true the Apostles were to teach those among the Gentiles of ripe yeares and make them disciples before they or their children were to be baptized because they and their children were out of covenant and so uncapable of the seales and might not be received into covenant themselves or their children untill they gave up themselves and theirs unto Christ by faith and repentance which they could not ordinarily have wrought in them but by hearing the Gospel preached Yet when parents had given up their names unto Christ their children being also given up to Christ by them were capable of Baptisme As by Abrahams giving up himself unto God in Covenant not onely he but also his children and those that were as his children were received into Covenant and had the seale thereof administred to them by vertue of the unchangeable tenour of the Covenant of grace I will be thy God and the God of thy seed Gen. 17.7 as hath been said and God willing shall more fully be shewed Therefore the Commission which was given to the Disciples makes nothing against baptizing the children of the faithfull which are already in covenant with God though they have not heard the word preached Answer 3 Thirdly Yea I conceive it is no absurditie but a sound truth to say that infants of beleeving parents are made disciples of God and Christ so that the Apostles in making parents disciples that gave up themselves and their children unto God in that act made their clildren also disciples in two respects First in that parents gave them up unto God promising and purposing to bring them up in the knowledge of God so soone as they should be capable of outward teaching This Abraham was bound unto by vertue of the Covenant that as God would be the God of his seed so he should command and teach his children and houshold after him that they should keep the way of the Lord c. Gen. 18.19 So all the Israelites Exod. 12.26.26 27. Deut. 6.6 7. And the like obligation lies upon Christian parents Ephes 6.4 so that now they are the disciples of Christ in respect of Gods obligation and the parents promise purpose and prayer Secondly they may be said to be Christs disciples in that they are now under the teaching of God and Christ who hath promised to teach all that are in covenant all the children of the Church or faithfull at least some of all sorts from the least to the greatest Esa 54.13 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Edoctia Iehova or Edocti Ievovae 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And all thy children shall be taught of the Lord c. All is an universall note implying all sorts sexes ages and conditions of those which were children of the Church or posteritie of the faithfull Ier. 31.34 And they shall teach no more every man his brother saying Know the Lord. For they shall all know me from the least to the greatest of them And so that those which are so little that they are uncapable of the teaching of men are capable and under the promise of Gods teaching To which promises our Saviour having as it seems respect saith Ioh. 6.44 It is written in the Prophets And they shall be all taught of God Every one that hath heard of the Father and learneth cometh unto me So that as there may be outward teaching without inward so there may be inward teaching without the outward Christ saith Whosoever hath heard of the Father not whosoever hath heard of the Preacher for many may heare of the Preacher and yet not come to God and some may be taught of God that are uncapable of the Preachers instruction though the inward and outward both be ordinary to those who being of ripe yeares are effectually called So that sith God promiseth that in the time of the Gospel All even from the least unto the greatest shall become his disciples why should the infants of beleevers be excluded seeing they are capable of divine instruction and the operation of the holy Ghost even from their mothers wombe Luk. 1.15 I have stood the longer on the answering of this Scripture objected Because these answers may serve for all the other reasons and Scriptures you bring to confirme your last Argument against baptizing of children Where having heaped up many Scriptures needlesly you talk your pleasure and triumph as if the cause were your owne as if your grounds were unmoveable and your conclusion unquestionable But though you plead against Childrens Baptisme you should remember that you dispute not with children Neither have we need or will By wit and sophistrie to goe about to elude any truth and justifie any errour though never so grosse and absurd as you say Which imputation of yours it may seeme is you last shift to answer those that will not be carried about with every winde of your vaine doctrine and subscribe to your dictates Now for what followeth I will not proceed in maintaining those further objections which either you devise of your owne head or raise out of others words to whose principles we are not bound your answers whereunto either doe not concerne us or if any thing therein seeme to beare shew of truth and weight it may be sufficiently answered from what hath beene already laid downe Therefore I will not trouble my selfe with the repetition of the same things So forbearing any further to meddle with your confident conclusions Apology for your expressions or other impertinent digressions wherewith you fill up paper I come to give our reasons for the lawfulnesse and requisitenesse of baptizing the infants of Christian parents intending to consider all along your answers you have made to them Arg. 1 Our first Argument therefore shall be To whom the spirituall and invisible grace represented signified and sealed in baptisme belongeth by vertue of Gods promise to them baptisme it selfe belongeth Act. 2.38 39. But to the children or infants of parents beleeving or within Covenant belongeth by vertue of Gods promise the spirituall grace represented sealed and signified in baptisme to wit the teaching of God and the Spirit of God which doth include all the spirituall blessings signified by baptisme as sanctification or regeneration wherein is comprehended virtuall faith and therein being besprinkled with the bloud of Christ and pardon of sinnes Esa 54.13 Ier. 31.34 Ioel 2.28 Es 59.21 Act. 2.39 Therefore Baptisme belongeth to infants of Christian parents Both the premisses me thinkes should be undeniable with Christians as being built on the word and so the conclusion certaine But because I would cleare this Argument against the cavils of the captious and doubts of the ignorant or scrupulous I will adde some what by way of explanation and confirmation The proposition for ought I know it is not doubted of by any It is taken as an unquestionable principle by A. R. and many of his arguments against baptizing infants are built upon this ground because they have not regeneration faith remission of sinnes
Apostle shews Heb. 11. that under the old Covenant the godly were famous for their faith Were those promises of God exhortations of the Prophets and practise of those Worthies spoken of concerning faith and circumcision of the hart more then was comprehended in the Covenant under which Gods people at that time were Thirdly whereas you say the Church of the Gospel doth stand on faith and circumcision of the heart Is your meaning that there is no Church of the Gospel but all that are therein and professed and acknowledged members thereof are indued with faith and circumcision of heart If so experience of the Scripture and all Christian Churches will confute you sith still chaffe is mingled with graine tares with wheat the children of the wicked one with the children of the kingdome Or is your meaning that faith and circumcised hearts is required of all in the Church of the Gospel and is truly in those that are internall and living members of the same This is granted and may be said as truly of the Church of the Iewes and therefore this can make no difference being common to both Fourthly Can you tell what you meane when you say That the old Covenant stood onely by nature and circumcision of the flesh I cannot tell how you are to be interpreted but one of these three waies Either first that this Covenant was grounded on nature Or secondly that it promised onely naturall or temporall blessings Or thirdly that it was made with all and onely the naturall seed of Abraham all which are grosse and notorious errours openly crossing the Scriptures For if you meane that this Covenant was grounded in nature this is false for God chose Abraham and Israel of free grace and love above all other people Iosh 4. Deut. 7.7 c. neither did they differ in nature from others Or secondly if you meane that God onely required of them outward circumcision and cutting off the naturall foreskin and promised only naturall and temporall blessings this opinion is fitter to be abhorred then confuted Or thirdly if you meane that to be of the naturall seed of Abraham and to be circumcised in the flesh was sufficient and necessary for being in that Covenant so that their being in Covenant consisted in being the naturall seed of Abraham this is as false for first Were not many Proselytes joyned with the Israelites in the same Covenant so that to be of Abrahams seed was not necessary Secondly Did not they want circumcision in the wildernesse fourty yeares and yet remaine in Covenant Thirdly Did not Ishmael and Esau grow out of Covenant though the seed of Abraham and so ten Tribes ceased from being Gods people long before the old Covenant was antiquated and did not the Prophets shew that Legall observations were nothing worth without sinceritie Fifthly though the outward cleansings and ceremonies of the Law have ceased and so that outward faederall holinesse be at an end yet there is an outward and faederall holinesse of the new Covenant whereby Christians are distinguished from other people They have their outward Baptisme and the Lords Supper prayer in the Name of Christ alone the Word and profession of the Gospel by which they are distinguished from unbeleevers Act. 2.41.42 There are reckoned up first Baptisme secondly the Apostles Doctrine thirdly Fellowship or Communion with the faithfull fourthly breaking Bread and fifthly Prayers as distinctive markes of the Church by which it then was and to this day is distinguished from all other societies whatsoever 1 Cor. 5.12 There is a distinction expressed of those that were within the Church or Covenant and members of the Courch and those that were without whereof these were not subject to the judgement or censure of the Church those were But how are these distinguished that the Church may neither goe beyond nor neglect her office within her bounds By inward holinesse that none sees but God and each mans owne conscience and therefore cannot be a note of distinction unto men that cannot discern the heart By outward holinesse of life Not so for some of those that were within were guilty of more grosse profanenesse then those that were without as in the same Chap. 1 Cor. 5.1 and 11. Therefore there must be some note of distinction or faederall holinesse by which those that were wicked in heart and life and yet Saints by calling and members of the Church and so under the Churches jurisdiction might be discerned from them that were without and so subjected to the Churches censure 1 Cor. 5.11 12 13. Yet you say further There is now onely the new Covenant which is a covenant of grace and salvation and brings certaine salvation to all those that rightly enter into it which is onely by faith Hence it is said Act. 2.47 That the Lord added to the Church daily such as should be saved Answ It is as true that the old Covenant made with the Iewes was a covenant of grace and salvation which brought certaine salvation to all those that rightly entered into it and that it was onely by faith Heb. 11. And as for the Scripture you cite it is said indeed That the Lord added to the Church such as should be saved But it is not said onely such as should be saved were added to the Church or that all those who were added to the Church were saved You proceed And that the holinesse of children is not meant of any holinesse in relation to any Church-covenant will appeare further by these reasons First that which is an effect of regeneration is not brought to passe by generation though the parents be holy But to be of the covenant or kingdome is the proper effect of regeneration Ioh. 3.3 without which none can see it much lesse be of it or enter into it Therefore it cannot be brought to passe by generation though the parents be holy Answ We say not neither can it follow from our grounds that the children of Christian parents are in covenant with God by generation but by vertue of Gods gracious promise and from the nature of the covenant of grace wherein God is pleased to accept parents together with their children for his Secondly to be of or in the covenant outwardly of which being in covenant we speak and which is sufficient to make an externall member of the Church and give right unto the outward seales you can never prove to be the proper effect of regeneration untill you have proved that all those who were baptized by Iohn the Baptist and the Apostles and so admitted into the covenant as members of the Church were truly regenerate which to hold were to contradict the Scripture Your second reason is this Secondly contradictions cannot be the effect of one and the same covenant in one and the selfe-same respect But for one parent to be a beleever that is of the Church when the other parent is not to produce an holy seed that is in covenant 1 Cor.
