the command of baptizing is to be extended unto them as before we have amply declated Now if Infants of such parents be not members of the Church then so dying they cannot be saved sithence none can be saved but by Christ and Christ came to save his Church onely Ephes 5.26 Wherein now I pray am I so fouly mistaken and wherein doe I wrest the Text Christ saith indeed that such as are taught must be baptized but Christ saith not that none must be baptized but such as are taught Prove that or let this Text alone The Text saith baptize all in the Church therefore Infants of baptized parents unlesse you can shew a place that exempts them Christ doth not say goe teach all Nations and so baptize all the Nation Neither did I nor will unlesse the whole Nation shall embrace the doctrine of Christ And then the whole Nation must be baptized and their seed after them in their infancy as Christians by birth Ob. But the baptized must believe and repent Acts 2. Matth. 3. c. Sol. Those Texts must bee restrained to the persons in hand So 1 Thess 3. He that labours not must not eate i.e. men that can labour Children though they cannot labour yet must eate Infants
conscience can well dispense withall as appeares by your usuall practice and whether you turne to us or New-England you must turne from your owne way Our agreement is such that we are all one in the point of Paedo-baptisme against you We in this Land hold that children of all baptized parents are baptizable in their infancie by vertue of the Covenant of Grace under which such children were borne as children of all circumcised parents were circumcisable in their infancie by vertue of the same Covenant of Grace under which they were borne and this is the opinion and practice of all reformed Churches that I know as the French Scottish Dutch High and Low c. But what they doe in New-England I know not The Records of their Church orders and tenents are not in print But they which say they follow New-England way will not baptize all children of beleevers neither except they be in their Covenant Except beleevers enter into their Covenant they shall have no commons with them at the Lords table neither shall their children be baptized by them But their warrant for this practice we desire to see for we think it unjust and impious that persons under Gods Covenant of Grace should be deprived of gods seales which he hath inseparably annexed unto that Covenant And moreover for them to deny baptisme unto children of baptized parents I see no reason though such parents are vitious in their lives as long as such parents remaine within the Church and are orthodox all in the faith I am sure that the children of the Jewes whose parents were profane in life were not kept backe from the Sacrament of circumcision for that cause And the reason is because that Covenant was the Covenant of Grace and not of Workes There are two Covenants that God hath made with men viz. the Covenant of Workes and the Covenant of Grace And of these Covenants there were two heads namely the first Adam and the second Adam With the first Adam God did strike a Covenant of Workes and Adam the head of this body in Covenant did transgresse and so destroyed the Covenant and thereby deprived himselfe and all his members of the priviledges thereof and so death entred upon all mâ—n in that all had sinned in their Head With the second Adam viz. Christ God did strike a Covenant of Grace and Christ the head of his body in this Covenant remaines just and the justifier of his members and therefore his members cannot be deprived of the priviledges of this Covenant for the default of immediate parents Now for thâ—se men in this way as they say of New-England to put a stop unto the Covenant of Grace in denying baptisme unto children of baptized parents I see no warrant For first This practice destroyes the nature of this Covenant For the parents by their miscarriage have broken the Covenant of Workes but not the Covenant of Grace this remaines entire in Christ who is the head of the children borne under this Covenant And these children though by naturall generation they are the off-spring of such wicked parents yet by reason of the Covenant under which they were borne they are the children of the Covenant This practice then is a presumption of an higher nature than these men are aware off And albeit their intent be a reformation yet the meanes is diabolicall Secondly This practice doth vertually accuse Christ the Head as a violater of this Covenant of Grace for as long as the Head remaines just and the justifier of his members his members are not to be debarred of their priviledges whereof under the Gospell Baptisme is the first And the vitious carriage of immediate parents can no more exclude a childe from Baptisme now than could formerly the vitious carriage of Jewish parents exclude their children from the priviledge of Circumcision Now some to evade this say that the Church of the Jewes was a Nationall Chruch but the Church of England is not so But this is but a meere shift to evade what they cannot answer for Proselytes who were not of that Nation were to have their children circumcised and circumcision was enjoyned and practised before the Jewes were a Nationall Church even when and while they were a Family-Church But to the point I say that the Church of the Jewes was a Nationall Church in some things after a peculiar manner as First God had tyed himselfe to remaine with that Nation by his Ordinances of grace untill Shiloh came Secondly that Nation was once a yeare in the representative body thereof to meet at one common place