their Children belong to Gods family and kingdom and not to the Devils certainly the greatest treasure of Parents is their children and in them the salvation of their souls Now how uncomfortable a thing were this to Parents to take away the very ground of their hope for the salvation of their Children and I dare affirm it that we have no ground of hope for any particular person untill he be brought under the Covenant of grace All the world as I have formerly touched is divided into two kingdoms the kingdom of Christ which is his Church and the kingdom of Satan which is the rest of the world now so long as any person is visibly a member of the kingdom of Christ we have no cause to doubt their election salvation until they visibly shew the contrary although we know that there are some reprobate among them so on the other side although we know Christ hath many of his elect to be gathered out of the Devils kingdom yet we have no cause or ground to hope that any particular person is any other then a reprobate being a visible professed member of Satans kingdom untill he give hope to the contrary now what a most uncomfortable abridgment were this of the Covenant of grace thus apparently to cut off the Seed of Beleevers from their visible right in the Church of Christ and to put them in the visible Kingdome of Satan And Secondly as really unwilling must they look to find Parents to part with their childrens right to the Seale of the Covenant this their right to the Covenant being all the ground of hope that beleeving Parents can have that their Infants who die in their Infancy are saved rather then the Infants of Turkes had need bee sealed if they live untill they are grown men and give other signes of grace they may conceive good hopes of them though they were not sealed with a Sacramentall seale This therefore is apparent that the cutting off our priviledges and comfort in these two were a great abridgment of the priviledges of the new Covenant and would put the Seed of Abrahams faith into a farre worse condition in regard of their posterity then the Seed of his flesh were in And the Jews in Acts 2.39 if this Doctrine had been preached to them might have replied unto St. Peter when he exhorted them to be baptized for their Childrens good Nay Peter even therefore we will not be baptized for as yet we are sure our Children are in Conant with God and reckoned to his family but if we receive your new way our children must be counted to the kingdom of the Devill and so might they in Coloss. 2. when Paul told them they need not be circumcised because Baptism came in the room of it they might have replied that though they need not be circumcised themselves yet they would still circumcise their children because Bapâ—ism was not to be applied to them according to these mens Doctrine Upon these five Conclusions 1. That the Covenant of grace is alwayes the same 2. That the Infants of those in Covenant are alwayes reckoned Covenanters with their Parents 3. That our Baptisme succeeds in the room and use of their Circumcision 4. That by Gods expresse order their Infants were to be Circumcised as it was a seale of the Covenant And 5. that our priviledges for our selves and our Children are at least as honourable large and comfortable as theirs were The Conclusion follows undeniably that therfore the Infants of beleeving Parents are to be baptized Against this Argument the Anabaptists object many things They say the Covenant was not the same some of them say the children of the Jewes were not under the Covenant in relation to spirituall things They say Circumcision and baptism served not for the same ends and uses They say Circumcision was administred as a nationall badge and properly sealed temporal blessings They say whatever priviledges Infants of Beleevers had before Christs time they have now none at all and many such like things All which I have so fully cleared in this former Discourse that I suppose I need not adde any more the main and only Objection remaining which hath any colour of weight in it is this There is no command no expresse institution or cleare example in all the New Testament of baptizing of Infants And in the administration of Sacraments we are not to be led by our owne reason or grounds of seeming probability but by the expresse order of Christ and no otherwise If by institution command and example they meane an expresse syllabicall command c. I grant that in so many words it is not found in the New Testament no expresse command in the New Testament that they should be baptized no expresse example where Children were Baptized but I also adde that I deny the consequence that if in so many words it be not commanded in the New Testament it ought not to be done this is not true divinity that Christians are not tyed to observe that which is not expresly and in so many words set down in the New Testament there is no expresse reviving of the Laws concerning the forbidden degrees of marriage in the New Testament except of not having a mans fathers Wife 1 Cor. 8. no expresse law against Polygamy no expresse command for the celebration of a weekly Sabbath are therefore Christians free in all these cases Yea in the Point of Sacraments there is no expresse command no example in all the New Testament where Women received the Sacrament of the Lords Supper there is no expresse command that the Children of Beleevers when they are grown shoud be instructed and Baptized though instructed by their Parents expresse command there is that they should teach the Heathen and the Jewes and make them Disciples and then baptize them but no command that the Children of those that are Beleevers should be baptized when they are grown men nor any example where ever that was done will any man therfore say that Christian women are not to be partakers of the Lords Supper nor the children of beleevers when growne men be baptized I think none will be so absurd as to affirm it If it be said though these things be not expressely and in terminis in the New Testament yet they are there vâ—rtually and by undeniable consequence I confesse it is true so have we vertually and by undeniable consequence sufficient evidence for the baptizing of children both commands and examples For first we have Gods command to Abraham as he was the Father of all Covenanters that he should seale his Children with the seale of the Covenant Now this truth all our Divines defend against the Papists that all Gods commands and institutions about the Sacraments of the Jewes bind us as much as they did them in all things which belong to the substance of the Covenant and were not accidentall unto them as because circumcision
be a Disciple of Christ or to beare the name of Christ is all one and that such Infants do belong to Christ and beare the name of Christ I have sufficiently proved already And I desire it may be seriously weighed whether that expression Act. 10.15 Now therefore why tempt ye God to put a yoke upon the necks of the Disciples do not necessitate us to give the name of Disciples to Infants as well as to grown men for I reason thus All they upon whose necks those false Teachers would have put the yoke of circumcision are called Disciples and to be called Disciples but they would have put the yoke of circumcision upon Infants as well as grown men therefore Infants as well as grown men are called Disciples and to be called so The major is undenyable the minor I prove thus They who pressed circumcision to be in force according to the manner of Moses Law and would put it upon their necks after the manner of Moses his Law they would put it upon Infants of those who were in Covenant with God as well as upon the necks of those who were grown men for so Moses Law required but these fals teachers pressed circumcision to be so in force as is apparent Act. 15.1 Another command by good consequence for the baptizing of Infants you shall find in that forementioned place where the Apostle exhorted them to repent be baptized c. Because the promise was made to them and to their children which as I shewed you clearely proves that the Children of such who beleeve and are baptized are taken into Covenant and therefore by good