that God commanded the one but no where the other and your self say pag. 84. Our knowledge of the will of Christ is that which is the only direction we are to follow But you adde a second answer which I let passe because it is but a declaration of your own conceits how you conceive a childe may seal the covenant in his infancy telling us that their name is put into the Deed and that a child may seal fiâ—st in infancy and then after agnize it and that God is pleased to seal to Infants while they are such and to accept such a seal as they can give without any proof but only spinning out the simile of a seal as if Gods wayes were like mans wayes or a simile did gâ—â—deare in omnibus a similitude were even in all things only where you say that in the mean time Jesus Christ who is the surety of the covenant and surety of all the covenanters is pleased to be their surety this speech is further to be examined 'T is true Jesus Christ is the surety of a better Testament Heb. 7.12 he is the surety of all the covenanters he doth strike hands and becomes a surety of the whole covenant and of every condition in it take it in the largest sense and this of all both on Gods part and ours as very rightly and excellently Mr. Thomas Goodwin in his Teatise intituled Christ set forth Sect. 3. Chap. 3. And to like purpose Mr. Rutherfurd The triall and triumph of Faith serm 7. But are any other among men covenanters but the elect who are purchased by the blood of the everlasting covenant Heb. 13.20 It is a very inconsiderate boldnesse in you to make every baptized person or at least every baptized Infant of a Believer a covenanter for whom Christ is a surety and one to whom God seals when the Scripture makes Christ the surety only for his redeemed ones as may be gathered out of sundry places in the Epistle to the Hebrews but I doubt not but when you have considered it a little better you will easily espie your error in these dictates and therefore I passe on to the next objection BVt what benefit comes to children by such kinde of sealing as this is it seems then say they by your own confession that this is but a conditionall sealing on Gods part viz. that they own it and ratifie it when they come to age and if they then refuse to stand to it all is then nullified were it noâ— therefore better to deferre iâ— to their yeers of discretion to see whether they will then make it their own voluntary act yea or no. In what sense baptizâ—ng may be called sealing I have above shewed Part. 3. Sect. 12. but I cannot allow of this to say that God seals to every one that is baptized It is true that Baptisme is in its nature a seal of the righteousnesse of faith 1 Pet. 3.21 but yet God doth not seal this to every one that is baptized but only to true believers For what is Gods sealing but the confirming of his promise But God promiseth righteousnesse only to Believers therefore he seals only to Believers As for the sealing by God upon condition persons agnize the covenant it is but a notion the Scripture makes not Gods promise in the covenant of Grace conditionall in that sense For Gods promise is for those he enters into covenant with That he will put his Law in their hearts and in their mindes will write them Heb. 10.16 Nor do I know any but Corvinus in his Examen of Moulins Anatomy chap. 9. sect 6. and the Arminians that do so speak of Gods covenant of Grace as if it were common to the elect and reprobates and conditionall in this sense as if God left it to mens liberty to whom he had sealed to agnize or recognize that sealing or to free themselves if they please and so nullifie all yet so as to afford them a while the favour and priviledge of being in covenant with him as you speak I appeal to them who have been conversant in the writings of the Arminians whether these speeches do not symbolize with their language And therefore this that you make an objection I look on as a frivolous supposing a Chimaera and then disputing about it But yet there are some things I shall take notice of in your answer The question is What benefit to Infants by such a sealing you answer thus This objection lay as strongly against Gods wisedome in requiring the Jews Infants even in their infancy thus to seal and therefore argues no great wisdome or modesty in man who would thus reason with God about his administrations It is true God appointed the male children of Abrahams family to be circumcised and thereby they were bound to keep the whole Law and it were a sinfull presumption to reason with God about it and in like manner if God had appointed Infants to be baptized it would silence all arguings about it though we knew not the reason but how it is to be understood that God required the Jews even in their infancy to seal I do not well understand our sealing to God is believing Joh. 3.33 I do not finde that God required this of the Jews Infants in their infancy nor of our Infants nor was Circumcision it self the Infants duty required by God of the Infant though it were its priviledge it was the parents duty Exod. 4.24 You say secondly God hath other ends and uses of applying the seal of the covenant to them who are in covenant with him then their present gain it 's â— homage worship and honour to himself and it behoves us even in that respect to fulfill all righteousnesse when Christ was baptized and circumcised he was as unfit for the Ordinance through his perfection as children through their imperfection being as much above them as children are below them It is true Baptisme is a worship of God but Paedobaptisme for ought yet appears is but a will-worship Christs Baptisme it is true was of a transcendent nature as is said before that children are unfit for the Ordinance is not to be imputed to their imperfection but to the defect of Gods appointment if God did appoint it there would be no doubt of their fitnesse But you adde further 3. I answer The benefit and fruit of it at the present is very much both to the parents and to the children to the parents first whilest God doth thereby honour them to have their children counted to his Church to his Kingdome and Family and to be under his wing and grace whilest all the other Infants in the world have their visible standing under the prince and in the kingdome of darknesse and consequently whilest others have no hope of their childrens spirituall welfare untill they be called out of that condition these need not have any doubt of their childrens welfare if they die in their infancy nor if they live
sundry hundreds of yeares after Christ restraines it to the case of necessity But it is wonder to me that if it were so manifest as you speake you should finde nothing in Eusebius for it nor in Ignatius nor in Clemens Alexandrinus nor in Athanasius nor in Epiphanius that I mention not others to me it is no small argument that baptisme of Infants was not universally knowne in the Greek Church no not in Epiphanius his dayes who is said to flourish in the yeare 390. because in his Panarium disputing against the Hieracites that denied Infants inheriting the Kingdome of heaven because not striving He brings the Infants killed by Herod the words of the Lord concerning Ieremiah Chap. 1. of his prophesie Christs blessing and receiving of infants the children crying Hosanna but nothing at all of Infants-baptisme which had beene as proper to his purpose if he had beene acquainted with it But besides the continuance of the questions to baptized persons and answered by them in many Authors mentioned this is to me and it seemed so to Hugo Grotius Annot. in Matth. 