Infants right unto Baptisme why then do you not administer the Lords supper unto them also Answ Because the Lords Supper belongs onely unto such as can spiritually examine themselves and discerne the Lords body 1 Cor. 11.27 28 29. Now the summe of all is this viz. Children of Christian parents are holy by vertue of Gods holy Covenant in their infancie and therefore to be Baptised in their infancie Or thus more largely viz. Whensoever persons appeare unto the Church under the Gospell to be holy by vertue of Gods holy Covenant then the Church is to baptize such persons But Infants of Christians even in their infancie are persons that appeare unto the Church under the Gospell to be holy by vertue of Gods holy Covenant Ergo The Church under the Gospell is to Baptize infants of Christians in their infancie Quaest But how do Infants of Christians appeare unto the Church under the Gospell to be holy prove that say they and we have done Sol. I answer that persons may appeare to be holy unto the Church under the Gospell two wayes viz. 1. Sensitively by their words and pious actions and and this is the only way that the Anabaptists do know for they are altogether led by sense and thus Infants of Christians neither do nor can appeare unto the Church under the Gospell to be holy 2. Oraculously by vertue of a Divine Oracle and thus children of Christians appeare unto the Church under the Gospel to be holy The Holy Ghost hath engraven this Oracle 1 Cor. 7.14 upon such children And such children do utter this Oracle in the circumcised eares of all understanding Christians though Anabaptists heare no such voyce And let these suffice for our first ground Reason 2 Secondly Infants of Christians are to be baptized in their infancie because they are subjects capable of it Now that they are subjects capable of this initiall seale in their infancie appeares conspicuously by Gods expresse command that the infants of Jews their proselytes should be circumcised in their infancie If they had not beene subject a capable of it God would not have commanded it but God did command it and therefore they were subjects capable of it And these infants were not therefore capable because of Gods Covenant with Abraham and their Fathers which were sealed unto God by Circumcision and in Covenant with him For the Text saith not Thou shalt keepe My command therefore but thou shalt keepe My Covenant therefore thou and thy seed after thee in their generations Gen. 17.9 implying that this command had reference to the Covenant and was part of it For here God is to be considered as God in covenant with His people and all his commands are branches of His Covenant all grounded upon His free grace in Jesus Christ and therefore in the next verse viz. v. 10. Hee calls Circumcision by the name of His Covenant saying This is my Covenant which ye shall keepe betweene Mee and you and thy seed after thee every man-child among you shall be circumcised And to put the matter out of all doubt that Circumcision is called by the name of the Covenant the Lord speakes expresly afterwards saying And My Covenant shall be in your flesh v. 13. to teach us that the Covenant made infants capable of the seale and not Gods meere Mandamus as our abstracting Anabaptists play with notions And so they will consider God here in His absolute prerogative and not as in Covenant with this people Whereas the Seale can be nothing but a confirmation of the promises of Grace unto such as have the promises made unto them So then the promises of grace made these infants capable of having the promises confirmed unto them by Gods initiall seale Now what seale should be authentique in Heaven and seale up divine promises unto persons under the promises or in covenant with God that depended upon Gods institution Now God instituted Circumcision and commanded it to be imprinted on the flesh of his people in covenant as the proper subjects capable of the same So that the command that the Anabaptists talke of so much are the words of institution it being Gods prerogative incommunicable to institute Sacramentall signes because He onely can make them effectuall to supernaturall ends and give the things signified thereby Now Circumcision did bind the circumcised to the obedience of the whole Law Gal. 5.3 And this obligation was laid on very Infants before they could have any knowledge of the Law And againe Circumcision is a seale of the righteousnesse of faith in the Messias Rom. 4.11 And this seale was imprinted on very infants before they could have any actuall faith or knowledge of righteousnesse And unto this obedience and faith the Covenant under which they were borne had bound them though the initiall seale had beene denyed them Such an Anabaptisticall wickednesse could not have put these infants into the condition of aliens The Covenant it selfe would have bound them to faith and obedience And the Covenant it selfe would have made them capable of Gods saving mercy though the initiall seale had beene denyed them Such an Anabaptisticall cruelty could not have blockt up heaven against them Consider this you stout Champions for Hell which do what in you lyes to make Gods Covenant of free grace void and of none effect unto his people And to stop the course of Gods mercy unto the soules of men Well the being of infants in covenant under the Law made them capable of Circumcision the initiall seale of the Covenant To be in covenant then with God makes a man capable of the initiall seale in infancie according to the ministration of Christ under which he is borne i.e. whether the ministration be of Christ to be exhibited in the flesh or of Christ already exhibited in the flesh The substance is the same The Covenant is nothing but Christ ministred Whether it be mans Saviour to come that is ministred as to the Jewes and their proselytes in types or mans Saviour already come be ministred as to Christians without types in cleare demonstrations in the ordinances of Grace yet it is the same Saviour Jesus Christ The same yesterday to day and for ever Heb. 13.9 i.e. In the Ordinances of Grace in times past present and to come nothing hath beene is or shall be ministred for the eternall salvation of the soule but Jesus Christ The Covenant now and formerly with Jewes is the same in relation to the eternall welfare of the soule For 1. The foundation of the Covenant is the same as Gods free eternall and unchangeable love to his elect 2. The occasion of the covenant the same as mans misery by his fall in the loynes of Adam of which this Covenant of Grace is a pregnant and mercifull remedy 3. The Author is the same as God gracious mercifull flow to anger pardoning iniquity c. 4. The thing promised is the same as Christ the Redeemer and Saviour of mankind 5. The spirituall eflicacie
the children of the Jewes were holy by vertue of the holy Covenant with their parents so also are the children of the Gentiles holy by vertue of the same holy Covenant with their parents an argument never too often to be inculcated And now having spoken of that text of 1 Cor. 7.14 already in our former discourse we will say some what for the sense and meaning of Rom. 11.16 which text must needs bee understood and meant of Abraham and his branches only Now the question is who are meant by Abrahams branches Well the point there to prove is that as Abrahams children among the Jewes were partakers of the priuiledges of the Covenant so among the Gentiles children engrafted into Abraham are partakers of the Covenant as well as the naturall branches of Abraham the Jewes And hence I inferred that as the Jewes receiving the faith of Abraham were circumcised so Gentiles receiving the faith of Abraham are to be baptized And as the Jewes that were not internally and inherently godly as long as they did not renounce Abrahams faith had a right to circumcision so the children of the Gentiles receiving the faith of Abraham were by Baptisme as Jewes by circumcision to bee admitted into the enjoyment of the priviledges of the Christian Church Peter tels the Jewes that the promise is unto them and their children Acts 2.39 Now the promise was not made to their seed because they did beleeve but the seed did beleeve because they were under the promise viz. I will be thy God and the God of thy seed If this must be restrained thus viz. I will be thy God and the God of thy seed too when thy seed shall beleeve then no more is promised to this seed then to the seed of the Gentiles for when the seed of any Gentile should make prosession of his faith in the Messias he was to be circumcised as well as the seed of Abraham But more was due by this promise to the seed of Abraham then to the seed of a Gentile therefore the seed of Abraham was under the promise in a peculiar manner and not the seed of a Gentile uncircumcised yea among the Jewes a parent who was orthodoxall in judgement albeit he shewed no proofe of justifying faith in his life yet he was put under the Covenant for him and his seed And the children of such had as much right to circumcision as the children of David So then externall subjection to the doctrine of faith doth entitle the parent and his seed to the right of the externall benefit of the Covenant The summe is that as Jewes were born Jewes so the seale of circumcision was their due not to put them under the Covenant but to seale up the Covenant under which they were borne So say I Christians children are borne Christians and a right to the Covenant is not given them by Baptisme but that right which they had by birth is put under seale The very Covenant under which a Christian Infant is born stands good unto him and bindes him to faith obedience and so albeit Anabaptists like so many enraged devills doe what in them lies to cancell the hand-writing of Almighty God by withholding Gods owne seale from Infants of Christian parents upon whom Hee hath engraven His Covenant and written His promises of grace and mercy by virtue of their being born of such parents A wickednesse so heinous so horrible so full of impiety and hellish cruelty that I want a parallel I want words to expresse it unto my reader yet Gods Covenant I say stands good unto them Now the Lord make you to understand what I have written and give you a sight of your wickednesse And thus you have my first reason vindicated Which is that Infants of Christians are Christians borne and therefore are to be baptized in their infancy The second Reason Anabaptist Againe your second reason is that children are capable of Baptisine and your ground is from circumcision Because children were circumcised therefore they may be baptized in their infancy Answer If children because borne under the Covenant before Christs incarnation were therefore capable of the initiall seale even by the sentence of Almighty God because born under that Covenant then children of Christians borne under the same Covenant of grace since Christs incarnation are capable of the initiall seale and 't is their due by virtue of their Christian birth-right Now that the Covenant before Christ with the Jewes and since Christ with the Christians is the same Covenant namely A Covenant which concernes mans deliverance from misery by sinne and mans restitution unto happinesse by Jesus Christ we have shewed before we will now instance only in three things Viz. 1. The Covenant of God with the Jewes before Christ caused the godly in Covenant to seek for immortality after death in heaven as their country and abiding city for ever Heb. 11.13 14 15 16. Acts 26.6 7 8. 2. All the ministrations of Gods Covenant with the Iewes tended to the debasement of nature and to the advancement of Gods free grace in the whole work of mans Redemption though in types 3. All the promises that God made to the Iewes looked towards Iesus Christ as the only Mediatour in whom all Gods promises are yea and Amen 2 Cor. 1.20 cum Heb. 13.8 and Gen. 3.15 Christ was the subject of Moses and the Prophets writings Job 1.45 And the Iewes were justified in the sight of God by the same righteousnesse of faith as we Gentiles are justified by Rom. 4.3.13 And this justification hath essentiall connexion with eternall salvation Rom. 5.9 10. And is not our Covenant the same for substance reducible to these three heads Quest Why then is the Covenant said to bee a better Covenant and established upon better promises Heb. 8.6 Ans It 's better only in regard of the ministration and permanency of which wee shall bee necessitated to speak more fully afterwards in due place Now if the Covenant be the same and the manifestation of this Covenant upon persons unto the Church bee the Churches warrant to minister the initiall seale unto them then if the Covenant manifested by God unto the Church to be upon Infants of persons in Covenant under the law was their warrant to administer the initiall seale that there God did appoint to be used then the like manifestation is a warrant for us to administer the initiall seale unto Infants under the Gospell whose parents are in Covenant But let 's consider your exceptions against this reason Anabaptist But we deny the sufficiency of this reason to prove Infants Baptisme and that upon this ground 1. They differ in the institution 2. In the signes 3. In the subjects 1. They differ in the Institution for the Institution of circumcision was that infants should be circumcised even all Abrahams lineall seed as well the seed of the bond woman as the free but the Institution of Baptisme is that they should first be taught
and they that did beleeve the word might and ought to be baptized and not else as we finde in all the Scripture and therefore every ordinance must be practised upon its owne institution and not how we please Now the Lord would sure have made some mention of childrens Baptisme if they had been the subjects of Baptisme and therefore from Christs owne charge and Commission to His Disciples Matth. 28 we are bound as strictly to observe Christs rule for Baptisme as the Jewes were to observe the order of circumcision Secondly they differ in the signes ut infra Answer How doe Circumcision and Baptisme differ in the institution seeing both of them are of divine institution annexed to the Covenant of free grace and the initiall seales thereof proper to the ministrations of Christ for they both seale Christ unto Gods Covenant people the one seales Christ to come the other seales Christ already come but both seale Christ But to your meaning I answer that for the institution of circumcision Abraham by the institution was not to bee circumcised till hee gave testimony of his faith in the Messias but then his seed was to be circumcised in their infancy before they could give any other proofe of their faith then their being borne of parents in Covenant And their being borne of parents in Covenant gave them right to the initiall seale as wee have shewed before So the Gentiles were not to be baptized as Abraham not to be circumcised till they did shew forth proofes of their faith But when the parent ba entred himselfe his children were to be baptized as Abrahams seed were to be circumcised before they could shew any more proofe of faith then their being borne of parents in Covenant Christ indeed Matth. 28.19 gave charge that whom His Apostles had taught they should bee baptized but that none should bee baptized but such as were first taught that 's your additionall and of that you neither doe nor can make proofe You were answered sufficiently that in raising a Church among Pagans faith must be the doore of admittance This was the Apostles case But when beleeving Pagans were baptized I desire proofe that their seed must bring a verdict of their beleeving ere they could be baptized Divines tell us that Heb. 6.2 where the Apostle speakes of Baptismes and imposition of hands By imposition of hands the Apostle meanes a practice then in use that such children as were baptized should after make profession of their faith and so be admitted by imposition of hands to the Lords Supper Now you will have profession of faith goe before and afford such as are borne Christians no more priviledge then meere Pagans borne out of the Church You say that by Christs charge and Commission Matth. 28. we are bound as strictly to observe Christs rule for Baptisme as the Jewes to observe the order of circumcision Right And therefore as Abraham was not and no Proselyte was to be circumcised till he gave testimony of his faith so no Alien no Pagan is to bee baptized till hee shew forth his faith But as the seed of Abraham and the seed of any circumcised Proselyte were to be circumcised while Infants so the seed of baptized Pagans while young are to be baptized Baptisme herein answering circumcision Anabaptist Secondly they differ in the signes for the signe of circumcision was the cutting off of the fore-skin of their flesh and that was a mark in their flesh for ever and so the parties that were circumcised I meane the Infants that were circumcised could make use of the signe afterward as well as at the present But the signe of Baptisme is water and so it must bee a signe to the party baptized in the present act thereof or not at all Now we know that Infants cannot discerne the signe in the present act and so consequently not at all and so the signe is given in vaine Answer What though they differ in the signes yet they accord in the thing signified and they both put the Covenant of grace under seale unto the children of the Church You reason like carnall Atheists as if all the benefit of Sacraments lay in what is obvious to our senses A perpetuall mark in the flesh which the circumcised though circumcised in infancy could after make use of But when When they came to years of discretion But what if they dyed before as many of them did What use then could they ever make of this marke But what marke or signe in the flesh meane you A sacramentall marke or signe Then verily a sealing signe But what did this marke or signe in the flesh seale unto the lineall seed of Abraham Redemption by Christ or the temporall inheritance of the land of Canaan You say the temporall inheritance of the land of Canaan If so then all Abrahams lineall seed circumcised must be possessed of the land of Canaan or else God must bee unfaithfull But Abrahams seed for the space of 440 yeares were kept out of Canaan after circumcision was instituted and practiced And so by this your Divinity all this while God was a lier and failed of His promise And must this sacramentall signe of circumcision seale the land of Canaan unto all Abrahams lineall seed Why then was Ismael and his posterity excluded What became of Abrahams lineall seed by Keturah The fonnes of Jacob became 12. tribes and the land of Canaan was divided unto them only And yet not to all these neither For two tribes and a halfe were setled on this side Iordan Fye Fye What mad stuffe is this Truly hee that hath any knowledge in Divine Mysteries may see evidently that either you read the Scriptures without observation or conclude that you maintaine untruths against your owne knowledge and consciences And then you come with another flim flam You tell me that water in Baptisme must be a signe to the party baptized in the present act or not at all That is as you expound it in the case of Infants that the party baptized must discern the signe in the present act or else that that signe is given in vaine And this Divinity is as spirituall as your Religion This argues that the efficacy of Gods ordinances of grace depends upon the act of the creature In this you may shake hands with Rome and exclude grace and set up works Here is much spoken of the act of man but not a word of the Act of God in His ordinances of grace But how doth this conclude Baptisme to be in vaine unto an Infant You say the Infant discernes not the signe in the present act of administration Thus you seem to argue Such as discerne not the sacramentall signe in the present act of administration have the sacramentall signe given in vaine But Infants of Christians doe not discerne the sacramentall signe in Baptisme in the present action of administration Ergo. Infants of Christians have the sacramentall signe of Baptisme given in vaine This argument