consequence they also are to receive the seale of the Covenant The Text not onely shewing that they are within the Covenant but also that a right to Baptisme is a consequence of being within the Covenant Thus for Commands for Examples though there should be none there is no great argument in it when the rule is so plain yet we have examples enough by good consequence for you shall finde the Gospell took place just as the old administration by bringing in whole families together when Abraham was taken in his whole Family was taken in with him when any of the Gentiles turned Proselytes ordinarily their Families came in with them so in this new Administration usually if the Master of the House turned Christian his whole Family came in and were baptized with him The whole household of Cornelius the first converted Gentile Act. 11.14 the household of Stephanus the household of Aristobulus the household of Narcissus the household of Lydia the household of the Gaoler these are examples not to be contemned And whereas some object against this Argument taken from whole Families that the argument is at least as strong to prove that the Jewish Infants did eat the Passeover because not only severall Families might but did and that by Gods appointment eat the Passeover I Answer by denying the consequence the argument is not so strong for the one as for the other because no other Scripture shews that the Passeover doth belong to Infants but we have other plaine Scriptures proving that Baptisme is in the room of Circumcision which belongs therefore to Infants as well as grown men If any can instance of any families of Gentiles who were circumcised the consequence were good Therefore Infants were if there were any Infants because other Scriptures shew that circumcision belongs to Infants as well as grown men but in this case the argument is not good So much for my first and main Argument they are foederati and therefore must be signati they are under the Covenant of Grace and therefore are to be signed with the seale of admittance into the Covenant The second Argument To whom the inward grace of Baptism doth belong to them belongs the outward sign they ought to have the signe who have the thing signifyed the earthly part of the Sacrament must be granted to them who have the heavenly part but the Infants of beleevers even while they are Infants are made partakers of the inward grace of Baptisme of the heavenly and spirituall part as well as grown men therefore they may and ought to receive the outward sign of Baptism The major Proposition that they who are made partakers of the inward grace may not bee debarred of the outward signe is undeniable it is Peters argument Act. 10. Can any man forbid water that these should not bee baptized who have receâ—ved the Holy Ghost as well as wee and againe Act. 11. For as much as God gave them the like gift as hee did unto us what was I that I could withstand God And this is so cleare that the most learned of the Anabaptists do readily grant that if they knew any Infants to have received the inward grace they durst not deny them the outward signe and that the particular Infants whom Christ took up in his Armes and blessed might have been baptized And for the assumption or mâ—nor That the Infants of Beleevers even while they are Infants do receive the inward grace as well as grown men is as plaine not onely by that speech of the Apostle who saith they are holy but our Saviour saith expressely Mark 10. That to such belongs the kingdom of God as well as to grown men And whereas some would evade it by saying that the Text saith not to them belongs the Kingdome of God but of such is the kingdome of Heaven {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} of such like that is such as are graced with such like qualities who are humble and meek as children are and that Luk. 18. is parallell to this in the meaning of it Whosoever doth not receive the kingdome of Heaven as a little childe hee shall not enter therein But I answer though it be true that in other places this is one use that Christ makes of an Infants age and condition to shew that such as receive the Kingdome of Heaven must be qualifyed with humility c. like unto children yet here it cannot be his meaning because his argument is suffer them to come to mee and forbid them not because of such is the Kingdome of God that is my Church and Kingdom is made up of these as well as of others This was the very cause why the Disciples rebuked those who brought the children to Christ because they were little not fit to bee instructed and therefore not fit that Christ should be troubled about them this Christ rebukes in them and tels them that the littlenesse of children is no argument why they should be kept from him Suffer them said he to come and forbid them not for of such is the Kingdome of God and what kind of argument had this been if the Text should be interpreted as these men would have it Suffer little children to come unto me that I may touch them take them up in mine armes put my
done on Gods part let them serve another God and take their lot for time to come But what benefit comes to children by such kind of sealing as this is it seems then say they by your own confession that this is but a conditionall sealing on Gods part viz that they own it and ratifie it when they come to age and if they then refuse to stand to it all is then nullified were it not therefore better to defer it to their years of discretion to see whether they will then make it their own voluntary act yea or no Answ. 1. This objection lay as strongly against Gods widsome in requiring the Jewes Infants even in their Infancy thus to seale and therefore argues no great wisdome or modesty in men who would thus reason with God about his administrations 2. God hath other ends and uses of applying the seale of the Covenant to them who are in Covenant with him then their present gaine it 's a Homage Worship and Honour to himself and it behoves us even in that respect to fulfill all righteousnesse when Christ was baptized and circumcised he was as unfit for the ordinance through his perfection as children through their imperfection being as much above them as children are below them 3. I Answer The benefit and fruit of it at the present is very much both to the Parents and to the children to the Parents first whilst God doth hereby honour them to have their children counted to his Church to his kingdome and family to be under his wing and grace whilest all the other Infants in the world have their visible standing under the Prince and in the kingdom of darknesse and consequently whilest others have no hope of their childrens spiritual welfare untill they be called out of that condition these need not have any doubt of their childrens welfare if they die in their Infancy nor if they live untill they shew signes to the contrary God having both reckoned them unto his people and given them all the meanes of salvation which an Infants age is capable of Secondly here is much priviledge and benefit to the children when as beside what inward secret worke God is pleased to worke in them they being Members of the Church of Christ have their share in the Communion of Saints are remembred at the throne of Grace every day by those that pray for the welfare of the Church and perticularly in those prayers which are made for his blessing upon his Ordinances And lastly it 's no small priviledge to have that Seale bestowed upon them in their Infancy wch may afterwards plead when they are grown and come to fulfill the condition But if their being capable of the spirituall part must intitle them to the outward signe why then doe we not also admit them to the Sacrament of the Lords Supper which is the seale of the Covenant of Grace as well as the Sacrament of Baptisme And this is urged the rather because say they the Infants of the Jewes did eate of the Passeover as well as were circumcised now if our Infants have every way as large a priviledge as the Infants of the Jewes had then can we not deny them the same priviledge which their Infants had and consequently they must partake of the one Sacrament as well as the other I answer that