19.14 No small evidence that baptisme of Infants many hundred yeares was not ordainary in the Greeke Church because not onely Constantine the Great though the sonne of Helena a zealous Christian as it s reported was not baptized till aged but also that Gregory Nazianzen who was the sonne of a Christian Bishop and brought up long by him was not baptized till he came to be a youth as is related in his life And Chrysostome though as Grotius saith according to the truer opinion borne of Christian Parents and educated by Meletius a Bishop yet was he not baptized till past 21 yeares of age Grotius addes that the Canon of the Synod of Neocaesarea held in the yeare 315. determines that a woman with childe might be baptized because the baptisme reached not to the fruit of her wombe because in the confession made in baptisme each one 's own free choice is shewed From which Canon Balsamon and Zonaras do inferre that an Infant cannot be baptized because it hath not power to choose the confession of divine baptisme And Grotius adds furâ—her that many of the Greeks in every age unto this day do keep the custome of diffâ—ring the baptisme of little ones till they could themselves make a confession of their faith From all which I inferre That the Anabaptists need not blush to say which you seem to make a part of their impudence that the Ancients especially the Greek Church rejected the baptisme of Infants for many hundred yeeres I Proceed to the Writers of the Latine Church you alledge for Baptisme of Infants First Cyprian one of the ancientest writers amongst the Latines which is true He is placed by Perkins at the yeare 240. by Vsher at the yeare 250. Yet Tertullian was before him and counted his master Now in Tertullians time it appeares saith Grotius in Mat. 19.14 there was nothing defined cencerning the age in which they were to be baptized that were consecrated by their parents to Christian discipline because he disswades by so many reasons in his book of Baptism c. 18. the baptizing of Infants And if he did allow it it was only in case of necessity as may appeare by his words in his book de anima c. 39. But you say Cyprian handles it at large in Epist. 59. ad Fidum It is true he doth say enough in that Epistle for baptâ—zing of Infants and more then enough except he had spoken to better purpose The truth is the very reading of that Epistle upon which Hierom and especially Augustine rely for the proving of the baptizing of Infants is sufficient to discover how great darknesse there was then upon the spirits of those that were counted the greatest lights in the Church You say upon this occasion Fidus denied not the baptisme of Infants but denied that they ought to be baptized before the eighth day But you might have further observed that Fidus alleadged considerandam esse legem Circumcisionis antiquae that he thought the law of ancient Circumcision was to be considered And Vestigium Infantis in primis partus sui diebus constitutâ— mundum non esse dixistì Thou hast said that the footstep of an Infant being in the first dayes of his birth is not clean Whence it plainly appeares that there was a relique of Judaisme in him and that he did not well understand the abrogation of the Ceremoniall Law and the truth is the contentions about Easter neere that age do plainly shew that Iudaisme was not quite weeded out of the mindes of the chiâ—fe teachers among Christians You say Cyprian assures him that by the unanimous consent of 66 Bishops gathered together in a Councell baptisme was to be administred to Infantes as well as to growne men and not to be restrained to any time which is true but you adde and proves it by such arguments as these They are under originall sinne they neede pardon are capable of grace and mercy God regards not age c. But the resolution of Cyprian with his Collegues is not so lightly to be passed over sith the determination of this Councell as far as I can by search finde is the very spring-head of Infant-baptisme To conceive it aright it is to be considered that you are mistaken about the proofe of their opinion the things you mention are not the proofe but are produced in answer of objections The proofe is but one except you will make a proofe of that which is in the close of the Epistle which is that whereas none is to be kept from baptisme and the grace of God much lesse New-borne Infants who in this respect doe deserve more of our ayde and Gods mercy because in the beginning of their birth they presently crying and weeping doe nothing else but pray The onely proofe is this the mercy and grace of God is to be denyed to none that are borne of man for the Lord saith in the Gospell that the sonne of man came not to destroy mens soules but to save them and therefore as much as in us lyes if it may be no soule is to be lost and therefore all infants at all times to be baptized Whence we may observe 1. That they thought baptizing giving Gods grace and the denying it denying Gods grace Secondly that they thought the soules to be lost that were not baptized Thirdly that therefore not onely Infants of beleivers but all infants were to be baptized Whence Tossanus in his Synopsis Notes this for Cyprians errour that he taught Infantes Statim esse baptizandos ne pereant quod eis misericordia non sit deneganda Ep. 8. lib. 3. Then follow the objections which are three First That Infants are not capable being so young this he answers by saying God regards not age which he proves by an allegoricall accomodation of Elisha his stretching himselfe upon the little Childe to the applying of Gods grace to Infants The second
grant the baptizing of Infants because they durst not oppose the custome of the Church which in those dayes was accounted Sacred only they shifted â—ff the proofe of originall sinne from it by saying that they were baptized not for the remission of sinnes to eternall life for they had none but for the Kingdome of heaven which shift Augustine doth well refute in that Sermon and also opposeth some others that taught that the child not baptized might enter into the Kingdome of Heaven From Augustines time you make a great leape and say the first that ever made a head against or a division in the Church about it was Baltazar Pacommitanus in Germany in Luthers time about the yeare 1527. But therein you are much deceived For Cassander in his Testimonies of Infants baptisme in the Epistle to the Duke of Cleve tells us that Guitmund Bishop of Averse mentioneth the famous Berengarius Anno. 1030. opposing not only the corporall presence of Christ in the Eucharist but also the baptisme of little ones And that a little after sprung in Bernards time an heresie of an uncertaine Originall and appellation and he saith that they were called Cathari or Puritans and from a Country of France Albigenses spread over France and lower Germany and the banke of the Rhine of these he saith Hireliquis erroribus quos a Manichaeis et Priscillianistis mutuati sunt hoc insuper addiderunt ut Baptismum parvulorum inutilem esse dicerent ut qui prodesse nemini queat qui non et ipse credere et per seipsum Baptismi sacramentum petere possit quale nihil Manichaeos Priscillianistas docuisse legimus And indeed Bernard who is placed by Vsher at the yeare 1130. just a 100. yeares after Berengarius Sermon 66. in Cantica mentions the Heresie of some that had no name because their heresie was not from man nor received they it by man but they boasted themselves to be the successors of the Apostles and called themselves Apostolicos Now although he charge them with denying Marriage and abstaining from meates yet you may smell out of his owne words that this was but a calumny but take the Character he sets downe of them and weigh it and you would conceive he had spoken of Protestants Irrident nos quia baptizamus Infantes quod oramus pro mortuis quod sanctorum suffragia postulamus and a little after Non credunt autem ignem purgatorium restare post mortem sed statim animam solutam a corpore vel ad requiem tranfire vel ad damnationem And a little after Jam vero qui Ecclesiam non agnoscunt non est mirum si ordinibus Ecclesiae detrahunt si instituta non recipiunt si sacramenta contemnunt si mandatis non obediunt The same Bernard in Epist. 