so busie to rob them of this most comfortable doctrine and precious priviledge concerning childrens being in covenant by vertue of the covenant made with their parents and so to drive Christians to renounce their baptisme received in infancy and disswade them from tendering their children to God in baptisme and so to overthrow a maine ground of our comfort in Gods ancient love to us and a speciall motive to obedience Fifthly in a word If we doe not prize and profit by this ancient love of God to us which he hath shewed us from our birth in taking us into externall covenant wherein he is ready to bestow the internall blessings If we doe not take God for our God repent of sinne and beleeve in Christ according to the obligation of the covenant of grace that was sealed to us in baptisme If the baptized doe not give up themselves to God actually in their own persons when they come to yeers of discretion And if parents be not carefull to bring up their children whom they have presented to God in baptisme we must know that all these mercies of God offered unto us all the professions of faith and obedience we have made will rise up in judgement against us and increase our condemnation above the condemnation of those that never were in outward covenant Other men are not so fast tied unto God as we that are baptized who are now no more our owne but Gods tied unto him by covenant which if we breake it will be to our greatest perill If it be demanded wherein this dutie of highly prizing and holily improving this priviledge of baptisme in infancie consists I answer First we should labour to be well instructed and settled in the grounds of this action viz. baptizing infants which are Gods gracious covenant and promise c. as hath been shewed before that we may give a reason of our being baptized in infancie That seeing our priviledge bestowed by God we may not suffer our selves to be sophisticated out of it by any so as to be driven from our hold in the covenant of mercy which God hath made to us and ours To this end we should solidly study the doctrine of Grace and of Baptisme and those Arguments that have beene before handled The reason why we so easily be driven by temptations from faith and obedience duties and priviledges is because we doe not well meditate on and throughly digest the grounds thereof But when we are well and throughly perswaded on Scripture grounds that this is a dutie enjoyned and a priviledge bestowed by God we shall see there is cause to contend for the faith delivered to the Saints Iud. 3. Secondly let parents looke that they offer up their children to God in baptisme with faith prayer and unfeigned purpose of heart to consecrate them wholly unto God And that they may make it appeare that they doe so indeed let them look that they give up themselves unto God in holy obedience repentance and faith praying earnestly for their children and when they be capable of instruction let them give them good example bring them up in the feare and instruction of the Lord putting them in minde of the covenant whereinto God hath taken them and use all holy meanes to bring them to actuall faith and holinesse and let them know that this is a necessary dutie required at their hand whereunto at least implicitly they obliged themselves when they tendred their children to baptisme wherein they may not be negligent without grievous sinne of disobedience to and mocking of God and most heinous injurie and dangerous hazard to their owne and their childrens soules Deut. 6.7 Prov. 4.4 Ephes 6.4 Thirdly all those that have beene baptized remembring that now they are not their owne but given up to God in the covenant of grace and solemnly tendred to his Majesty in this sacred Ordinance of Baptisme in the presence of the Angels and the congregation of the faithfull which act of their parents was not arbitrary but necessary and that whereunto they were absolutely bound by Covenant viz. to take God for their God and the God of their children and give up themselves and their children to God All Christians I say considering this that they were given up unto God in baptisme and that God graciously tooke them into covenant and admitted them into his family before they knew the right hand from the left must so soone as they are able to doe a morall act give up themselves unto God in their owne persons voluntarily and gladly assenting unto and ratifying that covenant which their parents entred into in their behalfe seeing it is not now in their owne choyce to be of what Religion or conversation they will They are bound to be Christians and Saints and that not onely by vertue of the creation preservation and redemption which God hath wrought for men but also by solemne promise vow and covenant Insomuch as those who having beene baptized live in wilfull ignorance superstition unbeliefe profanenesse covetousnesse following the lusts of the flesh continue all that while in most treacherous breach of covenant and rebellion against God whose servants they have bound themselves to be and yet serve his sworne enemies namely the devill and their owne lusts So that they have not onely forfeited their bonds and deserved for ever to be deprived of all those glorious and incomprehensible benefits contained in the covenant of grace but also have deserved to be dealt with as perfidious Apostates and traiterous revolters from their Lord and King Which breach of Covenant though the Lord will not impute to those which seasonably heartily and sincerely repent when they come to see what they have done for they are in a covenant of grace which admitteth repentance yet when people come to consider how they have sinned against God in this kinde must be the more humbled by this consideration that so many yeares after they were consecrated unto God they dealt traiterously and rebelliously against him and for the future be the more carefull to redeeme the time and by so much more diligently and zealously to honour him for ever after by how much carelesse and loose they have beene before But they that doe not thus repent and take care to keepe touch with God shall know to their woe Gal. 6.7 that God will not be mocked and that it had been better many waies never to have beene baptized or heard of the covenant of grace Eccles 5.4 5. 2 Pet. 2.21 then to live wickedly and impenitently in a profession of Christianitie Let Christian parents whet these and such like considerations on their children yea let all Christians from the youngest that are capable to the oldest whet them on themselves and one on another that they may be stirred up to give up themselves wholly and really to God Fourthly whensoever Christians finde themselves tempted to sinne or drawne from holinesse inclined to loosenesse or backward to good duties
let them looke backward unto their baptisme and their consecration unto God and their abrenunciation of the world and the devil transacted therein and remember that they were buried with Christ in baptisme and professed a death unto sinne and a resurrection to holinesse so that now it were a monstrous and absurd thing to live in sinne as for a dead man to rise or a living man to lie in the grave Remember you are not your owne but Christs who is your Lord and Master and so resolve to continue still doing his worke and resisting his and your soules enemies Thus the Apostle teacheth us from baptisme to fetch arguments of sanctification both for the mortifying of our corruption and for the quickning of us to holinesse Rom. 6.1 2 3 4 c. Fifthly In times of doubt desertion temptation to distrust c. Christians should have recourse to the consideration of their baptisme and remember the ancient love of God to them in their infancy in taking them into his family and undertaking to be their God in baptisme wherein the whole Trinitie Father Sonne and Holy Ghost became ours giving us under seale assurance of pardon and peace direction and support perseverance and salvation So that let our temptations miseries and discomforts be what they will if we can but cast our eye back on baptisme and the covenant of grace sealed therein we may gather strong consolation therefrom And if we can in these and such like particulars testifie our prizing and improvement of our baptisme we shall not easily be cheated of it or drawne to question whether we were ever truly baptized seeing we daily find the comfortable fruits and effects thereof not shall we give occasion to others to queston whether our Infant baptisme were true baptisme when we give a reall demonstration to them that by vertue of the covenant of grace sealed therein unto us we walke as Christians in all holy conversation Sixthly this may serve to stirre up the Ministers of Christ among whom I professe my selfe the meanest and unworthiest of any that seeing there are so many pragmaticall deceivers abroad to seduce Gods people not afraid to call in question well-grounded truths buzzing into the eares of the simple such things as tend to the overthrow of Christian consolation and chearfull obedience speaking perverse things by which they overturne whole houses This I say should stirre us up if there be any conscience of our owne weightie duty and dreadfull charge any sparke of compassion to mens soules love to the truth or zeale for Gods glory to endeavour to prevent the inundation of errours rents distractions licentiousnesse and profanenesse that will unavoidably follow upon the plucking up of these flood-gates to the overflowing of the Church if some speedy remedy be not applied which belongs to the Ministers of Christ principally should it not grieve us to heare this holy function of the Ministery spoke of so disdainfully as it is in this Pamphlet answered as if our Ministers were but a company of ignorant covetous and ambitious men And oh would too great occasion of this imputation were not given by too many of our Ministers Woe to the world saith Christ because of offences Luk. 17.1 2. but woo to them by whom offences come They that runne into these errours of Anabaptisme by occasion of the badnesse of some Ministers shall not thereby be excused nor escape the woe unlesse they repent But it had beene better for those men never to have meddled with the Ministery yea to have beene throwne into the bottome of the sea with a milstone about their necks when they undertooke the charge of soules who by their ignorance lazinesse covetousnesse pride and superstition have given occasion unto some to raile on our Ministery as Antichristian And it is apparent that these errours are growne so rife and over-spreading through the silencing of good Ministers and setting up and maintaining of such as have beene carelesse and scandalous Therefore it greatly concerns all good Ministers to seek a remedie to this evill 1 Tim. 4.15 2 Tim. 2.15 2 Tim. 4.2 by giving attendance to reading exhortation and doctrine To study to shew themselves approved workmen of God that need not to be ashamed rightly dividing the word of truth yea to preach the word in season and out of season rebuking and reproving and exhorting with all long-suffering and doctrine seeing the time is come when people will not endure sound doctrine but after their owne lusts heape to themselves Teachers having itching eares If ever they had need t is now to hold fast the faithfull word that they may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort Tit. 1.9 10 11. and convince the gain-sayers Because there are many unruly vaine-talkers and deceivers whose mouthes must be stopped who subvert whole houses teaching things which they ought not There is great need that Ministers should take heed to themselves Act. 20.28 29 30. to the flock over which the holy Ghost hath made them Overseers to feed the Church of God which he hath purchased with his owne bloud seeing grievous wolves are entred among us not sparing the flock and from among our selves are men risen which speak perverse things to draw disciples after them These exhortations of the holy Ghost and many more in Scripture to call us to our dutie were never more seasonable and necessary In obedience to which charges of God let us therefore by painfull studie constant preaching fervent prayer and holy conversation fit our selves for employ our selves in and procure authoritie to the work of the Ministery that we may be free from the bloud of all men and that the people may be no more as children carried about with every winde of doctrine nor for want of plenty of pure streames be forced to drink up the puddle waters of errours and delusions Lastly The consideration of the pragmaticalnesse of many in these dayes to impoyson the mindes and trouble the hearts of Gods people with strange doctrines and dangerous errours who doe not onely creepe into houses to pervert the simple but also are so bold as to divulge their opinions to the danger of many souls as it appeareth by this Pamphlet answered and the effects it hath wrought The consideration I say of the boldnesse of such persons and of the distractions and unsettlednesse of the hearts of Gods people by occasion thereof should stirre us up every one in his place to doe what we can for applying a remedy to this miserable distraction and spreading sore Let us receive the truth in the love thereof 2 Thess 2.10 11. 1 Joh. 4.1 lest God be provoked to give us over to strong delusions to beleeve lyes Let us not be so fond as to beleeve every spirit but try the spirits whether they be of God Let us labour for soundnesse of judgement that we may discern between things that differ But especially that we may procure a generall
made concerning the thing signified viz. powring his Spirit which promise belonged to them and their children therefore they should receive the signe which God had instituted to signifie it which may seeme the most genuine resolution of the Text. Or secondly This reason may be understood as brought both to the exhortation Repent and be baptized and the promise And you shall receive remission of sinnes and the gift of the holy Ghost for considering that baptisme and the gift of the holy Ghost are correlatives as the signe and thing signified the reason well may that I say not necessarily must be referred to both Or thirdly if we grant that it is immediately referred to the foregoing promise yet it must necessarily be taken as a reason of the exhortation at least mediately for seeing the promise of remission of sinnes and the holy Ghost is brought as a reason to perswade them to be baptized and these words For the promise is to you c. is brought as a confirmation of the promise Causa causae est causa causati and considering that the cause of the cause is the cause of the caused and the reason of the reason is the reason of the thing proved by that reason this For the promise c. must needs be brought as a reason why they should be baptized and so those who bring this as a reason that the Apostle gives why they should be baptized joyning the thing argued and the Argument together and omitting that which was interposed as not pertinent to the purpose are quit from your slander of false alledging Scripture and you convinced to be a false accuser of the brethren The next Objection that you frame I owne not Assenting that it is true that neither these Iewes nor the Gentiles were in Covenant untill they had entred into the same by repentance and faith seeing that the old Covenant was now abrogated and the Gentiles had beene hitherto foreiners so that you will acknowledge that whensoever Iewes or Gentiles should receive the promise by faith and repentance it did not onely belong unto them but also to their children For though it be expressed to the Iews That the promise was to them and their children it is to be understood to hold of the Gentiles also For now the partition wall was removed and the Iewes had no priviledge for their childrens having right unto the promise any more then the children of beleeving Gentiles Thus farre I have digressed in answer to some objections made against the Scripture which was brought for the proofe of my proposition though it might be handled as well in the assumption yet because I have more to say on the assumption I brought these objections under the proposition The summe of the proposition must be remembred to be this Where is right to the spirituall blessing promised in the word and sealed in baptisme there is right to baptisme which stands firme against whatsoever hath beene objected I come to the assumption The places of Scripture quoted to confirme the assumption have beene spoken of before Onely we may consider now First what things are promised in those Scriptures expresly Secondly what is implied Thirdly to whom these promises are made For the first God promiseth to be their teacher yea though they be uncapable of humane discipline They shall not teach one another but they shall all be taught of God Esa 54.13 Ier. 31.34 Againe that he will give yea powre his Spirit and that his Spirit shall be upon them Ioel 2.28 Es 59.21 Secondly under these two expressions yea each of them severally are comprehended all those things that are requisite for our being in Covenant with God and all those spirituall graces that give us right to the seale of entrance as first Regeneration which is the proper and certaine worke of the spirit of sanctification Ioh. 3.5 which spirit of regeneration to be signified by the water of baptisme