Infants are capable of the grace of Baptisme we are sure not sure that they are capable of the grace signed and sealed in the Sacrament of the Lords Supper for though both of them are seales of the new Covenant yet it is with some difference Baptisme properly seales the entraâ—ce into it the Lords Supper properly the growth nourishment and augmentation of it Baptisme for our birth the Lords Supper for our food now Infants may be borne againe while they are Infants have their Originall sinne pardoned be united to Christ have his Image stampt upon them but concerning the exercise of these graces and the augmentatâ—on of them in Infants while they are Infants the Scripture is altogether silent and for what is said concerning the Infants of the Jewes eating the Passeover to which our Sacrament of the Lords Supper doth succeed there is no such thing mentioned in all the Booke of God it is said indeed that the severall families were to eate their Lambe if the household were not too little for it and that when their children should aske them what that service meant they should instruct them about the meaning of it but no word injoyning nor any example witnessing that their little children did eate of it If they say as some of them doe that those little ones who were able to enquire concerning the meaning of that service and capable to receive instruction about it did eat of the Passeover with their Parents I answer although the Scripture speakes nothing of their eating yet if that be granted it is no prejudice to us because the Gospel prohibites not such yong ones from the Lords Supper who are able to examine themselves and discerne the Lords Body Thus have I according to my poor ability made good this second argument also and vindicated it from all Objections of any weight wch I have met with all to the contrary it remains that I winde up all with a briefe Application And first it serves for just reproofe of the Anabaptists and all such as by their rash and bloody sentence condemne Infants as out of the state of Grace it 's a great sinne to passe sentence upon any particular person for any one act as was that of Eli concerning Hannah how much more heinous is it to condemne ail the Infants of the whole Church of Christ as having nothing to doe with the Covenant of Grace or the seale of it We read of Herod the Tyrant that he destroyed all the children in Bethlehem and the Coasts thereof from two yeares old and under is not this a farre more cruell sentence to set these in no better state then Pagans and Infidels Without Christ aliens from the Common-wealth of Israel as strangers from the Covenant of promise having no hope and wâ—thout God in the world can any sober Christian thinke this a small fault Our blessed Saviour saith It is not lawfull to take the childrens bread and give it to dogs but these men take Children and in their judgement conclude them for no better then dogs baptisme is the bread of the Lord which he would have given to his children and to deny it to them as none of their right is to make them no better then dogs The Prophet Elisha wept when he looked upon Hazael because he foresaw that he would dash the infants of Israel against the wall and even Hazael thought himselfe worthy to be esteemed a dog if ever he should do such a thing But certainly thus to dash all Infant children of beleevers out of the Covenant of Grace as much as in them lyeth to
Turkes dying in their Infancy as well as some of the Infants of Christians and so carry salvation by Christ out of the Church beyond the Covenant of grace where God never made any promise That God hath made a promise to bee the God of believers and of their Seed wee all know but where the promise is to bee found that hee will bee the God of the seed of such Parents who live and die his enemies and their seed not so much as called by the preaching of the Gospel I know not These men say the Covenant of grace made to the Jewes differs from the Covenant of grace made with Us but I desire to know whether in the one or in the other they find any promise of salvation by Christ to any Infants dying in their Infancie whose Parents no way belonged to the Family of GOD or Covenant of Grace The matter then being of such consequence and many amongst us in such danger of being seduced further then is easie to imagine through the subtilty activity and diligence of such as with a great shew of Scriptures and under a pretence of zeale doe creepe into Houses yea proclaime these things openly in Pulpits I take my selfe bound upon this occasion to shew you upon what grounds the Orthodox Church hath hitherto retained this practise and shall bring all that I intend to speake of it under two Arguments and under them shall indeavour to Answer whatsoever I have found of any moment objected to the contrary My first Argument is this The Infants of beleeving Parents are foederati therefore they must bee signati they are within the Covenant of grace belonging to Christs body kingdome family therefore are to partake of the seale of his Covenant or the distinguishing badge between them who are under the Covenant of grace and them who are not The ordinary Answer to this Argument is by denying that Infants are under the Covenant of Grace onely some few deny the consequence that although they were within the Covenant yet it followes not that they must bee sealed because say they the Women among the Jewes were under the Covenant yet received not Circumcision which was the seale of the Covenant but this receives an easie answer the Women were Circumcised in the Males else could not God have said that the whole house of Israel were Circumcised in the flesh else could not the whole Nation of the Jewes bee called the Circumcision in opposition to all the World beside who were called the Uncircumcision But for the better clearing of this whole Argument I shall indeavour to make good these five Conclusions First that the Covenant of Grace hath alwayes for substance been one and the same Secondly God will have the Infants of such as enter into Covenant with him bee counted his as well as their Parents Thirdly God hath ever since Abrahams time had a Seale to bee applied to such as enter into Covenant with him Fourthly by Gods owne order the Seed or Infants of Covenanters before Christs time were to be sealed with the seale of admission into his Covenant as well as their Parents Fifthly the priviledge of such as are in Covenant since Christs time are as honourable large and comfortable both to themselves and their children as they were before Christs time and these five Propositions made good the Argument will be strong and undeniable The first is That the Covenant of grace for substance hath alwayes been one and the same both to the Jewes and to the Gentiles Which to understand know that the new and living way to life was first revealed to Adam immediately after his fall and that blessed promise concerning the Seed of the woman was often renewed and the Patriarchs faith therein and salvation thereby recorded plentifully in the Scripture but the first time that ever it was revealed under the expresse name of a League or Covenant was with Abraham and therefore we shall need looke no higher then his dayes who because he was the first explicite Covenanter is called the father of the faithfull and ever since clearly hath all the world been divided into two distinct bodies or families the one called the Kingdome City Houshold of God to which all who owne the way to life were to joine themselves and these were called the Children of God the Sons of Abraham the Children of the Kingdome all the rest of the World the Kingdom of the Devill the Seed of the Serpent Strangers from the Covenant of Grace without God in the world c. Now I say that this Covenant of Grace hath for substance been alwayes the same for substance I say for wee must distinguish betwixt the Covenant it selfe and the manner of administration of this Covenant The substance of the Covenant on Gods part was to be Abrabrahams God and the God of his Seed to bee an Al-sufficient portion an Al-sufficient reward for him to give Jesus Christ to him and Righteousnesse with him both of Justification