viz. at Hierusalem about the worship of God by divine appointment Now God hath not tyed himselfe to the Church of England for any set terme of time nor is there by divine appointment any set place of worship for the whole Nation to meet in once a yeare about the worship of God But thirdly the Church of the Jewes was a Nationall Church because the whole Nation had received the Doctrine and Covenant of grace and in this sense I hope England is a Nationall Church And if in this sense the Church of England be a Nationall Church that 's as much as I require But surely these men have some other meaning when they say that the Church of the Jewes was a Nationall Church and the Church of England is not than as yet they dare to utter though among them you shall seldome finde a man tongue-tyed Their meaning is that the whole Nation of the Jewes pell-mell were by course to be admitted to the priviledges of that typicall ministration and so the children of vitious parents too because of that Nation but under the Gospell since Christ onely the children of godly parents are to be sealed into Gods peculiar by baptisme and others are not and here they would bring in their Covenant as the forme of the Church But the children of the Jewes were not circumcised because of that Nation but because of gods Covenant with that Nation And so our children are not to be baptized because of such a Nation but because of Gods Covenant with such a Nation and the children of all baptized parents are borne under Gods Covenant of grace and whether their parents be vitious or religious in life the childes title stands good to the Covenant The religious lives of his parents being workes doe not entitle him to the Covenant and initiall seale thereof And the vitious life of parents baptized being workes cannot make voyde the childes title to the Covenant and initiall seale thereof For his title unto the Covenant and initiall seale thereof lies in Christ who remaines just and the justifier of his members and the elect seed may passe through the loynes of vitious parents and often doe whereas godly parents may have reprobates to their children If then these men have any thing to object against Christ as a violater of the Covenant of Grace let them say on and they shall bee answered but
children of the Prophets and of the Covenant because borne under the holy Covenant Act. 3.25 And how were not the Jewes sinners of the Gentiles Surely Divines whom you may seem sooner to refute then understand tell us that such as were borne Jewes had not their sinnes imputed unto them otherwise they were borne in originall sinne as well as the Gentiles but the holy Covenant of Grace was establisht upon them which Covenant was appointed as a remedy to fre e them from originall corruption and to restore them to Gods favour But this is a kind of language which you Anabaptists haply doe not understand For had you any knowledge this way you would not reason so wildly and turne Gods Covenant out of doores by putting no difference by nature between such as are born Christians in the Church under the holy Covenant and such as are born Pagans out of the Church strangers from the covenant And therefore seeing by nature there is so wide a difference between such as are born Christians and such as are born Pagans you in effect as good as say nothing For God bath engraven His Covenant upon the Infants of Christians and made this knowne unto his Church and therefore the Infants of Christians are to have the priviledge of Baptisme in their infancy But God hath not engraven His Covenant upon children of Pagans therefore they are not to have it untill they testify faith and repentance And this covenant written upon children of Christians in their infancy is the Commission that the Holy Ghost hath given in Scripture for baptizing Infants of Christians in their infancy 1 Cor. 7.14 And now I pray put your heads all together and let me heare what you can say against this But goe on Anabaptist Againe further This argument of yours is but from humane conception and doth tend to the overthrow of a divine institution which may not nor ought not to be unles you can prove where and when the holy Ghost hath or doth expresly lay down or give commission for the alteration of that expresse institution that Christ gave unto His Disciples to teach and instruct all Nations to observe and follow the rule that they left them And therefore the alteration of times and state is not sufficient to alter a divine institution untill it be altered by divine Authority by which it was at first commanded As for instance Suppose the King should establish a Law and an Act of Parliament for the practising of any particular action in the Land and the cause may be removed for which this Law was established yet this Act doth still remaine in force to be practised untill the Author thereof doth disanull it by proclamation or alteration So in like manner Christ hath established an Institution for Baptisme and confirmed it by the Apostles practice according to their commission and therefore untill Christ doth disanull this Institution or alter it wee may not nor dare not to alter it upon paine of open rebellion against the King of Heaven let the time alter never so much that is not a ground sufficient to alter an Institution And this for answer unto your first and chiefest Argument Now to passe by many groundlesse and sensuall arguments which are not worth answering because they savour of nothing but censuring we desire to come to your chiefest reasons wherefore Infants should be Baptized Answer No Argument that is truly deducted