Selected quad for the lemma: grace_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
grace_n	baptism_n	covenant_n	seal_n	5,819	5	9.5412	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A62871	A publick dispute betwixt John Tombs ... respondent, John Cragge, and Henry Vaughan ... opponents, touching infant-baptism, the fifth of September, 1653 ... occasioned by a sermon preached the day before, by Mr. Tombs, upon St. Mark 16.16 ... : also a sermon preached by Mr. Cragge, the next Lords day following, upon the same text, wherein the necessity of dipping is refuted, and infant-baptism asserted.	Tombes, John, 1603?-1676.; Cragge, John, Gent.; Vaughan, Henry, Sir, 1587?-1659?	1654 (1654)	Wing T1813; ESTC R9749	45,440	168

Gentiles shall be graffed in Parent with Children But the Jews were broken off Parents with Children Therefore the Gentiles shall be graffed in Parents with Children 9. Arg. If Infants should be out of Covenant under the Gospel many dangerous absurdities would follow First Infants would be losers by the comming of Christ and be put in a worse condition than the Jewish Infants were they with the Parents were admitted to the Seal of the Covenant which was Circumcision and not Children with Parents to Baptism Secondly if Infants should be in Covenant then and not now Grace would be larger under the Law than under the Gospel Thirdly there would be no difference betwixt the Child of a Christian and of a Pagan but all the Infants of Christians would be as vile as the Children of Turks Tartars or Cannibals Fourthly they would be without God without Christ without hope in the world not the Children of God but of the Devil would all be damned for out of Covenant and visible Church ordinarily there is no salvation 10. Arg. Lastly that which hath continued since the Apostles times with blessed success must needs be lawful But Infant-Baptism hath continued with blessed success since the Apostles times Therefore Infant Baptism is lawful Wee l begin with the first Centurie or hundred years after Christ Dionysius the Areopagite whom the Apostles converted at Athens says Holy men have received a tradition from the Fathers that is the Apostles to Baptise Infants Clemens who is recorded by some of the antients to succeed Peter in his Ministry at Rome says {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} Baptise your Infants Ireneus who lived in the second Century says Christus pro parvulis parvulus factus est Christ became a little one for little ones sake that little ones might be received into Covenant Origen that lived in the begining of the third Century says The Church received a tradition from the Apostles to Baptize Infants and gives a reason because they are born in impurity of sin nay Pelagius a great Scholar who lived in the latter end of this Century though he denyed Original sin yet confessed Infant-Baptism for when they pressed him with this Argument if Infants had not Original sin what need they Baptism he answered that Christ appointed and the Church practised Infant-Baptism not to purge sin by past but to prevent it for the time to come Cyprian in the fourth Century confirms it in his Epistle to Fidus and gives an account of a Council of sixty six Bishops that decreed that Infants should be Baptized Ambrose says because every age is lyable to sin therefore every age is fit for the Sacrament of Baptism Nazianzene says it is better to Seal Infants with Baptism though they know it not then to leave them unsealed Austen is conceived to go too far who denyed possibility of salvation to them that dyed un-baptized pressing that place John 3.5 Except a Man be Born of water and of the Spirit he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God The Millevitan Counsel in the fifth Century decreed That whosoever should deny that Infants even taken from their Mothers wombs might not be Baptized should be accursed All Churches all ages since agree in this the Harmonies of confessions of all Reformed Churches the Church of England in the Apologie the old Catechism The twenty seventh Article the Directory the greater and lesser Catechism composed by the Assembly of Divines the late Parliament by a further Declaration all confirm it The Canons of our Church did not only in former times declare but the Lawes of our Land did punish Anabaptists as hereticks Mr. Fox in his Acts and Monuments approves of the Albigenses Waldenses Wickliffists Lollards Poor men of Lyons Brownists Barrowists as members of the Reformed Churches but wholly excludes the Anabaptists as erring fundamentally I 'le say no more for confirmation of this polemicall discourse but wind up all with a word of exhortation I beseech you brethren consider what a dangerous errour this is that robbs the Scripture of its truth Infants of their right parents of their comforts the Church of its members Christ of his merits God of his glory That is the mother of many other errours hence sprung the Ranters Socinians Antitrinitarians Shakers Levellers they that are above Ordinances Antiscripturians An errour that God