and of Sanctification and everlasting life On Abrahams part the substance of the Covenant was to beleeve in the promised Messiah to walke before God with a perfect heart to serve God according to his revealed wil to instruct his family c. The manner of administration of this Covenant at the first was by types and shadowes sacrifices c. And foure hundred and thirty yeeres after the Law was added with great terrour upon Mount Sinai not as a part of this Covenant but as the Apostle saith expressely it was added because of Transgressions to bee a Schoolemaster to whip to Christ Plainly in that giving of the Law there was something of the Covenant of workes made with Adam in Paradise yet in order to the Administration of the Covenant of grace there was a rehearsall of the Covenant of workes under which all men lie by nature untill they bee brought under the Covenant of grace and this was delivered with great terror and under most dreadfull penalties that they who were prone to seeke justification in themselves by finding the {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} the impossibility of their keeping the Law might be driven to seeke for a better Mediator even the Lord Jesus Christ as was excellently shadowed out Exod. 20.18 19 20. Deut. 5.24 when they cryed out to Moses that they might no more heare this dreadfull voice which would kill them but that they might bee spoken unto by a Mediator and GOD said they had well spoken and presently accepted Moses for their typicall mediator and by him gave them the Gospel in their Tabernacle Ordinances And there was also somthing of the administration of the Covenant of grace partly because all the threatning and cursing part of it was intended as a preparative and meanes to fit them for Christ and partly because the directing part of it containes that very rule whereby Abraham and all his Seed were ordered to walke in
alledge that though Circumcision was to be applyed to their Infants yet it was not as a seale of the spirituall part of the Covenant of Grace but as a nationall badge a seale of some temporall and earthly blessings and proviledges as of their right to the land of Canaan c. and that Ishmael though he was circumcised for some temporall respects yet he was not thereby brought under the Covenant of Grace which was expresly said to be made with Abraham in relation to Isaac and his seed I answer there is nothing plainer then that the Covenant whereof Circumcision was the signe was the Covenant of Grace Abraham received Circumcision a signe of the righteousnesse of faith and the Jewes received it not as a Nation but as a Church as a people separated from the world and taken into Covenant with God It is true indeed that Circumcision bound them who received it to conforme to that manner of administration of the Covenant which was carried much by a way of Temporall blessings and punishments they being types of spirituall things but no man can ever shew that any were to receive the Sacrament of Circumcision in relation to these outward things onely or to them at all further then they were administrations of the Covenant of grace sure I am the Prosolytes and their children could not be circumcised in any relation at all to the Temporall blessings of the Land of Canaan as they were temporall because notwithstanding their Circumcision they were not capable of receiving or purchasing any inheritance at all in that Land sojourne there they might as other strangers also did but the inheritance of the Land no not one foot of it could ever bee alienated from the severall Tribes to whom it was distributed as their possession by the most High For all the land was divided unto twelve Tribes and they were not any one of them allowed to sell their lands longer then till the yeare of Jubilee Levit. 25.13 c. Yea I may boldly say that their Circumcision was so farre from sealing to them the outward good things of the Land that it occasioned and tyed them to a greater expence of their temporall blessings by their long and frequent and chargeable journeyes to worship at Hierusalem And as for what was alledged concerning Ishmael the answer is easie God indeed there declares that Isaac should bee the type of Christ and that the Covenant of grace should bee established and continue in his family yet both Ishmael and the rest of Abrahams family were really taken into Covenant untill afterward by Apostasie they discovenanted themselves as also did Esau afterward though he were the Son of Isaac in whose family God had promised the Covenant should continue Fifthly and lastly the priviledges of beleevers under this last and best administration of the Covenant of grace are many wayes inlarged made more honourable and comfortable then ever they were in the time of the Jewes administration many Scriptures speake of the inlargement of their priviledges not one for the diminishing or depressing or extenuating of them that yoke that hard and costly way of administration which neither they nor their Fathers were able to beare is taken off from our shoulders our Covenant is said to be established upon better promises the glory of theirs had no glory in respect of ours they were under the bondage of Infants under age in comparison of our freedome we as well as they are called a holy Nation a peculiar people a chosen generation separated to him from all other people to whom as well as to them belongs the adoption the Covenant the promises we as well as they injoy him to be our Father and with his dearest Son our Lord are made Co-heires of the Kingdome of glory we have all these things with advantage not onely in the clearnesse of the administration but in some sense in greater extent to persons with us there is neither male nor female Some indeed goe about to shew that in some things the Jewes had greater priviledges then Wee have as that Abraham had the priviledge to be called the Father of the faithfull that Christ should bee borne of his flesh Mary had the priviledge to be the Mother of Christ and the whole Nation this priviledge that God will call in their seed againe after they had been cast off for unbelief many hundred yeers which priviledges say they none of the Gentiles have or can have Answ. But these things have no weight we are inquiring for priviledges which are branches of the Covenant of grace which every man who is in Covenant with God may expect from God by vertue of the Covenant were he a Jew or a Proselyte not for any particular or peculiar favour to a particular man or woman or family or tribe All these forementioned things and many other of the like kind as the Ministery of the Tabernacle and Temple to belong to one Tribe the Kingly office to one family such and such men never to lack a man of their house to stand before God proceeded indeed from Free-grace but were no parts of that Covenant of grace which God made to Abraham and all his Seed For could every man in Covenant challenge these things at Gods hand and that by vertue of the Covenant Could every one of them promise to himself that Christ should be born of his flesh Or every one of their women that she should be the Mother of Christ Could every one whom God owned to be in Covenant with him promise by vertue of the Covenant that their children if cast off by unbeleefe should after many hundred yeers be again called in We speake only of such priviledges as were universall and common to all who were in Covenant for which by vertue of the Covenant they might relie upon God Let any man shew out of the Scripture where our priviledges under the Gospel are cut short in any of these things and he saith somwhat and in particular for the Case in hand concerning our Infants right to the Covenant of grace and the seale of it once we are sure the Infant Children of all Covenanters were within the Covenant and the seale also belonged to them and by vertue of the Covenant which is still the same we plead their interest in it Let any man shew when and where this was taken away when the Infant-children of beleevers were expunged out of the Covenant of grace certainly whoever will go about to deprive them of it to cut off such a great part of the comfort of Beleeving parents must produce cleare testimonies before they can perswade beleevers to part with either of them either their right to the Covenant or to the seale of the Covenant For first their Infants interest in the Covenant next to glory of God and the salvation of their own souls is the greatest benefit of the Covenant of grace even this I say to have