from the Scriptures of God is from humane conception But this Argument of mine against which you except is truly deducted from the Scriptures of God Ergo This Argument of mine against which you except is not from humane conception And then againe thus viz. No Argument that is deducted from the Scriptures of God can overthrow a divine Institution But this Argument of mine against which yee except is truly deducted from the Scriptures of God Ergo This Argument of mine against which you except cannot overthrow a divine Institution Now let mee but prove the Minor Proposition and you are overthrowne irrecoverably though you seeme to be armed with Law and Gospell against us Well the point that I have to make good is this namely that the Argument I here used was truly deducted from the Scriptures of God And to make this good the very rehearsall of what I said will be enough without any more adoe The summe of what I said was that the state of the Pagan Gentiles before the Apostles planted the Gospell among them was not the same in point of religion as is the state of the Christian Gentiles where the Gospell is embraced and they baptized Now I represented the state of the Pagan-Gentiles unto you in two particulars 1. I told you that before the Gospell came among the Pagan-Gentiles they were without Christ being aliens from the Common-wealth of Israel and strangers from the covenants of promise having no hope and without God in the world Ephes 2.12 And I am sure this is no humane conceipt unlesse the Oracles of God are humane conceipts 2. I said againe that before the Gospell came among the Pagan-Gentiles they were carried away to dumbe Idols even as they were led 1 Cor. 12.2 Neither is this any humane conceipt Then finally the Gentiles where the Gospell is planted are not of this condition in point of religion but in covenant with God and of Gods family and houshold as you may see in any Sermon-notes prefixed If this Argument doth overthrow the sense that you give of Matth 28.19 then you doe not give the right sense of the text For no argument truly deducted from the Scripture can overthrow the true meaning of any Scripture And so if your manner of baptizing which you would have to be warranted by that of our Saviour Matth. 28.19 will not stand with the nature of Gods covenant of Grace among the Gentiles where the Gospell is planted then Christ meanes not your way of baptizing in Churches where the Gospell is planted So then this argument of mine tends not to the overthrowing of any institution of Christ in Mat. 28.19 but layes a ground for the refuting of your wrong interpretation of the text the true meaning of which text you may afterwards see in due place For it should seem this is the keeping of your song and afterwards iterated againe and againe And for me to run over the same things againe and againe would argue me to be as void of mater as you are of reason But I pray one thing more What are those sensuall and groundlesse arguments of mine that you so sleightly passe over as not worth the answering I termed Anabaptists indeed a monstrous broode sacrilegious theeves Bellarmines Disciples c. Doe these savour of nothing but censuring Are these the sensuall and groundlesse arguments you mean But I argued that the promises of God made unto the Jewes in the Messias were spirituall and eternall promises Mat. 23.32 Act. 3.25 26. Heb. 11.16 And this you passe by untouched
that all those to whom the promises of the Kingdome of heaven are made unto shall have it made good unto them and so consequently all the children of one beleeving parent at least shall also goe to heaven by this rule Answer This we say that all the children of one beleeving parent shall goe to heaven for ought you or I know We are in charity so to judge so to hope You can say no more for such as professe themselves to bee beleevers then that you hope the best So may so must we hope of such children Could wee tell which were which and did wee know that such a child neither had grace nor ever should have grace but were a reprobate we must not baptize that child But sith that is morethen wee know or can know Therefore we stand bound to baptize all children of Christians least wee should deny to elect children the scale of the Covenant Answer But we affirme that the Apostle doth not speak of such an holinesse in that place but of such an holinesse as is opposite to uncleannesse For the Apostle doth answer an objection as some of the believing Corinthians might make concerning their present condition as whether they might live with their wives now they being converted and their wives infidels Now the Apostle doth answer them that they might live together for conversion doth not disanull matrimony If so then your children were unclean but now they are holy That is they are your children being lawfully descended and borne of your loines and so are your children and being so borne are accounted holy in the Apostles estimation Answer And we affirme the same with you that children of Christian parents are holy as holinesse is oposite to uncleannesse and Pagans are said to be uncircumcised and uncleane which is of larger extent then bodily uncleannesse But I conceive your meaning is that children of Christian parents are holy that is they are no bastards but lawfully begotten and so holinesse here shall be opposite to adulâ—ery fornication and bodily uncleannesse only And so Lawb your founder in his directions to you expounds the place But aske that asse â—ow he can make good his exposition And his letter will answer you that you must take it upon his word or