may appeare by that Scripture Ioh. 3.5 Tit. 3.5 Againe this implies communion with Christ which must needs be by faith actuall or virtuall Ioh. 6.45 Heb. 11.6 For whosoever is taught of God and hath the Spirit of Christ must needs have Christ and so it follows that such have right unto remission of sinnes Thirdly these promises belong unto the children of the Church the sonnes and daughters of the faithfull all of them from the least to the greatest the seede of the faithfull and their seeds seed as may appeare in the Scriptures quoted and here must be comprehended infants as well as others who have right unto the promise by vertue of their parents entering into Covenant with God as Act. 2.39 The Apostle bids them repent and be baptized and so enter into Covenant for the promise saith he is unto you and your children so that there can no reason be given why infants should be excluded from these promises unlesse any one shall say that infants are uncapable of these gifts which this A. R. seemes to hold in many places of his booke which opinion is more worthy detestation then confutation Are not infants capable of sinne Psal 51.5 and therefore of sanctification shall the first Adams disobedience be available to bring guilt and defilement and not Christs obedience to procure remission and sanctification Or is there no remedie for the poore infants of beleeving parents but if they die before they come to the use of reason they must necessarily perish as being born the children of wrath and being uncapable of remedie Or doth this man hold that they are brutes without soule in that he compares baptizing of infants to circumcising of Camels or Asses 2 Part pag. 21. Are not these profane Atheisticall conceits contrary to the promises of God cleare testimonie of Scripture and example as of Iohn the Baptist who was sanctified and moved by the Spirit even in his mothers wombe Quest But what must we then beleeve that all the children of Christians are already indued with the holy Ghost taught of God and sanctified c. so soone as borne or in their infancie Answ It is enough to prove their right to baptisme that they are under the promise and interessed therein by vertue of their parents being at least externally in Covenant so that whether they have already received the Spirit or have a promise thereof it sufficeth to give them a right to the Sacrament As these are bid repent and so come under promise themselves with their children and then be baptized and afterward they shall receive the holy Ghost Quest But must we think that all children of Christian parents that are baptized either have or shall receive the Spirit and so be saved Answ Iohn the Baptist and the Apostles though they were not to beleeve that amongst those multitudes whom they baptized there were none but truely had or should receive the Spirit for it was after proved by the event that many were hypocrites yet they turned away none because by
their externall confession of sinne and profession of faith and repentance they shewed themselves to be externally in Covenant and so to have right to the outward seale which they therefore administred to one as well as to another So though we are not bound to think that all the children borne of parents in covenant are or shall be sanctified yet because they are outwardly in covenant and under the promise which promise God makes good as seemeth good in his eyes therefore the Minister that is not to judge of the inward worke of sanctification on the heart whether present or future but of the outward estate neither if he could discerne the inward estate might he withhold the outward priviledge from any though wanting inward grace that hath right thereunto by being under covenant outwardly may and ought to administer baptisme to the children of all Christian parents under his charge that requires it so long as by wilfull Apostasie from the faith or just excommunication wherein they obstinately continue they with their children are not discovenanted Obiect If any should object That those promises of the Spirit or Gods teaching c. made to the seed of the faithfull to all both small and great c and the promise made to the faithfull and their children belong onely to the spirituall seed of the Church viz. those that are borne againe in the wombe of the Church Answer I Answer 1. These promises made to the Christian Church are like to that promise made to the Iewish Church Deut. 30.6 And the Lord thy God will circumcise thine heart and the heart of thy seed to love the Lord thy God Now this they were to understand not onely or principally of Proselytes that should be converted to the Church nor onely of their posteritie when they came to the use of reason but even of Infants as may appeare in that God appointed them to circumcise their Infants For circumcision of the flesh was a sign of circumcision of the heart which if infants had not been capable of God would not have commanded the outward signe to have been administred unto them And so these promises made to the Christian Church to their seed to their seeds seed to their children from the least to the greatest appertain to infants in the Christian Church as well as others The universall note being understood De generibus singulorum not de singulis generum as they say of all sorts sexes ages and condition some though every individuall of all sorts be not comprehended therein And therefore Baptisme sealing such promises belongs to Infants in the Christian Church as well as circumcision did in the Iewish Secondly I answer It is absurd to understand these promises onely of the spirituall seed as if they belonged only to the regenerate For what is it to be taught of God and have the Spirit powred but to be converted or regenerated and drawn to Christ so that by this interpretation the meaning of these promises should be this much I will powre my Spirit on whom I have or shall powre my Spirit and they shall be taught of God that are or shall be taught of God It is true God may here well promise a greater measure of the Spirit and illumination where he hath given some measure But withall it is certaine here is promised the Spirit and illumination also to those that are quite destitute and so to such as are not yet the spirituall seed of the Church Thirdly I answer What matter of consolation can this be to beleeving parents if not withstanding their prayer for and religious education of their children none of these or the like promises belong to them but onely to the spirituall seed of the Church that is such as are already converted and declare their conversion by actuall faith What ground of prayer for or hope of the salvation of their children have they more then of the Heathens if this be admitted 2. Argument If Governours of families upon their beleeving and tendring up themselves and theirs to God and Christ were not onely themselves baptized but all the persons in their houshold and which were under their government of what age soever were baptized also so that where there is no mention of preaching to or the beliefe of any but the Governours themselves yet their whole housholds were dedicated unto God in Baptisme Then it is lawfull yea a dutie to Christian parents to tender their children being part of their family unto God in Baptisme and Ministers have good ground yea ingagement for baptizing such But Governours of Families upon their beleeving and tendering up themselves and theirs unto God and Christ were not onely themselves baptized but all the persons in their houshold or which were under their government so that where there is no mention of preaching to or the beliefe of any but the Governours themselves yet their whole housholds were dedicated unto God in Baptisme Act. 16.14 15 and 31 32 33. 1 Cor. 1.6 Therefore it is lawfull yea the dutie for Christian parents or governours of families to tender their infants which are part of their houshold unto God in Baptisme and Ministers ought to baptize such being tendred of their parents The Major needs no confirmation it being granted by all yea by the Adversaries themselves as I conceive taken for an undeniable principle that the Apostles example in baptizing is a sufficient warrant for us and that such are to be admitted to Baptisme now as were admitted by the Apostles For most of their reasoning is grounded hereupon and they hence condemne our baptizing of Infants because say they it is not agreeable to the practise of the Apostles so that that Baptisme which is agreeable to the Baptism of the Apostles is warantable by their own grants and so the sequele standeth firme and good If in the Apostles times whole families of beleeving governours were baptized they ought so now and so consequently the infants of those families which are parts thereof if there be any such For as Abraham and his Family was a pattern unto all such as should enter into the Covenant of grace during the time of circumcision that as he and his Family were circumcised so should all whether of his posteritie or proselytes circumcise all their Males even the babes So those primitive Converts that were the first fruits of the Gentiles and when they beleeved were baptized with their whole families are examples for the beleevers of all Ages to follow in consecrating themselves and theirs to God in Baptism As for the Minor those places of Scripture cited prove it Act. 16.31 32 33. To the Iaylour demanding what he should doe that he might be saved Paul and Sylas answer bidding him beleeve in the Lord Iesus Christ promising that he should be saved and his houshold Teaching that the beleefe of a father or governour of a family is sufficient to bring a whole family that is at his disposing and to be ruled by
him into a state of salvation so farre as that now they are within the Covenant and so consequently have right unto the seale of initiation It is said indeed that they spake the word of the Lord unto him and all that were in the house viz. so many as were capable of instruction But there is no word of the actuall beliefe or repentance by expression word or action of any in the family except onely of the Iaylour himself whose repentance and faith at least initiall is expressed by the effects thereof viz. his humiliation and desire of salvation vers 29. and 30. and more fully by the fruits of them declared vers 33. in taking them the same houre of the night and washing their stripes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and then it is said that he and all his were baptized straight-way Which evidently sheweth that the governours faith and repentance or being within the Covenant doth sufficiently interesse their inferiours that are at their dispose to the Covenant of Grace and so to the Seale of entrance at least if they be not refractary wilfully and stubbornly refusing to be given up to God by their superiours The like may be said of Stephanus his family 1 Cor. 1.16 But most cleare and expresse is the example of Lydia Act. 16.14 15. When the Lord had opened her heart to attend to those things that were spoken of Paul she was baptized and her houshold Not a word spoken of preaching to or actuall faith and repentance of the rest So that it is apparent that as upon Abrahams faith and repentance and interest in God his whole Family whether those that were born in the house or those that were bought with money yea even his infants of eight dayes old had so farre interest in God that upon his tendring them up unto God according to his gracious appointment now they had right unto the Seal of Circumcision after God had once instituted it so Christian governours of families or parents by their faith and repentance are meanes of bringing salvation to their families and interessing those that are under them to God and Christ so farre as that they have right unto Baptisme at least except they stubbornly refuse the Seale and reject the Covenant A. R. To this Argument especially the Scriptures brought to confirme the assumption you answer There might be no Infants there viz. in those families which were baptized and my negative say you is as good as your affirmative Answer This toucheth not the force of mine Argument which hath shewed that upon parents or governours of families receiving the Gospel their families were accepted unto Baptisme their superiours tendring them thereunto Whether Infants or not there is no exception of Infants or others But you say your Negative is as good as our Affirmative without proofe and that you bring Scripture for your negative as Act. 18.8 which Scripture maketh nothing against us For first if Crispus beleeved in the Lord with all his Family it doth not follow that these families which we mentioned had none but actuall beleevers in them before they were baptized Secondly Crispus may be said to beleeve he and his houshold and so to be baptized though they were not all indued with actuall faith as Abrahams Family was a Family of beleevers even the whole Family when the Seale of the righteousnesse by faith had been set upon all the Males therein although they did not all actually beleeve You adde the example of the Iaylour Act. 16.31 32 c. Answer We have already sufficiently considered what is contained in vers 31 32 33. viz. though Paul and Silas preached the word unto all in the family viz that were capable of instruction yet the faith and repentance of none but of the Iaylour himselfe is manifested But you say He and all his houshold beleeved in God as it is vers 34. Answ If you looke into the Originall you shall finde that that verse makes nothing for your purpose It is word for word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And he rejoyced with all his house having beleeved in God or when he had beleeved in God But because the English cannot so fully and clearely give the sense of the place it may be noted 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 having beleeved being the Masculine gender and singular number as the Grammarians speake cannot be referred to that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 alone or taken with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the keeper So that the sense should be the whole house beleeved or the Iaylour and the whole house beleeved I say the words cannot beare this sense as the skilfull in the language may easily see and therefore in the translation beleeving or rather having beleeved in God is to be read within a parenthesis so that those words with his whole family is to be referred onely to the word rejoyced Thus And rejoyced beleeving or having beleeved in God with all his house So that though our Translatours did well render the words yet the want of observing the parenthesis causeth the words at the first sight otherwise to sound then indeed they do to those that looke on the Originall Laetatus est cum omni domo credens Deo So Arias Montanus But under correction and with submission to better judgements if I might be so bold I conceive it might be rendered more agreeably to the signification of the words the scope of the place and for the avoyding of ambiguitie And having beleeved in God he rejoyced exulted or testified his joy openly by outward actions in all his family or through his house or all his house over For 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 beleeving and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 rejoyced are both the singular number and so have reference to one alone viz. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Iaylour 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 rendred with all his house is an adverbe and so according to the ordinary use of that part of speech is referred to the verbe to shew how the thing was done not by whom Beside the scope of the place seemes to favour this Interpretation for it is said in the words before that he brought them into the house and set meat before them or made them a feast so that he expressed his rejoycing in his whole house by making a solemn feast in all the family as it were celebrating that night as his spirituall birth-dayes solemnitie Now you come to compare that Scripture mentioned which you apprehend to speake of whole families beleeving before they were baptized with these that speake of baptizing families where yet none are said to beleeve save the heads and thence you gather That it cannot be reasonably imagined but that the Apostle did baptize these families according to commission c. and those other places which are more silent must be expounded by this which is more plain and not this by those Answ First No question the Apostle baptized according to commission but that their