hands upon them and blesse them because the Kingdom of God belongs to them who have such like qualities who resemble children in some select properties By the very same ground if any had brought doves and Sheep to Christ to put his hands upon them and blesse them the Disciples had been liable to the same reproofe because of such is the Kingdome of God such as are partakers of the Kingdom of God must be indued with such like properties Beside what one thing can be named belonging to the initiation and being of a Christian whereof Baptisme is a seale which Infants are not capable of as well as grown men they are capable of receiving the Holy Ghost of union with Christ of adoption of forgivenesse of sins of regeneration of everlasting life all which things are signifyed and sealed in the Sacrament oâ— baptism And it is further considerable that in the working of that inward grace of which baptism is the sign and seale all who partake of that grace are but meere patients and contribute no more to it then a childe doth to its own begetting and therefore Infants as fit Subjects to have it wrought in them as grown men and the most grown men are in no more fitnesse to receive this grace when it is given them in respect either of any faith or repentance which they yet have then a very little childe it being the primary intention of the Covenant of Grace in its first worke to shew what Free Grace can and wil do to miserable nothing to cut miserable man off from the wild Olive and graffe him into the true Olive to take away the heart of stone to create in them a heart of flesh to forgive their iniquities to love them freely what doth the most grown man in any of these more then an Infant may do being onely passive in them all and of this first grace is the Sacrament of Baptism properly a seale and who ever will deny that Infants are capable of these things as well as grown men must deny that any Infants dying in their Infancy are saved by Christ Against this Argument severall things are objected which I shall indevour to remove out of the way First It is said that although Infants are capable of these things and they no doubt are by Christ wrought in many Infants yet may not we baptize them because according to the Scripture pattern both of Christs command Matth. 28. in his institution of Baptisme where this was injoyned and John the Baptist Christs Disciples and Apostles They alwaies taught and made them Disciples by teaching before they baptized any I answer First that of Matth. 28. is not the institution of Baptisme it was instituted long before to be the Seale of the Covenant it 's only an inlargement of their Commission whereas before they were to go onely to the lost sheepe of the House of Israel now they were to go unto all the world And beside it is no where said that none were baptized but such as were first taught and what reason we have to beleeve the contrary you have before seen Secondly It is said indeed that they taught and baptized and no expresse mention made of any other but the reason is plain there was a new Church to be constituted all the Jews who should receive Christ were to come under another administration and their Infants were to come in only in their right and the Heathen Nations who were to be converted to Christ were yet wholly without the Covenant of Grace and their children could have no right untill themselves were brought in and therefore no marvaile though both John and Christs Disciples and Apostles did teach before they baptized because then no other were capable of baptism but when once themselves were instructed and baptized then their children were capable of it by vertue of the Covenant If any in the Jewish Church had received Commission to go and make other Cities Proselytes to them their Commission must have run thus Go teach and circumcise would it therefore have followed that none might be circumcised but such as were first taught But it is expresly said That hee that beleeves and is baptized shall bee saved Faith in Christ is the Condition upon which men may be baptized and this is the most common objection among the Anabaptists Unbeleevers may not bee baptized children are unbeleevers therefore they may not bee baptized We have say they cleare evidence that Faith is a condition required in those that are to be baptized no evidence of any other condition that makes them capable of Baptism Others of them adde that under an affirmative command the negative is to be included beleeving is the affirmative unbeleeving is the negative therefore where beleevers are commanded to be baptized unbeleevers are forbidden to be baptized this objection they much glory in and some of them dare all the world to answer it I Answer first but if this argument have any strength at all against the Baptizing of infants it hath much more strength against the salvation of infants it is said expresly he that beleeveth and is baptized shall be saved but he that beleeveth not shall bee damned there yee have both the negative and affirmative set downe Hee that beleeves shall bee saved hee that beleeves not shall bee damned now I frame their owne argument thus against the salvation of infants All unbeleevers shall bee damned all infants are unbeleevers therefore they shall bee damned now look at what doore they will goe out for the salvation of infants at the same will we go out for the baptizing of infants how ever they will evade the one we shall much more strongly evade the other if they say this Text is meant of growne men of the way which God takes for the salvation of grown men Infants are saved another way upon other conditions the same say we of infants baptisme the Text means of the condition of baptizing of grown men infants are baptized upon other conditions if they say infants though they cannot have actuall Faith they may have virtuall Faith Faith in the seed and roote the same say we if they say though infants have not Faith yet they may have that which is Analogous to faith the same say we they have somwhat which hath analogy to faith and as effectuall to make them capable of baptism as of salvation Secondly I answer it is no where said Unbeleevers or rather Non-beleevers it should be said may not bee baptized it is said indeed hee that beleeveth and is baptized shall bee saved and it is said that he that beleeveth with all his heart may be baptized it is no where said that he that beleeveth not may not be baptized Therfore I deny the consequence if all beleevers must be baptized then no Unbeleevers or Non-beleevers may be baptized these two are not here intended by way of opposition Christ excludes Infants neither from baptism nor from salvation