else he knowes not what to say to you And I beleeve you had this deep Divinity from that letter for that letter beares date Feb. 11. Anno 1641. And your papers beare date March 22. Anno 1641. So that allowing a considerable time for the coming of his letter from London to you you might have time enough to make use of your instructions And so as your Religion is grounded upon Scripture perverted so it must bee maintained by Scripture perverted perversenesse being the foundation of your Church perversnesse must bee your weapon of defence But in this exposition both you and your master seem to affirme a strange paradox namely that children borne of unbeleeving parents are all bastards which may overthrow all succession in Kingdomes and inheritances and by this Divinity all the primitive Christians were bastards because borne in Paganisme And Abraham the Father of the faithfull was a bastard too because his Father was an Idolater But I pray how doth your reason prove your assertion You say in effect that children of one beleeving parent are not bastards but legitimates and that this is meant by the holinesse the Apostle here attributes to children And why Because say you that the Apostle doth here answer an objection as some of the beleeving Corinthians might make concerning their present condition whether they might live with their wives now they being converted and their wives infidels You say the Apostles answer to this is that they might live together because conversion doth not disanull matrimony Well this reason confutes your owne assertion for it implies that infidels may live together in matrimony how then can the children of such be bastards Must not then their children lawfully deseend and be borne of their loines Thus you speak contradiction And where find you any such language as yours in the Scriptures What authours have you consulted for the meaning of that text viz. 1 Cor. 7.14 Paraus tells us that such children are not uncleane but holy i. e. saies he not Pagans but Christians Tremelius saith that the children are said to be holy because they are partakers of the holinesse of God in the Church ex foedere by the Covenant Beza saies the children are holy i. e. In promissione censeantur c. they are judged to be in the promise because unto every beleever it 's said I will be thy God and the God of thy seed Peter Martyr thus This holinesse is beleeved to bee that these children doe appertaine to the Church of Christ Calvin ut sancti in in Ecclesia reputentur i. e. That they might be reputed Saints in the Church And you confesse that such children are holy in the Apostles estimation And if the Apostle esteemes them holy then God judgeth them to bee holy and for holy children of Gods Covenant-people wee must take them to bee according to the constant phrase of the Scripture For where faith is there Christ is where Christ is there the holy Covenant is but faith is with the beleeving parent therefore Christ and the holy Covenant is with him also and the Covenant is I will be thy God and the God of thy seed Therefore the holinesse of children that the Apostle here speaks of must needs be holines peculiar to the children of faithfull parents But holinesse of children by legitimation is not peculiar unto children of beleeving parents For among the civill heathens and Pagans have not men their own wives and women their own husbands Are not these joined together in lawfull matrimony And are not the children that issue from men and women so joined their own children lawfully descended and borne of their loines And are not such children so begotten of persons in wedlock therefore holy because lawfully descended and borne of their loines If to bee meere legitimates bee to bee holy then the Apostle doth predicate no peculiar thing of the children of Christians more then may be said of the children of Pagans begotten and borne in wedlock Then the Apostle need not to have said that now they are holy seeing one of you is a beleever for they were holy before if legitimation would make them holy But let Pareus Tremelius Beza Peter Martyr and Calvin hold their peace and let us a little heare what your worthy Founder Th. Lamb saies for the true meaning of the Apostle in this text viz. 1 Cor. 7.14 Thus saith he As for the 7 Cor. 14. I say that the holinesse of the children did not arise from that one parent was a beleever as our opposites say but from this that the unbeleever was sanctified by or to the beleever which could not have been if they had not been lawfully married before therefore the
proves that the sacramentall signe of circumcision was given to the Jewish Infants in vaine also for they could not discerne that signe as a Sacrament for though they had bodily feeling of the cutting off of their flesh yet they could not in the present act of administration discerne the signe as sacramentall and so our Infants have bodily feeling of the water too And so your quarrell is against God as well as against us But as such as were borne Jewes were to have the initiall seale of the present ministration imprinted on them in their infancy to seale up the Covenant under which they were borne unto them though they could have no such discerning as you seem to require in the present act of administration so such as are borne Christians are to have the intiall seale of the present ministration imprinted on them in their infancy to seale up the Covenant under which they are borne unto them though they can have no such discerning as you require and yet the ordinance effectuall unto them too I thought that Baptisme had been a continuall