204. writes to Hildefonsus Earle of S. Gyles to take away Henricus once a Monke then an Apostate quod dies festos sacramenta Basilicas Sacerdotes sustulerit quod parvulis Christianorum Christi intercluditur vita dum baptismi negatur gratia nec saluti propinquare sinuntur and it is well known that Petrus Cluniacensis who is placed by Vsher at the yeare 1150. hath written an Epistle to three Bishops of France against Peter de Bruis and Henricus as defending errors digested into 5. Articles First That little ones may not be baptized Secondly that Temples or Altars are not to be made Thirdly that the Crosse of Christ is not to be adored or worshipped but rather to be broken and trodden under foote Fourthly that the Masse is nothing nor ought to be Celebrated Fiftly that the benefits of the living nothing profited the deceased that we are not to chant to God He saith that the heresie of the Petrobrusians was received in the Cities of Gallia Narbonensis and complaines that the people were rebaptized the Churches profaned the Altars digged downe the Crosses fired on the day it selfe of the Lords passion flesh was openly eaten the Priests scourged Monks imprisoned and by terrours and torments compelled to marry wives All this was done very neare 400. yeares before Baltazar Pacommitanus or as others write him Pacimontanus But perhaps you thinke however that Baltazar was the first that opposed the baptisme of Infâ—nts in the 16. Century which possibly may be true though herein you follow Cochlaeus and Bellarmine who addes that Erasmus himselfe had sowed some seedes of it also but Gerhard the Lutheran in the 40th Tome of his Common places where he handles this question rather derives the Originall from Carolostadius and alleageth Melancthon Com. on Coloss. and saith that he is called the father of the Anabaptists by Erasmus Alberus Now I doe not finde in Melancthon that which Gerhard saith of him yet Sleidan saith of him that he praised their opinion and Osiander that he joyned himselfe unto them and I finde that Melancthon in his Comment on 1 Cor. 9.24 sayes of him that he indeavoured to promote the Gospel though in a wrong course Arnoldus Meshovius hist Anabap lib. 1. § 2. sayes that the businesse of Anabaptisme began at Wittenberg Anno Christi 1522. Luther then lurking in the Castle of Wartpurg in Thuringia by Nicolas Pelargus and that he had Companions at first Carolostadius Philip Melancthon and others and that Luther returning from his Patmos as he called it banished Carolostadius and the rest and only received Philip Melancthon into favour againe Now they that know what was Luthers vehemency and pertinacy on the one side and Melancthons timerousnesse on the other side may well conceive â—hat as in the businesse of Images in Churches and Consubstantiation so in this about Infant-baptisme the temper of these two men much hindred the clearing of this truth perhaps fearing that a further reformation then they had begun would be an occasion of nullifying all they had done Surely it hath beene the unhappy fate of the reformed Churches that they have so stucke to Luther and Calvin that they have scarce stepped one step further in reformation then they did but stifly maintained onely the ground they had gotten Cassander in his Epistle to he D. of Cleve before mentioned reckons the error of Anabaptisme to have bin revived abouâ— the yeare 1622. by Nicolas Stork or Pelargus Thomas Munzer but it is not res tanti to search any further into this matter nor is it of any weight to enquire much after this Baltazar He is stiled Baltazar Huebmer Pacimontanus Dr. in Waldshuot in the Epistle Zuinglius writes to him before his answer to his booke about bapâ—isme in the Epistlâ— Zuinglius wrote to Gynoraeus he relates how he came to Zurich and was there demanded by the Emperor who it seemes sought his life there he made some recantation but it appeares he was afterwards taken and burnt at Vienna in Austria Anno 1528. For what cause I know not Zuinglius saith this of him in his Epistle to Gynoraeus Nos dexteritatem spectamus in homine ac mediocritatis
to Christians and such doe they conceive a Sabbath to be as being of the Law of nature that outward worship being due to God dayes are due to God to that end and therefore even in Paradise appointed from the creation and in all nations in all ages observed enough to prove so much to be of the Law of nature and therefore the fourth Commandement justly put amongst the Morals and if a seventh day indefinitely be commanded there as some of your Assembly have indeavourd to make good I shall not gainsay though in that point of the quota pars temporis which is moral I do yet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 suspend my judgement Now Circumcision hath nothing moral in it it is meerely positive neither from the beginning nor observed by all nations in all ages nor in the Decalogue and therefore a Sabbath may stand though it fall 2. The other explication is that when they require expresse institution or command in the New Testament they doe not meane that in positive worship there must be a command totidem verbis in so many words in forme of a precepâ— but they conceive that Apostolicall example which hath not a meere temporary reason is enough to prove an institution from God to which that practise doth relate And in this after some evidences in the Scripture of the New Testament they ascribe much to the constant practise of the Church in all ages Now then if it be considered that when Paul was at Troas Acts. 20.7 the Disciples came together to breake bread and Paul preached upon the first day of the weeke and Paul 1 Cor. 16.1.2 as he had appointed in the Churches of Galatia so he appoints at Corinth collections for the poore the first day of the week Revel 1.10 it hath the Elogium or title of the Lords day and it was so Sacred among Christians that it was made the question of inquisitors of Christianity Dominicum servasti Hast thou kept the Lords day to which was answered Christianus sum intermittere non possum I am a Christian I may not omit it it is cleare evidence to me that either Christ or the Apostles having abrogated the old Sabbath Col. 2.16 subrogated the first day of the weeke instead of it Now if a moity of this could be brought for Paedobaptisme in the stead of Circumcision of infants I should subscribe to it with you But Paedobaptisme not consisting with the order of Christ in the institution being contrary to the usage of it by John the Baptist the Apostles there being no foote-steps of it till the erroneous conceit grew of giving Gods grace by it and the necessity of it to save an infant from perishing some hundreds of yeares after Christs incarnation I dare not assent to the practise of it upon a supposed analogy equity or reason of the rule of Circumcision and imaginary confederation with the beleiving parent in the Covenant of grace For to me it is a dangerous principle upon which they go that so argue to wit that in meere positive things such as Circumcision and Baptism are we may frame an addition to Gods worship from analogy or resemblance conceived by us betweene two ordinances whereof one is quite taken away without any institution gathered by precept or Apostolicall example For if we may doe it in one thing why not in a nother where shall we stay They that read the Popish expositors of their Rituals doe know that this very principle hath brought in Surplice Purification of women c. that I mention not greater matters I desire any learned man to set me downe a rule from Gods Word how far I may go in my conceived parity of reason equity or analogy and where I must stay when it will be superstition and will worship when not when my conscience may be satisfied when noâ— That which Christ and his Apostles have taken from the Jewes and appointed to us we receive as they have appointed buâ— if any other man if a Pope or Occumenicall Councel take upon them to appoint to mens Consciences any rite in whole or in part upon his owne conceived reason from supposed analogy with the Jewish ceremonies it is an high presumption in such against Christ and against the Apostles command to yeeld to it Col. 2.20 though it hath a shew of wisedome v. 23 And the Apostles example Gal. 2.3.4 5. binds us to oppose it when it is likely to bring us into bondage And for the other pillar upon which at this day paedobaptisme is built it is to me very dangerous viz. That the Covenant of Evangelicall grace is made to beleivers and their seede that the children are confederates with the Parents in the Covenant of grace Which without such restrictions or explications as agree not with the common use of the words which in the plaine sense import this that God in his Covenant of grace by Christ hath promised not only to justifie and save beleiving Parents but also their children is in my apprehension plainly against the Apostles determination Rom. 9.6 7 8. makes an addition to the Gospell mentioned Gal. 3.8 9. and drawes with it many dangerous consequences which I abhorre You adde Now God hath so blessed the religious observation of the Lords day in this Kingdome above other Churches and Kingdomes that such as indeavour to overthrow it deserve justly to be abhorred by us Upon occasion of which passage I only desire to intimate to you that from happy events it s not safe to conclude that a thing pleaseth God You know it is the way the Monks and Prelates use to inferre that their institution is of God because their Orders have yeelded so many pious Confessors Martyrs and Saints it too much countenanceth the way of arguing for Independency by which it hath prevailed in Letters from abroad and suggestions at home still harping on this string that it is the way of God because they that are in that way thrive grow more spirituall then others And if this arguing be good It prospers therefore it pleaseth God then it will follow on the contrary It prospers not therefore it pleaseth not God And if so we might inferre Infant baptisme is of men not of God sith if conscience and experience may speake there are but few Christians that have tasted the sweete comfort of their baptisme as Mr. Shepard in his Epistle before Philips vind of infant-bap The other note is this that when you say that such as indeavour to overthrow the religious observation of the Lords day deserve justly to be abhorred by us it must be taken cum grano salis with cauâ—ion of such as doe it against cleare light with a malitious spirit Otherwise your words reach to forraigne reformed Churches their teachers yea in a sort to your selfe who may be said interpretatively to indeavour to overthrow it while you build it on the same ground with paedobaptisme But I proceede YOu say