hath expressed many signall judgments against as Sleiden and Gastius in Germany and some of our worthies in England have declared As reverend Mr. Cotton tells one of his Aposta●ed flock that had his house burned and his children in it No wonder that fire seised upon his house and God denyed water to quench it who denyed that water should be brought to Baptize his Infants Secondly consider that much benefit redounds both to parents and children by infant-Infant-Baptism First much comfort comes hereby to the parents when they consider Gods free grace to them and theirs that he is not ashamed to be called their God and the God of their seed after them Hebr. 11.16 Secondly much benefit comes to Infants by Baptism which the Devill knowes well when he causes witches to renounce their Baptism when they enter into Covenant with him for they are thereby admitted into the bosome of the Church devoted and consecrated unto God his Name is put upon them they wear his Royall badge and by it they are distinguished from Heathens And this so clear from Scriptures truly and spiritually understood That the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against it Now the God of Peace and Truth by his Spirit lead us into all truth keep us pure and unspotted in this houre of Englands temptation and triall keep us faithfull to the death that so we may receive a crown of life {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} FINIS And that by washing as the Proselytes and Jews Children were initiated Mr. Cradock and Mr. Walter Monmothshire {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} or to the water

day and a half to long censure Fourthly the Anabaptists as they will deem for too uncourteously galling their soars Fiftly their Adversaries the Paedobaptists for too courteously or as they will fancy partially concealing Mr. Tombs harsh language and his Favourites Incivilities Sixtly the Learned in general for bringing these Nilus-like hatched Births in a moment into the open Amphitheater with those Elephants that have been ten years in conception My Apologie for the whole is as followeth The bulk of this Manual is small some may reach to the price of it that cannot of those larger Volumes may have time to read it that cannot them The method of this is facile the language plain some will understand this that cannot them Besides we naturally love the transactions of those whose persons we know Some heard them transiently as they were delivered and would be glad deliberately to read them Some heard them not but at the second hand as they were variously reported according to the judgement and affection of the Relator who would be willing to know the business truly stated If any of the Parties cencerned find themselves aggrieved and intend to bend their stile against me I 'le answer them at the Day of Judgement when the secrets of all hearts shall be disclosed In the mean time if Truth may be advanced Errour discouraged Godliness countenanced Hypocrisie unmasked thou edified God glorified I have mine ends Farewell Yours in the Lord I. T. P. A relation of a conference had between Mr. John Tombs B. D. and Henry Vaghan M. A. in St. Maries Church in Abergevennie Sept. 5. 1653. touching Infants Baptism briefly and punctually set down to the sense of both V. INfants may lawfully be Baptized for they may be admitted into the covenant of grace now by Baptism as they were before and under the Law admitted into the same covenant by Circumcision T. I deny your consequence V. You must deny it either because the covenant of grace made with Abraham and his seed is not the same in substance with that which is now actually in force with beleevers and their Children or Secondly because Baptism succeedeth not in the room of Circumcision T. I could deny your division yet I say to gratifie you for both those reasons V. For the Former That the covenant made with Abraham and his seed is the same which is now actually in force with beleevers appears by comparing Genes 17.2 with Galat. 3.14 where it is clearly set forth that the promise made to Abraham came unto the Gentiles through Jesus Christ T. Here he distinguisheth of a towfold seed of Abraham the naturall and spirituall and saith that the covenant was made with Abrahams spirituall seed and not the naturall V. Even all the children of Abraham were Circumcised and consequently admitted into the covenant not one excepted for every Man-child was to be Circumcised Gen. 17.10 It appears by what hapned to Moses for not circumcising his Child Exod. 4.24 Even Ishmael was circumcised Genes 17.23 who belonged not to the promise but was of the naturall seed T. Ishmael and the naturall Children of Abraham were admitted to the externall part namely outward privileges and temporall blessings and not to the internall or spirituall part thereof By the Internall part he must needs mean that part of it expressed Gen. 17.7 in these words To be a God unto thee and unto thy seed after thee and in the end of v. 8. I will be their God To justifie this his distinction he referred us to