act of Gods mercy and grace and that the saving efficacy and benefits thereof had not depended upon the Act of the receiver but upon the operative mercy of God and Merits of Christ But it seems your Divinity shewes me a new way But why must Infants of Christians discerne the signe of water in Baptisme in the present act What Because water leaves no impression upon the body but shortly after the act is over the body is as dry as if it had not been washed at all And when the child is come to yeares hee findes no visible mark upon his body to assure him that he is sealed into Gods peculiar Oh! Is this it I pray what mark is there left upon your flesh since you were washed in Severne though you were duckt over head and eares Is a mark in the flesh and a sensitive discerning of the signe the excellencies of circumcision and Baptisme When the Iewes came to yeares of discerning God called not for the circumcision of their flesh but for the circumcision of their hearts It was the mark of circumcision upon the heart that God looked upon for many had the mark of the flesh which were as bad as Ethiopians So for us Christians when wee are come to yeares of discretion it s the mark of the Spirit and of the blood of Christ upon the heart that God calls for and looks upon For a man may have the signe of water and discerne the signe in the very act with the eye of his flesh and yet be a vile Anabaptist deny originall sinne in Infants deny the Christian Sabbath and set up the Iewish deny Christs taking flesh of the Virgin MARY deny the power of the Magistrate and a 1000 such like abominations and a man be baptized in his infancy and want your discerning and yet when hee is come to yeares of discretion he may be an holy and mortified Christian sound in judgement regular in all his practices and sincere in all his aimes And therefore this your rotten stuffe will not serve to make a sorry garment for to cover your shame But you have a third thing to alleadge I pray speak on that we may consider that also Anabaptist Thirdly they differ in the subjects for the subjects of circumcision were all Abrahams lineall seed according to the flesh and strangers bought with his money too And why Because God had promised Abraham a temporall inheritance for him and for all his lineall seed as they were borne and circumcision was the signe thereof But the subjects of Baptisme as are set forth to us by Commission are only beleevers and none else as wee finde and therefore we may not dare to cast off the Commission of Christ and practice of the Apostles for to set up inventions of our owne as an ordinance of Christ where we have neither precept nor president for it in all the book of God Againe ut infra Answer For the subjects of circumcision and Baptisme I know no substantiall difference for persons as in Covenant with God are the proper subjects of them both Now men are brought into Gods Covenant either by instruction or borne under this holy Covenant as the seed of persons in Covenant with God Thus Abraham and his Proselytes became the subjects of Circumcision by profession of their faith in the Messias But the seed of circumcised Abraham and of the circumcised Proselytes were such by birth as children of parents in Covenant So when the Apostles in primitive times planted foundations of the Christian faith among the Pagans These Pagans were made subjects capable of Baptisme by instruction but the seed of these baptized Pagans were capable of Baptisme by birth as joint heires with their parents of the same holy Covenant and that Covenant under which they were borne was to bee put under seale unto them So then as Abrahams seed and the Proselites seed were to be circumcised when and while Infants for Christians children are to be baptized when and while Infants such Infants being not Infidels ergo beleevers as afterward you shall see in due place And so the baptizing of Christian Infants is no invention of man but grounded on the Covenant of God with parents and their children And this the book of God warrants every where And whereas you say that the promise to Abraham and all his lineall seed was of a temporall inheritance and that circumcision was a signe of that That is false if you meane only or chiefly of a temporall inheritance the temporall inheritance was theirs not as temporall neither but as typicall for 1. Circumcision was a signe and seale of the righteousnesse of faith in the Messias 2. The Proselytes with their children were circumcised to whom right unto that temporall inheritance of the land of Canaan did not appertaine 3. Neither did it belong unto all Abrahams lineall seed as before we have shewed And so all this is as it is unsound so fallacious and absurd Anabaptist Againe the Infants might be more capable of circumcision in their infancy then when they were of riper age because they here to be only patients in the act be they great bee they small there was not any act required in them as we finde but only to receive the signe upon them But in Baptisme they must bee agents acting faith in the action Againe ut infra Answer Abraham and the Proselytes who were to be first received into the Covenant were to be agents acting faith in the Action of administring Circumcision as well as Pagans at their first receiving into the Church were to be agents acting faith in the Action of administring Baptisme unto them And as no such thing was required of the seed of circumcised Abraham nor of the seed of the circumcised Proselytes but circumcision was administred unto them in their infancy as the holy seed being borne of such parents so no such