of grace and to be elect and to persevere in grace are meant of the same persons according to the Apostles doctrine Rom. 9.7 8. c. and the common doctrine of the Contra-Remonstrants And on the contrary Bertius in his book de Apostasia sanctorum pag. 79. among other absurdities which he reckons as consequent on their opinion that deny Apostasie of Saints puts this as the seventh Baptismum non obsignare certo in omnibus liberis fidelium gratiam Dei quum inter illos quidam sint etiam antecedente decreto Dei ab aeterno absolute reprobati ac proinde dubitandum esse fidelibus de veritate foederis divini Ego sum Deus tuus seminis tui post te And when this was urged by the Author of the Synod of Doâ—t and Arles reduced to the practise Part. 3. Sect. 6. in these words For to every person whom they baptize they apply the promises of the Covenant of grace clean contrary to their own doctrine which saith that they nothing belong to the Reprobates of the world Dr. Twisse answers that however in the judgement of charity they take all Infants brought to be baptized to be elect yet the promises of the Covenant of grace do indeed belong only to the Elâ—ct which he proves at large by shewing that there are promises of the Covenant of grace as of regeneration circumcising the heart writing the Law in their hearts Jer. 31.33 which must needs be absolute For no condition can be assigned of performing these promises but that it will follow That grace is given to wit the grace of faith according to mens workes which is plaine Pelagianisme Whence he concludes Now then who are they on whom God should bestow faith and regeneration but Gods Elect And accordingly Baptisme as it is a Seale and assurance of performing this promise of Justification and salvation unto them that believe so it is a seale and assurance of the promise of circumcising the heart and regeneration only to Gods Elect. And after pag. 192. VVe are ready to maintaine that all who are under the covenant of grace are such as over whom sin shall not have the dominion Rom. 6.14 Besides he that shall heare you preach that the children of believers are in the Covenant of grace and that they that are in the Covenant of grace cannot fall away may be apt to conceive himselfe within the Covenant of grace without repentance and faith and that he shall be saved without obedience and so lay a ground-work for Antinomianisme and consequently Libertinisme And may not on the other side believing Parents when they see their children vicious and ungodly doubt whether they themselves be true believers because they see not their châ—ldren in the Covenant of grace and so while you think to comfort parents about their children you may create great discomfort concerning themselves Lastly if this were true that the Covenant of grace is a birth-right priviledge then the children of believers are children of grace by nature for that which is a birth-right priviledge is a priviledge by nature and if as Mr. Blakâ— saith pag. 6. of his book Christianity is hereditary that as the childe of a Noble man is Noble the childe of a freeman is free the childe of a Turke is a Turke of a Jew a Iew the childe of a Christian is a Christian then Christians are born Christians not made Christians and how are they then children of wrath by nature which whether they may not advantage Pelagians and denyers of Originall sin it concernes those that use such speeches to consider But the Author of the writing entituled Infants baptizing proved lawfull by Scripture mentions other promises besides that Gen. 17.7 to wit Deu. 28.4 Deut. 30.2.6 Isa. 44.3 Isa. 59.21 Exod. 20.6 Psal. 112.2 and such like To all which the answer is plaine if men would conceive it 1. That according to the Apostles own determination Ro. 9 7 8. these promises as they contain such things as accompany salvation must be restrained to the Elect whose children soever they be by naturall generation and this is agreeable to our Saviours applying the promise Isa. 54.13 to them that are given of his Father Iohn 6.45 And thus are we to understand Deut. 30.6 Isa. 44.3 2. That the text Isa. 59.21 is plainly applied to the time of the calling of the Jews Rom. 11.27 and therefore cannot be applied rightly to the posterity of any believers at any time indefinitely 3. Thâ—t the promises Deut. 28.4 Psal. 112.2 are expresly meant of outward blessings and therefore cannot prove a covenant of grace in Christ. 4. That Exod. 20.6 doth plainly include a condition of obedience and it is expresly mentioned Psal. 103.17 18. as included in other promises of like kind which condition God doth not undertake for any children of a believer but the elect nor is Christ surety for any but the elect and therefore till it can be proved that the Election of grace belongs to the children of believers it cannot be proved that the Covenant of grace belongs to them by vertue of these promises I Now return to your Sermon You tell us thus As it is in other kingdomes corporations and families the children of all subjects born in a kingdom are born that Princes subjects where the father is a free-man the childe is not born a slave where any are bought to be servants their children born in their masters house are born his servants Thus it is by the Lawes of almost all nations and thus hath the Lord ordained it shall be in his kingdome and family the children follow the Covenant-condition of their parents if he take a father into his covenant he takes the children in with him if he reject the parents out of the covenant the children are east out with them This passage I might have passed over as containing nothing but dictates Yet I think it necessary to observe 1. That you do very carnally imagine the Church of God to be like Civill corporations as if persons were admitted to it by birth whereas in this all is done by free election of grace and according to Gods appointment nor is God tied or doth tie himself in the erecting and propagating his Church to any such carnall respects as descent from men Christianity is no mans birth-right The Apostle knew not that God had so by promise or other ingagement bound himself but he was free as he said to Moses after the promise made to Abraham to have mercy on whom he would Rom. 9.15 Yea to conceive that it is in Gods Church as in other Kingdomes and after the laws of Nations is a seminary of dangerous superstitions and errors Dr. Rainolds in his Conference with Hart hath shewed that hence arose the frame of government by Pâ—triarchs Metropolitans c. And is not this the very reason of Invocation of Saints that I mention not more of the like kind 2. When you say if he take a