Rom. 9. and I think v. 8. where the Children of the promise are contradistinguished from the Children of the flesh or the naturall Children of Abraham So that the covenant was made not to the naturall Children of Abraham but to such of them as were elect and faithfull V. This covenant was made alike in the same extent and latitude promiscuously with all the seed of Abraham and those that lost the promise and the benefit of this covenant which men you call the naturall seed lost it not because they were not at first comprehended in the covenant but because of their own unbeleef Rom. 11.20 I confesse that the Children of Isaack are Rom. 9. called the Children of the promise not in regard of any peremtory election or designation to faith and Salvation or on the contrary of any absolute reprobation of the seed of Ishmael For if it had been Pauls designe to declare the Children of Ishmael yea the greatest part of the Jewes to have been rejected by a certain absolute decree why should he v. 1.2 so much lament their incredulitie wish himself accursed for their sakes v. 3. and Rom. 10. v. 1. desire and pray for their conversion since upon such an absolute decree of reprobating them all that happened to them was inevitable But the Children of Isaack are called the Children of promise First because they onely were to inherite the land of Canaan and Secondly because Christ according to the flesh was to descend from the progenie of Isaack not of Ishmael I might have added that if none but the elect and faithfull can be admitted into the covenant there is no subject left for the ordinance of Baptism it being impossible for man to know who are elect spirituall and true believers Neither can you Baptize with right or safety all such grown persons as you Baptize since you cannot be assured that they are elect Spirituall or true believers Revel. 2.17 nor have any light to guide you save that of charitable opinion and conjecture Again it being admitted that none but the Spiritually elect and believing can be Baptized the same charitie that swayes your judgment for grown persons must much rather move you to hope the best of innocent infants guiltie of no actuall sin since it hopes all things and thinks no evill 1. Cor. 13.2 They may have faith in semine habitu in the seed as they have the habit of principles and reason tho they cannot exercise it till ripe years 3. Though they have not actuall faith yet the faith of their parents may and doth put them into a capacitie of being admitted into the covenant nor is it news that the parents faith advantageth the Children Joh. 4.50 T. I could wish you could prove that Infants of believers might be admitted to Baptism by virtue of their parents faith V. They were admitted into the same covenant by Circumcision into which we are admitted now by Baptism but Circumcision is a seal of the righteousness of faith Rom. 4.11 12. Whence it will follow that either they had the righteousness of faith inherently in themselves or that of their parents imputed to them chuse you whether or else it will follow that Circumcision was a false seal T. It is not said there that Circumcision was the seal of righteousness of the Childrens faith but onely of Abrahams own faith in particular V. But the covenant or promise was the same and alike to Abraham and his

The Anabaptists ANOTAMIZED and SILENCED in a PUBLIQUE Dispute The Man̄er of the Anabaptists Dipping Their Laying on of Hands Their Washing of Feete The Disputation A PUBLICK DISPUTE Betwixt JOHN TOMBS B. D. Respondent JOHN CRAGGE and HENRY VAUGHAN M. A. Opponents Touching INFANT-BAPTISM The fifth of September 1653. in the Church of St. Maries in Abergavenie in Monmothshire Occasioned by a Sermon Preached the day before by Mr. Tombs upon St. Mark 16.16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved but he that believeth not shall be damned Also a Sermon preached by Mr. Cragge the next Lords day following upon the same Text Wherein the necessity of Dipping is refuted and infant-Infant-Baptism asserted LONDON Printed for H. Twyford N. Brook J. Place and are to be sold in Vine-Court Middle Temple the Angel in Cornhill and at Furnivals-Inn-Gate in Holborn 1654. To his Reverend Friend I. T. P. Grace Mercy and Peace be multiplyed SIR I Received your Letter full of Zeal and Christian Piety the Contents whereof may be reduced to these six heads wherein you desire resolution first what my sense is of the Anabaptists secondly when was the spring and rise of them thirdly what is the cause of this present growth and increase of them fourthly why they are permitted fifthly what I think of Disputes and Conferences had with them sixthly a true Relation of that had with us of late which you say is variously reported of all which briefly I 'le endeavour to give satisfaction For the first I referr you to the Sermon and Conference here following to the Harmonies and Confessions of the Reformed Churches of all Churches since the Apostles especially the Western where you shall find Universalitie Antiquity and Succession besides many