For if the Promise had ceased then what hopes had there been for us the force of the Promise concerning what God is and will be to his people doth still last unto the end But the seales c. ut infra Answer The Covenant of Grace that God hath made with His people is this viz. I will be thy God and the God of thy seed This Promise is to parents and children jointly as companions and fellow-sharers of the same blessings promised and because parents and children are joined together as fellow-heires of the same mercy therefore we termed the Covenant sociall and you confesse that the force of the Promise concerning what God is and will bee to His people doth last still unto the end of the world and that this Covenant in respect of it's durance or continuance is sociall even to all generations Very good Then as Abraham and his Proselytes had their children in Covenant put under the initiall seale in their infancy so are Christians to have their children put under the initiall seale in their infancy ut socij promissioniscum parentibus And in this I confesse you goe beyond your Master though yet you doe not come off clearely in the businesse but goe on let us heare your restriction Anabaptist But the seales and peculiar priviledges belong only to beleevers Gal. 3.22 Rom. 4.13 14. with Rom. 9. compared with Gal. 3. and Gal. 4. and so in this respect the peculiar benefits and priviledges of the Covenant are personall and unto beleevers For c. ut infra Answer You meane that the saving benefits of this Covenant and the inward Grace signified and assured by the outward seales doe belong only to beleevers and true converts indued with renuing grace in Christ their mysticall head And so it was under the Law likewise for Israel was as the sand of the Sea yet a remnant saved and many are called but few are chosen Few were indued with saving grace of the multitude that were put under the seale of the Covenant And the Law was nothing but Christ vailed as the Gospell is Moses unvailed The Covenant is the same which is that the seed of the woman shall break the Serpents head Gen. 3.15 And that Covenant being made on occasion of mans fall in Adam did concerne mans deliverance from thraldome under sinne and mans restitution unto happinesse by Christ the seed of the woman And now were your availe to establish your purpose then God did very ill in commanding children to be sealed in their infancy seeing then they could exercise no faith nor manifest the same unto others and yet were to receive a type of Christ upon their flesh But you seeme to bring a reason to confirme what you here say let us heare it I pray that we may consider it what weight there is in it Anabaptist For the Covenant is now established upon better promises Heb 8.6 and to better subjects for then it was to all lineally though unbeleevers might have the signe of Circumcision but the promise of the Gospell is onely to beleevers as I finde Answer The Apostle doth not say that our Covenant is better than that which God made with Adam after his fall Gen. 3.15 nor better than that which God made with Abraham Gen. 17. but better than the Covenant that God made with the Jewes in the day when he tooke them by the hand to leade them out of Egypt Heb. 8.9 And why better than that Because established upon better promises Upon what promises was Gods Covenant with the Jewes established when he delivered them out of Egypt Upon the promises of the peoples obedience Exod. 19.3 8. But in this Covenant they continued not but soone brake it and so God regarded them not This Covenant was yet needfull that man might hereby see his owne inability and his great need of a Saviour to satisfie for his sinne and to repaire mans nature by changing his heart and minde and so freely to justifie his person and this is the Covenant established upon better promises Heb. 8.10 11 12. The people would obey God immediately and they would heare God immediately instructing them in his Law They thought they could have done all readily without the helpe and mediation of another But they were soon wofully convinced of their pride and soone saw they the necessity of a Saviour and so they chose Moses a type of Christ Exod. 20.18 19. And so God by the hand of Moses gave them a threefold law as in the hand of a Mediatour for the two tables of the law which God vivâ voce delivered unto the people on Mount Sinai Moses brake on the occasion of the peoples Idolatry Exod. 32. Which tables albeit they contained the perfect rule of righteousnesse yet in that the people entred into Covenant with God immediately before they had chosen Moses to be their Mediatour and every one stood in his owne person immediately receiving the law and promising legall obedience unto the same as the ground of their right unto Gods favours and the people having broken their promise by Idolatry therefore these tables must needs be broken to pieces as the peoples personall Covenant and other two tables of Gods law must be procured wherein the people were not to appeare in their owne persons but in the person of their Mediatour and this Covenant must be established upon Gods promises of free grace in Christ whereof Moses was a type and this you may see Exod. 34.1 7. And this is the same Covenant with that of the Apostle for substance Heb. 8.6 11. Now then I say Moses being set up as a Mediatour betweene God and this people God by him as in the hand of a Mediatour gave unto the Israelites a threefold law shadowing forth the threefold office of Christ and serving thereunto Here is the Morall Law for a Prophet the Leviticall Law for a Priest and the Judiciall Law for a King And so under Moses Christ was administred in types and shadowes but the same Christ then administred as now and effectuall to the Regeneration Justification Sanctification Edification and Salvation of Gods Elect then as now And thus you see how while you alleadge the Scripture by piece-meale as the Devill doth your selves are taken in the Devils snares even while you goe about to entangle others And your Religion will not stand with the true interpretation of Gods holy Word And you cannot maintaine your way unlesse you overthrow fundamentals And this is the just judgment of God upon you that while you neglect the light of the Sanctuary you should be given over to beleeve the muddie sophismes of the Devils factours The Covenant of God for substance is now the same as it was unto the Jewes Quest What then doth the Apostle meane by the Covenants being better now under the Gospell if it was the same Covenant for substance under the Law Sol. View but the place and the Epistle to the Hebrewes throughly and you
THE COVENANTS Plea for INFANTS OR The Covenant of FREE GRACE pleading the Divine Right of Christian Infants unto the Seale of holy Baptisme Against the Rusticke Sophistry and wicked Cavillations of Sacrilegious Anabaptists Being the Summe of certaine Sermons had in the Parish-Church of Cranham neere the City of Gloucester in Gloucester shire with the exceptions of certaine Anabaptists against the foresaid Sermons and the Authors answers thereunto Very seasonable for weake consciences in these unsettled times of Schisme and Apostacie By THOMAS WYNELL Minister of the Gospel of JESUS CHRIST OXFORD Printed by Henry Hall for the Author 1642. TO MY MOST INDVLGENT mother the Famous VNIVERSITIE of OXFORD all flourishing encrease of Divine Graces and Commendable Literature be wished and multiplyed Men Fathers and Brethren I Have with a mournfull eye and a sad heart beheld the distractions of these times and seene the devill that Mille-artifex taking the opportunity as alwaies he doth to erect his throne upon our wofull miseries They say Rome must packe out of England so 't is credibly reported and now the Envious-one labours to bring-in Amsterdam The KINGS power in causes Ecclesiasticall must be taken from the Pope and reason good and now the devil labours strongly to lay it upon the people so that if the devill can do it Caesar must alwayes behold his Glory in Captivitie Ceremonies must downe and let them fall if they and the Gospell may not stand together but let not American novelties ponere obicem to the Covenant of free Grace Stand fast yee Worthies and acquit your selves like men View over this Treatise I beseech you and if it may not be to your disparagement vouchsafe it your Patronage Nay more if you thinke it may any way further the Protestant cause joyne with me I pray in presenting it to the Honourable Court of PARLIAMENT Nothing is herein for ought I know dissonant to the Orthodox faith It is the first fruits of my labours that ever saw light and I Dedicate it to my deare Mother knowing that hereby I shall have an affectionate construction put upon all mine assertions I pray let it not be thought ambition in me that I sue unto you for Patronage but accept all in favour as I present all in love What is amisse I pray correct and what is right I pray allow And thus not to retard your more weighty imployments I commit you all to the good dispose of Israels Keeper who can do for you beyond what I can aske or thinke and so I rest Your most obedient sonne THOMAS WYNELL TO THE CHRISTIAN READER Grace Mercie Peace Strength Stability and Settlednesse with a blessed encrease of all heavenly gifts from the Sanctuary by Gods Ordinances of Grace to the perfect edification of the Soule c. Christian READER HE that puts himselfe in Print in matters of Controversie doth not onely bid battell to the opposite party but also expose himselfe to the criticall censure of all beholders and standers by And by how much any VVriter seekes the applause of men in publishing his workes by so much the Righteous God makes him a looser And that worke mostly is most prosperous wherein least of fame and most of conscience is sought and aimed at This poore Treatise of mine though meane for phrase style and artifice yet needfull in these times of schisme and heresie for the subject matter thereof as that which may occasion my faithfull brethren more able to crush the insolencies of a dangerous faction the daughter of the Separation and the Mother of Libertinisme As for my call to this imployment it is this viz. There were nere unto my dwelling a company of the Separation who under tooke to erect a Church by entring into a Covenant and these carried on their resolutions hand-smooth untill they were grown into a great faction And as it is the property of that Schisme to speake at randome they began to let flie against the Church assemblies of England as false Antichristian and out of Gods way VVhereupon I began to enquire into the nature of their Covenant and told them that if it were a Covenant of first entrance into the true visible Church of Christ then of necessity the parties so entring must have the seale of first entrance imprinted upon them which under the Gospell is Baptisme For if the Ministery which they leave be false in the very constitution thereof then the Sacraments by them administred must needs be nullities and so now they having a lawfull ministery constituted and set in Christs way they must begin all anew Baptisme and all Thus by way of arguing I spake unto diverse of them which did so puzzle them that not long after some of them fell upon this practice of sealing their covenant by Baptisme renouncing their Baptisme in their infancy as a nullity and an Idoll and being demanded by the Magistrates of the City of Gloucester before whom they were convented who it was that advised them unto this practice they nominated mee to be the first that put them upon it whereas I was so farre from it that I held that the dangerous Covenant of the Separation would necessarily lead unto this And moreover one Walter Coles of Painsewicke a Taylor a man of good behaviour a long time and well esteemed by the godly and best Christians This man I say fell off first to the Separation where he had his bane And God having given him another child he refused to have it baptized untill it could answer for it selfe This matter fell into debate in Mr Wels his Congregation at Whaddon Pastor to the Separation there where the said Coles was a member Now Mr Wels and the Church-officers of his division foreseeing the ill consequence of this businesse had resolved to determine against the said Walter but this being perceived by the said Coles he desired to goe out of the company And happy had it beene for him if hee had returned to his former godly and profitable courses of doing good But he goes further and turnes plaine Anabaptist And so making a journey to London hee brings downe one Thomas Lambe a chandler as it is reported and one Clem Writer a Factor in Blackwell-hall London both Anabaptists into this Countrey And I being in London these two travellors by Walter Coles his directions came on the Lords-day to Cranham where I did and doe serve in the worke of the Ministery and there the said Lamb being in a grey-suit offers to preach in publike but being disappointed by Gods good providence of his wicked purpose he retires to a private house in Cranham abovesaid and by Preaching there he subverted many And shortly after in an extreame cold and frosty time in the night season diverse men and women were rebaptized in the great river of Severne in the City of Gloucester And so at length returning from London I found the face of things much altered and many strangely leaning to the heresie of the Anabaptists
And they put on the businesse with such peremptory boldnesse as if all the world had beene unable to gain-say their practice or refute their doctrine VVhereupon to clear my selfe and to satisfie others I undertooke the controversie at Cranham where they had left their poyson And when I undertooke it the Anabaptists from Gloucester and Painswicke came to heare mee and set upon mee in the open face of the Congregation as soone as I came downe out of the Pulpit I desired them to forbeare publique tumults and to send in their exceptions against what I had laid downe for Poedobaptisme And at first they sent mee in a paper with no hand to it but this I rejected and delivered back to them againe because I knew no one of them would stand to it when once the folly thereof was declared At length I received about two sheetes of paper and yet though it came in the names of them all there was but one hand unto the same and this Champion doth so stoutly mannage the matter that surely if his cause were suitable to his stomacke neither men nor Angels could stand before him It is high time then for us to bestirre our selves when condemned heresies shall find such bold abettours and that in the Land of light and truth The Lord put it into the heats of our Parliament to settle a Government among us with speed that out-facing impudencie may be called to an account that truth and peace may dwell in our Land And now Gentle Reader peruse the ensuing tractate wherein if thou find any benefit give God the glory and afford mee thy help at the Throne of Grace And so I have done and do thou begin Thine in the Truth T.W. ERRATA PAg. 6. line 1. for Cor. read King p. 8 l.7 for up r. upon p. 10. l. 21. r. Gods Covenant of Grace p. 11. l. ult adde of Gods command but because p. 16. l. 31. for their God r. thâ— God p. 36. l. 22. for under r. of p. 42. l. 16. dele not p. 81. l. 4. let Petitio principii be put in the Margin Ib. for disputationibus r. disputations Ib. l. 20 for well by r. well as p. 107. l. 14. for profession in the r. profession of faith in the. p. 110. l. 16. for as whatsoever r. as if whatsoever p. 111. l. 20. dele or p. 114. l. 17. dele saved and. p. 115. l. 22. for certifie r. rectisie p. 116. for to r. of p. 119. l. 6. â—or hearts 6.1 heart p. 122. l. 28. for not r. not the. THE COVENANTS Plea for INFANTS MATTH 28.18 19 20. All power is given unto Me in Heaven and in earth Goe yee therefore and teach all nations baptizing them in the Name of the Father and of the Sonne and of the Holy Ghost Teaching them to observe all whatsoever I have commanded you And loe I am with you alwayes even to the end of the world AMEN THE monstrous brood of Anabaptists in former ages and now in these our dayes have made and doe make this portion of Scripture their maine Fort and strongest Barricado to beat back poore helplesse and harmlesse infants from being consecrated into Gods peculiar by baptisme though born of Christian parents Now against these unjust oppressours and sacrilegious theeves I am now come into the field to maintaine the christian birth-right of infants whose parents are sealed unto God and of His Family And to set them into their own border possession and inheritance And because some of