not be a holy seed unlesse the faith or believership of the other parent could remove this barre You made the scope at first right to resolve them whether they might lawfully retain their Infidell wives or husbands but the scope you now give is but a meer figment not the Apostles You say now this can have no place of an argument in any case where one of the parents is not an Infidel I know not what you mean in this passage unlesse it be you would answer thus the Apostles scope is otherwise then the objector takes it therefore he can make no argument nor objection and so I need not make any answer which is a kinde of answering I am not acquainted with You go on But this was not the case amongst the Jews Hagar and Thamar and the concubines however sinfull in those acts yet themselves were Believers belonging to the Covenant of God and that barre lay not against their children as it did in the unbelieving wife This passage is indeed a grant of the Minor in the objection that children may be federally holy where the one parent is not sanctified to the other and that the Major is true which rests on this that the children could not be holy unlesse one parent were sanctified to the other you will not deny it you do your self frame the force of the Apostles reason thus both pag. 19. when you say were it with them as when both of them were unbelievers their children would be an unclean progeny and pag. 21. when you say the Apostles answer had not been true because then if one of the parents had not been sanctified to his unbelieving wife their children must have been bastards In these and other passages you acknowledge the force of the Apostles reason to consist in this that holinesse of the children is here meant which could not be unlesse one of the parents were sanctified to the other wherefore the conclusion stands good that the holinesse here is not federall holinesse But you adde 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a wise remedy Indeed if a believing man or woman should adulterously beget a child upon a Pagan or Heathen or unbeliever there this objection deserves to be further weighed but here it comes not within the compâ—sse of the Apostles argument This is just nihil ad rhombum nothing to the point as if you had said I will not answer the objection which is made but if you make it thus or thus I will answer it and thus I have at last gotten your chief hold which you had best manned but in the close you quitted it You adde as over-measure certain Reasons 1. From Gods will which were enough if you could prove it 2. From Gods honour in which you say so iâ— iâ— with the Lord he having left all the rest of the world to be visibly the Devils kingdome will not for his own glories sake permit the Devill to come and lay visible claim to the sons and daughters begotten by those who are the children of the most High which speech if true well fare Cain and Cham and Ismael and Esau and innumerable others whom the Devill hath had visible claime to by their works and profession 3. For the comfort and duty of these who are in covenant with him Indeed it were a very great comfort if you could make it good which you say but we must be content with that comfort God is pleased to give and not for our comfort speak that of God which is not true You say you have been the larger upon those two first conclusions because indeed the proving of these gains the whole cause and so I have been the larger in answering as conceiving by loosing these you loose the cause You say The most learned of the Anabaptists do professe that if they knew a child to be holy they would baptize it It is likely they that said or professed so did declare in what sense and for what reason they so spake But because these are but Rhetoricall passages I leave them and passe to your third Conclusion which you â—hus expresse THe Lord hath appointed and ordained a Sacrament or Seal of initiation to be administred unto them who enter into covenant with him Circumcision for the time of that administration which was before Christs incarnation Baâ—tisme since the time of his incarnation Thâ— conclusion as you here set it down may be granted that the Lord hath appointed and 〈…〉 a Sacrament or Seal of initiation to be administred to them that enter into covenant with him circumcision for the time of that administration which was before Christs incarnation Baptisme since the time of his incarnation But this is not all you would have granted for it would stand you in no stead and therefore in stead of it pag. 33. in the Repetition you put this conclusion for your third that our Baptisme succeeds in the room and use of their Circumcision and your meaning is that it so succeeds that the command of circumcising Infants should be virtually a command to baptize Infants as you expresse your self pag. 35. Now this I deny That which you alledge for this is First the agreement that is between Cicumcision and Baptisme Secondly the Text Col. 2.8 9 10 11 12. I shall examine both and consider whether they fit your purpose You confesse they differ in the outward Elements and that is enough to shew that the command for the one is not a command for the other except the Holy Ghost do so interpret it But you say they agree in five or six particulars The first that they are both of them the same Sacrament for the spirituall part which is to be granted but with its due allowance For though Baptisme signifie in part the same thing that Circumcision did namely sanctification by the spirit justification and salvation by Jesus Christ and faith in him yet it is true that there is a vast difference betwixt them because Circumcision signified these things as to be from Christ to come and therefore it was a sign of the promise of Christ to come from Isaac but Baptisme signifies these things in the name of Christ already manifested in the flesh crucified buried and risen again And because Circumcision did signifie Christ to come out of Isaac therefore it did also confirm all the promises that were made to Abrahams naturall Posterity concerning their multiplying their bringing out of Egypt their settling in the Land of Canaan and the yoak of the Law of Moses which was to be in force till Faith came that is till Christ was manifested in the flesh Gal. 3.19.23 24 25. Gal. 5.2 3. The second agreement you make is that both are appointed to be distinguishing signes betwixt Gods people and the Devils people This must be also warily understood for though it be true they are both dâ—stinguishing signes yet not so but that they may be Gods people who were not circumcised nor are baptized God had
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of such like that is such as are graced with such like qualities who are humble and meek as children are and that Luke 18. is parallel to this in the meaning of it whosoever doth not receive the Kingdome of heaven as a little child be shall not enter therein But I answer though it be true that in other places this is one use that Christ makes of an Infants age and condition to shew that such as receive the Kingdome of heaven must be qualified with humility c. like unto children yet here it cannot be his meaning because his argument is Suffer them to come to me and forbid them not because of such is the Kingdome of God that iâ— my Church and Kingdome is made of those as well as of others This was the very cause why the disciples rebuked those who brought the children to Christ because they were little not fit to be instructed and therefore not fit that Christ should be troubled about them this Christ rebukes in them and tels them that the littlenesse of children is no argument why they should be kept from him Suffer them said he to come and forbid them not for of such is the Kingdome of God and what kinde of argument had this been if the Text should be interpreted as these men would have it Suffer little children to come unto me that I may touch them take them up in mine arms put my hands upon them and blesse them because the Kingdome of God belongeth to them who have such like qualities who resemble children in some select properties By the very same ground if any had brought doves and sheep to Christ to put his hands upon them and blesse them the Disciples had been liable to the same reproof because of such is the Kingdome of God such as are partakers of the Kingdome of God must be endued with such like properties The Minor to be proved is that all the Infants of Believers or the Infants of Believers in as much as they are Infants of Believers are actually partakers of the inward grace of Baptisme else your Argument will not serve for your purpose as hath been shewed Now neither doth the Apostles speech 1 Cor. 7.14 prove it as hath been shewed above nor doth this Text Mar. 10.14 prove it For first it is doubtfull whether these were Infants or no. I presume you are not ignorant that Piscator observat in Mat. 19.14 doth maintain that the speech of Christ is not of Infants but of children which were capable of instruction which he gathers from this that Christ called them Luke 18.16 And whereas it is said in Mark he took up in his arms the word so translated is used Mark 9.36 For the imbracing of those that were of some growth whom he placed in the midst and of whose scandalizing he there warnes nor doth the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 used Luke 18.15 translated in English Infants prove it for it signifies a childe capable of teaching as when it iâ— said Timothy knew the sacred Scripture from a childe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is ever sinne he was a boy not an Infant nor doth the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 translated brought unto him prove that they were Infants For the same word is applied to them that were guided though they were not carried but did go by themselves as the blinde and deaf Daemoniake Matth. 