pregnant places of Scripture pleading for Infant-baptism And that as Austin saies which the whole Church holds was never begun by any Councel but alwaies observed cannot otherwise be believed but that it came from the Apostles For the second the spring and rise of Anabaptism as all Errours so it had its beginning after Truth the Husbandman first sowed good Corn then the Enemy Tares No Age was free In the first hundred years arose the Ebionites Chiliasts and Gnosticks In the second the Marcionites Valentinians and Montanists In the third the Novatians Sabellians and Manichees In the fourth the Arrians Donatists and Eunomians In the fifth Nestorians Eutychians and Patripassians In the sixth Jacobites Armenians and Monothelites in which time the Mysterie of Iniquity began more fully to work which was first nascent then crescent then regnant then triumphant And no sooner appeared a Reformation in Luther's time but there were Herods that sought the life of this Babe Dragons watching while the Woman was travelling to devour the Child Amongst whom the Anabaptists of Germany were most venemous The first Author whereof was one Nicholas Stock then Phipher Knipperdoling Munster with their Tayler-King John Beccold of Leyden who gave out that he had a Commission from Heaven to destroy all Nations that would not submit to his Gospel and be rebaptized raging with sword and persecution till he was taken and being examined by exquisite tortures confessed he received his Doctrine from an impure spirit there you have the spring and rise of it Now for the third the present growth and increase of it the reasons may be many 1. Times of division wherein the hedge of Discipline is broken down Liberty in Religion is like free conversing without restraint or watch in time of pestilence one house easily infects a whole City 2. Satan's malice like a River the further it goes the deeper and fiercer 3. The corruption of man's nature more inclinable to errour than truth 4. The fitness of the engin for devastation and ruinating all former Churches under colour of first-baptisms nullity gathering of new ones after their own mould out of the old ruins by re-baptizing 5. The pretence that Children are uncapable of Church-membership or Communion of Saints as if there were not the same capacity under the Gospel which was under the Law 6. False allegation that Infant-baptism is occasion of loose living as if the native Jews that were sealed when Infants were more dissolute than the Proselytes 7. To limit it to ripe years increases Piety as if Jews and Turks and their own rebaptized converts were not more frequently guilty of Apostasie and Hyprocrisie 8. Not understanding that Infants Church-membership in the Old Testament is not repealed but confirmed in the New 9. A carnal estimation that the Covenant made with Abraham was partly carnal of which Circumcision is a part as if Godliness in both Testaments had not the promise of this life and of the life to come 10. That Circumcision was the seal of righteousness of Faith to Abraham and not his Posterity 11. That the Covenant was made with Abraham and his Spiritual Seed onely and not with visible Professors 12. That there is no such thing as National Churches though Christ saies Make Disciples of all Nations and Isaiah saies All Nations shall flow in c. yet they say all Churches must be gathered by actual profession as well in Christian Nations as amongst Turks and Pagans 13. Because we have no particular instance in terminis that any Infants were baptized and because they are not expresly named in the precept as if generals did not include particulars as well for Infants as Old Men 14. Denying equivalencies and necessary consequences from Scripture 15. A vilifying of the judgement and persons of all godly and learned men of this present and former ages building up their rotten foundations upon their ruins 16. Temporal interests of the lowest of the people which while they dream it s countenanced by men in power cry Hosanna to day and perhaps Crucifie to morrow 17. A pretending to the Spirit of God Numa Pompilius feigned that he conversed with the Goddess Egeria Minos with Jupiter in the Cave Solon with the Delphian Apollo Mahomet with the Angel Gabriel Montanus and the Shakers with the Holy Ghost the white Witches with the Spirit in the shape of a Dove and all but to palliate their unfound opinions and practises Let not his Soul prosper that does not acknowledge and thirst after the true Spirit of God yet let us try the Spirits and not believe every lying Spirit 18. The learning subtilty and industry of some Anabaptists to gain Proselytes Arrius Pelagius Marcion were not wiser in their generation than they to inveagle the poor simple people especially Women and inferiour Tradesemen which in seven years can scarce learn the Mysterie of the lowest profession think half seven years enough gain'd from their worldly imployments to understand the Mysterie of Divinity and thereupon meddle with Controversies which they have no more capacity to pry into than a Batt to look up into the third Heaven These and many more are the causes of the increase of Anabaptism Now for the Fourth you enquire why they are permitted