commission bound them to baptize none but those which were brought to actuall faith you have not proved as may appeare by the foregoing examination of what you produced Secondly Why should not we interpret their commission by their practise rather then draw their practise to that sense which your fancy is pleased to put on the commission Their practise as a commentary on their commission shews in what sense it was understood by them Thirdly Why may not those places that speake of the beleeving of the family before they were baptized if you can produce any such be expounded by these that shew the heads of that the families beleeving and being baptized and giving up themselves and theirs unto God the whole families were accounted beleeving families and so baptized especially seeing it so agreeth with Gods proceeding with Abraham the father of the faithfull Fourthly Or what necessitie is there that either those Scriptures should be expounded by these or these by those when they are both equally plain and cleare They may be both true according to the proper sense of the letter and history In some families all might well be of ripe years and actuall beleevers in others not and yet both sorts might be baptized without absurditie Arg. 3 Those which are Saints or holy ones are meet members of the Church and so have right to that Sacrament that seales admission into the Church Eph. 5.25 26 27. 1 Cor. 1.2 But the children of Christian parents are Saints or holy ones Ephes 5.25 26 27. 1 Cor. 7.14 Therefore they are meet members of the Church and so have right to baptisme being the Sacrament that seales admission into the Christian Church The Proposition namely that Saints or holy ones are members of the Church and so to be admitted to the Sacrament of entrance thereinto I know not to be questioned or denied by any and if it should may be confirmed by those Scriptures wherein the Churches have the title of Saints given to them or Saints by calling implying that a Saint and a member of the Church are termes convertible considering that in some Epistles the faithfull are all called by the name of Church the name of Saints or holy ones not being used and contrariwise so that sometime the Apostle calls them to whom he writes Saints not Church sometime Church not Saints sometime both Church and Saints Rom. 1.7 1 Cor. 1.2 2 Cor. 1.2 Ephes 1.1 Phil. 1.1 Col. 1.2 Gal. 1.2 1 Thes 1.1 2 Thes 1.1 as may appeare in the places quoted in the margine so that all the members of the Church are Saints all Saints are members of the Church Yet it is to be noted by the way they were Saints by calling or called to be Saints Not so that every member of these Churches were truly sanctified but such as had beene called to holinesse and made at least an externall profession of obeying this heavenly call For some among those sanctified ones or Saints by calling were notorious offenders and such as were stained with grosse errours as 1 Cor. 3.3 5.1 2. 6.1.8.13 so Chap. 8.11 15. 2 Cor. 12.21 Gal. 3. Phil. 3.15 Yet it was sufficient to make them Saints by calling and members of the visible Church that they were partakers of the heavenly calling Heb. 3.1 and so they had externall right to the Sacrament although if they did not walke worthy their calling they brought upon themselves the greater condemnation Secondly it is confirmed hence In that holinesse comprehends all the conditions or qualifications that are requisite to baptisme Holinesse cannot be without communion with Christ regeneration and remission by the Spirit and Bloud of Christ 1 Cor. 6.11 1 Ioh. 1.7 So that as much as a man is holy so much he hath communion with Christ regeneration and remission If indeed and truth he be holy then is he inwardly and really united unto Christ regenerated and justified If outwardly and in profession onely he be holy then hath he communion with Christ regeneration and remission onely outwardly and in profession as Heb. 10.29 Those Apostates are said to account the bloud of the Covenant wherewith they were sanctified prophane and to doe despite to the Spirit of Grace These were not truly and inwardly sanctified for then should they have never fallen away but onely outwardly faederally and in respect of externall profession Yet this externall holinesse is as much as the Minister can discern or require as necessary for receiving into the outward covenant and admitting to the seale of entrance Thirdly this is confirmed by that Scripture cited in the Proposition Ephes 5.25 26 27. where it is shewed that the Church is sanctified and purged by Christ in the washing of water in the word that he might make it to himselfe a glorious Church not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing but that it should be holy and unblameable Wherein these two propositions making for the confirmation of my Proposition are plainly contained First that the Church is sanctified by Christ and that it is an holy societie which holinesse is such a proper adjunct or unseparable propertie of the Church that whosoever is holy must needs be a member of the Church Secondly that this Church which Christ so loved for which he gave himselfe which he hath made holy he hath cleansed with the washing of water in the word which whether it be meant of the outward signe or thing signified in baptisme or rather both doth apparently shew that the whole Church and all the members thereof being holy have right to the outward washing of water in baptisme To the Minor or Assumption That the children of Christian parents are holy First it might be proved from the same place Ephes 5.25 26 27. For otherwise unlesse it be granted that all the children of Christian parents are so faederally holy that at least some of them are sanctified in deed and truth it will follow that they are not loved of Christ none of those for whom Christ gave himselfe nor part of the Church at least in their infancie and consequently those children of Christian parents that die before the years of discretion and actuall faith must unavoidably and remedilesly perish and that the parents of such can have no hope at all of their escaping eternall damnation not withstanding all the promises that God hath made to his people and their posteritie which opinion what Christian heart doth not abhorre Secondly but for the fuller proofe of the point that children of parents whereof the one at least is a beleever are holy that place 1 Cor. 7.14 is most direct and cleare where the Apostle saith For the unbeleeving husband is sanctified by the wife 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the unbeleeving wife is sanctified by the husband else were your children uncleane but now they are holy whence we may note First that the word holy is the same that is used else-where for Saints as the proper title of the members
of the Church 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Rom. 1.7 1 Cor. 1.2 c. Secondly that the reason why these children are said to be holy is the faith of the parents or one parent at least to whom the other parent is sanctified by vertue of the beleeving parents faith according to those generall rules 1 Tim. 4.4 5. Tit. 1.15 Whence it was that the beleeving yoke-fellow had the lawfull and sanctified use of the unbeleeving yoke-fellow For though it be unlawfull for a beleever to marry an infidell 2 Cor. 6.14 Yet when of unbeleevers who were married together in the time of infidelitie one is called the other is not the calling of the one to grace doth not dissolve or annihilate their marriage which is Gods ordinance and therefore good if the unbeleever be content to live in marriage fellowship with the beleeving mate So that Gods Covenant with the beleeving parent or parents is the ground of the childes holinesse for as hath beene touched before in regard of externall covenant with God the state of the parents or better parent and of the child is the same If the parent be in Covenant the child though by nature the child of wrath yet by Gods grace is borne in Covenant and so he and his posteritie continues untill any of them cast themselves and their posteritie out of Covenant by Apostasie The child that is borne of parents out of Covenant remaines out of Covenant unlesse either the parents or some that are in stead of parents being called of God give up themselves and the child unto God or the child coming to yeares of discretion be called into the Covenant in his owne person Thirdly Hence it followeth that the holinesse of the children of beleeving parents is not necessarily internall and reall holinesse so that it be externall and faederall it sufficeth to make them members of the visible Church For as of those Corinthians and others that are called Saints we cannot infallibly gather that all were internally sanctified it was sufficient to make them externall members that they were both Saints by calling so it is sufficient to make the children so farre holy as to be members of the Church and outwardly in Covenant if their parents were outwardly in Covenant What is inwardly wrought it is not for man to judge Now let us see what A. R. objecteth to this place of Scripture A. R. For answer you lay down some grounds as First There is but one Covenant now on foot which is the Covenant of grace and salvation Heb. 7.22 8.13 10.9 Answ We grant you this and more too Namely that never since Adams fall was there any Covenant properly so called made with mankind by God but the Covenant of grace and salvation Where read you of any Covenant of works and damnation Secondly You say That there is but one manner of entering and being in the Covenant Ioh. 3.3.5.6 Heb. 10.19 20 21 22. Answ True If you meane being in that Covenant inwardly spiritually and savingly and the same ever was the manner of being and entering into Covenant since Adams fall viz. by Iesus Christ or regeneration Thirdly You say There is but one holinesse now acceptable unto God which is inward spirituall and in truth without which no outward obedience or conformitie to any worship is warrantable or acceptable Ioh. 4.23 24. Heb. 11.6 Answ If you understand it of such warrantablenesse as finds acceptation with God in the party performing it as your latter seemes to expresse the former This is not questioned nor denied by any that I know But why doe you limit your propositions by the particle Now as if though now outward obedience and conformitie to any ordinance be not acceptable without inward holinesse yet it sometimes had been which is utterly untrue as may appeare Gen. 4. Psal 50. and 51. Esa 1. Ier. 6. and almost every where Now you come directly to answer Hence say you it followes that if beleevers children be in Covenant and have true holinesse then they are all saved old and young But all beleevers children are not saved no not of faithfull Abraham himselfe Esa 10.21 with Rom. 9.27 Therefore the children of beleevers are not in the Covenant now on foot nor ought to be baptized Answ You might as well reason thus If Simon Magus Ananias and Sapphira with many other hypocrites in the Primitive Churches whom yet the Apostles baptized and called Saints and faithfull were in the Covenant and had this true holinesse or were truly Saints then they must needs be all saved But they were not all saved Therefore they were no beleevers or Saints nor in the Covenant now on foot and therefore should not have beene baptized The Apostles belike wanted you to direct and controll them and shew whom they should have baptized and whom not Secondly I answer directly Though true holinesse be necessarie for spirituall and internall being in Covenant and for eternall salvation yet the outward holinesse of the party consisting in externall being in Covenant is sufficient to warrant a Minister to baptize otherwise he should never have warrant to baptize for none knowes the heart so as to judge of inward holinesse infallibly but God You adde that we object notwithstanding all this that you have said Why may not infants be in the Covenant outwardly having faederall holinesse and in that sense be holy and so to be admitted to the outward ordinance of baptisme as infants were unto circumcision in time of the Law and in the State of the Iewes To this you answer That the State or the Church of the Iewes were under the old Covenant and Law and stood not by faith or circumcision of the heart as this of the Gospel doth but stood meerly upon nature and the circumcision of the flesh and accordingly had their outward and faederall holinesse and outward cleansings all which were abolished with their State and no such holinesse or distinction is now between any persons in the world Answ Secondly though they were under the old Covenant legally dispensed wherein grace was more obscurely and sparingly communicated to Gods people then it is under the Gospel yet the old Covenant was a Covenant of grace which all must needs grant unlesse they thinke that the Patriarks Prophets and that holy nation of the Iews were a gracelesse people out of favour with God either not at all saved or saved by workes For there is no way to be saved but by grace or workes and no salvation by grace but in a Covenant of grace But I hope you will not be so blasphemous as to say this Secondly If the old Covenant stood not by faith to use your phrase and circumcision of the heart how is it that God promiseth circumcision of the heart Deut. 30.6 and living by faith Hab. 2.4 and the Prophets call upon the people for circumcision of the heart Ier. 4.4 and for faith Psal 37. Esa 7. 2 Chron. 20. and that the
aswell as there was in the Church of the Iewes Neither doth your long discourse or many abused scriptures prove any thing to the contrary To repeat what was said before Whence was the Church of the Corinthians holy or a Congreation of saints sith there were so many really profane and carnall amongst them but from federall holynesse by which they were distinguished from them that were without though some in the Church were more notorious for vice then those that were without whence were the Hebrews called holy brethren but because they were partakers of the heavenly calling though some were so fastned to the Ceremonies Heb 3.2 and inclined to backsliding that the Apostle useth sharp and severe language towards them ch 6.10 and 12 How is it said that they had been sanctified by the blood of the Covenant that afterwards trampled on the Sonne of God by apostasy accounting the blood of the Covenant profane and doing despite to the spirit of grace if men may not in the state of the Gospell have a federall holynesse without inward holynesse that accompanies the new creature and saving faith So 1 Pet. 2.9.10 the Apostle calls the Christians to whom he wrote a chosen generation a royall priesthood an holy nation a peculiar people a people of God that had obtained mercy Must we think that all these to whom Peter wrote were undoubtedly indued with true faith and holynesse that accompanies the new creature so that there was no hypocrite amongst them that we have no ground for How then are these glorious titles bestowed upon them all By vertue doubtlesse of Gods calling and their outward accepting of Gods Covenant though there was but a part only amongst those Churches to whom these clogies properly belonged for there were tares among the wheate You goe on and say If it be objected that in respect of justification it viz federall holynesse availeth nothing but to baptisme it may to which you answer That which availes to justification and salvation doth according to the rule only availe to baptisme For if thou beleevest with all thy heart thou art justified Rom. 10.10 shalt be saved Acts 16.31 and maiest be baptized upon the same and no other grounds Act 8.37 Answ If the same be the rule or ground for justification and salvation and for baptisme then must Ministers have no rule for baptisme unlesse they can know the heart as God who justifies and saves and so consequently the baptizer must either be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the knower of the heart that is God alone Act 1.24 or baptize beside or without rule that is unlawfully for the true holynesse that accompanies the new creature and saving faith is known to none but God and the spirit of man which is in him 1. Cor. 2.11 You proceed bringing us in objecting and saying that all that were baptized by the Apostles themselves were not saved therefore what you answered to our objection viz. that that availes to baptisme which availes to justification and salvation is not so To this you answer by distinguishing between the rule which is infallible the judgments of men which are fallible and may be deceived in applying the rule yet it followes not but that the rule being of God is still as infallible as God himselfe For all that beleeve shall be saved which is true as God himself is true but all who are judged by beleevers to be beleevers doe not beleeve and therefore are not saved This failing therefore is not in the rule but in their judgements that are but men Answ To what purpose is it to say this is an infallible and eternall rule Whosoever beleeves shall be saved unlesse you prove the other that is in question viz. that saving faith is the only rule of Baptisme and that none might be baptized but they that did actually beleeve with the faith that accompanies the new creature and that this rule is true as God is true which yet I conceive you will not be so bold as to say which unlesse you say you say nothing to purpose For hence it would follow that all whom Iohn and the Disciples c. regularly baptized had true faith and consequently were saved that they failed yea were rash and presumptuous and sinned grievously as going beyond commission when they baptized any hypocrite that such an one after he came to repentance must necessarily be baptized againe for his former baptisme was applied beside the rule and so was a false baptisme Yea if faith be the rule both of baptisme and justification alike it will follow that as all and only beleevers were justified and all and only the justified were beleevers So all and only the faithfull must be baptized and all and only the baptized are faithfull and consequently whosoever is baptized is a beleever and a justified person and whosoever is not baptized is neither beleever nor justified But to leave these absurd consequences that necessarily follow upon your absurd opinion It is evident that God never appointed saving faith to be the rule of baptisme by which his Ministers should be directed in administring baptisme For it is impossible for a Minister to know infallibly whether another savingly beleeveth and so whether he may baptize him according to the rule if faith be the rule That cannot be a rule to us to worke by which we must necessarily be ignorant of God never ordained such an uncertaine yea incomprehensible rule for his servants to worke by You proceed But in baptizing of Infants the case is farre otherwise yea quite contrary who will or can faile in judging an Infant to be an Infant Answ There is no more danger of failing in judging an Infant to be an Infant then in judging a man to be a man But there may be failing in judging an Infant to be truly and really holy and in Covenant though all the children of Christian parents are called holy aswell as there might be failing in judging this or that man in the Corinthian Church to be a saint indeed though the whole Church were called saints For as the Apostles did according to the rule of charity judge men to be beleevers and so baptized them when they made a profession of faith and did not manifestly discover the contrary though afterwards many proved otherwise So we are to judge Infants of Christian parents to be holy and so within Covenant and to be baptized because Gods word testifies that they are holy and neither your shifts and sophisticall evasions nor all the policie of Satan can disprove it though afterwards some of them are proved to have been only outwardly not inwardly in Covenant Here you bring in some authours testifying that baptisme of children is but a tradition a custome of the Church invented by the Pope c. Which testimonies I cannot for the present examine as not being furnished with the bookes of the authours Though if one should cast away so much time as to follow you