Satans troopers of late in mine absence have made an in-rode into this Parish and by perverting of this Scripture have carried away some and staggered many others therefore I have chosen to insist upon this Text to let all men see how it makes nothing at all for the establishing of their wicked purpose This whole Chapter contains the History of our Saviours resurrection and a Rehearsall of what He did on earth between the time of His triumphant resurrection and His glorious Ascension The former we omit for brevities sake In the latter the Spirit of God relates how Christ being risen from the dead by vertue of His resurrection possessed of all power and authority over all things and persons in heaven and in earth gave a command and commission unto his Apostles to goe out among the Pagan-Gentiles and plant the Gospell among them and not confine themselves any longer within the precincts of Iudea And why Because all power is given unto Christ in heaven and in earth which before was not given unto him This is our Saviours preface and it is a materiall passage and the ground of our Saviours sending of His Apostles to plant the Gospell among the Pagan-Gentiles Now all power and authority concerning the Church of God was conferred on Him for ministring the kingdome of heaven among Jewes and Gentiles And hence observe this point for your instruction Doct. Viz. That all power and authority concerning the Church of God was given unto Christ and conferred on Him by vertue of His meritorious death and triumphant resurrection from the dead Eph. 1.19 23. Ps 2.6 9. compared with Acts 13.33 Heb. 2.9 10. Luk. 24.46 47. Reason And the reason is because thereby Christ vanquished the enemies of our salvation led captivity captive received gifts for men and became the head of the Church among Jewes and Gentiles Quest But had not Christ this power from the beginning Ans 1. He had it in the mind and decree of His Father for we were chosen in Him and He was still the head of His the Church 2. He had it vertually in His sufficiency to vanquish enemies and to deliver His chosen for Hee was a lambe slaine from the beginning 3. Actually and by way of execution among Iewes and Gentiles without difference He had it not untill the time of His glorious resurrection Acts 2.32 36. For then was Hee declared to be the sonne of God and the Jewes Messiat Rom. 1.4 Now this point may be put to sundry good uses Vse 1 It may serve to pierce the hearts and soules of all wicked men and move them to repentance and amendment of life Acts 2.36 37. Vse 2 It may serve to deterre all Church-enemies from their furious and vaine attempts against Christ and His Gospell Psal 2.1 8. Vse 3 This should teach us to yeild divine honour and worship unto Christ We are to set him up as the Lord of our faith having His warrant for what wee doe in His worship under the Gospell making Him our King and Law-giver and obey him in all things that He shall say unto us depending upon him alone for salvation as our All-sufficient Saviour Vse 4 Let us then labour to be so qualified and so to live as that all this power of Christ may be improved for our advantage Now if we would bee so qualified wee must see that wee are true members of Jesus Christ And the truth of this may be discerned by our threefold
of the Ordinances the same as the mortification of the flesh and the renuing of the creature to Gods Image in Jesus Christ 6. The subject's the same as a people in Covenant with God to yeeld obedience to the faith 7. The end Cujus the same as the glory of Gods mercy to His Elect and the unexcuse of the Reprobate 8. Finally the end Cui the same as Good workes here in this life and the immortality of the soule and eternall blessednesse in the life to come Onely Gods manner of ministring Christ unto man for his eternall salvation is diverse according to the diversitie of Christ state viz. as not incarnate and to come or incarnate and already come and so the ministration is diverse in the Ordinances of Grace Before Christ was come in the flesh all the Ordinances of Grace directed the eyes of the faithfull unto Christ to be exhibited for their salvation redemption And therefore all the Ordinances of grace must needs be typicall And this did quiet their consciences and filled their hearts with joy And since Christ is come all the Ordinances of Grace serve to confirme the faithfull in this point and minister Christ exhibited in the flesh unto us And this causes us to rest in Him for Redemption and salvation and to expect no other Saviour Now if Infants under the typicall ministration of Christ were capable of the initiall seale of this Covenant because borne under this Covenant in their very infancie when they could declare no right they had unto it but their birth then Infants of Christians under the Gospel borne under the same Covenant of Grace are capable of the present initiall seale of this Covenant though they can shew no right they have unto it but their being born of such parents as are Christians The manifestation of faith is no more requisite to the administration of Baptisme unto such as are borne Christians than it was to the administration of Circumcision unto such as were born Jews But as such as were made Jewes had Circumcision administred unto them because they testified faith in the Messias and such as were borne Jewes had it by birth as children of parents in covenant So such as are made Christians are to have Baptisme ministred unto them upon the testimony of their faith but such as are borne Christians are to have it by birth as children of parents in Covenant with God and of his houshold and family For as it was a rule of old that nemo circumcidendus quà Infans or quà adultus but quatenus foederatus So now nemo baptizandus quà infans or quà adultus but quatenus foederatus Now if infants of Christians appeare unto us to be foederati as they do then we are to administer baptisme unto them in their infancie Baptisme herein answering to Circumcision And so the fond quaere of the Anabaptists is groundlesse What say they shall we seale a blanke But this question implies this blasphemie namely that Gods written Covenant is a blanke for Gods covenant is written upon the children of parents in covenant as Christian parents are in covenant And if so then their infants are in covenant otherwise the parents are not in covenant For though it follows not children are in covenant with God therefore their parents are in covenant with God for Abraham was in covenant with God but his father Terah was not yet it follows undeniably parents are in Covenant with God therfore their Infants are in Covenant with God Now then the Infants of Christian parents have the Covenant of Grace written upon them by birth because children of such parents And because their being in Covenant in their infancy appeares unto the Church therefore the Church is to baptize them in their infancy for when persons appeare unto the Church to be in Gods Covenant of Grace then the Church is to put the Covenant under seale unto them and t is their due and the Churches duty And so in the businesse of paedo-baptisme wee are not to looke to the righteousnesse inherent in the parents nor to the righteousnesse in the infant for of neither of these can we have certaine and infallible knowledge but to the righteousnesse of the Covenant or to the free grace of God in Christ as Rom. 4.11 where Circumcision is called the seale of the righteousnesse of faith And therefore the seale of imputative righteousnesse And hence is the grosse mistake of our Anabaptists They thinke that the efficacy of Baptisme is grounded on the practicall righteousnesse of the creature manifested in words or works which stinkes of Popery all over but orthodox Christians in the businesse of paedo-baptisme doe look to Gods Covenant of free Grace and so present their children unto Gods mercy and Fatherly love in Jesus Christ our Righteousnesse Covenant and attonement And albeit our infants have no inherent righteousnesse manifested unto us by their words or actions yet God hath righteousnesse to be imputed by vertue of His Covenant of Grace saying I will be thy God and the God of their seed in their generations And therefore we dedicate our children unto God in their infancy by Baptisme Now our Popish Anabaptists cannot endure to heare of Circumcision as if that should be to the Jewes before Christs incarnation the same with baptisme unto Christians since Oh they labour to cry downe this as the grossest absurdity that ever was uttered by the tongues of men But this is no new thing for the old heretiques heretofore did lead upstart punies in the right way how to fasten themselves to their owne errors and Popish pride But I pray what difference between these two save in the outward ceremony For was not Circumcision as sacrament of entrance into the true Church of God before Christs incarnation And is not Baptisme the same unto us Christians since Christs Ascension Why doth the Apostle call baptized Christians circumcised Christians and Baptisme by the name of Circumcision Col. 2.11 14. Was not Circumcision a seale of the same justifying faith as Baptisme is now unto us Rom. 4.11 And in a word did not Circumcision signifie the mortification of the flesh and the renewing of the mind and so bind over the Jewes unto the obedience of Gods will Rom. 2.28 29. Gal. 3.21 And doth not Baptisme the same now Rom. 6.3 11. 1 Pet. 3.21 Now shew us any substantiall difference between these two Sacraments for if there bee no substantiall difference then without controversy there is a substantiall union You say there is a wide difference for the one was the cutting off of the fore-skin of the flesh and the other is a washing with water So say we but this difference is but ceremoniall but as an initiall seale how differ they or in any other spirituall effect necessary unto salvation When we look upon Sacraments we doe not look upon them by halves as you Anabaptists doe and detaine our senses in the bodily part of them We look upon
the mysticall part of them as they are of spirituall use to confirm the Covenant of Grace and to further a man in the way to Heaven And so circumcision was that unto the Jewes before Christs incarnation as Baptisme is to Christians since Now to overthrow this Anabaptists usually alleadge two things viz. First they alleadge that Baptisme cannot be the same unto Christians since Christs incarnation as Circumcision was unto the Jewes before and why Because say they Circumcision was to be administred unto Infants on the eighth day but Baptisme is not to bee administred unto Infants on the eight day Sol. This objection proves nothing against the point in hand for the eighth day fell out to bee in such a time wherein the Infants could make no sacramentall use of the Sacrament of Circumcision and they were a blanke in their sense as much as our Infants Under the law they were to be kept from Circumcision untill the eight day for a ceremoniall reason Levit. 12.2 3. And this makes nothing at all against what we have said touching the substantiall identity of Circumcision and Baptisme For things that doe differ circumstantially may yet be altogether one in substance Secondly they alleadge that under the law females were not circumcised but under the Gospell they are baptized Sol. We answer that this neither makes nothing against the point in hand which is paedo-baptisme for grant that the proportion holds between Circumcision and Baptisme were it but in males this were enough to refute their owne conclusion For this would inferre that the state of infancy doth not make persons uncapable of the initiall seale of the Covenant of grace under the Gospell But they oppose paedo-baptisme in males and females But we answer that under the law the females were circumcised in the males as the Church is circumcised in Christ The males bearing the type of Christ upon their flesh and the males and females in matrimoniall conjunction representing Christ and His Church And unto this the Apostle alludes Ephes 5.22 33. And now such a typicall discrimination of sexes being removed Christ exhibited puts no difference in Baptisme between males and females Gal. 3.27 28. So then the argument stands good that Infants are capable of Baptisme because borne under the Covenant of Grace Reason 3 Thirdly Infants of Christians are to be baptized in their infancy because we have divine warrant for it For the text here Matth. 28.19 imports that all the children of the Christian Church are to be baptized And Gods Covenant of grace with the parents put under seale unto them by Baptisme doth necessarily put the Infants of such parents under the same Covenant of grace as the seed of such parents For to grant that baptized parents are put under the Covenant of grace by divine warrant is to grant that the children of such parents are put under the same Covenant by the same warrant For the separating of Children from parents in Covenant is to dissolve that Covenant which God made with Abraham in the promised seed for the eternall salvation of Jewes and Gentiles Now the very being of the parents under the seale of this Covenant doth prove unanswerably that their infants are in this Covenant And if this proves the being of Infants in Covenant then it proves unanswerably their right of having the Covenant put under seale unto them by divine warrant and so by necessary consequence their divine right unto Baptisme For by birth they are in the Covenant because borne under the Covenant as children of such parents And admit the parents unto Baptisme upon the testimony of their faith and that brings the children of such parents into the Church by birth so then baptize the parents and thereby of necessity you make the Infants of such parents baptizable by divine warrant and it cannot be avoyded Now that Matth. 28.19 doth warrant our baptizing of Infants whose parents are baptized may thus be evinced and made good viz. All true members of the Christian Church are to be baptized by Christs warrant in Matth. 28.19 But all Infants of baptized parents are true members of the Christian Church Ergo All Infants of baptized parents are to bee baptized by Christs warrant in Matth. 28.19 The Minor proposition I thus prove viz. That proposition whose contradictory is false and absurd is a true proposition But the contradictory of this Minor proposition is false and absurd ergo This Minor proposition is a true proposition Now the contradictory of this Minor proposition is this viz. Some Infants of baptized parents are not true members of the Christian Church But this proposition is false and absurd and as much as to say as some Infants of baptized parents are Aliens Pagans and Insidels Thus then I argue viz. Infants of baptized parents are either true members of the Christian Church or else they are Aliens Pagans and Infidels there is no medium there is no neuter But Infants of baptized parents are not Aliens Pagans and Infidels Ergo. Infants of baptized parents are true members of the Christian Church And so by necessary consequence Christs Commission Matth. 28.19 is a divine warrant for the baptizing of Infants whose parents are baptized Now let the Anabaptists shew us any child or infant of baptized parents that is not a true member of the Christian Church and prove him by the word of God to be no member of the Christian Church and we will not baptize that child Again to contrive my Syllogisme in another mood which may as well accomplish my purpose and prove that Christs Commission for baptizing is for the baptizing of Infants whose parents are baptized as well as for the baptizing of the alien upon the testimony of his faith in Christ Thus I argue viz. All true members of the Christian Church are to bee baptized by vertue of Christs Commission in Matth. 28.19 But some Infants of baptized parents are true members of the Christian Church Ergo. Some Infants of Christian parents are to be baptized by vertue of Christs Commission in Matth. 28.19 Now that some Infants of Christians are true members of the Christian Church may thus be proved viz. All true members of Christ in the Church are true members of the Christian Church But some Infants of baptized parents are true members of Christ in the Church ergo Some Infants of baptized parents are true members of the Christian Church Now then if Christs Commission Mat. 28.19 be that we should baptize all true members of the Christian Church and that some Infants are true members of the Christian Church then some Infants of Christian parents are to be baptized by vertue of Christs Commission Mat. 28.19 And this proves that persons may be baptizable in their infancy and ought to be baptized And as for what you instance from the practise of the Apostles that will not serve your turne For the Apostolicall Ministery lay in gathering of a primitive Church from Judaisme and Paganisme But instance