any thing he knew every Sacrament was not a Relation And the Minor too that Baptism was a Sacrament for the word Sacrament was an invention of man not grounded upon scripture C. Which both Propositions together were proved thus That which is an outward and visible sign of an inward and invisible grace is both a Relation and a Sacrament But Baptism is an outward and visible sign of an inward and invisible grace Therefore it is both a Relation and a Sacrament T. He denyed the Minor that Baptism was an outward and visible sign of an inward and invisible grace C. He told him it was St. Austens definition avouched by learned men in succeeding ages confirmed and approved by the Church of England in the old Catechism T. Mr. Tombs said he looked for Artificiall or divine Arguments not humane Testimonies at which answer while Mr. C. seemed to be astomished he took occasion to triumph contumeliously saying he never heard such an Argument C. To which he replyed Nor Alexander ever saw such a knot as the Gordian which made him cut it when he could not untie it you teach me by experience to know that there is no disputing against them that deny all Principles as where you think the people doe not understand you make no scruple to deny clear truths in Logick and Divinitie Therefore I see I must goe to plain scriptures that all the people may understand the absurdities Now that the Definition of Baptism which was the thing denyed belongs to Infants I prove thus If God institute Baptism for infants Christ merited it for them and they stand need of it then to infants belongs the Definition of Baptism But God instituted Christ meritted and Infants stand need of Baptism Therefore to infants belongs the Definition of Baptism T. He denyed the Minor that God did not institute Baptism for infants Christ did not merit it for them nor Infants stand in need of it C. Which he promised to prove in order First that God did institute Baptism for infants He that appointed infants Church-members under the Gospell did institute Baptism for them But God appointed Infants Church-members under the Gospell Therefore God did institute Baptism for infants T. He said first the Major might be questioned because to be Church-members whereas he should have said Church-members under the Gospell and to be Baptized were not termini convertibiles C. He confessed it for infants under the Law were Church-members and yet not Baptized but Circumcised and before the Law Church-members and yet neither Circumcised nor Baptized but under the Gospell they were so convertible that all that were Baptized were Church-members and all that were Church-members were to be Baptized which is that which he affirmed now and is a truth a truth so clear that Mr. Tombs confesses it all along in his Books and upon that confessed ground Mr. Baxter goes in many of his Arguments T. He would have denyed it till a Gentleman told him that he heard him affirm the same in his Sermon the day before Then he denyed the minor that God did institute infants Church-members under the Gospell C. That I 'l confirm sayes he with a threefold cord which will not easily be broken before the Law under the Law under the Gospell which he framed into an Argument thus Those whom God did promise before the Law foretell under the Law actually receive into covenant under the Gospell those God did appoint Church-members under the Gospell But God did promise before the Law foretell under the Law and actually receive Infants into Covenant under the Gospell Therefore God did appoint Infants Church-members under the Gospell T. He denyed the Minor That God did not promise before the Law foretell under the Law and actually receive infants into covenant under the Gospell C. Which was proved in order first that God did promise before the Law that infants should be in covenant under the Gospell thus That which God did promise to Abraham was before the Law But God did promise to Abraham that infants should be in covenant under the Gospell Therefore God did promise before the Law that infants should be in covenant under the Gospell The Minor being denyed he proved out of Gen. 17.7 I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant to be a God unto thee and unto thy seed after thee Thus framing his Argument He that makes an everlasting covenant to Abraham and his seed after him in their generations promised that infants should be in covenant under the Gospell but God makes an everlasting Covenant with Abraham and his seed after him in their generations Therefore God promised that infants should be in covenant under the Gospell T. He denyed the Major saying that everlasting signifyed onely a long time not that it should be so under the Gospell to the worlds end and was to be interpreted by the verse following I will give unto thee the Land of Canaan for an everlasting possession and yet the Jews are now dispossessed of Canaan C. They are now dispossest but shall