this holinesse or unholinesse of children proceeds not from the holinesse or unholinesse of parents but from the lawfull or unlawfull conjunction of parents in the begetting of children for the Apostle in this place speakes of all men universally Answ Let any indifferent man judge whether this be not an uncleane illegitimate and spurious interpretation of and drawing conclusions from the Scripture For first What comfort or resolution had this beene in the scrupulous parent to tell him that his children were holy that is legitimate and no bastards but legitimates because they were begotten in lawfull matrimony that had beene contracted before conversion whereas by your interpretation of these Scriptures if they had continued still unconverted both of them their children had beene as holy that is legitimate and no bastards Secondly how can this place Marriage is honourable in all c. and the bed undefiled be understood of all men universally as you say viz. unbeleevers as well as beleevers Tit. 1.15 When the Apostle saith Vnto the pure all things are pure but unto them that are defiled and unbeleeving is nothing pure but even their mind and conscience is defiled how can the marriage bed then be undefiled to such It is evident therefore that we make not the Spirit of God contradict it selfe that the universall note all men is to be restrained to the subject matter viz. all sorts of beleevers for to such he wrote of what qualitie condition or calling soever Thirdly But I pray you see and if you will not let others consider how all this while in interpreting this Scripture 1 Cor. 7.14 and wresting wiredrawing and pulling in as it were obtorto collo other Scriptures which you would force to favour your interpretation you have directly and manifestly contradicted the Apostle and corrupted the Text. The Apostle tells the beleeving yoke-fellows that their children are holy though their yoke-fellows were unbeleevers because they are sanctified to them viz. by their faith you say therefore the children are holy because their matrimonie was lawfull If the Apostles meaning were that which you would have it he should have said You were lawfully married therefore are your children holy But he saith The unbeleever is sanctified by or to the beleever else were your children uncleane let their marriage be never so lawfull Paul gathers the holinesse of children from grounds peculiar to the faithfull viz. the faith and being in covenant at least of one of the parents shewing plainly that were it not for this the children must needs be uncleane You would draw it from grounds common to Infidels viz. lawfull matrimony affirming that whosoever is borne of parents though infidels lawfully married is holy in the Apostles sense Thus when men set themselves to maintain errours they are not afraid nor ashamed plainly to contradict the Spirit of God You have somewhat further which you call an objection It seems then that the holines here of the children ariseth not from the holinesse or faith of the parents but meerly from the lawfull marriage and conjunction of the parents and then you answer It is even so and goe on to repeat what you have said and adde such like stuffe not worth reading Answ It is even false though you dictate it as è cathedra or è tripode and a manifest contradicting of plain Scripture as hath beene before demonstrated Your two next objections doe not concern us and therefore I passe them by Yet one more objection you bring us in making Have the children of beleevers no more priviledge then the children of Heathens Turks and Infidels you answer In respect of the Covenant of grace and salvation none at all and bring those Scriptures Ioh. 3.7 8. Act. 10.34 35. to shew that the Covenant of grace cometh not by any naturall birth but by a new birth Onely their priviledge you say is in respect of the meanes of salvation for beleeving parents may be a means to bring their children to the knowledge and faith of Christ Answ What Christian heart doth not abhorre this assertion as being directly contrary to the tenour of Gods Covenant Gen. 17. of which more hereafter and repugnant to Gods gracious promises frequently inculcated in Scripture Exod. 20.5 6. Act. 2.39 Esa 59.21 Doth not this strike at a maine pillar of a Christians comfort grounded on those precious promises so that by this tenet if the children of Christian parents die before they be capable of the outward meanes of salvation or their parents be taken from them before they come to yeares of discretion they must be parted with as the children of Turkes or Infidels as being out of the state of salvation as being in a lost and hopelesse condition as having no right to the Covenant notwithstanding all the gracious promises that God hath made to the faithfull to be their God and the God of their seed to shew mercy to their posteritie even to thousands that the promises doe belong unto them and their children that his word and Spirit shall abide on their seed and their seeds seed Let men judge whether the father of lies can speake more contradictorily to Scripture for the extenuating of Gods rich grace and dashing the comfort of Gods people Thus have I vindicated the ground of my third argument Yet notwithstanding all shifts we see this truth remaines firme that the children of Christian parents are faederally holy and members of the Church and so have right to the seale of admission into the Church 4. Arg. 4. Arg. To those that are in Covenant with God the Sacrament or seale which God hath instituted to represent and seale admission into Covenant is to be administred Gen. 17.10 11. Exod. 12.48 But children of beleeving parents are in Covenant with God Gen. 17.7 Exod. 12.48 Esa 59.21 Therefore children of beleeving parents are to be admitted to the seale of entrance into the Covenant which now is baptisme in the time of the Gospel For the confirmation and explication of the former proposition I conceive it is hardly questioned but that when God hath made a Covenant with his people and appointed a seale to signifie and represent admission into the same then the seale or signe belongs to those which have entred into Covenant under what kinde of administration soever the Covenant be dispensed So Philip reasons If thou beleeve with all thine heart thou maist be baptized So Peter Can any one forbid water that these should not be baptized c. For actuall faith at least in profession was necessary to those that at first entered into the new covenant and received the sign or seale thereof to wit baptisme as well as it was necessary to Abraham who entered first into the old Covenant which was sealed by Circumcision though actuall faith was not required of his posteritie as necessarie to their being in Covenant Neither for ought that I see doth the Adversarie deny this proposition Yet if it be questioned it is fully
proved in Abraham Gen. 17.10 11. with whom we read that God first made an expresse and formall Covenant and instituted a signe or seale to signifie enterance into that Covenant and distinguish the Church from other Societies And this was not required of Abraham alone and his family but of all foreiners also that so soone as they should enter into covenant they should have this signe and seale of admittance Exod. 12.48 And still in the New-Testament as soone as men had given evidence of their entrance into the new Covenant they were baptized Now here is to be noted that the Covenant of grace was ever one and the same for substance though for the manner it have beene variously dispensed Heb. 11. through the whole Chapter and Heb. 13.8 Ephes 4.5 as shall be shewed God willing more fully hereafter Secondly before Abrahams time we read not of any distinct and full manifestation of the Covenant of grace expresly in the termes of a Covenant nor of any gathering of a Church out of the world as a distinct body whereunto the faithfull were to joyn themselves nor of any visible seale or sacred signe of admission into Covenant with God though God had a people in covenant from the beginning yet the covenant was more sparingly obscurely and implicitly revealed and no distinctive outward note of entrance into covenant that we read of appointed Thirdly since the Covenant was made with Abraham and the signe of circumcision instituted in the old and new Covenant there hath still beene a solemne signe or Sacrament of admission to which all that were in Covenant had right so that Abraham that was the first expresse Covenanter is called the father of the faithfull or of those that were in covenant with God and is to be imitated by the faithfull in all those things that are essentiall to the covenant For the Assumption The words of the Text are cleare First that God made the Covenant with Abraham and his seed Gen. 17.7 Secondly that we should not thinke that that externall covenant belonged onely to those that imitated his faith it is made with his naturall seed all that should be begotten of him Gen. 17.10 Even all that seed wherein God promised to make Abraham fruitfull should so farre be in Covenant as to have right to the onward signe untill they should fall away from the outward covenant by wilfull Apostasie vers 6 7 10. Thirdly that you may see this was not peculiar to Abraham and his posteritie alone that proceeded from his loines the same is commanded concerning his servants borne in his house or bought with his money that the males who onely were capable should receive the seale of the Covenant vers 12 13. Fourthly that you may know that this did not belong onely to Abrahams family but was a thing common to all that should enter into covenant viz. that their children should be acknowledged to be in Covenant also by having the seale of entrance administred to them see Exod. 12.48 Lastly that we may understand that this was not proper to the old covenant in the Legall dispensation but common to the Covenant of grace under whatsoever dispensation as well Evangelicall as Legall a promise of the same priviledge is made to beleeving parents even from the time of the Gospel Esa 50.20 21. compared with Rom. 11.26 27. A. R. Now I come to your answers which is That neither Abraham nor his seed was circumcised because the Covenant was made with him Answ Who denies this or what is this to the purpose we know that God might have made a Covenant without a seale if it had pleased him They were circumcised because God did institute circumcision for a seale and appointed it to those that were admitted into Covenant The faithfull we know were in covenant before Abrahams time though there be no formall or full expression of the covenant nor of any signe or Sacrament of entering thereinto You adde a reason of your assertion For the covenant was made with Abraham above twenty yeares before circumcision was instituted as may appeare by comparing Gen. 12.2 3. with Gen. 16.3 17.25 Answ No such thing appeareth in the places cited It appeareth indeed that God had made a promise to Abraham long before of making him a great Nation and blessing him but there is no word of the Covenant or that God would be a God to him and his seed in those places before Gen. 17.2 though we know that Abraham from his first call was in covenant with God as were Abel Enoch Noah and all the faithfull before Abraham as the covenant is generally taken But here we speake of the Covenant in regard of its expresse manifestation and speciall administration with Abraham and afterward since the institution of a seale thereunto And it appears that in Gen. 17. vers 2. is the first expression of Gods making a covenant with Abraham at which time also circumcision was instituted And if God had made a covenant never so long before with Abraham neither he not his seed must have used circumcision untill God had instituted it But after God had appointed it all that were in covenant were to be circumcised that were capable even all males of eight dayes old and upward You say The covenant was not made with Abraham for his being a faithfull man but for his being such a faithfull man whom the Lord was pleased to chuse and set out as a patterne to all beleevers Rom. 4.23 24. and to be a father of many Nations Rom. 4.17 18. and in whose seed all the Nations of the world should be blessed Act. 5.25 13.23 to wit in Christ who was to come of his flesh Answ We know that the Covenant was not made with Abraham for his being a faithfull man neither yet for his being such a faithfull man c. as you would have it But Abraham was made by God a faithfull man and taken into covenant of Gods free grace that he might be a patterne to future beleevers and a father of many Nations c. Abrahams faithfulnesse so qualified was not the cause why God took him into covenant But Abrahams faithfulnesse acceptance into covenant and being a patterne of beleevers a father of many Nations in whose seed all Nations are blessed were effects of Gods good pleasure and free grace Secondly neither doe those places of Scripture produced by you yeeld the least shew of proofe that Abraham was taken into covenant and his seed for being such a faithfull man as God was pleased to choose and set out a patterne to all beleevers c. Thirdly seeing Abraham was taken into covenant that he might be or at the most as being I dare not say with you for being such a faithfull man whom the Lord was pleased to choose and set out a patterne to all beleevers and to be a father of many Nations and in whose seed all the Nations of the world should be blessed then