for want of faith but positive Unbeleevers and such as refuse the Gospel he excludes from both The stone upon which these men stumble is the ignorance in the opposition in the Scripture they bring which is not betweene beleevers and their Children but betweene them and Unbeleeving and profane persons who are shut from the Lords Covenant Baptisme and Salvation But suppose they are capable of the inward grace of baptisme and that God doth effectually work it in some of the Infants of beleevers is that sufficient warrant for us to baptize all the Infants of Beleevers if we knew in what Infants the Lord did work this we might baptize those Infants say some of them but that he doth not make known to us we cannot know of any one Infant by any ordinary way of knowledge that they are inwardly baptized with the holy Ghost and therefore we may not baptize any of them but wait to see when and in whom God will work the thing signified and then apply the signe to them Answ. Our knowledge that God hath effectually wrought the thing signified is not the condition upon which wee are to apply the signe God no where requires that we should know that they are inwardly and certainly converted whom we admit to the Sacrament of Baptism the Apostles themselves were not required to know this of those whom they baptized if they were they sinned in baptizing Simon Magus Alexander Hymenaeus Ananias and Saphira with others we are indeed required to know that they have in them that condition which must warrant us to administer the signe not that which makes them possest of the thing signified fallible conjectures are not to be our rule in administring of Sacraments either to Infants of grown men but a known rule of the word out of which rule we must be able to make up such a judgment that our administration may be of faith as well as out of charity In baptizing or grown men the Apostles and Ministers of Christ administred the signe not because they conjectured that the parties were inwardly sanctified but because they made that profession of faith and holinesse of which they were sure that whoever had the thing in truth were received by Christ into inward Communion with himself and that whoever thus made it that Christ would have them received into the communion of his Church though possibly for want of the inward work they were never received into the inward communion with Iesus Christ indeed when such a confession was made Christian charity which alwaies hopeth the best and thinketh no evill bound them to receive them and think of them and converse with them as with men in whom the inward work was wrought untill they gave signes to the contrary but this their charity or charitable conjecture was not the grouâ—d of their admitting them to the ordinance but the profession and confession of the party made according to the Word which they were bound to rest in yea I greatly question whether in case Peter or Paul could by the spirit of revelation have known that Ananias or Alexander would have proved no better then hypocrites whether they either would or ought to have refused them from Baptism whilst they made that publike profession and confession upon which others were admitted who in the event proved no better then those were So that I conclude not our knowledge of their inward Sanctification is requisite to the admitting of any to baptism but our knowledge of the will of Christ that such who are in such and such condition should by us be received into the communion of the Church and in this the rule to direct our knowledge is as plain for Infants as for growne men the rule having been alwaies this That growne men who were strangers from the Covenant of God Unbeleevers Pagans Heathens should upon their being instructed and upon profession of their faith and promise to walke according to the rule of the Covenant bee received and added to the Church and made partakers of the seale of their entrance and their Infants to come in with them both sorts upon their admission to be charitably hoped of untill they give signes to the contrary charity being bound from thinking of evill of them not tyed to conclude certainly of any of them because they ought to know that in all ages all are not Israel who are of Israel and that many are called but few are chosen But all who enter into Covenant and receive the seale of the Covenant must stipulate for their parts as well as God doth for his they must indent with God to perform the beleevers part of the Covenant as well as God doth to perform his part as even this Text 1 Pet. 3. requires That Baptism which saves us must have the answer of a good conscience to God now although it be granted that Infants are capable of receiving the first grace if God be pleased to work it in them yet what answer of a good conscience can there be from Infants unto God they having not the use of reason and not knowing what the Covenant meanes Answ. The Infants of the Jewes were as much tied as the Infants of beleevers under the Gospel every one who was circumcised was bound to keepe the Law Gal. 5. and these men professe that Israelitish Infants were within the old Covenant when yet they knew not what it meant nor could have the same use of it with their Parents and others of discretion Looke what answer they will make for the Jewes infants if true will abundantly satisfie for the Infants of beleevers under the Gospel Secondly God seales to them presently their name is put into the deed and when they come to yeers of discretion to be adulti then in their own persons they stand obliged to the performance of it in the meane time Jesus Christ who is the surety of the Covenant and the surety of all the Covenanters is pleased to be their surety we know when severall parties stand obliged in the same bond they may seale at severall times and yet be in force afterward together or even a child sealing in infancy may aguize and recognize that sealing when they come to yees of discretion if then they will renounce it as done when they understood not they may free themselves if they please if they find the former act an inconvenience or burden to them so is it here God of his infinite mercy is pleased to seale to Infants while they are such and accepts of such a seale on their parts as they are able to give in their Infant age expecting a further ratification on their part when they are come to riper yeers in the meane time affording them the favour and priviledge of being in Covenant with him of being reckoned unto his kingdom and family rather then of the Devils if when they are grown men they refuse to stand to this Covenant there is no hurt
Covenant and you left at liberty for your part that he should love you and you hate him that he should bee your God and you remain the Devils servant that he should provide Heaven for you and you walk in the way which leads to Hell O how much are you deceived I tell you he hath sworn the contrary he hath heaped up tribulation and wrath for every soule which doth evill for the Jew first for the baptized first and you will one day find that it had been better you had never lived in his house nor been trained up under his Covenant then thus to profane it and make the blood of it as an unholy thing This great priviledge should ingage us all for time to come to make our Baptism a continual motive to an answerable conversation to live as men who are dead unto sinne and alive unto God to account that it ought to bee as strange to see a baptized man walke in a sinfull course as to see a Spectrum a walking Ghost Wee are buried with Christ in Baptisme and how can wee who are dead to sinne live any longer therein We are planted into his family made his Children have his Spirit dwelling in us yea thereby made one with Christ All this we lay claim to by our Baptism shall not this inforce us to live answerably Luther tels a Story of a gracious Virgin who used to get the victory over Satan when he tempted her to any sinne Satan I may not doe it Baptizata sum I am Baptized and must walk accordingly So should we argue Let base persons live basely noble and generous men must live nobly let Turkes and Pagans live wickedly the holy seed must live holily and righteously keepe it daily in thy thoughts what thy Baptism ingageth thee unto and that if thou walk otherwise it will rise up extreamly to aggravate thy condemnation in the last day It was a custome in the latter end of the Primitive times That such as were baptized did weare a white Stole a humane Ceremony to signifie their purity of life which the baptized was to lead Fulgentes animas vestis quoque candida signat Now there was one Elpidophorus who after his baptism turned a persecutor Muritta the Minister who baptized him brought forth in publick the white Stole which Elpidophorus had worn at his Baptism and cryed unto him O Elpidophorus this Stole doe I keep against thy comming to Judgement to testifie thy Apostasie from Christ doe thou in like manner assure thy selfe the very Font wherein thou wast baptized the Register wherein thy Name is recorded will rise up against thee if thou lead not a holy life The Covenant is holy the Seale is holy let these provoke thee to study to be holy yea to draw holinesse from them Consider what I say And the Lord give you understanding in all things FJNIS ERRATA P. 22. l. 1. for legitimate r. illegitimate p. 39. l. 4. r. had he intended The Question stated The Infants of Beleevers ought to bee Baptized The Primitive Church owned it When the Sect of the Anabaptists began Niceph. 