be possessed of it again at their conversion and so have an everlasting possession in the type to the end of the world in the Antitype for ever but that the covenant that God made with Abraham is to continue to the end of the World appears in that it is a Gospell covenant That which is a Gospell covenant is to continue to the end of the world But the covenant that God made with Abraham and his seed to all generations is a Gospell covenant Gal. 3.8 and the scripture foreseeing that God would Justifie the heathen through faith preached the Gospell before to Abraham saying In thee shall nations be blessed Therefore it is to continue to the end of the world T. Without repeating he confusedly answer'd thus that it was an everlasting covenant and to continue to the end of the world but not to infants C. He told him first that it was a denying of the Conclusion then took away his answer thus If God command infants to stand before him in covenant then it is to continue to infants But God commands infants to stand in covenant before him Therefore it is to continue to infants Deut. 29.10 11. Yee stand this day all of you before the Lord your God your Captains of your tribes your elders and your officers with all the men of Israel your litle ones T. He said that he should have proved that it should continue to infants to the worlds end for he did not deny but that infants in some sense were in covenant under the Law but not under the Gospell C. Yes under the Gospell If Christ hath obtained a more excellent Ministrie and is a Mediator of a better covenant which is established upon better promisses then if infants were in covenant under the Law they are in covenant under the Gospell But Heb. 8.6 Christ hath obtained a more

Ministers must act according to rule which in adultis is outward profession or a willingness to receive the Ordinance and that they were thus qualified which is sufficient it is apparent T. Mr. T. Denyed that they were sufficiently qualified C. Which was proved thus They whom the Apostle commanded to be Baptized were sufficiently qualified But the Apostle commanded them to be Baptized Therefore they were sufficiently qualified T. Then Mr. T. Without repeating the Syllogism or applying any distinction inquired where the Apostle commanded them to be Baptized C. He told him verse 38. {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} be Baptized every one of your T. Yes sayes Mr. T. Upon condition of Repentance repent and be Baptized C. That is a condition of your own making and an adding to the Word of God for where dos the Scripture either expresly or implyedly say that Repentance is a condition of Baptism if it be meant of compleat repentance true it is it was their duty both to repent and to be Baptized to repent in relation to crucifying of Christ to be Baptized in relation to Judaism which they were to put off and Christianity which they were to put on But that they must have compleat repentance before Baptism it is not so much as hinted at And if you mean incompleat repentance which is Indeed all that is required they had that already for they were pricked in conscience saying Men and brethren what shall we do T. Mr. T. Said that was not all that was required nor was it a sufficient qualification for Baptism C. Against which answer was concluded thus That upon which the Apostles Baptized three thousand the same day was a sufficient qualification But the Apostles upon that Baptized 3000. the same day Therefore it was a sufficient qualification T. He denyed the Minor and gave his reason from the 40. and 41. verses And with many other words did he testify and exhort saying Save your selves from this untoward generation then they that gladly received the word were Baptized C. It was replyed that this was but a recapitulation or reciting of the heads of Peters Sermon that he preached to them before they were pricked in conscience or were exhorted to be baptized and no new act which was a thing usual in Scripture as Gen. 1. God having expressed the creation of Man and Gods blessing of him and all creatures to him by a {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} recites the manner of his creation in the second Chapter But howsoever it made nothing against him for whether it be taken thetically without any condition or hypothetically upon condition of repentance the Children were to be baptized together with the Parents the promise is to you and your Children and that was all that he contended for from whence ariseth this Argument To whom the promise of Grace belongs to them Baptism belongs also But the promise of Grace belongs to Believers and their Children Therefore Baptism belongs to both T. Mr. T. said the Promise of Grace belonged to Believers and their Children when their Children actually believed and not before C. He replyed there were two Arguments in the text to overthrow that The first might be drawn from the Indicative predication in the present tense the Promise is to you and your Children is for the present as well to your Children as to you The second