it is the dutie of all that are beleevers children of Abraham and will be blessed in Abrahams seed that is Christ to imitate Abrahams example in laying hold on the covenant for themselves and their children and giving them up to God even in their infancie by requiring the seale of the Covenant to be administred unto them and not to loose any part of that inheritance that God entayled upon Abraham and his children seeing as it hath been proved it is no peculiar priviledge of Abraham to have his seed in covenant nor his peculiar dutie to lay hold on the covenant for his children but the common priviledge and dutie of all the faithfull You proceed Therefore though the promises were made to Abraham and his seed yet the consequence will not follow that the covenant is likewise made with all beleevers and their seed for beleevers onely are the seed and the seed onely and none of them a father in the Gospel sense nor any other save onely Abraham to whom and his seed the covenant and promises were made Answ First If the consequence will not follow Because God is the God of Abraham and his seed Therefore he is to all the faithfull and their seed how is Abraham a father of the faithfull and patterne of beleevers Or how will it follow that Abraham performed any dutie or received any priviledge Therefore all beleevers ought to doe those duties may receive those priviledges Secondly your reason that you bring for your deniall of our consequence is a bold assertion manifestly repugnant to plain Scripture as Exod. 20.5.6 Where God having laid downe the summe of the covenant vers 2. bindes his people to his true worship and to avoid Idolatrie with a promise of mercy unto thousands of those that should love him and keepe his commandements Now these thousands are meant of the godly mans posteritie as appeareth by the Antithesis of vers 5. visiting the sinnes of the fathers on their children unto the third and fourth generation c. Doth not this promise belong to all that are in covenant with God and are bound to the obedience of the morall Law and to the pure worship of God and abstinence from idolatry so Esa 59. last vers Act. 2.37 What is meant by Gods shewing mercy to a thousand generations making a covenant that his Spirit and word shall be continued to their seed and seeds seed that the promise is made to them whom the Lord doth call and their children but the same that God promiseth unto Abraham that he will make a covenant with him and his seed be a God to him and his seed So that this answer to your boldly-affirmed but never-proved assertion that to Abraham and his seed onely the promise was made may suffice to overthrow the inferences you bring thereupon and your absurdities that you would father upon us mingled with divers untruths as may appeare to any intelligent Reader not worth answering Onely that which you lay downe in the beginning For beleevers onely are the seed and in the conclusion Abraham hath not two sorts of seeds in the sense and acceptation of the Gospel Vpon which as upon a ground-work of all your reasoning is built that the rottennesse of the foundation being discovered it may appeare how easily the superstruction will come down of it selfe I answer therefore Answ We read in the Gospell or new Testament of three sorts of Abrahams seed First Christ is called his seed Gal. 3.16 Secondly the faithfull of what Nation soever are called his seed Gal. 3.29 Thirdly those who naturally desended from his loynes Iohn 8.37 2. Cor. 11.22 And in this last kind to be Abrahams seed was sufficient to intresse men to the outward Covenant and the seale thereof and the promise was made to Abraham Gen. 17. literally and properly in this last sense not in the first or second as is apparent by the text For with that seed God made the Covenant in Abraham and to that seed God became a God which was to be circumcised at eight dayes old in respect of the males as you say the females in the males But the natural issue of Abraham was to be circumcised at 8 dayes old in respect of the males in them the females See Gen. 17.7.10.11.12 for proofe of both propositions Therfore the naturall issue of Abraham is the seed to which according to the litteral and proper meaning of the Scripture God promises to be a God in Covenant And so it appeares to be false which you say that beleevers only were the seed of Abraham sith many naturally descending from Abraham and circumcised and so outwardly in Covenant were unbeleevers You add that wee say Infants were then members of the Church and demand when they were cast out to which you answer that they were cast out when the Iewes Church-state and old Covenant was abrogate by the comming of Christ and preaching of the Gospell and planting of other Churches farre different from that of the Iewes in many respects Answ But I hope Gods people are not so simple as to beleeve your bare words against Gods expresse truth though you were an Angell from heaven or an Apostle Gal. 1. â— much lesse being as you are discovered and to think that in former times indeed Infants were in Covenant with God but now are excluded that now all Infants of christian parents dying without actuall faith and under yeares of discretion must certainly perish as aliens from the Common-wealth of Israel and out of Covenant with God that grace is so farre straitned under the Gospell in comparison of what it was under the law that whereas God was then a God to parents and to children even to many generations yea to the children of Proselytes Exod. 12.48 of what Nation soever now the holyest Christian parents can apprehend no benefit from the Covenant for their children at least till they come to yeares of discretion and actuall faith and till then must accompt them infidells and wholly under the power of the devill Is this to advance Gods Grace to extoll the Gospell and glorifie Iesus Christ Or rather is it not a tricke of the devill greatly to obscure and indeavour the utter extinguishing of the glory of Gods grace the virtue of Christs death the lustre of the Gospell and the comfort of a Christian all at once They that will hearken to such deceits as these let them make account at the last to be cheated of all grounds of comfort in Gods word Act. 2.39 Doth not the Apostle say the promise is to you and your children and to them that are afarre off c. when the Iewes Church-state and old Covenant were abrogated But let us come to consider the many respects wherein you say that the Church of the Gospell differs from the Iewish state or old Covenant whence you would prove that Infants are now cast out of Covenant wherein because you repeat for substance some toyes and
fancies of your owne braine that you have vented before I will not think it burdensom to answer you though in some things the same for substance that hath been said before That you say viz. the Iewish Church-state and old Covenant being constituted upon nature and the naturall seed of Abraham Answ I pray you can you tell what you meane when you say that the Iewes Church-state was constituted upon nature and the naturall seed of Abraham I am sure you speake not according to Scripture that I say not nor according to sense or reason As far as I can apprehend when you say it was built upon nature If you have any meaning in these words and doe not let them fall from you at randome it must be understood either first that nature was the ground cause of this covenant or secondly that naturall blessings were onely bestowed in this covenant or thirdly that this covenant was made onely with the naturall children of Abraham all which are manifestly false For first if your meaning be that this covenant was grounded on nature so that nature was the cause of it you must either meane the nature of God as contradistinguish't to his will and good pleasure or the nature of Abraham The nature of God was not the cause of it for what God doth by nature his nature being the cause he doth eternally necessarily unchangeably so as he cannot but doe it as to know himselfe and all things knowable to love himselfe Or if you meane that the nature of Abraham was the ground of this covenant it is as false for there was nothing in Abraham by nature that put difference between him and others Deut. 7. Iosh 24. Rom. 4. Or if you meane God onely bestowed temporall blessings in this covenant that is palpably and execrably false also God was their God in the old covenant circumcised their heart to love him feare him and obey him and trust in him he gave remission of sinnes and sanctification under that Covenant which were not naturall blessings Or thirdly if you meane that that Covenant was made with Abrahams naturall posteritie there is no appearance of truth in it for bond-men and those that were bought with money and Proselytes of any nation or stock whatsoever were admitted into this Covenant Gen. 17. Exod. 12. You adde This to wit the Christian Church-state upon grace and the spirituall seed of Abraham Answ So was the old Covenant to use your phrase constituted on grace Gods free favour was the cause of it and the graces of the Spirit bestowed as truly under it though not so plentifully and clearely as now as these phrases expresse Gen. 17. Deut. 30. Mal. 2.5 I am God all-sufficient I will be thy God I will circumcise thy heart and the heart of thy seed to love the Lord thy God c. My Covenant was with him of life and peace Secondly if you meane by the spirituall seed of Abraham Iesus Christ the seed of the woman that was to breake the Serpents head Gen. 3. Joh. 8. Rev. 13. 1 Tim. 2. in whom the Covevant was made with our first parents fallen at the seeing of whose day Abraham rejoyced in whom God promises that all the Nations of the earth should be blessed the old Covenant was made with Abraham in him who is the Lambe slaine from the foundation of the world who is the onely Mediatour between God and man and by whom alone Abraham and all the faithfull have had communion with God You adde That therefore termed Israel according to the flesh and of the circumcision of the flesh this Israel according to the spirit and of the circumcision of the heart Rom. 2.28 29. 4 6 7 8. Col. 2.11 Answ No such thing appeareth in those Scriptures Take heed how you falsifie Gods word would you perswade men that God gave not circumcision of heart under the old Covenant that because all were not right Israelites that were Abrahams seed therefore none were that because he is not a Iew that is one outwardly therefore none under the old covenant were inwardly Iews because true Christians are circumcised with a circumcision without hands therefore the Iewes were not circumcised but onely with hands not spiritually Let any man examine those Scriptures and see whether from thē it can be gathered that all under the old covenant had onely circumcision of the flesh and that all under the new covenant have circumcision of the spirit It will appeare to any judicious Reader that here are two or three notorious falsehoods with a grosse perverting of Scripture in this short sentence The first That the Iewish Church-state or old covenant is called Israel according to the flesh or circumcision of the flesh but the Gospel-state Israel according to the spirit or the circumcision of the heart wherein are infolded more untruths then one Secondly that therefore they are so called because that was constituted on the naturall seed of Abraham c. The abuse of Scripture appeares that these Scriptures neither prove the antecedent nor sequele nor consequent neither make any thing for his purpose as if it would not be overtedious to stand upon and needlesse to any men of judgement might be shewed But such uttering of falshoods and then propping them with Scriptures to abuse the simple is ordinary almost in every page and sometimes frequent in one page as may appeare by the answer though I have not said so much in expresse words before neither should have said so now but that I consider such is the weaknesse of some Readers that what they read if Scripture be brought for proofe thereof though never so impertinently abusively and perversely they thinke it must goe for currant Thirdly that you say a state of bondmen or servants so as in that state an heire or beleever differed nothing from a servant though he were lord of all c. Gal. 4.7 Answ That under the Old Testament the Church of the Iews was an heire yea lord of all though in regard of its infancie and immaturitie nothing differing from a servant as being held under the tutourship of the Law this I say is sufficient to prove that the Church of the Iewes and the Christian Church is one and the same for substance and under the same Covenant in all essentialls For all know that a sonne and heire is the same for substance and in person at three yeares old and at thirty though altered in some accidentall priviledges at riper yeares And hence your fancie of the Iewish Church being constituted on nature is quite overthrowne For if the Iewish Church was heire and lord of all beleevers were then children though in minoritie and under tutourship How were they children not by nature for Christ onely is the Sonne of God by nature therefore by grace and so they were under a Covenant of Grace Thus powerfull is the word of truth to overthrow those errours that ignorant men would abuse and force it
be saved But this must not be extended to all persons and times for then it should follow that no child of Christian parents dying before yeares of discretion and actuall faith could be saved which is directly contrary to those Scriptures that shew that God will be a God to the faithfull and their seed will shew mercy to thousands of their posteritie to the childrens children of those that keepe covenant Psal 10â— 1â— 18. that the promise is to the faithfull and their children that their children are holy and such places before cited which will not suffer any one that beleeves Gods word to hold that the children of the faithfull dying in their minoritie must unavoidably be damned all of them Fourthly I adde for answer to this Scripture that infants of Christian parents as they are within the covenant and are holy so they may be said to have a virtuall faith or that which is analogicall thereto that giveth them right to baptisme as much as the converted heathens profession for being in covenant with God and being holy cannot be conceived to be without answerable faith or somewhat equivalent At last you having triumphantly concluded your dispute come to shew your disciples what they may see by what you have taught them I will examine a few of your words Say you By this we may partly see the grosse mistake of all such great clarks of our times which confound those two Covenants of Law and Gospell and make them both as one in substance and different only in circumstance as in administration only or degrees the one more darke the other more light whereas indeed they are no lesse different then old and new works and faith the administration of condemnation and the administration of righteousnesse or then the letter killing and the spirit giving life 2. Cor. 3.6.7.8.9 or then a state of bondage and a state of sonnes Gal. 4.21 Answ Yes we may see what you inferre as we may see false shapes by false glasses or one falshood by another Secondly may not ignorant phantasticks possiblely fall into grosse errours assoone as great clarks Thirdly as for the differences that you put between the Covenant of the Law and of the Gospell as you call them First we grant that the Covenant which God made with the Iewish and that which he made with the Christian Church differ as old and new But this is too narrow a difference to make them diverse in substance as he that was of old a child is a new become a man yet differs not in substance from what he was but is the same person God gave that old commandement to the Iewes Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thy selfe Lev. 19.18 Christ saith to his Disciples A new commandment I give unto you that you love one another Ioh. 13.34 Must these commandements needs differ in substance or must they be accused of grosse mistake that hold that these commandements agree in substance as being the same The Apostle Iohn 1. Ioh. 2.7 saith he writes no new commandement but the old yet vers 8. he saith he writes a new commandement Will you say That great clark Iohn was grossely mistaken in saying that he wrote no new commandement but an old and yet presently saying he wrote an old commandement Because in your conceit old and new so farre differ that the same thing cannot be said to be old and new though in different respects and in regard of some circumstances Secondly In your second and third difference you how great a Clark soever are grossely mistaken in calling the old Covenant made with the Iewes a Covenant of works and a Covenant of nature Where finde you the Scripture calling it so Will you perswade men that Abraham Isaac and Iacob Moses David and the faithfull before Christ where without faith and grace That either they were saved by works and nature for you will allow them to be under no covenant but works nature you exclude them from faith and grace or else to have perished remedilesly The one whereof must needs follow upon your tenet But of this we have heard before this your opinion is so absurd and unchristian that it deserves rather to be abhorred then confuted Thirdly whereas you call the old Covenant the administration of condemnation and a killing letter wherein you would have it contrary to the Gospell as being the administration of righteousnesse and spirit giving life and bring that Scripture 2. Cor. 3.6.7.8 9. I Answer First there is no such thing proved by that Scripture that the old covenant was the administration of condemnation and a killing letter Secondly neither can any such thing be conceived unlesse we shall say that all which were under the old Covenant were condemned and killed destitute of righteousnesse and life and that God made a Covenant with his people to kill and condemne them which will necessarily follow upon that tenet which were blasphemy Thirdly the Apostle indeed calleth the law which was an addition to the covenant of promise a killing letter the administration of condemnation not as it was given and intended by God primarily who gave it primarily and properly to humble that stubborne people drive them to the promise and exercise them in obedience and to be taken along with not apart from the promise and to traine them up for draw them to and direct them how to walke in Christ which is the end of the Law not to drive them from Christ But as it was in it selfe considered without the promise and without Christ so it was a killing letter and the ministrie of condemnation and as it was misunderstood and abused by false-teachers hypocrites and Iusticiaries who before the comming of Christ forsaking the promise and since his comming forsaking the Gospell both which held forth Christ in whom alone righteousnesse is to be sought or at least mingling the Law and Gospell together in point of justification sought righteousnesse by the works of the Law either alone or with the Gospell to them it became a killing letter And the addition of the Law to the promise was a testimony and an occasion of greater condemnation to such as they who abused it sought righteousnesse in it Rom. 7.12.14 Gal. 3.21 24. and made their boast of it but were not humbled nor driven to Christ thereby though in it selfe the Law was spirituall holy and good not contrary but subordinate to the promise As the Gospell is an occasion of greater condemnation even to those that are externally under the Covenant of the Gospell who abuse it 2. Cor. 2.16 Heb. 10.29 Iud. 1.4 Yet will it not hence follow that the Covenant of the Gospell or new Covenant is the ministry of condemnation though it turne to the greater condemnation of some for their abuse of it Fourthly As for your last difference that a state of bondage this a state of sonnes Answ T is true the Law given on mount Sinai for of that the Apostle