12.22 and the lunatick childe Matth. 17.16 To this purpose Piscator As for Mr. Thomas Goodwins reason from Julius Pollux that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth signifie one that is madidus moist or sappie it is of no force to prove that they were Infants For besides that not etymologie but use must expound words if it were so yet we know children are moist till they be adolescentes youths we say till they be of good yeers they are but a gristle tender green so that notwithstanding this the children brought to Christ might be of yeers sufficient to be catechumeni and yet fit enough to resemble humility and harmlesnesse by Secondly It is yet doubtfull whether our Saviour said of them is the Kingdome of heaven for the word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of such not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of these And Luke 18.17 Mark 10.15 both adde this speech Verely I say unto you whosoever doth not receive the Kingdome of God as a little childe shall not enter therein like to which is that Matth. 18.3 But you have two exceptions against this First because this had been no reason why they should suffer these little children to come to him because of such is the Kingdome of God Secondly he might as well have said suffer sheep or doves to come to me for of such is the Kingdome of God To these exceptions it may be replied the reason may be thus conceived therefore you should not despise that age as prophane and keep them from me for even they that are my Disciples must become children again in putting off their vices being converted unlearning what they have learned becoming humble and docible which things could not be resembled by sheep and doves Thirdly but let it be granted that these were Infants and that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is to be expounded as Beza in his Annot. on Mat. 19.14 horum similium these and the like yet there is no certainty only conjecture that they were believers Infants For though Christ was in the coasts of Judea then yet it might as well be that the children were brought by others as parents and that without faith in Christ as the Messiah upon the fame of his miracles and the conceit he was a prophet and so they might bring children to him to be blessed as Jacob and Esau by Isaac Josephs children by Jacob c. Fourthly but let it be granted they were the Infants of Believers and that it is said of these is the Kingdome of God it may be as Piscator observes referred not to theiâ— present estate as if for the present they were in the kingdome of God that is believers and justified but that they were elect persons and so in time of them should be the Kingdom of God Now that which gives right to Baptisme 〈◊〉 the present estate of a person Fifthly but let that be also granted yet all this proves not your Minor unlesse you can prove that the reason why the Kingdome of heaven belongs to Infants is common with these to other Infants of Believerâ— and the reason why theirâ— is the Kingdome of God is because they were the Infants of Believers that â—o it may be true of all the Infants of Believers But this cannot be true being contrary to expresse Scripture Rom. 9.6 7 8.13 and inferring this error that a childe hath right to the Kingdom of God in that he is the childe of a Believer And experience proves innumerable of them have no interest in the Kingdome of God Besides this reason may
little ones most lately born can be freed from damnation unlesse by the grace of the name of Christ which he hath commended in his Sacraments Pag. 16. Neither let that move thee that some do not bring little ones to receive baptisme with that faith that they may be regenerated by spirituall grace unto life eternall but because they think that by this remedy they keep or receive temporall health For not therefore are they not regenerate because they are not offered by them with this intention For necessarie ministeries are celebrated by them It is answered he doth beleeve by reason of the Sacrament of faith Pag. 18. in the margin Lastly who seeth not that this was the manner of that time when scarce the thousandth person was baptized afore he was of grown age and diligently exercised among the catechized Part. 2. Pag. 21. These to the rest of the errours which they borrowed from the Manichees and Priscillianists added this over and above that they said that the baptisme of little ones was unprofitable inasmuch as it could profit none who could not both himself beleeve and by himself ask the Sacrament of baptisme of which kind we read not that the Manichees and Priscillianists taught any thing They mock us because we baptize infants because we pray for the dead because we ask the suffrages of the Saints They beleeve not that Purgatory fire remains after death but that the soul loosed from the body doth presently passe either to rest or to damnation But now they who acknowledge not the Church it is no marvell if they detract from the orders of the Church if they receive not their appointments if they despise Sacraments if they obey not commands Because he took away Festivals Sacraments Temples Priests because the life of Christ is shut up from the little ones of Christians while the grace of baptisme is denied nor are they suffered to draw neer to salvation Pag. 23. We perceive in the man dexterity and a study of mediocrity But in that man I desire to be deceived I have seemed to my self to have found nothing but immoderate thirst of wealth and glory A fanatique man and grosse Anabaptist Pag. 24. They would seem studious of truth Pag. 25. The word of the Lord. From the staffe to the corner A proverbiall speech in Schools when one thing is inferred from another which have no connexion They who all along these places of Belgick and lower Germany are found bordering on this Anabaptisticall heresie are almost all followers of this Mennon whom I have named to whom now this Theodorick hath succeeded In whom for a great part you may perceive tokens of a certain godly mind who being incited by a certain unskilfull zeal out of errour rather then malice of mind have departed from the true sense of Divine Scriptures and the agreeing consent of the whole Church which may be perceived by this that they alwayes resisted the rage of Munster and Batenburgick that followed after stirred up by John Batenburg after the taking of Munster who plotted a certain new restitution of the kingdom of Christ which should be placed in the destruction of the wicked by outward force And they tauâ—ht thâ—t the instauration and propagation of the kingdom of Christ consists in the crosse alone whereby it happens that they which are such mâ—y seem rather worthy of pity and amendment then persecution and perdition Pag. 28. What part of time Pag. 48. Hâ—w it may be that Israel may be rejected but that together the Covenant of God established with Abraham and his seed should seem to be made void In the margin The credit of that promise Gen. 17.7 8. doth presently appear to be brought into danger by the rejecting of the Jews and the exclusion of them out of the Covenant of God sith they are born of Abraham according to the flâ—sh so saith he it appeares to them that look upon the first fâ—ce of things The Apostle shews thâ—t theâ—efâ—re the word of the Covenant and divine promises made to Israel failed not or was made void aâ—though a great part of the Jews were unbelieving because those promises of the Câ—venant are of God not to them properly who were to come from the seed of Abraham according to the flesh but to those who were to be ingraffed into the family of Abraham by vertue of divine promise Pag. 49. The argument of the Apostle to prove the Covenant of God entred into with Abraham doth not comprehend all the posterity of Abraham in its skirt we think should be thus simply framed Esau and Jacob were of the pâ—sterity of Abraham but God did not comprehend both of these in his Covenant with Abraham Therefore not all the posterity of Abraham It is proved that God did not comprehend both in the Covenant of grace because he did not comprehend Esau the elder but Jacob the younger Pag. 50. There are many of the seed of Abraham to whom the word of promise doth not belong as Ismael and Ismaelites But if so there be many of the seed of Abraham to whom the word of promise doth not belong then the rejâ—ction of many Jews who are of the seed of Abraham doth not make void the word of promise In the margin Calvin gathers hence in that any is the seed of Abraham the promise made to Abraham belongs to him but the answer is manifest that promise understood of spirituall blessing pertaines not to the carnall seed of Abraham but to the spirituall as the Apostle himselfe hath interpreted it Rom. 4. 