in the practise of ordinary pastours in a Church gathered as the Church of Corinth or any other mentioned in the new Testament and bring me thence but one instance that any children whose parents were baptized and in the state of Christianity were held back from baptisme untill they could give an accompt of their faith in person and then you will speak to the present condition of Gods Church in these times But this you cannot doe and therefore in drawing extraordinary instances into an ordinary canon to binde all the Churches of God unto like practise is to overthrow the nature of Gods Covenant of Grace and to make that a personall Covenant i. e. to terminate in the person baptized which God hath made sociall i. e. to beleevers and their seed jointly saying I will be thy God and the God of thy seed in their generations Now for this Commission in the 28. of Matth. verse 19 20. It s a full and univerfall Commission belonging to all the Ministers of Christ under the Gospell unto the worlds end And of these Ministers some are extraordinary and to cease and some are ordinary and to continue So then in this short Commission here is somewhat Apostolicall and peculiar to extraordinary Ministers which cannot be applyed unto nor expected from ordinary pastours in setled Churches As to plant foundations to work miracles as proofes of their immediate calling from God to be led by an unerring spirit in delivering immediate oracles from Christ as standing canons of divine faith and worship c. And so their practise was extraordinary and no such thing is to be expected from ordinary pastours but to build upon the foundation which the Apostles laid Now the Apostles committed the Churches gathered unto ordinary pastours and teachers which must proceed in the work of the Ministery where the Apostles left for the edifying of the body of Christ c. And that this is such an universall Commission as we speak of the Apostle Paul makes cleare and puts it out of all doubt Ephes 4.8 13. where he expoundes the meaning of this Commission For whereas Christ in this text here saith All power is given unto Me goe yee therefore and teach all Nations c. Paul upon the same ground and occasion saith when He ascended up on high meaning Christ He led captivity captive and gave gifts unto men c. And He gave some Apostles some Prophets and some Evangelists and some pastours and teachers for the perfecting of the Saints for the work of the Ministery for the edifying of the body of Christ c. For how long Vntill the end of the world saith Christ Vntill we all come in the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Sonne of God unto a perfect man unto the measure of the stature of the fulnesse of Christ sayes Paul See then what confusion the Anabaptists doe speak when they urge from this text Apostolicall imitation in ordinary pastours without distinguishing of what is herein peculiar to extraordinary Ministers and what is common to Apostles and ordinary pastours This I thought good to speak to prevent a mischiefe that might befall unstable soules through the jugling fraud cunning craftinesse of the Anabaptists for want of a right understanding of our Saviours mind in this text For they will hence take occasion to cry up Christs Commission unto His Apostles in Matth. 28.19 20. viz. of making men Disciples before they could bee capable of Baptisme putting no difference between those that are to be made Christians of Aliens and those that are borne Christians of Christians and also putting no difference between the Apostolicall ministration and the Pastorall ministration and so by a confused urging of the text in the strict letter they seduce many an unstable soule unto their hereticall practise of rebaptizing Whereas could they but look upon this Commission as an universall Commission they would soone discerne the fraud of these men and would not bee carried away by them Christians then in these dayes should labour to be men in knowledge and not bee alwayes children tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine by the sleight of men and cunning craftinesse whereby they lye in waite to deceive Ephes 4.14 Seducers have a sleight whereby they can deceive children i. e. men of little knowledge in divine mysteries and of an unstable and wavering mind These seducers can use the Scriptures as the juglers use their dice. For as the jugler hath a sleight to make his dice to turne up what may serve his turne to defraud such as he playes withall so seducers have a sleight when they deale with men of little knowledge and of a wavering minde to make the Scriptures speak their owne language for to winne men unto their party And the metaphor is here by the Apostle taken from the jugler for hee saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Men deceive novices and ungrounded Christians But how In the dice-playing of men And so our Anabaptists meeting with Novices and ungrounded christians will make this and other Scriptures speak their own principles and language to deceive men and lead them into error And therefore I thought good to acquaint you with the true meaning of this text which the jugling Anabaptists pervert to their own ends and doe not make it speak the mind of Christ but the language of their own seduced and seducing hearts and t is blasphemy to say that any text of Scripture doth speak their hellish principles Simple ones may be carried away with their good words and faire speeches but grounded Christians know and see their juglings and method of deceiving well enough The text warrants and commands the baptizing of all true members of the Christian Church And therefore it warrants the baptizing of Infants of baptized parents and this Inference cannot be avoyded And so much for this third reason for paedo baptisme Reason 4 Fourthly we baptize Infants of baptized parents because the Lord doth ordinarily make our baptizing of Infants effectuall to the proper ends whereunto true Baptisme is appointed in the Gospell Now the ends are to put on Christ Gal. 3.27 To dye unto sinne and to live unto God Rom. 6.3 4 5. 1 Pet. 3.21 And God doth ordinarily make Baptisme effectuall unto these ends in persons that were baptized in their infancy For among those that were baptized in their infancy wee have as humble meek and mortified Christians men and women as any among the Anabaptists to say no more We have those that dye dayly unto sinne and are vexed in soule to see the abominations of others Againe wee have those that beare upon them the markes of the Lord Jesus Their lives are holy and lovely They are sound in the faith grave in their behaviour and ready unto every good work They deny themselves they advance free grace they afflict their soules and seek the peace of Hierusalem Ordinarily our ministery doth gaine them and sweetly
is the same with the Pagan-Gentiles I know no reason why we so long as we remaine in our naturall condition should have greater priviledges then they unlesse the holy Ghost had any where given commission for is in Scripture And therefore untill you can prove a difference between them and us by nature you in effect as good as say nothing Answer Here as a man more then confident of his cause you seem to grant your antagonist more then is required Here you have found out an argument which in your opinion is more then demonstrative And oh how happy is your Church in having so mettalsome a champion that is able to say something that your Apostolicall fraternity be not troden down of the Idolatrous paedo-baptists But however your words may passe in your Church as oracles yet wee the maintainers of Gods Covenant judge your assertion in all this prattle to be but an aspersion And either make your charge good or else we will look upon you as an agent for the devill and not for Christ Prove that all the children of beleeving parents are open and professed enemies to God Shew where the Scripture so termes Infants of Christian parents seeing such are borne Christians and called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Saints I Cor. 7.14 You shew your selfe to be an open and professed enemy to the holy seed in casting so soule a reproach upon persons that God hath so highly honoured And as much may be said of the Infants of the Jewes namely that they were borne in originall sinne yet the Scripture termes them no where open and professed enemies to God though you say the promises made unto them were but temporary Nor did this estate debarre them from being sealed into Gods peculiar in their infancy by the seale of His holy and eternall Covenant Now if you say that infants in their infancy must not be baptized because they cannot understand the meaning of that mysticall Ordinance nor have saith to apply the promises therein held forth by the same reason the Infants of the Jewes should not have been circumcised for circumcision had in it the same essentiall mystery with Baptisme though held forth in a type And so your argument blames God Himselfe for preposterous dealing in prescribing the seale of the righteousnesse of faith to be imprinted on persons before they manifested or could manifest any faith at all by profession or practise And circumcision was a seale of the same righteousnesse of faith which we Christians build our eternall salvation upon and that is faith in Jesus Christ Rom. 4. and Rom. 5. Ob. But there was a speciall command for circumcision in the time of infancy Sol. But your reason I say blames God for that command because Infants of Jewes were as much in the state of nature as Infants of Christians So then the same reason that you alleadge to blame us for our practise doth blame God for His command Againe we answer that there was such a command for the circumcising of such Infants in their infancy whose parents were under Gods seale but no such command for Infants whose parents were not Profession of faith was needfull unto such whose parents were not under Gods foederall seale And so Abraham in whom the Church of the Jewes began had saith before hee had the seale for being uncircumcised or before circumcision hee had the righteousnesse of faith Rom 4.11 But no such thing afterward required of Abrahams seed but the contrary commanded namely that his seed should be circumcised in their infancy So for baptisme under the Gospell For such whose parents are not under the seale of Gods Covenant are not to be baptized but first to manifest the righteousnesse of faith And here as in Abraham the righteousnesse of faith must goe before the initiall seale but when parents as Abraham are once under the seale of Gods Covenant their seed as the seed of Abraham are to bee sealed unto God in their infancy by vertue of their Christian birth-right for by birth they are under Gods Covenant and that Covenant under which they were borne is to bee put under seale and ratified unto them as joint confederates with their parents and of Gods peculiar people with them For the expresse words of the Covenant are I WILL BEE THY GOD AND THE GOD OF THY SEED And therefore when God doth put the initiall seale upon the parents He doth enright the seed of such parents unto the Covenant and initiall seale thereof in their infancy as the Lord hath clearely resolved the case when He put His Covenant under seale with Abraham And therefore you Anabaptists are destroyers of Gods Covenant and will have it to terminate in the party baptized and not to extend to his or her seed as their Christian jointure by birth So then the Covenant that God makes with us Christians is not I will be thy God and the God of thy Seed jointly But I will be thy God and not the God of the seed untill they manifest faith in practice and profession and then I will be the God of thy seed also And so this Covenant will be no priviledge unto children of Christian parents at all for the children of Turkes shall bee received by Baptisme when they testify faith in christ and and repentance towards God And so Gods Covenant of Grace must alwayes terminate in the party baptized and goe no further And is not this mad Divinity that the children shall be excluded when God hath joyned parents and children as joint-partakers of the same Covenant and inheritance And are not you herein the devills attournies sent of purpose to wrangle children of Christian parents out of the spirituall inheritance unto which they are borne as Christians by birth The Lord plead the cause of His Covenant against these perverse disputers maintaine the inheritance of our seed and of-spring against the cursed machinations of these sacrilegious theeves and robbers which steale from God from us and from our children But you call for a difference beteeen us Christians and the Pagan-Gentiles by nature unles this be shewed nothing in effect is spoken against you or for us By nature that is by naturall generation this I beleeve is your meaning a notion indeed high enough for Anabaptists who look upon all Gods ordinances like sensuall beasts But upon that naturall generation of procreation of seed you may behold the Covenant of Grace established and set up had you any sparke of spirituall discerning in you for so did St. Paul Ephes 2.3 4. c. And had you learned the language of the Scriptures you might truly say that the children of Christians are Christians by nature and not sinners of the Pagans as the Apostle speakes of the Jewes saying we are Jewes by nature and not sinners of the Gentiles Gal. 2.15 Here Jewes by nature and sinners of the Gentiles are opposite members But how were they Jewes by nature Surely as St. Peter speaks because they were the
children of the Prophets and of the Covenant because borne under the holy Covenant Act. 3.25 And how were not the Jewes sinners of the Gentiles Surely Divines whom you may seem sooner to refute then understand tell us that such as were borne Jewes had not their sinnes imputed unto them otherwise they were borne in originall sinne as well as the Gentiles but the holy Covenant of Grace was establisht upon them which Covenant was appointed as a remedy to fre e them from originall corruption and to restore them to Gods favour But this is a kind of language which you Anabaptists haply doe not understand For had you any knowledge this way you would not reason so wildly and turne Gods Covenant out of doores by putting no difference by nature between such as are born Christians in the Church under the holy Covenant and such as are born Pagans out of the Church strangers from the covenant And therefore seeing by nature there is so wide a difference between such as are born Christians and such as are born Pagans you in effect as good as say nothing For God bath engraven His Covenant upon the Infants of Christians and made this knowne unto his Church and therefore the Infants of Christians are to have the priviledge of Baptisme in their infancy But God hath not engraven His Covenant upon children of Pagans therefore they are not to have it untill they testify faith and repentance And this covenant written upon children of Christians in their infancy is the Commission that the Holy Ghost hath given in Scripture for baptizing Infants of Christians in their infancy 1 Cor. 7.14 And now I pray put your heads all together and let me heare what you can say against this But goe on Anabaptist Againe further This argument of yours is but from humane conception and doth tend to the overthrow of a divine institution which may not nor ought not to be unles you can prove where and when the holy Ghost hath or doth expresly lay down or give commission for the alteration of that expresse institution that Christ gave unto His Disciples to teach and instruct all Nations to observe and follow the rule that they left them And therefore the alteration of times and state is not sufficient to alter a divine institution untill it be altered by divine Authority by which it was at first commanded As for instance Suppose the King should establish a Law and an Act of Parliament for the practising of any particular action in the Land and the cause may be removed for which this Law was established yet this Act doth still remaine in force to be practised untill the Author thereof doth disanull it by proclamation or alteration So in like manner Christ hath established an Institution for Baptisme and confirmed it by the Apostles practice according to their commission and therefore untill Christ doth disanull this Institution or alter it wee may not nor dare not to alter it upon paine of open rebellion against the King of Heaven let the time alter never so much that is not a ground sufficient to alter an Institution And this for answer unto your first and chiefest Argument Now to passe by many groundlesse and sensuall arguments which are not worth answering because they savour of nothing but censuring we desire to come to your chiefest reasons wherefore Infants should be Baptized Answer No Argument that is truly deducted from the Scriptures of God is from humane conception But this Argument of mine against which you except is truly deducted from the Scriptures of God Ergo This Argument of mine against which you except is not from humane conception And then againe thus viz. No Argument that is deducted from the Scriptures of God can overthrow a divine Institution But this Argument of mine against which yee except is truly deducted from the Scriptures of God Ergo This Argument of mine against which you except cannot overthrow a divine Institution Now let mee but prove the Minor Proposition and you are overthrowne irrecoverably though you seeme to be armed with Law and Gospell against us Well the point that I have to make good is this namely that the Argument I here used was truly deducted from the Scriptures of God And to make this good the very rehearsall of what I said will be enough without any more adoe The summe of what I said was that the state of the Pagan Gentiles before the Apostles planted the Gospell among them was not the same in point of religion as is the state of the Christian Gentiles where the Gospell is embraced and they baptized Now I represented the state of the Pagan-Gentiles unto you in two particulars 1. I told you that before the Gospell came among the Pagan-Gentiles they were without Christ being aliens from the Common-wealth of Israel and strangers from the covenants of promise having no hope and without God in the world Ephes 2.12 And I am sure this is no humane conceipt unlesse the Oracles of God are humane conceipts 2. I said againe that before the Gospell came among the Pagan-Gentiles they were carried away to dumbe Idols even as they were led 1 Cor. 12.2 Neither is this any humane conceipt Then finally the Gentiles where the Gospell is planted are not of this condition in point of religion but in covenant with God and of Gods family and houshold as you may see in any Sermon-notes prefixed If this Argument doth overthrow the sense that you give of Matth 28.19 then you doe not give the right sense of the text For no argument truly deducted from the Scripture can overthrow the true meaning of any Scripture And so if your manner of baptizing which you would have to be warranted by that of our Saviour Matth. 28.19 will not stand with the nature of Gods covenant of Grace among the Gentiles where the Gospell is planted then Christ meanes not your way of baptizing in Churches where the Gospell is planted So then this argument of mine tends not to the overthrowing of any institution of Christ in Mat. 28.19 but layes a ground for the refuting of your wrong interpretation of the text the true meaning of which text you may afterwards see in due place For it should seem this is the keeping of your song and afterwards iterated againe and againe And for me to run over the same things againe and againe would argue me to be as void of mater as you are of reason But I pray one thing more What are those sensuall and groundlesse arguments of mine that you so sleightly passe over as not worth the answering I termed Anabaptists indeed a monstrous broode sacrilegious theeves Bellarmines Disciples c. Doe these savour of nothing but censuring Are these the sensuall and groundlesse arguments you mean But I argued that the promises of God made unto the Jewes in the Messias were spirituall and eternall promises Mat. 23.32 Act. 3.25 26. Heb. 11.16 And this you passe by untouched