speakes as it was taken without the promise and that Covenant which God made with Abraham and as men sought justification by it whether without the promise before Christ or without the Gospell since Christ or whether they sought justification by the Law together with the promise or the Gospell which was not Gods end in giving the Law to his people but mans abuse of it so it brought men into a state of bondage and so the obstinate Iews that thus abuse the Law are cast out as Ishmael and Hagar And as the faithfull were under the discipline and padagogie of the Law they were in a servile condition in comparison of that great freedome from those intolerable burdens of ceremonies and great discomfort and feare accompanying the same which the faithfull have under the Gospel But notwithstanding their bondage they were sonnes and heires and lords of all Gal. 4.1 and so they were under a Covenant of grace though legally administred As for your following discourse wherein you talke your pleasure against Magistrates and Ministers and cry out of the Baptisme of Infants as the greatest delusion and a thing of as dangerous consequence as ever the man of sinne brought into the world and that the greatest maintainers thereof are the greatest deluders and that it is time for you to awake out of your drunken slumber and seek by whom and by what meanes you are so miserablely intosticated as you call it whether by an errour of the Printer or because you are so intoxicated with your drunken slumber that you cannot speake English with much other like raving talke wherein you abuse the Scriptures and shew what manner of spirit you are of Answ I account this wild talke being the evaporations of a giddy braine intoxicated with a drunken slumber whereof you complaine worthy no other answer but this Of every idle word you must give an account at the day of judgment Matt. 12.36 much more of speaking evill of those things you know not railling upon dignities and authorities despising dominions 2 Pet. 2.9.10.11.12 Iud. 4. 8 9. c. and of calling evill good and good evill putting darknesse for light and light for darknesse Es 5.20 Which places of Scripture I would intreate you when you shall awake out of your drunken slumber to consider and seriously ponder So much for the fourth argument and clearing it from exceptions Now I come to the fifth which is of affinity with the former and confounded with it by A. R. and therefore his answers to it mingled with his answers to the former but not the same and therefore we will consider it apart and set downe his answers of any weight and replie to them God willing and this is taken from circumcision 5. Argument If Infants of beleeving parents or parents in Covenant under the old Covenant might and ought to be consecrated unto God and initiated into Covenant by circumcision then Infants of beleeving parents under the new Covenant ought to be consecrated to God and solemnly entred into Covenant by Baptisme But Infants of beleeving parents under the old Covenant might and ought to be consecrated to God and initiated into Covenant by circumcision Gen. 17.10.11 Exod. 12.48 Therefore Infants of beleeving parents under the new Covenant ought to be consecrated unto God and solemnly entred into Covenant by Baptisme For the clearing and confirming of the sequele of the proposition for of the assumption there is no question I will lay downe two or three considerations First that the old and new covenant were one and the same for substance Abraham Moses David and all the faithfull before Christ were under the same Covenant that all the faithfull since Christ are under For since Adams fall there hath been but one way of salvation common to all that have been saved which way is revealed and exhibited only in the Covenant of grace as hath been partly shewed before see Rev. 13.8 14.6 Heb. 11. through the Chapter and 13.8 Hath been demonstrated by the godly learned and must be needs acknowledged by all that will without prejudice consider that Exod. 34.6.7 first God considered as a mercifu l Father a gratious long-suffering God abundant in goodnesse and truth Ezeh 16. is the Authour of the old Covenant as well as the new secondly Iosh 24. Exod. 33.19 That man considered as a miserable sinner yet weary of sinne desiring mercy professing and promising repentance faith and obedience Eph. 1.12 upon his being received into this Covenant is the other Covenantier or confederate in the old aswell as in the new Thirdly 1. Cor. 10.4 that Christ is the Mediatour in both being the Lambe slaine from the foundation of the world Gen. 3.15 Ioh. 8. Ps 110. Exod. 34.7 the promised seed who brake the serpents head whose day Abraham seeing rejoyced A priest for ever after the order of Melchisedek Fourthly that the principall good things promised in both were pardon of sinnes Ps 32.1.2 adoption sanctification perseverance and eternall salvation Fiftly Gen. 15.6 that the condition required is repentance faith and obedience in the old Covenant aswell as the new Sixtly that the end in both is the same Act. 15.10.11 to wit the glory of Gods rich mercie in powring spirituall temporall and eternall blessings upon his people And seventhly that the summe of the Covenant is the same viz Rom. 4. Exod. 19.5 6. Deut. 4.29 30. 10.16.19 11.22 I will be thy God and thou shalt be my people All which are undenyably the same in the old Covenant and new So that considering they agree in Author Object Mediator Good things promised Duties required End Effects in a word in Matter Forme and Definition there can be no essentiall difference Only they differ in some Accidents As there the Covenant was made in Christ to come Here in Christ already come There with a few people and after Abrahams or at least Moses his time only with the house of Israel and those that should joyne therewith Here with more even with all nations Then dispensed by darker prophesies and more obscure sacraments sacrifices and ceremonies or types now by cleare revelation and plaine or open ordinances without the vaile of shadowes types and darke ceremonies Then grace was more dimly scantly and with mixture of legall slavery ordinarily bestowed now more plainly plentifully comfortably and freely all which are but circumstantiall or graduall differences Secondly when the new Covenant succeeded the old then Baptisme succeeded in the place of circumcision as the Lords Supper in stead of the Passeover Exod. 12 48. Rom. 4.11 1 Cor. 12.13 Act. 22.16 Col. 2.11 12. I say Baptisme succeeded in the roome of circumcision and is to us of the same use that circumcision was to the Iewes to wit a signe of entrance into the Church a seale of the righteousnesse of faith which comprehends remission of sinnes Baptisme of the spirit and circumcision of the heart
which are the things signified in Baptisme Insomuch that the Apostle puts circumcision without hands in puting off the body of sinnes c. and buriall with Christ in Baptisme c. for one and the same thing implying that though we now want outward circumcision with hands yet we have inward circumcision without hands signified and sealed in Baptisme to so many as have Christ And so though the beleeving Iewes before Christ wanted the outward sacrament of Baptisme yet they were inwardly partakers of Baptisme without hands in remission of sinnes and mortification sealed by circumcision aswell as we So then if by being buried with Christ in Baptisme we are partakers of circumcision without hands It appeares that Baptisme is of the same use to us that circumcision was to the Iewes whereof one particular among the rest was to be a signe of entring into the Church or Covenant as may be seen in the generall use of both the Sacraments and which our Saviour it may seem would in speciall teach us by his example in that at the eight day he was circumcised as a professed Member of the Iewish Church but after when he would set up the new Covenant or Christian Church he was initiated thereinto by Baptisme So that though in some things circumcision and baptisme differ as first in the ourward ceremonies Secondly in regard of the sexes to which applyed for circumcision was applied only to males the females being uncapale and so being received into Covenant in or with the males whereas Baptisme is applied to both sexes being both alike capable of it Thirdly in the exact determinate time required in the one viz circumcision tied to the eight day but left free and undetermined in the other so that it be done as speedily as conveniently may be after the party is apprehended and acknowledged to be within the Covenant and so to have right to the sacrament And fourthly in the adjuncts or effects Circumcision with spilling of blood Baptisme without blood because the true blood of the Covenant is shed and therefore no more to be shadowed by bloody sacrifices or sacraments as aforetime Yet they agree in the maine end and use Circumcision and Baptisme being signes of entrance into the Church as the Passeover and the Supper signes of continuance and so consequently circumcision and Baptisme to be applied to those that were but newly in Covenant as to Infants of beleevers and infidels newly converted the other to be used by them that had attained to some growth Those to be applied but once to one person as signifying our spirituall birth which is but once but these often to be used as signifying spirituall nourishment and growth which must be often and continuall untill we come to perfection though we bee not bound to the distinct times in using Baptisme and the Lords Supper that were appointed for circumcision and the Passeover viz. the eight day from the birth for the one or the foureteenth day of the first moneth yearely for the other Thirdly consider that Gods bounty and grace on the one side or mans dutie and obligation on the other side is nothing diminished or straitned in the time of the New Testament in comparison of what was under the Old but rather much increased and inlarged in respect of manifestation more abundantly to Christians then Iewes as the whole course of the Scripture shews So that if God was pleased graciously to accept into covenant parents together with their children then and to become the God of the little infants as well as of the parents and to set the seale of the covenant upon the infants for the confirmation of faith and comfort of the parents for the time present and of the children for the future when they should come to understanding And if he were then pleased to binde parents to offer and dedicate their children unto him by the seale of entrance into covenant much more he vouchsafeth the former and requireth the latter now under the Gospel To this you answer A. R. God commanded Abraham to circumcise all the males in his house and every male childe at eight dayes old as well he that was borne in the house as he that was bought with mony of any stranger that was not of his seed Now it was both right and equall that Abraham should doe herein as God commanded him and it had beene sinfull in him to have done otherwise more or lesse And so likewise it is meet for us to doe as God hath commanded us to doe and no otherwise And afterwards to omit repetitions of the same things and some objections and answers which you make that either concerne us not or have beene sufficiently answered already you say we must baptize infants when we are commanded to doe it and not before notwithstanding their being capable of baptisme with all its significations Answer Ans It was shewed before that the restraining of circumcision to males and tying of it to the eighth day were accidentall and peculiar to circumcision as being the seale and sacrament of entrance into the old covenant whereas some things are essentiall and common to the seales of entrance in both covenants And therefore though the argument hold not from one Sacrament to another in those things that are accidentall and proper to the one yet it holds from one to another in those things that are common and essentiall as we justly maintaine against our adversaries the Papists that every Sacrament is a seale of the covenant of grace or of the righteousnesse of faith because circumcision was so to which you seeme to assent calling Baptisme a pledge of remission of sinnes though the name of pledge or seale be not expresly given to other sacraments in scripture Now we learne by the Israelites frequent using of the Passeover that the Sacrament of the Lords Supper is oft not once onely as Baptisme to be received by Christians though otherwise we have no expresse clear command for the oft receiving of it howbeit we be not restrained to one in the yeare onely nor to the time of Passeover nor to the use of unleavened bread and such things as were proper to the Passeover so though we doe not in baptisme observe the same ceremonie nor precise time nor sex that was peculiar to circumcision yet we justly gather that baptisme belongs to such persons for age viz. Infants though there were no expresse command in Scripture for it and that upon the grounds aforementioned Secondly Gods command to Abraham as he was the father of the faithfull is sufficient warrant for our actions though we have no speciall command for the same set downe in the New Testament much lesse brought to us by any speciall revelation as to Abraham even when in regard of some speciall acts and many circumstances we may not doe as Abraham did yet by vertue of Gods commandement to Abraham we are bound to doe that which is analogicall thereunto Gen. 17.1
the Sacrament of Baptisme neither can without great injurie be debarred there from notwithstanding their age though there were not any clear expresse direct immediat command for the same But Christian women have right to the Sacrament of the Lords Supper and may and ought to be admitted thereunto neither can without great injurie be detained therefrom notwithstanding their sexe though there be no cleare expresse direct and immediate command in Scripture for womens being received to the Sacrament of the Lords Supper Therefore may and ought infants of Christian parents being in covenant to be admitted to the sacrament of baptisme neither can without great injurie be debarred therefrom notwithstanding their age though there were not any clear expresse direct and immediate command or example in the scripture for the same For confirmation of the sequele in the major or first proposition note First there is as much cause to question womens title to the Lords Supper in regard of their female sex as there is cause of questioning childrens baptisme because of their infant age especially considering the female was deprived of one Sacrament in the old covenant and there is no more if so much spoken in Scripture for womens being admitted to that then for infants being admitted to this Secondly whatsoever can be said or gathered by good consequence from Scripture for Christian women receiving the Lords Supper the same as much or more may as truly and by as cleare consequence be said for the baptizing of infants of Christian parents Are Christian women of some standing and continuance in the covenant of grace and so have title to the seale and Sacrament that signifies growth in grace and continuance in Christ No lesse are infants of Christian parents entred into the covenant of grace by vertue of the covenant made with their parents as hath been proved and will not be denied I thinke by any that cares and knows what he saith and so have title to the seal of admission or entrance into covenant Have they at least in judgement of charitie right to the thing signified in the Lords Supper viz. Christ his body and bloud with all the benefits of his death and passion No lesse have these in the like judgement of charitie right to the thing signified in baptisme viz. the Bloud and Spirit of Christ pardon of sinne and regeneration Were they being the inferiour sexe comprehended under the superiour sexe of men in the command Why might not these as well being inferiours in age and wholly at their parents dispose be comprehended under the command of baptizing the parents Were they never forbidden nor excepted or exempted from the Lords Supper though not expressely commanded to receive it The same may be said concerning childrens baptizing Have women need of the Eucharist to strengthen faith and quicken them to obedience as well as men so have infants need of baptisme to confirme faith in Gods gracious covenant and incite to obedience their parents for the present and themselves for the future Is it more then probable that although at the first institution of the Lords Supper there were no women because Christ had none present but onely his owne family and peculiar flock of his Disciples who were all men yet Act. 2.42 if breaking bread unquestionably signifie the use of the Sacrament there and Act. 20.7 and 1 Cor. 11. when mention is made of the Lords Supper there were women though it is not expressed No lesse probably may it be gathered that in those families that were baptized there were some children In a word were women admitted to eate of the sacrifices and sacrament of Passeover in the time of the old covenant among the Iewes It is known that infants were received to the Sacrment of circumcision in the old Covenant likewise So that I see no reason why the one should be questionable when the other is not called into question For the Assumption or minor proposition it hath two things in it to be confirmed first that there is no direct expresse immediate command or example in the Scripture for women receiving the Sacrament of the Lords Supper more then for childrens being baptized This is easily proved by turning over to all those places of Scripture that speak of the Lords Supper which are not many Mat. 26.26 27 28. Mar. 14.22 c. Luk. 22.19 c. Act. 2.22 20.7 1 Cor. 10. 