12.35 Niceph. 12.30 And the danger of their opinions First Argument they are under the Covenant of grace and therefore must have the seale of the Covenant This Argument made good by five Conclusions 1. Conclusion The Covenant of grace alwaies the same for substance Wherein lies the substance of the Covenant Gen. 17.1 c. Gal. 3.15 Rom. 4.3 Iohn 8.56 Gal. 3.6 Gen. 17.1 Gen. 18.19 Gal 3.17.19 Though not the same for manner of administration 2 King 17.18 Heb. 3.11.4 5 8. Heb. 3.17 18 19. with 4.2 Lev. 20.2 c. 26.36 Deut. 10.12.13 with 11.1.8 9 22. c. 1 Cor. 10.5 6 7. The Identis of the Covenant to Jewes and Gentiles proved Jerem. 31.33 Esa. 59.21 Joel 2.32 Luke 1 54. c. Luke 2.31 Mat. 21.41.43 Rom. 11. Gal. 3.8.14 15 16. Ephe. 2.13 c. Rom. 10.3 Gal. 4.29 2 Conclusion Infants taken into Covenant with their Parents Hosea 2.2 Exod. 12 48 49. Act. 2.38 39. opened and cleared Luke 19. Object Answ. Object Answ. 3. Rom. 11.16 opened 1 Cor. 7.14 opened and vindicated Ezra 10.4 {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} Nehem. 13.24 c. Mal. 2.15 1. Argument Because uncleannesse and holinesse no where taken for civilly lawfull 1 Tim. 4.5 Object Answ. Acts 10. 2. Argument The Apostles answer had not contained a truth 3. Argument Nor had the Apostles argument had any reason in it if interpreted as they would have it 4. Argument Nor could have satisfied their doubt Deut. 23.2 Esa. 56.3 4. Acts 8.27 Object Answer {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} the Greek preposition signifying to as well as in as Gal. 1.16 2 Pet. 1.5 Act. 4.12 1 Cor. 7.15 2. Object Answ. Reason why God will have such Infants accounted his Eccles. 2 7. 3. Conclusion Col. 2.11 12. opened Gal. 5.3 4 Conclusiun Gen. 17. Exod. 12.48 Object Gen. 17.18 19 20 21. Answ. Rom 4.11 Deut. 32.8 Lev. 25.13 c. 5 Conclusion Heb. 8.6 2 Cor. 3.10 Gal. 4.1 c. Object Answ. Object Wee want a command and example Answer Though there be no expresse command or example Which is not necessary Yet by good consequence we have command for it Both in the command given to Abraham which reacheth us And in Mat. 28 19. opened and explained Fumb. 14.31 Nehem 10.28 Object Answ. Math 10 42. Mark 9 41. Matth. 18.5 Act 2.38 39. 2. Argument Act. 10.47 11.17 Mark 10. 1 Cor. 7.14 Mark 10.14 Luk. 18 17. Matth 3. 1 Cor. 12 13. Gal. 3.27 Tit. 3.5 Mark 1.3 Object 1. Answ. Object 2. Answer Mark 16.16 Object 3. Answ. Object 4. 1 Pet. 3.21 Answ. Heb. 7.22 Object 6. Answ. Exod. 12.3 4 26 27. 1 Cor. 11. Application First for reproof of the Anabaptists 1 Sam 1. Mat. 2 16. Ephe. 2 1◠Psal. 131.8 9. 2. Vse To Parents First for their comfort 2 Sam. 7. Esa. 16. Ezek. 16.5 2. For their duty to provoke thē to be ashamed for their carelesnesse c. in time past Ezek. 16.20 Psal. 106.37 Exod. 2.19 And to nurse them up for Christ in time to come Praying for them Ioel 2.16 2 Tim. 1 5.3.15 Prov. 4.2 3. To all baptitized ones for comfort when they beleeve and repent To humble such as walke unworthy of this priviledge Col. 2.12 To provoke to a holy life for time to come
the different condition of those children who dye baptized and of them who dye unbaptized Ireneus who lived in the same Century lib. 2. cap. 29. saith Christus venit per seipsum omnes salvare omnes 〈◊〉 qui per eum renascuntur in Deum Infantes parvulos pueros c. Now it 's well known say the Glossers upon that Text renascentiae nomine Dominica Apostolica phrasi Baptismum intelligi Origen who lived in the beginning of the third Century in his Treatise upon Rom. 6. lib. 5. saith The Church received this tradition of Baptizing of Infants from the Apostles and Homily 8. upon Leviticus Secundum Ecclesiae observantiam Baptismum parvulis dari concedit Hom. 14. in Lucam Parvuli baptizantur in remissionem peccatorum he cals it indeed a Tradition according to the expression of the Ancients who ordinarily called the greatest points of Faith by the name of Traditions received from the Apostles Traditions being onely such things as are delivered from one to another whether writen or unwriten And so did the Apostle himselfe 2 Thess. 2.15 when he charged them to hold the Traditions which they had been taught either by word or Epistle However his calling it a Tradition received from the Apostles gives us a sufficient proofe that time out of mind it had been received in the Church that it was delivered over to the Church in his time and was of antient use in the Church before his time Gregory Nazianzen Orat. 40. in Baptismum cals Baptism signaculum vitae cursum ineuntibus and commands children to be baptized though afterward he seemed to restraine it to the case of necessity Cyprian one of the Antientest Writers amongst the Latines handles it at large in Epist. 59. Ad Fidum upon this occasion Fidus denyed not the Baptisme of Infants but denyed that they ought to be Baptized before the eighth day Cyprian assures him that by the unanimous consent of 66. Bishops gathered together in a Councell Baptisme was to be administred to Infants as well as to growne men and not to be restrained to any time and proves it by such Arguments as these They are under originall sinne they need pardon are capable of grace and mercy God regards not age c. This testimony of Cyprians is cited and approved by August Epist. 28. lib. 3. de Merit Remiss pecca cap. 5. lib. 3. contra Pelag. and by Hierom contra Pelag. lib. 3. Of the same judgment was Ambrose lib. 2. cap. 11. De Abraham Patriarcha and many other of the Ancients which I relate not to prove the truth of the thing but onely the practise of it and indeed although some in those times questioned it as August grants in his Sermons De Verbis Apostol. yet the first that ever made a head against it or a division in the Church about it was Baltazar Pacommitanus in Germany in Luthers time about the yeere 1527. and since that time multitudes in Germany have imbraced his opinion who because they opposed Paedo-baptisme were forced to reiterate their owne Baptisme and thence were called Anabaptists and soone proved a dangerous and turbulent Sect against that Reformation not onely working a world of mischiefe about Munster and other parts of Germany but have with this opinion drunk in abundance of other dangerous Heresies and Blasphemies and quickly grew into such divisions and sub-divisions among themselves that Bullenger notes that they were growne to no lesse then fourteene severall Sects in his time which in truth is the common lot of all Sectaries who when once they have departed from the Church upon every small occasion they come to bee divided againe among themselves and one from another As the Ecclesiasticall Story lets us see in the Novatians Macedonians Eunomians Arians c. which divisions also opened a way to their totall destruction in the end their mutuall bickerings among themselves being as the beating of the waves of the Sea one against another till all were changed as the Historian notes of them And because this Opinion and divers others which depend upon it begins unhappily to take place and spread among our selves in this Kingdom and so the work of Reformation without Gods mercy likely to bee much hindred by it I shall God willing handle this Question more largely then I have done any other in this place and the rather because of three other great mischiefes which goe along with it First I see that all who reject the Baptizing of Infants doe and must upon the same ground reject the Religious observation of the Lords day or the Christian Sabbath viz. because there is not say they an expresse institution or command in the New Testament Verily I have hardly either knowne or read or heard of any one who hath rejected this of Infants but with it they reject that of the Lords day now God hath so blessed the Religious observation of the Lords day in this Kingdome above other Churches and Kingdomes that such as indeavour to overthrow it deserve justly to be abhorred by us Secondly the Teachers of this Opinion where ever they prevaile take their Proselytes wholly off from the Ministry of the Word and Sacraments and all