not because the argument is sensuall and groundlesse but because you cannot answer it Moreover I told you that circumcision was the seale of the righteousnesse of faith and that this seale was imprinted on very Infants in their infancy And is this a groundlesse and sensuall argument not worth the answering Alas alas you cannot answer it And therefore for ought you have said or can say my doctrine must stand good and the gates of hell cannot prevaile against it View it over againe and consider it more punctually And then haply you will either be †Hodson an Ambaptist in the city of Glocester growne as light to the head since he was new baptized as he was light in the heart before Hodson-peevish or of another mind And now having made so manly an encounter let us see whether your valour will endure the brunt of the battell Let us heare your killing exceptions against my reasons that I had for paedo-baptisme Reason 1 The first reason for paedo baptisme Anabaptist Because you say that children are holy therefore they may be baptized 1 Cor. 7.14 Now we would know what holinesse you meane Answer I did not say that children are holy that 's too generall but that children of Christian parents are holy And wee therefore say so because the Apostle Paul the pen-man of the Holy Ghost speaks it And so when you aske me what I meane by holinesse in this discourse you demand withall what the Apostle meanes by it for I only relate his words The meaning then of the Apostle is the same as was the meaning of the Prophets when they said that the Iewish Infants were holy because borne under an holy Covenant Iewes by nature and not sinners under the Gentiles So the meaning of the Apostle is that the children of Christians are holy i. e. Christians by nature and birth not sinners of the Pagans unto which Pagans God hath not committed His Oracles nor put them under His seale But goe on and we will follow you Anabaptist If you say an inward holinesse then grace must come successively from parents And so by this rule wee shall make our parents the authors and conveighers of grace and so mightily wrong the Lord Jesus Christ For there is nothing doth make us truly holy but grace for by nature wee are all filthy and corrupt from top to toe and by this ground we draw grace from our parents loynes which to affirme is most grosse and false and no lesse then high blasphemy against the Spirit of God and the Lord Jesus Christ Answer What holinesse we meane you may see in our answer immediately going before But if we should say that it was inward holinesse How doth that inferre that grace must come successively from parents Seeing parents and children doe not derive inward holinesse and grace from one another but as joint-confederates they both derive and draw holinesse from the Covenant of Grace under which they both are For the expresse words of the Covenant are I will be thy God and the God of thy seed jointly as co-partners in the same Covenant And therefore you erre not knowing the Scriptures nor the nature of the Covenant The Sadduces endeavouring to overthrow the doctrine of the Resurrection drew an argument ab absurdo wherein there were more words then matter like the arguments of you and your brethren of the separation Matth. 22.23 28. thinking to puzzle their answerer with multitude of words seeing they wanted weight of argument So you use many words and sport your selves with your owne fancies But as Christ answered the Sadduces that they did erre because they neither knew the Scriptures nor the power of God So say I to you that you therefore erre not knowing the Scriptures nor the Nature of Gods Covenant of free Grace with His people And who wrongs Christ think you You or I You in making the grace of God of lesse extent by the comming of Christ in setting Moses above Christ For Moses allowed Infants of Gods Covenant people the initiall seale in their infancy but Christ denies it unto them if your Divinity will hold Or I in setting Christ above Moses both for clearenesse and extent of grace Now if Moses in his typicall ministration afford unto the Infants of Gods Covenant-people the initiall seale and Christ denies it in His Gospell-ministration then surely the shadow is to bee preferred before the substance And herein you shew your selfe to bee as stout an advocate for the obstinate Jewes agaist Christ as if from them you had received thirty peeces of silver to betray Him But what high blasphemy against the Spirit of God and the Lord Jesus Christ have you found out spray you Oh this namely that children shoulâ— draw grace from their parents loinesâ— But who a â—irmes this you or â—â— If â— then the Apostle affirmes it for â—d only said that children of Christian parents are holy and so saies the Aâ—ostle Anâ— is the Apostle an high blasphemer in saying so But goe on I pray I know you love not to be interrupted in so weighty a case of conscience as this is Anabaptist Againe if this be true then the unbelieving wife is made holy too and shee may be baptized as well as the children although shee be an infidell which is agaist your owne affirmation Answer T is true that children of Christian parents are holy if that be your meaning and upon this ground are to bee baptized as is said in my Sermon-notes But how doth it hence follow that the unbeleeving wife though holy to the beleeving husband is therefore as well to be baptized as the children of the beleeving parent For the Covenant is I will be thy God and the God of thy seed not I will be thy God and the God of thy wife though an infidell It 's one thing to be under an holy use another thing to be under an holy conditition The beleeving party is said to have a sanctified use of the infidell but the infidell is not said to be holy as the children are For such children are not said to bee sactified unto the parents but holy in themselves by reason of the holy Covenant under which they were borne as children of a parent in Covenant with God and joint-confederates In the originall the unbeleeving party is said to bee holy not to but in the beleeving party Not that one of them absolutely considered were sanctified in another for wee are sanctified only in the Lord Jesus Christ but as considered in the relation of husband and wife in lawfull matrimony so the infidell party is sanctified in the beleeving party for conjugall society and for raising up of an holy seed unto God And if you can but look into the originall and consider the scope of the place you cannot but suffrage with me But goe on Anabaptist But you say it is such an holinesse as hath the promises of the Kingdome of heaven If so then thus we affirme
holinesse of the children spoken of here can be no other but that which is opposed to bastardy Here this wise man maintains the contradictory of your opposites conclusion He saies that the holines of the children doth not arise from that one parent was a beleever But how proves be this Surely testimonium dicentis is full enâ—ugh he being a man of such an infallible a spirit that a bare I say must serve your turne But whence then doth this holinesse arise From this saies he that the unbeleever was sanctified to or by the beleever Very good because the unbeleever was sanctified to the beleever therefore the children of such were holy And why was the unbeliever sanctified to the believer Was it not because hee was a beleever and so made pure by faith and then unto the pure all things are pure Tit. 1.15 Now then because hee was a believer therefore the infidell was sanctified to him for conjugall societie and because the infidell was sanctified to the beleever for conjugall societie therefore the children of such were holy and so by necessary consequence because one of the parents was a beleever therefore the children were holy Faith made the conjugall societie holy the holy conjugall society made the children holy and therefore faith made the children holy Quest But how can the faith of the parent make the children holy Answ Surely not by infusing of sanctifying grace into the children but by putting the parent into Christ Now faith puts the parent into Christ and Christ puts the parent so put into Him into the Covenant of grace and the Covenant of grace is I will be thy God and the God of thy seed and hence is it that the children of such parents are holy namely because of the holy Covenant And therefore the holinesse spoken off here may be and is somewhat else then that which is opposed to bastardy namely the holinesse of the Covenant which the saith of the parent puts him into for himseâ—fe and his seed For Goodman-Cocks-combe how can the children of those be bastards that are lawfully married But you acknowledge that the parents of the holy children here spoken off were lawfully married before you meane while in the state of infidels And therefore it must be the holinesse of the Covenant of grace which the faith of the parent put himselfe and his children under But you say in the last paragraph of your letter to your Disciples that Infants were in the Covenant legally but not Evangelically and that when the law ceased this being in Covenant ceased with it But for so saying you deserve a pillory not a Pulpit You might be better imployed in looking to your Sope or Candles then in filling mens heads with such hellish notions If this be your care and diligence that you shew for your Disciples as you say in your foresaid letter you may sit still The devill himselfe can shew such care and diligence fast enough But how prove you that childrens being in Covenant with their parents is now ceased under the Gospell You say so And your I say must stand as an Oracle with such as are willing to be seduced by you And personall faith in your sense is no more requisite to the being of Infants in Covenant with their parents under the Gospell then under the law For it 's the same Covenant of free grace in Jesus Christ now as then And thus for ought I see your master and you are in hot emulation who shall excell in speaking of non sense And yet you are so confident of the truth of your cause that had you a 1000. lives you would lay them all downe for the confirmation of the same Stout words But should you lay downe that one you have for it it would bee judged rather madnes then martyrdome and you not a Martyr but a mad-man in so doing And truly if you can say no more for your cause give over writing and take Physick Talke no more of your conscience but see your folly Now say on Anabaptist For we have examples in Scripture where children that are borne of two parents that were lawfully yoked together were called to bee holy and a godly seed by birth As for instance Mal. 2. Ezra Levit. and other examples Answer The meer being of the two parents lawfully yoked together is not sufficient to denominate the children of such parents holy by birth but their being within the holy Covenant The Covenant under which the parents are is the cause why the children of such are holy by birth and so called by the Spirit of God in the Scripture and for that reason only And those very instances where you find them in the old Testament where children are said to be holy will cut the throat of your owne cause for you cannot shew that the Scripture doth so much as once call the children of the Gentiles and Pagans an holy seed as is doth the children of the Church The holy Covenant of God I say under which the parent or parents is or are is the onely cause why the Scriptures terme children holy And I challenge you to bring me one instance where children of parents are said to be holy for any other reason Anabaptist Againe we doe not find any warrant in Scripture for to give the seales of the Covenant of grace upon imputed holinesse but upon personall holinesse and confession Acts 16. Mat. 3. Mark 1. For the signe of circumcision was not given by vertue of any imputed holinesse in the child that it did draw from the parents but by vertue of Gods Commission unto Abraham that he gave him for to circumcise his seed and so ought the seale of Baptisme to be given by vertue of Christs Commission and not by vertue of any holinesse that is imputed unto the child Answer By imputed holinesse I conceive your meaning to be imputative righteousnesse And by personall holinesse inherent righteousnesse or holinesse in a mans personall practice and confession And by seales the initiall seales of Gods Covenant Now I finde the initiall seale of the Covenant of grace to be given upon the ground of imputative righteousnesse for the righteousnesse of faith is imputative righteousnesse but I find it to be administred upon this ground and therefore upon the ground of imputative righteousnesse And circumcision unto the Infants of the Jewes was a seale of righteousnesse but not of righteousnesse in their personall practice and confession and therefore of imputative righteousnesse And thus I have brought unto your hand what you could not finde And then for your instances Act. 16. Matth. 3. Mark 1. they will not serve to help you For the matter in controversie is whether children of parents already in the state of Christianity bee to bee baptized in their infancy or no And now you bring instances of such whose parents were not in the state of Christianity which is a quite contrary case But prove by Scripture that the children of the
first baptized were denied Baptisme untill they could give account of their faith or else you speak not to the point seeing children borne of Christian parents are Christians by birth but such as you instance in were not And is this faire dealing think you And what talke you of an imputed holinesse in a child that it should draw from it parents What imputed holinesse is it you meane Imputative righteousnesse Doe you think that imputative righteousnesse is in us How differs it then from inherent righteousnesse The words imply a contradiction And had you ever been rightly grounded in the principles of our Religion you would never have vented so absurd a passage For the children doe not draw holinesse from their parents in Covenant but as companions in Covenant with their parents are primitively holy as well as their parents by vertue of the same Covenant For the expresse words of the Covenant are I will be thy God and the God of thy seed Here the Covenant puts parents and children both in equall relation unto God But here you renew your old quarrell against the Covenant of grace like an old trotting horse let never so skilfull a rider use his best art to bring him into a better pace yet the carrion will fall into his old joulting trot againe so you tell us againe that circumcision was not administred unto Abrahams seed by vertue of any holinesse imputed unto Infants by the Covenant but by vertue of Gods command This is your meaning however your expressions be And we answer againe that because they were an holy seed that therefore the Lord commanded them to be circumcised For the Covenant in order of nature must goe before the confirmation and seale thereof So that the ground of Gods commanding Abrahams seed to be circumcised was their being in the holy i. e. a seed set apart unto God from other nations And therefore the Lord doth not barely command Abraham to circumcise his males but He brings it in with a THEREFORE to shew that the Covenant having made them an holy seed therefore they wereto have the initiall seale imprinted on those holy persons For marke the words Gen. 17.7 12. of the Covenant I will establish my Covenant between Me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting Covenant to be a God unto thee and to thy seed after thee And will give unto thee and thy seed after thee the land wherein thou art a stranger all the land of Canaan for an everlasting possession and I will be their God verse 7 8. And hereupon God said unto Abraham thou shalt circumcise thy males therefore Not barely thou shalt circumcise thy males but thou shalt circumcise thy males therefore i. e. Because of the foregoeing Covenant in the 7. and 8. verses This inference we have verse 9. in these words viz. Thou shalt keep my Covenant therefore thou and thy seed after thee in their generations And then whereas they might have asked the Lord what that Covenant was which He would have them to keep The Lord answers in the to verse after this manner viz. This is My Covenant which yee shall keep between Me and you and thy seed after thee every man-child shall bee circumcised c. Here circumcision is called by the name of the Covenant because the Covenant is the ground of it And circumcision did but put the covenant under seale in which Covenant those children were before by birth being borne of parents with whom God had stricken Covenant And so this lame shift will not serve your turne And to conclude as little to the purpose is it which you say concerning Baptisme for you say that Baptisme is not to be given by vertue of holinesse imputed to the child but by vertue of Christs Commission as if holinesse imputed unto a child by vertue of an holy Covenant were not Christs Commission The nations which Christ sent His Apostles unto were not said to bee holy and therefore by teaching they must make them holy before they baptize them But the children of those holy ones were holy by birth and so called by God himself and therefore to be put under the initiall seale of Gods holy Covenant as their right and priviledge by nature and birth Anabaptist Againe the Apostle doth not so much as any way make mention of baptisme in that place viz. 1 Cor. 7.14 and therefore your reason is groundlesse from this place for Baptisme of Infants Answer How groundlesse this exception is he that hath but halfe an eye may see As if to be holy by vertue of Gods holy Covenant were not a sufficient reason to argue a mans right unto the initiall seale of this holy Covenant according to the ministration of the covenant under which he is born doth live Now the initiall seale of the Covenants ministration under the Gospell is Baptisme but children borne of Christian parents under the Gospell are holy by vertue of Gods holy Covenant and therefore children borne of such parents have right unto Baptisme The Covenant of God is engraven upon them by birth and therefore the initiall seale is their present priviledge And so the place proves it And the reason is substantiall And it proves you to bee sacrilegious theeves and robbers for denying Infants baptisme in their infancy And by Gods help I 'le maintaine this charge against you before the dreadfull tribunall of the Lord Jesus Christ at the last day And in the interim I shall endeavour to preserve as many as I can from being seduced by your faire pretences Anabaptist Againe you parallell this place with Rom. 11.16 where you say that is the root be holy so are the branches Now this root if you take it in the litterall sense as it is spoken then it is meant of Abraham only and he was the root and the beleeving Jewes the branches and therefore Abraham is called the Father of the faithfull and in this sense beleevers are his seed and branches But if you take it in a more spirituall sense then it may be meant of Christ being the root and all beleevers are His members But we conceive to be chiefly meant of Abraham the root and beleevers the branches and so will this make nothing to the purpose neither is it the same with the other place in Corinthians 1 Epist cap. 7. verse 14. Answer If I paralled Rom. 11.16 and 1 Cor. 7.14 to prove that the children of parents in Covenant are holy by vertue of Gods holy Covenant I shall not draw my lines awry Seeing the expresse words of the Covenant are I will bee thy God and the God of thy seed And both places prove that both parents and children are holy by vertue of Gods holy Covenant with them And so both places are coincident to prove the same thing though there may be some circumstantiall differences The place then in Rom. 11.16 makes much for my purpose For my purpose was to prove that as