from the opposition betwixt you and your Children and them that are afar off They and their Children which are {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} near as the Greek Scholiast and the Syrian Interpreter saies are opposed to them that are {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} afar off The Jews were near and in Covenant for to them is the promise in the present tense but the Gentiles were afar off Rom. 2.15 Ye who sometimes were afar off are made nigh by the Blood of Christ therefore it is expressed in the future tense as many as God shall call So that to the Jews being called their Children were in Covenant with them when the Gentiles shall be called their Children shall be in Covenant with them T. Mr. T. said he granted that Children were in Covenant and might be baptized C. Well then observe good People the Dispute is at an end he grants that Children are in Covenant and may be baptized T. Yes but by those Children are not meant Infants but Grown Men C. He replyed there are many circumstances in the text overthrows that first the word is {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} which comes from {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} to bring forth given sometimes to Children in the womb for the most part to them that are newly born or young T. Mr. T. said it was also given to Men of ripe age C. Yes sometimes by a figurative speech as that of Julius Caesar to Brutus in Plutarch {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} and thou my Child And well might he call him his Child for he had adopted him the night before but properly it signifies a young Child and so it ought to be taken here unless some convincing reason can be given to the contrary according to that rule Omne analogum per se positum stat pro famosiore significato Mr. T. gave no answer but with a jeering Eccho repeated the last words pro famosiore significato The second circumstance in the text is the substantive verb {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} is the promise is to you and your Children not is to you and shall be to your Children now what Children had they at this present but young Children unless Mr. T. will imagine that they were all Old Men and Women that were present and their Younger Men and Women were absent The third circumstance in the text is the finis cui the end to whom the promise is to you and your Children the Jews Children under the Law were in Covenant with their Parents the Charter is confirm'd under the Gospel to them and their Children The Jews when they crucified Christ called for a Curse upon themselves and upon their Children here the Apostle gives them a Remedy as large as the Disease the promise that is of Freedome from the curse is to you and your Children T. Mr. T. still kept his Conclusion in despight of the Premisses that it was to their Children when they actually believed and not before C. Yes and before they actually believe which I prove thus The blessing is as large as the curse But the curse extended even to children before they could actually believe his blood be upon us and upon our children Therefore the blessing T. Mr. T. answered to the Major thus If by blessing was meant the inward and spiritual part of the Covenant it might be true but that was nothing to the present purpose seeing it was not known to us But if the outward and visible part he denied that Infants were capable of the

as were Baptized before should be drowned So we have resolved the former doubt that Baptizing is not dipping and come to the latter that Infants may nay ought to be Baptized And Brethren I beseech you to give me leave a little to speak for Infants those poor Souls that cannot speak for themselves And before we come to the Question take with you these two Considerations First that those truths that were not in controversie in the Primitive times the Apostles were not so punctual in pressing of them seeing there was no need Solon being asked why he made no Law against murtherers of Parents answer'd because he conceiv'd none would commit that unnatural Act If the Apostles had been asked why they did not put down Infant-Baptism in plainer terms I suppose they would have answered that they thought none would have denyed it Secondly observe that those things that are pressed often in the old Testament are mentioned more sparingly in the New as the Sabbath and Magistracy in the old Testament line upon line and precept upon precept but scarce a Syllable for a Christian Sabbath or a Christian Magistracie in the new Nothing is more clear then Infants Church-Membership in the old Testament therefore not so clear in the New and yet clear enough to those that have eyes to see it as will appear by these reasons following 1. Arg. First those that are in Covenant with God ought to have the Seal of the Covenant which is Baptism But Infants of beleeving Parents are in Covenant with God Therefore Infants ought to have the Seal of the Covenant which is Baptism The former Proposition is firm by Confession of all