9. For if you understand the carnall seed now that promise will belong to none of the Gentiles but to those alone who are begotten of Abraham and Isaac according to the flesh He teacheth also that the promises of God are not tied to the carnall birth but to belong onely to the believing and spirituall posterity For they are not the sons of Abraham who are of Abraham according to the flesh but who are according to the spirit Pag. 51. In the Margin The inculcation also of the seed sheweth that onely the elect and effectually called are noted the Apostle so interpreting this place Rom. 9.8 Gal. 3.16 4.28 Pag. 52. That baptisme doth not certainly seale in all the children of believers the grace of God sith among them some are absolutely reprobated even by an antecedent decree of God from eternity and therefore believers are to doubt of the truth of Gods Covenant I am thy God and the God of thy seed after thee Pag. 58. To be a son of Abraham doth declare nothing else but to be freely elected Rom. 9.8 and to tread in the steps of the faith of Abraham Rom. 4.12 and to doe the workes of Abraham Joh. 8.39 From which is rightly gathered certain expectation of salvation to come Rom. 8.29 Pag. 69. In the Margin Infants in their parents grandfathers great grandfathers grandfathers grandfathers have refused the grace of the Gospel by which act
est tale Scriptuâ— esse â—jus Authoris 〈◊〉 nomen prefâ—rt Rivet tractâ—t de Patrum Authâ—rit cap 14. Consuetudo tamen Man is Ecâ—lesia in baptizandis parvulis nequaquam sperâ—enda est neque ullo modo superflua deputanda nec omnino credenda nisi Apostolica esset traditio Augustin lib. 10. cap. 23. de Genesi § 6. Of the Testimonies of Gregory Nazianzen and the Greeke Church Lib. 2. heresi 47 vel 67. §. 7. Of the testimony of Cyprian §. 8. Of the testimony of Augustine August tâ—m 1. Confess lib. 1. c. 11 Sigâ—abar signo Cruâ—is ejus conâ—iâ—bâ—r ejus saâ—e jam inde ab uteâ—o matris mâ—ae quae multum speravit in te And then followes how being young and falling sick he desired and his mother thought to have him baptized but upon his recovery it was differred Rivet tract de Patrum authoritate c. 9. Augustinus aeternis flammis adjudicat Infantes fine baptismo morientes· §. 9. Of the testimonies of Hierom and Ambrose §. 10. Oâ— the valiâ—ity of proof by these testimonies and of the evidences that Infant-baptism is an innovation Chamier panstr Cathol to 4. l. 5. c. 15. §. 19. Denique hunc morem quis non videt ejus temporis â—sse cum vix milâ—esimus quisque baptâ—zabatur non adultus in Catechumenis diligenter exercitus H. Hamond A practicall Catech l. 1. §. 3. pag. 23. And those other fundamentals of faith which all men were instructed in anciently before they were permitted to be baptized §. 1. Of the fitnes of placing the Narration of miscarriages of opposers of Paedobaptisâ—e §. 2. Of the opposers of Infant-baptisme afore Baltazar § 3. Of Baltazar Pacimontanâ—◠§. 4. Of rebaptizing § 5. Of the Anabaptists in Germanie and the Antiprelatists in England §. 6. Of Anabaptists opposing Magistracy §. 7. Of the hindering of refoâ—mation by Anabaptisme §. 8. The Antipaedobaptists principle overthrows not the Lords day the Paedobaptists principle reduceth Judaisme and Popish Ceremonies and addes to the Gospell Vid. Rainold Confer with Hart c. 8. §. 4. §. 9. Of the evill of separating from the Ministry and Communion of Christians by reason of this opinion §. 10. Of the condition into which the opinion of Anti-paedobaptisme puts the infants of believers of originall sin salvation out of the Church and Covenant of grace §. 1. Of the connexion between the covenant and the seale §. 2. Of the first conclusion concerning the identity of the Covenant of grace fâ—r substâ—nce to Jews and Gâ—ntiles §. 3. Of the meaning of the second Conclusion The answer of the Assembly of Divines to the reasons of the 7 dissenting brâ—thren p. 48 praecog 1. The whole Churâ—h of Christ is but one made up of the collection and aggregation of all who are called out of the world by the preaching of the Word to professe the faith of Christ §. 4. That the Covenant of grace is not made to believers and their seed Twisse vind Grat. cont Armin. lib. 1. pa. 1. digr 7. Hujus autem promissionis Gen. 17.7 8. fides confestim apparet in discrimen adâ—uci ex rejectione Judaeorum exclusione eorundem ex foedâ—re Dei cum fint ex Abrahamo sâ—cundum carnem prosminati sic inquit apparet primas rerum facies intuentibus Walae cont Corvin cap. 15. pag. 377. Apostolus ostendit ideo verbum foederis divinarum promissionum Israelitis factarum non excidere aut irritum fieri licet magna Judaeorum pars esset incredula quia promissiones illae foedâ—ris factae sunt a Deo non iis proprie qui ex semine Abrahami secundum carnem erant orituri sed iis qui secundum electionâ—m gratuitam Abrahami familiae ex vi diâ—ina promissionis erant inserendi The new Annotations on the Bible Annot. on Rom. 9.8 The children of the flesh c Not all they who are carnally born of Abraham by the course of nature are the children of God to whom the promise of grace was made but the childâ—en of promise that is those who were born by vertue of the promise those who by Gods speciall grace were adopted as Isaac by a speciall and singular promise was begot by Abraham they only are accounted for thaâ— seed mentioned in the Covenant I will be thy God and the God of thy seed Estius annot ad Gen. 17.7 Colligit hinc Calvinus â—o ipso quo quis est semen Abrahae ad cum pertinere prâ—missionem Abrahae factam sed responsio manifesta prâ—missionem illam de benedictione spirituali intellectam non ad carnale semen Abrahaemi pertinere sed ad spirituale quemadmodum eam ipse Apostolus interpretatâ—â— est Rom. 4 9. Si enim carnale semen intelligas jam ad neminem ex gentibus illa promissio pertinebit sed ad solos ex Abraham Isaac secundum carnem genitos Paraeus Comment in Mat. 3.9 Docet quoque promissiones Dei non alligatas esse carnali origini sed pertinere tantum ad posteros fideles spirituales Non enim sunt filii Abrahae qui secundum carnem sunt ex Abraham sed qui secundum spiritum Ainsworth ann on Gâ—n 12.7 Thy seed That is to all the children of promise the elect who only are couâ—ted Abrahams seed Rom. 9.7 8. and in Christ are heirs by promise as well the Gentiles as the Jews Gal. 3.26.28.29 Ames Coron art 5. cap. 2. Seminis etiam inculcatio solos electos efficaciter vocatos notari docet Apostolo sic hunc titulum interprâ—tante Rom. 9.8 Gal. 3.16 4.28 §. 5. It is not in Gods church like other kingdomes Cotton Way of the Churches of Christ in N.E. c. 4. §. 6. Infants cannot claim right unto baptisme but in the right of one of their parents or both Where neither of the parents can claim right to the â—ords supper there thâ—ir Infants cannâ—t claim right to Baptisme Aâ— therefore we do not receive an heâ—â—hen to the fellowship of the supper nor their seed to Baptism so neither dare we receive an excommunicate person who is to us an heathen to the Lords supper or his children to Baptisme But after â— 7 §. 2. Or where either of the parents have made such profession Or it may be consiâ—ered alâ—o whether the children may not be baptized where either the grand-father or grand-mother have made suâ—h profâ—ssion and are still living to undertake for the Christian education of the child For it may be coâ—ceived where there is a stipulation of the Covenant on Gods part anâ— a restipulation on maâ—s part there may be an obligation of the Covenant on both parts Gen. 17.7 Or if these saile what hindereth but that if the parâ—nts will deâ—â—gne their infant to be educated in the house of any goâ—ly member of the Church the child may be lawfully baptized in the right of its household governour according to the proportion of the Law Gen 17.12 13. §. 6. Of the Texts which are Act.