11. neither do I remember any other places that speake expresly of this Sacrament in all which places is no mention of women The second part of the assumption is that notwithstanding this is not expressed in so many words in Scripture that beleeving women shold receive the sacramēt of the Lords Supper yet that they may ought to be admitted neither can without injury be debarred which is so universally for ought I know acknowledged that I never heard it questioned And he that should question it might seeme worthy of detestation or contempt rather then answer or disputation It may be confirmed by such grounds as were intimated in my confirmation of the proposition And my reason why I say this is an unquestionable truth Beleeving women have right to the Lords Supper aswell as men that by Scripture warrant is the received maxime in Divinity that what is contained in Scripture in expresse words or may be gathered from the Scripture by just consequence hath sufficient warrant from Gods word and is a matter of faith Or as it is expressed by some thus A scripture commandeth promiseth or threatneth whatsoever is contained in it though not expressed and that is contained in it which may justly and truly be gathered from it though by never so many consequences or inferences Now I hope none questions but that it may by just and undenyable consequences be proved that beleeving women aswell as men ought to receive the Supper and so it hath been proved that children ought to be baptized otherwise if we will not admit that we have sufficient scripture warrant not only for that which is expresly set downe in scripture but also for whatsoever by just consequence is or may be deduced therefrom we shall deprive our selves of all or most Scripture-promises or priviledges and exempt our selves of all or most commands Seeing what is set downe in the Scripture is not spoken immediatly and expressely to us in particular but only by just consequence or inference is derivable and appliable unto us And therefore let those that either out of ignorance and scruple or wilfulnesse and prophanenesse think that there is warrant or obligation for nothing to be done as an act of faith and obedience but what is set downe or they are commanded expressely and clearely in the scripture in so many words take heed they doe not at once deny to God all obedience and to their soules all comfort in the promises This last argument may be summed up briefly thus If it be not warrantable for children to be baptized then
it is not lawfull for women to receive the Lords Supper for as much may be sayd for that as for this and against this as that But the consequent is absurd therefore the antecedent is false And this I would wish those women to consider which by reason of the weakenesse of their judgment are aptest to be deceived by those that creep into houses and leade captive silly women laden with sinnes led away with diverse lusts ever learning and never able to come to the knowledg of the truth For if they should yeeld to this perswasion their children must not be baptized in their infancie because the Scripture doth not expressely command it On the same ground they must yeeld that they themselves have nothing to doe with the Supper and so by degrees they may be cheated of all Gods Ordinances and their comforts priviledges and obedience on the same grounds As also I would wish that the foregoing argument may be considered by them who have refused to have their children baptized in infancie and shew what ground they have in Scripture for baptizing them when they come to yeares of discretion I cannot see but they have as great cause to question whether ever their children may be baptized as whether they may baptize them in infancy Let them give an example or command in scripture expresse or by just consequence of a beleeving Father which kept his child unbaptized untill he actually beleeved and then brought him to baptisme And then let them bethinke themselves whether the issue will not be either their posterity must not be baptized at all though they beleeve and repent never so much and so they cast themselves and their children out of Covenant or they must be baptized without warrant or commande for all those examples and commands that are in scripture of faith required in those that should be baptized speake of them who themselves and their parents till that time had not been under the new Covenant Or lastly if they will have those commands and examples for their warrant and applyable to them they and their children must become infidels and persons out of Covenant and deny that ever they were in Covenant before or had received any spirituall and Evangelicall favour that so now at last entering newly into the Covenant of grace by faith and repentance whereunto they professe that they have been hitherto strangers they may receive the Sacrament or pledge of admission into Covenant Which how injurious it would be to Gods grace and their own souls and posteritie if ever they tasted of Gods mercy or were but externally in Covenant let all men judge It is usuall in controversies of this kinde after Scripture proofes and reasons deduced therefrom and grounded thereon to produce the consent and testimony of the Godly and learned whether Ancient or Modern especially the former that were most neere the Primitive purest times And I doubt not if a man had helps and leisure for searching Antiquitie it might be easily shewed that the baptizing of Infants was long in use before Antichrist got to his throne contrary to the opinion of this disputant yea in the Primitive times unlesse Authors be silent in this point because no controvesie then rose above this matter or corrupted But as I have said neither having the books of the Ancients that speak of this subject nor time well to turne over those volumes if I had them I must forbeare Onely let the Reader again take notice of these two first-mentioned and Prime Authors whom A. R. cites for his purpose For as touching Origens giving testimony that baptizing children was a ceremony or tradition of the Church not to examine how truly these words are cited out of the Author which I cannot for the reason aforementioned but to take the words on his trust This testimony shews that in his time who lived but 200. yeares after Christ it was a thing ordinarily practised and as I shewed before in vindicating my third Argument an unquestioned practise from which as an undeniable principle that holy man seemes to prove that Infants of a day old are not free from sinne And let none be offended that it is called a ceremony though that name as it is used for humane traditions beside or contrary to Gods word is odious yet the word may in its proper signification be used for any rite either humane or divine and both Baptisme and the Lords Supper may fitly be called ceremonies now as well as Passeover Circumcision and other Divine Ordinances instituted by God among the Iews Neither let any be troubled at the word Tradition for that is used not onely to note things taken up by men but also for the Doctrine of God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Institutions of the Apostles 1 Cor. 11.2 2 Thess 2.15 And whereas it is said a ceremony or tradition of the Church there is no necessitie that it should be understood that the Church was the Authour thereof but the subject in which it was used and by which it was delivered to posteritie may well be meant by that phrase So Augustine who lived in the fourth Century after Christ calles it a custome as he saith of the Church Which yet he might well doe and yet it be a divine ordinance for all Gods ordinances are or should be in custome in the Church But if it were a custome of the Church in Augustines time and a ceremony or tradition of the Church in Origens sure it is strange that it should be brought into use a thousand yeares after Christ as one of his Authours saith and be a devise of Antichrist as he holds For customes are things that have been of long use and ancient standing And whereas some Authours speake of such as were Catechized and instructed by the Church before they were baptized and must give a reason of their faith before they were admitted to Baptisme and that they used to Baptize such at two times of the yeare onely I beleeve it will be apparent to those who looke into these Authours that they speake not of the children of beleeving parents but that those Catechumeni who were first Catechized and then baptized were Pagans who lived in those parts where the Church was which were quite out of Covenant and therefore because God did not so miraculously and suddenly bring such to the faith as in the times of the Apostles some space was required to instruct them in the principles of Religion before they could be judged fit for Baptisme But as I said I may not meddle with the examination of his authorities nor produce any humane authoritie for this seeing it hath been sufficiently confirmed by Arguments drawn from Scripture grounds though it were an easie thing I suppose to beat this Adversary with his own weapon And it might be an usefull worke if some Antiquary would take the pains to turne over the ancient Writers and shew what they have left on record concerning this
subject I will come to make some practicall use and improvement of this dispute and so end Seeing all those Arguments that have been brought against the baptizing of Infants have been answered and our Arguments for it defended through the help of God and in his feare how sufficiently let others judge so that the weaknesse of the Adversaries Arguments hath beene detected and the truth vindicated against cavils and it hath been proved from Scripture grounds that children of parents within Covenant have right to Baptisme this discourse may serve First To admonish such as the Authour of this pamphlet answered that are so pragmaticall in broaching their new conceits that they would impartially and without prejudice weigh and examine their owne tenents and grounds by the Scripture before they proceede with such confidence and heate to commend them to and urge them upon others deride rayle upon and condemne as Antichristian and Deceivers all that will not receive their doctrines as infallible I would wish them to consider whether this be the truth of God that they pleade for and maintaine with such grosse perverting abuse and falsifying of Scripture as hath beene shewed throughout the booke whether hath the cause of God neede to be upholden with manifest errors and those of very dangerous consequence bordering on blasphemie such as have beene discovered in this Authour as calling the Covenant under which the faithfull were before Christ a Covenant of workes of Nature and of condemnation And casting out all infants of the holiest Christian parents from the Covenant of Grace and making them equall with the Children of Turkes at least whiles infants and many errors of like sort and that against playne Scriptures Doth God neede mens lyes to maintaine his truth It may be these errours abuses of Scriptures and bold assertions of untruths and those not one or two but many proceeded from ignorance and zeale without knowledge For such is our weakenesse of judgement that wee are apt to take up embrace and maintaine error for truth If so I hope such persons upon conviction may be humbled and give glory to God in confessing the power of his truth in overcomming them But if otherwise they proceede out of pride vaineglory and they be thus active out of a desire to gather Disciples after them that they may be followed and admired of the simple creeping into houses and leading captive Act. 20.30 silly women laden with iniquitie ever learning but never coming to the knowledge of the truth â— Tim 3.6 7. pretending to serve the Lord Iesus when indeed they serve their own bellies and by good words Rom. 16.17 and faire speeches deceive the hearts of the simple professing zealously to affect Gods people Gal. 4.17 that they may exclude and withdraw them from Christs Ministers I would wish them to consider that though Satans Ministers may be suffered for a time to transforme themselves into the Ministers of righteousnesse 2 Cor. 11.13 and 14.15 yet their end shall be according to their works And though there may be false Teachers amongst Gods people 2 Pet. 2.1 2 3. who may privily bring in damnable heresies denying the Lord that bought them they shall bring upon themselves swift destruction Yea though they so farre insinuate themselves into people that many shall follow their pernicious wayes by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evill spoken of c. yet their judgement lingereth not and their damnation slumbereth not Neither will God suffer such abuse and perverting of his Scriptures venting of errours railing against authoritie speaking evill of his Ministers seeking to seduce his people and impoysoning many unstable souls with fond opinions goe unpunished 1 Cor. 11.19 2 Thess 2.11 12. Though for a time he may for the correction and tryall of his own people the discovering of the sound and punishing of the unsound by giving them over to strong delusions to beleeve lyes suffer such persons to escape yet surely men at last shall know what it is with a great shew of Scripture and under pretence of zeale to oppose the truth and draw people from the wayes of holinesse I know the best of Gods servants may erre in judgement aswell as faile in practise But such will blesse God for discovering their errour and be thankfull to the instrument which he useth for that end and to such doubtlesse God is ready to shew mercy in forgiving their errours But as for them who for their credit sake as they thinke when their errours are discovered and opposed shall be more bold in asserting them fly out in rayling and bitternesse against those that would have given an helping hand to the reducing of them to the truth set their wits a worke to invent new Arguments to maintaine falshood against their own conscience and so to uphold one errour by another for no truth will patronize an errour and consequently run from one fond opinion into another such we are commanded after once or twice admonition to reject Tit. 3.10 11. as knowing that they are subverted and sinne being condemned of themselves Secondly It may serve for a warning to those who have beene too apt to listen to the perswasion of such busie pragmaticall persons that they should not be so simple as to thinke the greatest confidence and boldest peremptorinesse and fairest shew of zeal is an infallible signe of the best cause maintained or best heart in the maintainer Hypocrisie oft is attended with appearance of zeale and ignorance is ordinarily accompanyed with peremptorinesse For none usually are more pragmaticall busie and bold then they that are most ignorant 1 Tim. 1.13 none more desirous to teach others ther they that understand not what they say nor whereof they affirme none so unruly and hard to have their mouthes stopped perverting whole houses by teaching those things which they ought not as those that are but vaine talkers and meere deceivers when they come to bee tryed Christians should try the Spirits whether they be of God or no not beleeving a tenent forthwith because men come with it to us 1 Joh. 4.1 under a pretence of love 2 Cor. 11.13 14 15. zeale humility c. Seeing Satan can change himselfe into the liknesse of an Angell of light and his Ministers are taught his art God hath given us his word as a touchstone that we may try all things and hold fast that which is good He hath appointed the Ministers Ministery of his word to this end that we may not be henceforth such children Eph. 4.11 12 14. as to be carryed about with every wind of vaine doctrine by the sleight of men and cunning craftinesse whereby they lie in waite to deceive and seldome doe we see any insnared in these and such like errors till they leave the Ministery of the word the speciall meanes which God hath appointed to prevent them It is true all Christians ought to make tryall of their