proves that the sacramentall signe of circumcision was given to the Jewish Infants in vaine also for they could not discerne that signe as a Sacrament for though they had bodily feeling of the cutting off of their flesh yet they could not in the present act of administration discerne the signe as sacramentall and so our Infants have bodily feeling of the water too And so your quarrell is against God as well as against us But as such as were borne Jewes were to have the initiall seale of the present ministration imprinted on them in their infancy to seale up the Covenant under which they were borne unto them though they could have no such discerning as you seem to require in the present act of administration so such as are borne Christians are to have the intiall seale of the present ministration imprinted on them in their infancy to seale up the Covenant under which they are borne unto them though they can have no such discerning as you require and yet the ordinance effectuall unto them too I thought that Baptisme had been a continuall act of Gods mercy and grace and that the saving efficacy and benefits thereof had not depended upon the Act of the receiver but upon the operative mercy of God and Merits of Christ But it seems your Divinity shewes me a new way But why must Infants of Christians discerne the signe of water in Baptisme in the present act What Because water leaves no impression upon the body but shortly after the act is over the body is as dry as if it had not been washed at all And when the child is come to yeares hee findes no visible mark upon his body to assure him that he is sealed into Gods peculiar Oh! Is this it I pray what mark is there left upon your flesh since you were washed in Severne though you were duckt over head and eares Is a mark in the flesh and a sensitive discerning of the signe the excellencies of circumcision and Baptisme When the Iewes came to yeares of discerning God called not for the circumcision of their flesh but for the circumcision of their hearts It was the mark of circumcision upon the heart that God looked upon for many had the mark of the flesh which were as bad as Ethiopians So for us Christians when wee are come to yeares of discretion it s the mark of the Spirit and of the blood of Christ upon the heart that God calls for and looks upon For a man may have the signe of water and discerne the signe in the very act with the eye of his flesh and yet be a vile Anabaptist deny originall sinne in Infants deny the Christian Sabbath and set up the Iewish deny Christs taking flesh of the Virgin MARY deny the power of the Magistrate and a 1000 such like abominations and a man be baptized in his infancy and want your discerning and yet when hee is come to yeares of discretion he may be an holy and mortified Christian sound in judgement regular in all his practices and sincere in all his aimes And therefore this your rotten stuffe will not serve to make a sorry garment for to cover your shame But you have a third thing to alleadge I pray speak on that we may consider that also Anabaptist Thirdly they differ in the subjects for the subjects of circumcision were all Abrahams lineall seed according to the flesh and strangers bought with his money too And why Because God had promised Abraham a temporall inheritance for him and for all his lineall seed as they were borne and circumcision was the signe thereof But the subjects of Baptisme as are set forth to us by Commission are only beleevers and none else as wee finde and therefore we may not dare to cast off the Commission of Christ and practice of the Apostles for to set up inventions of our owne as an ordinance of Christ where we have neither precept nor president for it in all the book of God Againe ut infra Answer For the subjects of circumcision and Baptisme I know no substantiall difference for persons as in Covenant with God are the proper subjects of them both Now men are brought into Gods Covenant either by instruction or borne under this holy Covenant as the seed of persons in Covenant with God Thus Abraham and his Proselytes became the subjects of Circumcision by profession of their faith in the Messias But the seed of circumcised Abraham and of the circumcised Proselytes were such by birth as children of parents in Covenant So when the Apostles in primitive times planted foundations of the Christian faith among the Pagans These Pagans were made subjects capable of Baptisme by instruction but the seed of these baptized Pagans were capable of Baptisme by birth as joint heires with their parents of the same holy Covenant and that Covenant under which they were borne was to bee put under seale unto them So then as Abrahams seed and the Proselites seed were to be circumcised when and while Infants for Christians children are to be baptized when and while Infants such Infants being not Infidels ergo beleevers as afterward you shall see in due place And so the baptizing of Christian Infants is no invention of man but grounded on the Covenant of God with parents and their children And this the book of God warrants every where And whereas you say that the promise to Abraham and all his lineall seed was of a temporall inheritance and that circumcision was a signe of that That is false if you meane only or chiefly of a temporall inheritance the temporall inheritance was theirs not as temporall neither but as typicall for 1. Circumcision was a signe and seale of the righteousnesse of faith in the Messias 2. The Proselytes with their children were circumcised to whom right unto that temporall inheritance of the land of Canaan did not appertaine 3. Neither did it belong unto all Abrahams lineall seed as before we have shewed And so all this is as it is unsound so fallacious and absurd Anabaptist Againe the Infants might be more capable of circumcision in their infancy then when they were of riper age because they here to be only patients in the act be they great bee they small there was not any act required in them as we finde but only to receive the signe upon them But in Baptisme they must bee agents acting faith in the action Againe ut infra Answer Abraham and the Proselytes who were to be first received into the Covenant were to be agents acting faith in the Action of administring Circumcision as well as Pagans at their first receiving into the Church were to be agents acting faith in the Action of administring Baptisme unto them And as no such thing was required of the seed of circumcised Abraham nor of the seed of the circumcised Proselytes but circumcision was administred unto them in their infancy as the holy seed being borne of such parents so no such
thing is to bee required of the children of baptized parents but as holy by birth being borne of such parents are to be baptized in their infancy because in their infancy God hath made them holy and declared so much unto us The Covenant under which children are borne makes them capable of the initiall seale according to the ministration under which they are borne whether of a Saviour to come or of a Saviour already come Anabaptist Againe there is difference in the persons for there were none but males circumcised but wee have example of male and female baptized Further c. ut infra Answer This is no argument at all against paedo-baptisme for males were circumcised in their infancy and the Covenant with the Jewes and us Christians is the same spirituall and eternall Covenant binding to divine faith and obedience assuring us and them of eternall happinesse through Gods mercy in the merits of Jesus Christ Now if Male Infants had the seale of such an inheritance and Covenant upon such spirituall grounds in Such a Saviour binding the circumcised Infant to divine faith universall obedience though he could discern none of these matters then Male-Infants of Christians being borne under the same holy Covenant of grace are subjects capable of the initiall seale thereof as children of parents in Covenant with God and of the holy seed by birth So then to exclude females grant males to bee capable of Baptisme upon the ground of circumcision is to conclude against your owne principle But all Israelites females as well as the males stood in Gods acceptation for circumcised as appears in the story of Sampson who seeing a woman of the daughters of the Philistines in Timnath fell in love with her and spake to his Father and Mother to get her for him to wife Then his Father and his Mother said unto him Is there never a woman among the daughters of thy brethren or among all my people that thou goest to take a wife of the uncircumcised Philistines Judges 14.1 2 3. Now if the women of Israel had been reputed uncircumcised then as good for Sampson to chuse one as well as the other as good a woman of the daughters of the Philistines as a woman of the daughters of his brethren What cause then had his Father and his Mother to blame him for his choice As good one uncircumcised woman as another More of this is to be seen in our Sermon-notes to which as yet I have received no answer But I beleeve that this concerning females is none of your maine foundations you build your Religion upon Anabaptist Further they differ in the time for they were to bee circumtised the eighth day but we have no set time for Baptisme but when they doe beleeve then they are to be baptized And therefore if you rightly consider these things and the maine differences hereof I think there is no reasonable man that understands himselfe and the Scripture will goe about to parallell circumcision with Baptisme in respect of the practising of it Answer We shewed you out of Levit. 12.2 3. that there was a speciall reason why the man-childe should not be circumcised till the eighth day And this reason you passe by untouched because you couldnot answer it And I finde no such reason why baptisme now should be forborne untill any set time Now if circumcision had beene forborne untill the eighth day because till then infants could not and then they could beleeve this were to the purpose But I see you faulter in all things You say much and prove nothing If you aske Physitians why in time of the Law infants were not to be circumcised till the eighth day They will tell you that untill the seventh day being a criticall day and so a dangerous day were past no wound was to be made in the flesh of a tender infant But you say that under the Gospell when persons beleeve then they are to be baptized But I say that Infants of Christians in their infancie are not Insidels but Saints and of the holy seed and therefore beleevers and so are to be baptized in their infancy unlesse you can shew where the Scripture calls the Infants of Gods people in Covenant Vnbeleevers And therefore if you rightly consider these things and the substantiall agreement betweene Circumcision and Baptisme I thinke there is no reasonable man that understands himselfe and the Scripture but will judge your exceptions to be frivolous and that this Argument stands firme which is that Baptisme is unto us as Circumcision was to the Jewes Col. 2.11 The Covenant the same the ends and significations the same for substance Infants were admittable there Ergo here else children in worse case since Christ than before Reason 3 The third Reason Anabaptist Thirdly you seeme to draw a reason from divine Authority for Infants baptisme and you seeme to prove it out of Mat. 28.19 But here give us leave to tell you plainly that you are foulely mistaken and you wrest the Text For Christ bids them goe and teach all Nations and them that are taught must be baptized For Christ doth not say goe and teach all Nations and so baptize all the Nation but goe teach them Now you know there is great difference betweene preaching to a people and teaching of a people for you may preach to a thousand people and it may be not above two or three of all those taught And therefore Christ bids teach them first and then baptize them But however c. ut infra Answer My third Argument for Paedo-baptisme from Mat. 28.19 runs thus The Commandement of baptizing is universall to the whole Church but Infants of Christian parents are members of the Church and therefore the command of baptizing is to be extended unto them as before we have amply declated Now if Infants of such parents be not members of the Church then so dying they cannot be saved sithence none can be saved but by Christ and Christ came to save his Church onely Ephes 5.26 Wherein now I pray am I so fouly mistaken and wherein doe I wrest the Text Christ saith indeed that such as are taught must be baptized but Christ saith not that none must be baptized but such as are taught Prove that or let this Text alone The Text saith baptize all in the Church therefore Infants of baptized parents unlesse you can shew a place that exempts them Christ doth not say goe teach all Nations and so baptize all the Nation Neither did I nor will unlesse the whole Nation shall embrace the doctrine of Christ And then the whole Nation must be baptized and their seed after them in their infancy as Christians by birth Ob. But the baptized must believe and repent Acts 2. Matth. 3. c. Sol. Those Texts must bee restrained to the persons in hand So 1 Thess 3. He that labours not must not eate i.e. men that can labour Children though they cannot labour yet must eate Infants
must have meate though they know not what belongs to meate In Painswick children that know not what they doe are taken Tenants by a rod or pen by the custome of the Manour This stands good bindes the Lord of the Manour and bindes the childe to Courts and Orders and Priviledges of the Manour Paul challenges priviledges of Romans by birth and children of baptized parents challenge baptisme by birth as individuall associates with their parents in covenant As for your descant about preaching and teaching it s a frogge of your owne slime and were a man as sicke of body as you are of fancies it were high time to send to the Clerke or Sexton to tole the bell The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Matth. 28.20 shewes what Christ meanes by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 v. 19. and Mar. 16.15 where the same commission is rehearsed the word ΚΗΡΥΞΑΤΕ i.e. preachthe Gospell doth the same The Church of Gentiles was to be raised by men and women of yeares and when they came in they brought in their children by course with them as Abraham and his Proselytes did theirs Were we disposed to shift as you doe we might say that in Mat. 28. they were to be made Disciples by baptizing first because it is said in the next verse v. 20. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 teaching them And againe it is not said goe make disciples and baptize them but make disciples baptizing them to intimate that by baptizing them they made them disciples Chiefly considering that Mar. 1.4 it 's said that John in whom baptisme was first instituted did baptize in the wildernesse and then preach as though he did baptize first and then preach Besides to exelude such children from being disciples is harsh sith they were borne under the Covenant and Christians by birth and to be disciples and to be Christians are synonymaes Acts 11.26 Anabaptist But however if this answer will not serve to confute your seeming reason yet here is another will I thinke which is this You confesse unto us that the word in the originall is Matathusita that is goe make disciples and baptize them Now you know who are disciples they that believe and these by your owne confession must be baptized and none else from that place nor else-where as we finde and therefore you are much deceived in this reason Againe c. ut infra Answer If it were but a seeming reason you should doe well to shew where the fallacie thereof lies the word in the originall doth not unloose the joynts of my Argument But what your monster Matathusita may doe I know not but for you to say that children of baptized parents are nop believers is harsh as we have said before because they are borne under the Covenant and so by birth are not infidels therefore believers I say that such children by birth are either believers or insidels but not infidels therefore believers And therefore you are much deceived in this exception And who are to come into the Church upon confession and who by birth we have shewed you And to raze the foundation of Paedo-baptisme that we have laid you must have better workemen and better engines And for you to cry out against a seeming reason and to conclude a falleris upon so poore a ground argues rather a rash head than deliberate reason Anabaptist Againe you doe plainly deserve Mt Wynnell to have the same scandalous terme cast upon your selfe as you cast upon us which was that we were Juglers but I submit unto any reasonable Judgo whether this is not plaine jugling for you to turne your tongue and Text to your owne purpose and preach that confusion and wrest the Scripture Nay further c. ut infra Answer I said indeed that Anabaptists were Juglers and this you take to your selves and so now I know where to have you and what to call you though formerly you have declined the name And for what I have herein done I have done in love to my Nation and doe commit the same to the view of all my brethren and doe submit unto their censure promising to rectifie whatsoever is herein amisse if any just blame may be found out And I shall desire you also to maintaine Gods covenant of free grace and to submit unto your lawfull governours which you Anabaptists refuse to doe Anabaptist Nay further you affirmed diverse times over that considering the estate and condition of the Pagan Gentiles that they were in you said that there was no reason in the world why any of those should be baptized without confession of Christ and the Gospel and yet here you bring a groundlesse argument that all the whole Nation should be baptized where the disciples did preach the Gospel yet before you affirmed that there was no reason in the world why any of these should be baptized before they had confessed Christ and beleeved the Gospel Now if this be not grosse confusion I know not wat is Againe c. ut infra Answer What I said before I will rehearse over and over againe if that will serve your turne And that is that there is no reason why the Pagan-Gentiles should be baptized untill they had given testimony of their faith in Christ but I said that the children of those so baptized are holy by birth and so are to have the Covenant put under seale by baptisme in their infancy This is all I said and so I spake distinctly without confusion The point that I insisted on was that children borne of Christian parents are to be baptized in their infancy and therefore you bring a groundlesse accusation and make me the Author of your owne forgeries And that I spake no such thing as this aspersion doth import is cleare by this viz. A near neighbour of mine after the Sermon against which you have brought these exceptions came to me and told me that you apprehended I meant that the whole Nation was to be baptized upon the very bringing of the Gospell among them I answered I intended no such thing but that such as were to be baptized of the Pagans where the Apostles came to lay the first foundations must give testimony of their faith and that the children of baptized parents onely were to be baptized And this answer was immediately returned unto you But either you have forgotten or you conceive that slandering may helpe your cause when you want better arguments And my hearers at that time who without passion tooke my Sermon-notes can note you for a slanderer but haply you learned that tricke of your brethren of the separation before you left them Anabaptist Againe we may casily see this overthrowne by other Scriptures as Mar. 16.15 16. There the Disciples are commanded to preach the Gospell to every creature that is reasonable creatures and he that did beleeve was to be baptized Now it were a strange folly in us to thinke that Christ would so strictly charge his Disciples to preach to every creature before
conscience can well dispense withall as appeares by your usuall practice and whether you turne to us or New-England you must turne from your owne way Our agreement is such that we are all one in the point of Paedo-baptisme against you We in this Land hold that children of all baptized parents are baptizable in their infancie by vertue of the Covenant of Grace under which such children were borne as children of all circumcised parents were circumcisable in their infancie by vertue of the same Covenant of Grace under which they were borne and this is the opinion and practice of all reformed Churches that I know as the French Scottish Dutch High and Low c. But what they doe in New-England I know not The Records of their Church orders and tenents are not in print But they which say they follow New-England way will not baptize all children of beleevers neither except they be in their Covenant Except beleevers enter into their Covenant they shall have no commons with them at the Lords table neither shall their children be baptized by them But their warrant for this practice we desire to see for we think it unjust and impious that persons under Gods Covenant of Grace should be deprived of gods seales which he hath inseparably annexed unto that Covenant And moreover for them to deny baptisme unto children of baptized parents I see no reason though such parents are vitious in their lives as long as such parents remaine within the Church and are orthodox all in the faith I am sure that the children of the Jewes whose parents were profane in life were not kept backe from the Sacrament of circumcision for that cause And the reason is because that Covenant was the Covenant of Grace and not of Workes There are two Covenants that God hath made with men viz. the Covenant of Workes and the Covenant of Grace And of these Covenants there were two heads namely the first Adam and the second Adam With the first Adam God did strike a Covenant of Workes and Adam the head of this body in Covenant did transgresse and so destroyed the Covenant and thereby deprived himselfe and all his members of the priviledges thereof and so death entred upon all mâ—n in that all had sinned in their Head With the second Adam viz. Christ God did strike a Covenant of Grace and Christ the head of his body in this Covenant remaines just and the justifier of his members and therefore his members cannot be deprived of the priviledges of this Covenant for the default of immediate parents Now for thâ—se men in this way as they say of New-England to put a stop unto the Covenant of Grace in denying baptisme unto children of baptized parents I see no warrant For first This practice destroyes the nature of this Covenant For the parents by their miscarriage have broken the Covenant of Workes but not the Covenant of Grace this remaines entire in Christ who is the head of the children borne under this Covenant And these children though by naturall generation they are the off-spring of such wicked parents yet by reason of the Covenant under which they were borne they are the children of the Covenant This practice then is a presumption of an higher nature than these men are aware off And albeit their intent be a reformation yet the meanes is diabolicall Secondly This practice doth vertually accuse Christ the Head as a violater of this Covenant of Grace for as long as the Head remaines just and the justifier of his members his members are not to be debarred of their priviledges whereof under the Gospell Baptisme is the first And the vitious carriage of immediate parents can no more exclude a childe from Baptisme now than could formerly the vitious carriage of Jewish parents exclude their children from the priviledge of Circumcision Now some to evade this say that the Church of the Jewes was a Nationall Chruch but the Church of England is not so But this is but a meere shift to evade what they cannot answer for Proselytes who were not of that Nation were to have their children circumcised and circumcision was enjoyned and practised before the Jewes were a Nationall Church even when and while they were a Family-Church But to the point I say that the Church of the Jewes was a Nationall Church in some things after a peculiar manner as First God had tyed himselfe to remaine with that Nation by his Ordinances of grace untill Shiloh came Secondly that Nation was once a yeare in the representative body thereof to meet at one common place viz. at Hierusalem about the worship of God by divine appointment Now God hath not tyed himselfe to the Church of England for any set terme of time nor is there by divine appointment any set place of worship for the whole Nation to meet in once a yeare about the worship of God But thirdly the Church of the Jewes was a Nationall Church because the whole Nation had received the Doctrine and Covenant of grace and in this sense I hope England is a Nationall Church And if in this sense the Church of England be a Nationall Church that 's as much as I require But surely these men have some other meaning when they say that the Church of the Jewes was a Nationall Church and the Church of England is not than as yet they dare to utter though among them you shall seldome finde a man tongue-tyed Their meaning is that the whole Nation of the Jewes pell-mell were by course to be admitted to the priviledges of that typicall ministration and so the children of vitious parents too because of that Nation but under the Gospell since Christ onely the children of godly parents are to be sealed into Gods peculiar by baptisme and others are not and here they would bring in their Covenant as the forme of the Church But the children of the Jewes were not circumcised because of that Nation but because of gods Covenant with that Nation And so our children are not to be baptized because of such a Nation but because of Gods Covenant with such a Nation and the children of all baptized parents are borne under Gods Covenant of grace and whether their parents be vitious or religious in life the childes title stands good to the Covenant The religious lives of his parents being workes doe not entitle him to the Covenant and initiall seale thereof And the vitious life of parents baptized being workes cannot make voyde the childes title to the Covenant and initiall seale thereof For his title unto the Covenant and initiall seale thereof lies in Christ who remaines just and the justifier of his members and the elect seed may passe through the loynes of vitious parents and often doe whereas godly parents may have reprobates to their children If then these men have any thing to object against Christ as a violater of the Covenant of Grace let them say on and they shall bee answered but
if nothing how dare they deny the initiall seale of this Covenant unto the children of this Covenant Now many honest-hearted Christians carried away with the faire shew of these men doe not see the high iniquity of this practice 3. The practice of debarring infants of baptized parents from baptisme for the loose lives of their parents is no better than high sacriledge For such children being not Pagans borne out of the Church but Christians borne within the Church and of the holy seed borne I say under the Covenant of Grace are therefore to have as their birth-right that Covenant under which they were borne put under seale unto them For the miscarriage of the parents cannot deprive the children of their portion in Gods Covenant of Grace seeing workes are not the ground of that right of theirs but Gods free grace in Christ and the childe hath as primitive a right unto this Covenant as the parent For the words of the Covenant are I will be they God and the God of thy seed after thee in their generations And therefore however vitious parents are to bee kept backe from the Lords Supper for their reformation yet their infants cannot be kept backe from Baptisme and so put a stop unto the Covenant of Grace where God puts none Fourthly and lastly as this is a new way so it 's grounded upon new-Divinity which none of the orthodox Divines in the Church of England were ever principled in in the Schooles of the Prophets for if that the personall sinne of the immediate parent be a barre against insants baptisme then there are more sins imputed besides the first sinne of Adam but there is no other sinne imputed but onely the first sinne of Adam And thus you see that I am as great an adversary against those whose practises doe any way oppugne the nature of the Covenant of Grace as I am against you For my purpose is to maintaine the quarrell of Gods Covenant against all opposers as 't is my duty and office and I hope my Brethren and Fathers in the Universities and in the Countrey will assoord me their pious ayde and assistance And that all good Christians will beseech God at the Throne of Grace to carry on His owne worke in me and in all that shall endeavour to hold forth the Truth of God unto His people that godly hearts and tender consciences may not bee mis-led by the good words and faire speeches of Satans agents And for you that are carried away into this way of re-baptizing the Lord give you to see where you are And for those of the Separation the Lord shew them wherein they doe exceed for their wayes are not right before the Lord nor justifiable by His Word And now for you to say that you will turne neither to us nor to those of New-England unlesse you see better grounds We must tell you that you must bring better exceptions against the grounds that wee have laid for Paedo-baptisme or else we must conclude that you blaspheme the Name of God in desiring his helpe for to strengthen you in your way Anabaptist Againe you alleadge the qualisications of some men that hold against as which you say are as good as any of the Anabaptists and as loving is one another as any of the other side But this we confesse may be But Sir this doth ill appeare sometimes for there be some of your coate that are ready to bite and devoure one another for a small triste many times and that good men too for which they are too blame Answer To what end I alleaged the qualifications of good men you may see in my fourth reason and what doth all this prove But that good men yea Ministers sometimes have their failings for which you say well they are too blame But what This is one of your expletives to fill up your paper and to make your answerer work Anabaptist Nay you said further that they were as humble as the proudest Anabaptist of them all Now Sâ— you did well to compare the best of your selves to the worst of them For wee account him that is proudest to bee the worst man of them And you compare your humble men with our proud men but we passe by this and take it only to be your mistake in the heat of your expressions and not any way to bee the meaning of your intentions Answer If I said any such thing I was mightily overseen indeed for Anabaptists are all so proud as if each particular strove for the supremacy And I was much mistaken in you also for I thought you had been truly burthened in conscience and would only have alleadged such things as might have tended to the satisfaction of conscience about paedo-baptisme but now I see nothing but scorning and sleighting of what you cannot â—â—fell I pray pardon me this mistake too But it should seem that this merry passage is none of the arguments you build your faith upon but passe it by as a null and judge it a mistake in the heat of expressions as wee judge of your baptizing in Severne to bee a null and mistake in the heat of your fiery zeale and therefore you chose so cold a season and so great a river to allay it Anabaptist Further you demand of us where we can bring any example of any Church gathered that did deny Infants Baptisme But we will quickly answer you that we have no example of any Church gathered or ungathered that did baptize their Infants And so your question is frivolous and as you said to us wee returne the like to you where the Holy Ghost hath no tongue wee will have no eare Answer You say no Church gathered or ungathered doth baptize Infants but ere now you speak of reformed Churches and here no Church baptizeth Infants Your meaning is that Baptisme is the forme of a Church and so no Baptisme no Church and Baptisme of Infants is no Baptisme as though you were members of no Church till you were baptized If of no Church then no members of Christ and so dying not to be saved but haply I mistake your meaning You confesse that you can bring no example of any gathered Church in the new Testament that did deny Baptisme unto Infants whose parents were baptized and in the state of Christianity Neither doth the Holy Ghost any where in the new Testament either expressely or by necessary deduction deny Baptisme unto such children And therefore Anabaptists in denying Baptisme unto children of baptized parents are not therein led by the Spirit of God The Holy Ghost speakes expressely that children even of one beleeving parent are Saints 1 Cor. 7.14 and no such thing was predicated of any Gentiles children before faith in Christ put that honour upon them and yet many yea most of them borne in wedlock And Lamb your Master doth acknowledge the married spoken off 1 Cor. 7.14 to bee married nay lawfully married before faith came to make either their marriage