other acts of Christian communion both publick and private from any but those who are of their owne opinion condemning them all as Limbs of Antichrist worshippers and followers of the Beast And so not onely labour to cast the godly Ministers out of the hearts of those people whom they have wonne to Christ but leave the people whom they insnare without any hope of recovery whilst they impose upon their consciences to heare none but such as may confirme them in their errors An old trick of Satan which hee taught the Papists long agone a meere politick device to keep their Disciples fast unto themselves which unchristian course how prosperous soever it may seeme to bee at the first cannot bee blessed by God nor indeed is it the Lord giving them up almost every where to other most dangerous vile and abominable opinions I deny not but some few who are of this opinion are otherwise minded but all our experience teacheth us that the generality of them doe runne this way Thirdly this opinion puts all the Infants of all Beleevers into the self-same condition with the Infants of Turkes and Indians which they all readily acknowledge and from thence unavoidably one of these three things must follow 1. Either all of them are damned who die in their Infancy being without the Covenant of grace having no part in Christ Or 2. All of them saved as having no originall sinne and consequently needing no Saviour which most of the Anabaptists in the world doe owne and therewith bring in al Pelagianisme Universall grace Free-will c. Or 3. That although they bee tainted with originall corruption and so need a Saviour Christ doth pro beneplacito save some of the Infants of Indians and
deprive them of the seale of it is in a spirituall sense farre more heavy And I dare appeale to the tender bowels of any beleeving Parents whether it were not easier for them to thinke that their Infants should be dashed against the stones and yet in the meane time to die under Christs wing as visible Members of his Kingdome Church and Family rather then to have them live and behold them to have a visible standing onely in the Kingdome of the Devill These men know not how much they provoke Christs displeasure against themselves He was greatly displeased with his owne Disciples for forbidding little children to come unto him one day such men will know that he is much more displeased with them who with so great violence oppose the bringing of beleevers children unto his holy Sacrament that with unspeakable wrong injury and slander they prosecute all the Ministers of Christ who give Infants this their due condemning them for Ministers of Antichrist and limbes of the Beast yea some of them proceeding so farre as condemning all the Churches of Christ to be no Churches who cast not their children out of the Covenant of Grace and the seale of it and doe cry out upon the Baptizing of Infants as one of those great sinnes which bring and continue all our judgements upon us The Apostate Emperour Julian is justly cryed out upon for his cruelty against the Christians for denying to their bodies humane Sepulture how much more cruell is it to deny to the souls of Infants the just priviledge and benefit of the Covenant of Grace We know he did it out of hatred to Christianity which I am farre from charging upon these men but if we compare the sentence and fact of the one with the other we shall find the latter be their principle what it will farre more injurious to the Church of Christ then the other The Lord in mercy give them to see how unjust that sentence and how heavy that doome is which they thus passe not only upon Infant Children but upon all the Churches of Christ and seriously to consider whether the Lord who once in his displeasure threatned to dash their Infants against the Stones who had dasht the Infants of the children of Israel against the Stones will indure it at the hands of any to expunge the Seed of the faithfull out of his Covenant and to drive them from his City and Kingdom after this cruell manner Secondly how much may this comfort the Soule of every beleeving Parent to behold this great love and goodnesse of God in his Covenant of Grace to them and their posterity that not only themselves but even their Infants for their sakes should be reckoned to the household of God put into the Arke wrapped up in a Covenant of love brought under the wing of God When God had promised to David that he should have a son to whom God would be a Father and that all his posterity should after such a gracious manner be regarded his heart was even ravished with it O Lord God said he what am I and what is my house that thou hast brought mee hitherto and this was yet a small thing in thy sight O Lord God but thou hast spoken also of thy servants house for a great while to come and is this the manner of men O Lord God And even so should Christian Parents break out into admiration of his goodnesse in taking their children into that gracious Covenant which is not only the womb and vessell but also the well-head of so many mercies which are terminated not in themselves but flow down to their posterity from generation to generation And this is yet more admirable in our eyes when we seriously consider how uncleane and filthy how viperous a brood they are as proceeding out of our loines empty of all goodnesse full of all wickednesse an uncleane leprosie having bespread them from the crown of the Head to the sole of the Foot fit only to be cast into the open field to the loathing of their persons in the day that they are born as all the rest of the world are and that God should set his heart upon such as these to take them thus neere unto Himself when he passes by both Parents and Infants of all the world beside now would our hearts melt in his praises if we could consider these things 2. How should this ingage all Christian Parents to look to the education of their Children to bring them up in the nurture and feare of the Lord It 's a wofull thing to consider the wretched carelesnesse of many Parents yea not onely carelesnesse but ungodlinesse of many Parents who prostitute their children to the Devill and his service after they have consecrated them to Christ by baptisme train them up in ignorance profanenesse c. To whom God may say as he did to that Harlot Ezek. 16. Thou hast taken my Sonne and my Daughter whom thou hast born unto mee and these thou hast sacrificed unto Devils A generation of wretched men who take more care of their Hogs and Dogs then they doe of their Infants immortall soules nourishing the former murdering the latter that we may say of them as Augustus did of Herod that it is better to be Herods Dog then his Son I have often heard a sad Story of a wretched Woman who perswaded her Daughter to yeeld to the lust of a rich man in hope he would marry her as he had promised to doe which she did and presently after fell sick and died The wretched mother hereupon grew distracted and in her madnesse cryed out O my Daughters soule my Daughters soule I have damned my Daughters soul Verily thus may many Parents cry out upon themselves for murthering their childrens soules and their children may wish that they had beene either dogges or swine rather then their Sons or Daughters miserable children of miserable Parents what will such Parents answer God when he comes to demand his children of them Suppose a Prince or Noble man should put a Child to Nurse unto some mean man and pay them well for the education of it or rather suppose a Great man should adopt the child of a poor man to be his own and should say unto this poore man as Pharaohs daughter said to Moses mother Bring up this Child for mee and I will give thee thy wages afterward comming to see this Child should find they had lamed the Child and taught it nothing but to speake evill of them and to fight against them thinke I pray you what they would say or doe to this wretched man How much more abominable is the sin of many Parents who by their own carelesnesse and vile example leaven their children with principles and lead them in wayes quite contrary to the Covenant of grace tending to nothing but to dishonour God and to their own destruction If any of you have