untill they shew signes to the contrary God having both reckoned them unto his people and given them all the means of salvation which an Infants age is capable of All this passage is but dictates what or how much of it is true or false hath been considered before only that you say all the other Infants of the world have their visible standing under the prince and in the kingdome of darknesse and consequently whilest others have no hope of their childrens spirituall welfare untill they be called out of that condition If you mean by all other Infants all that are unbaptized though the Infants of Believers in the Church it is a very harsh and uncharitable speech and you oppose those that in dispute against the Papists concerning the necessity of Baptisme to salvation do hold that Infants of Believers are holy and in the Church afore they be baptized and joyn with Lutherans and Papists denying it if you mean only the unbaptized Infants of Infidels what comfort do you give more to believing parents that have their children baptized then belongs to them though their children were not baptized And when you say that all others have no hope of their childrens spirituall welfare if you mean it of believing parents that baptize not their children it is in like manner an uncharitable speech and doth border too neer on the opinion of the necessity of Baptisme for Infants to salvation and when you say these need not have any doubt of their childrens welfare if they die in their infancy if you mean it of parents because their children are baptized you do speak like one that did hold that Baptisme doth conferre gratiam ex opere operato conferre grace by the work done but for ought you can shew out of Scripture a believing parent hath as much ground of hope for his Infant that dies unbaptized as for the baptized and as much reason of doubt concerning the baptized as the unbaptized And therefore what you here speak doth no whit encourage parents to baptize children if it be well weighed except there can be proved an institution and a promise But you say secondly here is much priviledge and benefit to the children when as beside what inward secret work God is pleased to work in them they being members of the Church of Christ have their share in the communion of Saints are remembred at the Throne of grace every day by those that pray for the welfare of the Church and particularly in those prayers which are made for his blessing upon his Ordinances By your parenthesis you intimate some inward secret work God is pleased to work in the Infants baptized by Baptisme If you conceive a bestowing of grace ex opere operato by the work done or baptismall initiall regeneration of the elect supposed to be in the Infants in baptisme notwithstanding till death they live wickedly speak plainly that we may know what you mean and then an answer may be framed to your speâ—ch As for being members of the Church if you meâ—n the invisible Church neither I nor you can affirm or deny it s in Gods bosome alone if you mean the visible you must make a new definition of the visible Church afore Infants baptized will be proved members For their remembring at the Throne of grace daily if you mean it particularly and by name I do not finde that to be in use after Baptisme any more then afore and I think they are remembred by the godly in generall as well afore Baptisme as after and for the praying for Gods blessing upon his Ordinances if Infant-baptisme be not Gods Ordinance this prayer in reference to Infant-baptisme at that time might be better spared You say And lastly it 's no small priviledge to have that seale bestowed on them in their infancy which may afterwards plead when they are growne and come to fulfill the condition When where and how Baptisme should be pleaded as you shew not neither doe I well conceive It is not Baptisme of it selfe that will yeeld a plea of any force either in foro soli in the Court of earth or in foro poli in the Court of heaven but the promise of God and the condition of faith in Christ. And these will be good pleas in prayeâ—s to God and in the court of conscience when Infant-baptisme will stand in no stead The plea of the Apostle will hold Rom. 8.31 32 33 34. which baptisme rightly administred doth strengthen 1 Pet. 3.21 But I never knew any Saint that pleaded his infant-baptisme in such cases YOu say further But if their being capable of the spirituall part must intitle them to the outward signe why then doe we not also admit them to the Sacrament of the Lords Supper which is the seale of the Covenant of grace as well as the Sacrament of Baptisme And this is urged the rather because say they the infants of the Jewes did eate of the Passeover as well as were circumcised Now if our infants have every way as large a priviledge as the infants of the Jewes had then can we not deny them the same priviledge which their infants had and consequently they must partake of the one Sacrament as well as the other This argument is good ad homines against the partie opposite proceeding upon the Paedobaptists hypotheses or suppositions to wit 1. That those to whom the Covenant belongs to them the seale belongs 2. That to the infants of believers the Covenant belongs 3. That the Lords Supper is a seale of the Covenant as well as Baptisme And these are your hypotheses Now then if this be a good argument children are to be baptized because they are in the Covenant and the seale belongs to those in Covenant by the same reason they are to receive the Lords Supper because they are in Covenant and the seale belongs to those in Covenant Now this argument is strengthened from other hypotheses as that the Lords Supper succeeds the Passeover as Baptisme Circumcision but children not of yeares of discretion had the Passeover therefore they are to havâ— the Lords Supper And this is confirmed by the practise and opinion of the Ancients that gave the Lords Supper to infants for 600 yeares after Christ as well as baptisme To this you say I answer that infants are capable of the grace of Baptisme we are sure not sure that they are capable of the grace signed and sealed in the Sacrament of the Lords Supper This answer supposeth that there is grace sealed in the Lords Supper which is not sealed in Baptisme To me that Sacrament that confirmes the covenant of grace confirmes all the promises in it and therefore if Baptisme be the seale of the covenant it seales all the graces and all the promises in it and therefore you are as sure that infants are capable of all graces annexed to the Covenant as of one But you say For both of them are seales of the new Covenant yet it is