Divines even our adversaries Haec est fundamentalis ratio paedobaptismi sayes Daneus this is the fundamentall reason of Baptizing of Infants that they are in Covenant Esse foederatum sufficit ad accipiendum signum foederis sayes Davenant to be in Covenant is sufficient to receive the signe and seal of the Covenant Omnes foederati sunt Baptizandi sayes Wendel all that are in Covenant are to be Baptized Si in foedere sunt impiè agunt qui eis signum foederis negant saith Ferus if they be in Covenant they do wickedly that deny them the signe of the Covenant in a Civill contract sayes Mr Perkins the Father and the heir make but one person and the Covenant 's for himself and his posterity The Minor proposition that Infants of believing Parents are in Covenant is grounded on many Scriptures Genes 17.7 Where God establishes a Covenant not only with Abraham but with his seed after him in their generations for an everlating Covenant everlasting and therefore to last to the end of the World as Cornelius à Lapide sayes absolutè aeternum est in semine spirituali fidelibus It is absolutely everlasting in the spirituall seed to the faithfull Galat. 3.8 The Scripture foreseeing that God would justifie the Heathen through faith preached before the Gospel to Abraham therefore if Isaac was in Covenant with his Father when he was but eight dayes old and had the seal by vertue of the Lamb to be slain much more the Children of believing Parents by vertue of the Lamb that is already slain Deutero 29.11 When all the people stood in Covenant before the Lord their little ones are mentioned amongst the rest which is further confirmed Acts 2.38 39. Be Baptized every one of you for the promise is to you and your children to say that they were not yet believers is but a shift the Text makes it cleer as soon as they were believers their Children were in Covenant with them and to be Baptized Arg. 2. Such as were Circumcised under the Law may be Baptized under the Gospell But Infants of believers were Circumcised under the Law Therfore they may baptized under the Gospel Huic Argumento non omnes Anabaptistae resistent sayes learned Whitaker all the Anabaptists shall not be able to resist this Argument the Minor that Infants under the Law were Circumcised is confessed The former proposition is onely questioned that Baptism under the Gospel to Infants does not necessarily follow from Circumcision under the Law Augustin is cleer for it saying Mutatis signis manet eadem gratia sine aetatis discrimine the outward visible signes being changed the same grace remaines without any difference of age and he gives a reason because the grace of God is not straiter in the new Testament than in the old Therefore Christ Hebr. 8.6 Is said to be Mediator of a better Covenant but how were it a better Covenant if all poor Infants that were in Covenant under the Law were out of Covenant under the Gospel Titus 2 12. The grace of God hath appeared unto all and therefore surely to Infants as Ireneus sayes Christus pro parvulis parvulus factus est Christ becam a little one for little ones sake that he might redeem the little ones Little ones were the first Martyrs that suffered for Christ in Rama was a voice heard and that Baptism came in place of Circumcision the Apostle cleares it Coloss. 2.11 12. Ye are circumcised with circumcision made without hands How is that Buryed with him in Baptism Hence arises another Argument Arg. 3. Those that were once in Covenant had the Seal of the Covenant and were never disfranchized and put out of Covenant have title to the Covenant and Seal of it still But Infants were once in Covenant had the Seal of the Covenant and were never disfranchized and put out of Covenant Therefore Infants have title to the covenant and seal of it still Let any man shew one syllable one tittle in Scripture that ever Infants were put out and wee l yield the gantlet nay the Gospell is so far from expressing of them that they are put out that it gives them large commendations beyond them of riper years making them the rule of our perfection as new born babes receive the sincere milk of the Word Unless you be as little Children ye shall not enter into the Kingdom of God which is a case so cleer that even Bellarmine him self encludes Nullum est impedimentum c. there is nothing that hinders but that Infants may as well be Baptized under the Gospell as they were Circumcised under the Law for neither hath God forbidden Ministers to give them this Sacrament neither are they uncapable to receive it Arg. 4. That which God hath commanded may lafully be practised by the Ministers of Jesus Christ But God hath commanded Infant-Baptism Therefore it may lawfully be practised by the Ministers of Jesus Christ That God hath ommanded it appears Matth. 28.19 Go Baptize all Nations it s a generall command and as Aquinas sayes posito generali mandato pars ejus negari non potest a generall command being given no part of it can be denyed Infants are a part of Nations and included in them Object But here is no mention made of Infants Answ. No nor of them of