or children holy Look upon his letter and you shall find that either he speakes that or plaine non-sense But I have had speech with your Master already about his judgement upon this text and I think that if your Master will be but ingenous we are agreed But you his Disciple have gotten another trick to put the Holy Ghost to silence here in this text As the proverbe is seldome comes a better a bad Master and a worse Scholler You talke of Childrens being holy in the Apostles estimation Happily you have gotten that old Popith shift that the Papists are wont to have against Pauls writings They say that all Pauls writing is not to be taken for the holy Canon because Paul saith not the Lord but I not I but the Lord. And in that you said that children were holy in the Apostles estimation I suppose you rested upon that rotten prop of Popery And so you will have the Holy Ghost to have no tongue where you will have no eare for the Holy Ghost speakes as well by necessary deductions as in expresse words and the Holy Ghost hath a tongue in the true sense of the Scripture as well as in the expresse letter But you have said enough you confesse you have no example in the new Testament where Baptisme was ever denied unto Infants of baptized parents neither have you any Command or Commission from Christ our only Monarch and Law giver for denying of Baptisme unto Infants of baptized parents And therefore you doe not derive your power from Christ the King of the Church but from the devill in so doing Thus I argue from this ground Such as deny Baptisme unto persons to whom Christ denies it not are from the devill and not from Christ But Anabaptists deny Baptisme unto persons to whom Christ denies it not Ergo Anabaptists are from the devill and not from Christ The assumption may thus be proved irrefragably Infants of baptized parents are persons to whom Christ denies not Baptisme But Anabaptists deny Baptisme unto Infants of baptized parents Ergo. Anabaptists deny Baptisme to persons to whom Christ denies it not Now bring forth any Commission from Christ where Baptisme is denied unto Infants of baptized parents If you can bring no such thing forth as indeed you cannot then let all men know that you are from the devill and not from Christ in denying Baptisme unto such Infants And so you set up the devill and not Christ in that practise For Christ hath no proviso in His Commission for Baptisme wherein the Infants of baptized parents are denied Shew us any place in the new Testament where Christ saith either expressely or by true deduction you shall not baptized parents See then whom you serve and whence you derive your power even from the devill Now take the same weapons and sight against us and argue thus against us Viz. Such as administer Baptisme unto persons to whom Christ denies it are from the devill and not from Christ But Ministers of the Church of England administer Baptisme to persons unto whom Christ denies it Ergo Ministers of the Church of England are from the devill and not from Christ Wee will deny your minor proposition and you will prove it thus viz. Infants of baptized parents are persons unto whom Christ denies Baptisme But Ministers of the Church of England administer Baptisme unto Infants of baptized parents Ergo Ministers of the Church of England administer Baptisme unto persons that Christ denie it unto Now the major proposition of the this later Syllogisme is false and it cannot possibly be made good by the Scripture Make that good and the day is yours I say make this good viz. That Christ in His Gospell doth any where deny Baptisme unto Infants of baptized parents and then we will acknowledge that you have your power of debarring Infants of baptized parents from Christ the which untill you doe we will look upon you as persons that have your Commission from the devill and not from Christ And wee in baptizing Infants of baptized parents are in the way of Christ and have our Commission from Him and He will defend us from your virulent rage and blesse our ministery Anabaptist Next you seem to say something concerning the Covenant and you bring us the example of the Church of the Ephesians which were Jewes and Gentiles converted and brought out of the miserable estate that they were in before and now being converted they were engrafted into Christ not before but now being in a new condition yet those priviledges that are there spoken to the Church of the Ephesians which were all converts I say you make these priviledges and benefits that they were partakers of to belong to the whole nation of Pagan Jew and Gentile in their naturall condition which is most grosse wresting of the text and much prejudice to the priviledge of the Gospell And likewise that place 1 Cor. 12. concerning being baptized into one spirit which priviledge you attribute to all before conversion which was only peculiar to the converts of the Church of Conrinth and therefore pray take heed how you wrest the Scripture to accomplish your owne humours Answer I said in opposition to the state of the Pagan Gentiles that the condition of the Gentiles where the Gospell is imbraced and they baptized is not now the same in point of religion for now in Jesus Christ wee who were sometimes farre off are made nigh c. Ephes 2.13.22 And by one spirit are we all baptized into one body whether wee be Jewes or Gentiles 1 Cor. 12.13 And whether this bee not faithfull dealing with the Scripture let the texts by your selfe alleadged judge Did I at all make any mention of persons in their naturall condition or say that the priviledges of the Gospell did belong to the whole nation before conversion Fye Fye Is this faire dealing I spake no more nay not so much as is expressely written in the texts alleadged But somewhat your venemous tongues must utter and if you cannot wound our cause you wil traduce our persons Our question was about paedo-baptisme and we conveighed and contrived the matter in these termes viz. whether children of holiest parents even in purest Churches are to bee baptized in their infancy And we propounded the question of purpose in these termes that we might come directly to the point And therefore all that you say in this cavill is rather ad personam then adrem The like false aspersion you east upon me before and there you are answered And so to answer here were but to answer you in your folly And now what humour you are here led by let the reader judge Anabaptist Further you would know whether the Covenant be not sociall we answer that it 's sociall in respect of the durance or continuance of it As thus that it is to all generations unto the end of the world or else woe unto us if wee are left without a Covenant or Promise
shall then see that nothing else can be meant but a better Ministration or Liturgie for the text runs thus viz. But now hath he obtained a more excellent Liturgie or Ministry by how much also He is the Mediatour of a better Covenant which was established upon better promises Heb. 8.6 A better Covenant established on better promises Now shew what these better promises are and you have what the Apostle meanes by the better Covenant whereof Christ is now Mediatour Now these better are I will put my lawes into their mindes and write them in their hearts and I will be to them a God and they shall be to me a people And they shall not teach every man his neighbour and every man his brother saying Know the Lord for all shall know me from the least to the greatest for I will be mercifull to their unrighteousnesse and their sinnes and their iniquities will I remember no more Heb. 8.10 11 12. 1. The Old Covenant had the Law written in tables of stone but the New hath the Law written in the hearts of the worshippers i.e. Moses did minister the Law unto the Jewes written in tables of stone thus did the type but Christ the anti-type doth minister Gods Lawes unto Christians written in the fleshly tables of the heart Moses could minister the letter of Gods Law unto the people but Moses could not change the heart and renew the minde of his people but Christ by his Ministers can change the heart and renew the minde of his worshippers And it s Christs peculiar prerogative both under the Law and under the Gospell that whatsoever persons formerly under the Law have beene renewed by grace and what persons soever have beene renewed or shall be renewed under the Gospell have are and shall be renewed by Christ and in Christ This Epistle to the Hebrewes was written by the Apostle unto the Jewes and the end of the Apostle in writing this Epistle was to take off the Jewes from resting on the workes of the Law and Liturgie or Ministration of Moses for salvation and eternall life and to divert their mindes unto Jesus Christ the Prince of life and to the ministration of Christs bloud and spirit under the Gospell or New Testament or Covenant And that the difference betweene the old Covenant under Moses the type and the new Covenant under Christ the truth and anti-type lyes not in the thing ministred for mans eternall salvation but in the ministration of Christ to come and already come is cleare by that of Paul to the Corinthians 2 Cor. 3.2 18. Ye are our epistle written in our hearts knowne and read of all men Forasmuch as ye are manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ ministred by us written not with inke but with the spirit of the living God not in tables of stone but in fleshly tables of the heart And such trust have we through Christ to God-ward Not that we are sufficient of our selves to thinke any thing as of our selves but our sufficiency is of God Who also hath made us able Ministers not of the letter but of the spirit for the letter killeth but the spirit giveth life But if the ministration of death written and engraven in stones was glorious so that the children of Israel could not stedfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance which glory was to be done away How shall not the ministration of the spirit be rather glorious For if the ministration of condemnation be glory much more doth the ministration of righteousnesse exceed in glory For even that which was made glorious had no glory in this respect by reason of the glory that excelleth For if that which is done away was glorious much more that which remaineth is glorious Seeing then we have such hope we use great plainnesse of speech And not as Moses which put a vayle over his face that the children of Israel could not stedfastly looke to the end of that which is abolished But their mindes are blinded for untill this day remaineth the same vayle untaken away in the reading of the Old Testament which vayle is done away in Christ But even unto this day when Moses is read the vayle is upon their heart Neverthelesse when it i.e. their heart shall turne to the Lord the vayle shall be taken away Now the Lord is that Spirit and where the Spirit of the Lord is there is liberty But we all with open face beholding as in a glasse the glory of the Lord are changed into the same image from glory to glory even as by the Spirit of the Lord. And then Chap. 4.1 he comes with this inference viz Therefore seeing we have this Ministry c. So then the difference lyes in the ministration and not in the substance of the Covenant Gods Covenant of grace with man is nothing but Christ for salvation Christ in type and Christ in person Christ in type before His Incarnation and Christ in person since Here Christ is said to be the Mediatour of a better Covenant And in the former chapter Heb. 7.22 He is said to be made a Surety of a better Testament This better Covenant comming in place did disanull the former Heb. 7.18 Now what did it disanull Surely nothing but the Typicall and Mosaicall Liturgie or Ministration And what did disanull this typicall ministration Surely nothing but the body of Christ offered up unto God once for all Heb. 10.1 10. Reade the 9. chap. of Heb. In a word the whole redounds to this much the Sacrifices which they offered up yeare by yeare continually under the Law could not make the commers thereunto perfect as pertaining to the Conscience Heb. 10.1 2. Nay could not so much as make him that did the service perfect Heb. 9.9 But the sacrifice of Christs body once for all makes the commers thereunto perfect as pertaining to the conscience Heb. 9.14 And therefore Christ is the Mediatour of â— better Covenant than Moses was But the people to whom Paul writes this Epistle and the end wherefore he wrote it are alwayes to be remembred and that will give a great deale of light unto what is herein written Ob. If this be the meaning of the text then here is nothing in peculiar attributed to this ministration under the Gospell for under the Law the Elect were converted and had their hearts changed and renewed by Christ and in Christ Sol. Right They had so Grant but this and grant my conclusion and so establish the contradictory of your owne For if Christ made the ordinances of Grace effectuall to the conversion of Gods Elect under the Law and doth the same under the Gospell then that and this is the same Covenant of Grace for substance and so the difference must needs lye in the administration onely But Pauls controversie lay with the Jewes and mine lyes with the Anabaptists both adversaries to Christ and his Gospell The conversion of the Jews under the Law is
infants that die unbaptized have faith by Christ and the Spirit of Grace Ergò Elect infants that die unbaptized have faith by ordinary meanes of faith And thus you see that all is trash on your side and meere jugling and you can as well maintaine your cause as your title to the Crowne of England Anabaptist And thus we have runne over your chiefest arguments at briefe as we could We desire you would not take it offensively from us that we have beene so tedious in writing unto you for we could have beene larger in many things but that we were fearefull of tediousnesse And if there be any thing wherein we are mistaken we desire information and we desire to submit to the judgement of judicious and reasonable men whether your reasons be not answered If you can overthrow clearely by the Word of God these answers we will cry peccavi if you cannot we expect according to your former promises that you should cry peccavi Answer You have runne over my arguments indeed but you have not refuted any one of them They all stand unmoveable as Mount Zion and the glory of the Lord is upon them And as for your tediousnesse that 's not so offensive unto me as your absurd reasonings And for your mistakes I have shewed them unto you for your information And if you will submit to judicious and reasonable men so will I And for this cause I have published this Treatise And whether I have dealt unfaithfully with Gods holy Word either in my Sermons or in this mine Answer to your Objections I leave to the censure of the godly learned And if you or any of your side can say any thing more that is materiall against the point of Paedo-baptisme I shall by Gods helpe give you such satisfaction whereby you through Gods blessing shall be able to see that they were from the Devill and not from Christ that led you into this way of re-baptizing Anabaptist And thus we desire the Lord to adde his blessing to our weake endeavours as to perswade your hearts to embrace every truth of Jesus Christ that as yet you oppose and so likewise for our selves And thus we commend all to the disposing of Almighty God in whom we rest Answer Your meaning is perhaps that I doe oppose the way of the Anabaptists and stand for Paedo-baptisme and that herein I oppose a truth of Christ Jesus If your meaning be this your prayer is impious and a taking of Gods Name in vaine And you pray unto God to blesse your wicked endeavours in going about to perswade my heart to embrace not a truth but a lye This proves evidently that God is patient and that the Devill is impudent And is this the good stuffe that you would have to be read before the whole Congregation at Cranham as you desire in your Postscript Your desire is more then granted you desired to have it as publike as Cranham and I have made it as publike as England It s now in a faire way to be read at London at Yorke at Exceter at Bristoll at Gloucester at Worcester and where not as God shall direct it And I hope my brethren will make it knowne to more Congregations than Cranham for the information of Gods people in the truth I hope that was your end in desiring leave to have it read to the whole Congregation at Cranham and not revenge on me for keeping wavering soules of that Congregation from running into Severne after you But now to your three Questions which you subjoyne as an appendix to your exceptions 1. You demand What expresse warrant we have in Scripture for the baptizing of Infants Unto this we say that the question savours more of curiosity than of conscience But seeing you may make bold as you say to propound this question unto me and desire me to answer you punctually by the Scripture or not at all I make bold to urge you with one argument and desire you to answer me either by Scripture or Right reason Thus I argue in expresse answer to your demand and quaere All persons knowne to be under the Covenant of Grace are to have the Covenant put under the initiall seale unto them by expresse warrant of Scripture But all infants of Christians are knowne to be under the Covenant of Grace Ergo All infants of Christians are to have the Covenant of Grace put under the initiall seale unto them by expresse warrant of Scripture Deny this Syllogisme or deny either proposition if you can The major I presume you will not deny The minor is as undenyable But if Lambes blasphemy must passe for orthodox with you that you will contradict Thus therefore I make it good If all Christian parents are under the Covenant of Grace then all infants of Christian parents are under the Covenant of Grace But all Christian parents are under the Covenant of Grace Ergo All Infants of Christian parents are under the Covenant of Grace Haply you will deny the sequell of the major proposition but therein you will but shew your ignorance and irrationall stupiditie For sequela ab indivisis est valida Thus then I make it good viz. If the Covenant of Grace joynes parents and children together as inseparable and immediate companions then if all Christian parents are under the Covenant of Grace all Infants of Christian parents are under the Covenant of Grace all Infants of Christian parents are under the Covenant of Grace also But the Covenant of Grace joynes parents and children together as inseparable and immediate companions saying I will be thy God and the God of thy seed Ergo If all Christian parents are under the Covenant of Grace then all infants of Christian parents are under the Covenant of Grace also And now answer or give over your fooleries nay sacrilegious practices and impious dissolution of Gods holy Covenant with his people and their seed A wickednesse haply not so well seene of you whom subtile heads seduce with good words and faire speeches the very method of the Devils agents Rom. 16.17 18. And thus we have shaken your triumphall argument with which you have mis-led many an honest heart the more is the pity And it may be just with God to scourge this Nation for our too much connivence at you High offences deserve sharper censures And to forbeare correction is to dishonour Gods image in Superiours and to throw downe Authority for Sedition to trample upon If your way must stand adieu Religion and let us all turne Atheists And so much for answer to your first quaere 2. Your second question is What Infants doe receive in Baptisme Which question as propounded by an Anabaptist implyes this blasphemy viz. That Infants receive no benefit by baptisme But unto this quaere we say that Infants of Christians by baptisme have the Covenant put under seale unto them as their native priviledge The Covenant under which they were borne makes them holy by birth And Baptisme under