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
inseâ—tatione et perditione digni videantur How unlike is Mr. Vines his speech to the Lord Mâ—jor City of London to these words of Cassander a Papist to the D. of Clevâ—â—â—â—pist â—â—pist And for those in these dayes that deny or question Paedo-baptisme as I know them not or very few of them so I cannot say what they do or hold as being not privy to their tenets or proceedings onely undeâ—standing by one of your assembly that there was a little book puâ— forth intitled the compassionate Samaritane upon perusall I found that that Author who ever he were accounts it a calumny to charge thâ— Anabaptists with opposing Magistracy But concerning this the confession of faith lately put forth in the name of 7 Churches of them Artic. 48 49. will give best information But if you meane not this but some other error depending on the opinion of Antipaedobaptisme when I meete with them in your Sermon I shall in their proper place consider whether they do depend on it or no and for the opinion it selfe I say if it be not truth the spreading of it is unhappy if it be truth the more it spreads the more happy it is for the Kingdome YOu say further And so the worke of reformation without Gods mercy likely to be much hindered by it Sir you now touch upon a very tender point in which it concerned you and it in like mannâ—r concernes me and all that have any love to Iesus Christ or his people to be very considerate in what we say I have entred into Covenant to endeavour a reformation as well as you and though I have not had the happines as indeed wanting ability to be imployed in that eminent manner you have beene in the promoting of it in which I rejoyce yet have I in my affâ—ctions sincerely dâ—sired it in my intentions truely aimed at it in my prayers heaâ—tily sought it in my studies constantly minded it in my indeavours seriously prosecuted it for the promoting of it greatly suffered as having as deepe in interest in it as other men Now bâ—gging this Postulatum or demand that Paedobaptisme is a corruption of Christs institution which upon the reading of my answer and the 12 reasons of my doubts formerly mentioned will appeare not to be a mere Petitio principii begging that which is to be proved I say this being granted I humbly conceive that Paedobaptisme is a Mother-Corruption that hath in her wombe most of those abuses in discipline and manners and some of those errors in doctrine that doe dâ—file the reformed Churches and therefore that the reformation will be so far from being hindred by removing it that indeed it is the only way to further reformation to begin in a regular way at the purging of that ordinance of Iesus Christ to wit Baptisme without which experience shewes how insufficient after-Catechizing Excommunication Confirmation Vnio reformata solemne Covenant Separation the New Church-Covenant invented or used to supply the want of it are to heale the great abuses about the admitting visible professors into the priviledge of the Church from whence spring a great part if not all the abuses in discipline receiving the Lords Supper and manners of Christian people And therefore I earnestly beseech in the bowels of Iesus Christ both you and all others that ingage themselves for God to take this matter into deepe consideration I am sensible how inconsiderable a person I am and how inconsiderable a number there be that are affâ—cted with this motion I do consider how much against the streame of the Râ—formed Churches such a reformation would be Yet when I consider how far fetched the reasons for Paedobaptisme are how cleare the institution of Christ is against it how happily truthes opposed with as much pâ—â—jâ—dice as this have beene in processe of time vindicâ—ted of whaâ— moment the knowledge of this point is to every conscience how exact a râ—formation our solemne Covenant binds us to endeavour I do not despaire but that this truth also may take place upon second thoughts â—here it hath beene rejected at the first nor doe I doubt buâ— in time Gods people will consider what an influence baptisme had of old into the comfort and obligation of conscienâ—es and how litâ—le it hâ—th now And truely Sir though it may be but my weaknes yet I suppose it can doe you no hurt to tell it I feare you want much of that blessing which was hoped for by your Assembly in that you do waste so much time about inconsiderable things comparatively and hastily passe over or exclude from examination this which deserves most to be examined but rather seeke to stop the bringing of it to any tryall But having told you thus much I follow you in your Sermon You say I shall God-willing handle this question more largely then I have done any other in this place and the rather because of three other great mischeifes which go along with it First I see that all that reject the baptizing of Infants do must upon the same grounds reject the religious observation of the Lords day or the Christian Sabbath viz. because there is not say they an expresse institution or command in the New Testament Give me leave to take up the words of him in the Poet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 What a word hath gotten out of the hedge of your teeth They doe They must Though I doubt not of your will yet I see you want some skil in pleading for the Lords day that others have the truth is that it is neither so nor so They neither doe nor must reject upon the same ground the Lords day That they doe not I can speake for one and your owne words delivered after with more caution Verily I have hardly either knowne or read or heard intimate that though few yet you cannot say but you have heard or read or knowne of some that have not with baptizing of Infants rejected the Lords day but you have I presume heard or read of whole and those reformed Churches that have upon such a ground rejected the Lords day as not of divine institution who yet are zealous for paedobaptisme Nor must they And to make that good let us consider their ground as you mention it Their ground you say is because there is not an expresse institution or command in the New Testament this then is their principle that what hath not an expresse institution or command in the New Testament is to be rejected But give me leave to tell you that you leave out two explications that are needefull to be taken in First that when they say so they meane it of positive instituted worship consisting in outward rites such as Circumcision Baptisme and the Lords Supper are which have nothing morall or naturall in them but are in whole and in part Ceremoniall For that which is naturall or morall in worship they allow an institution or command in the old Testament as obligatory
dictate The Evening of the Passeover is no more accidentall then the day it selfe they being commanded both together And for the Lords Supper how we can be loose to receive it in the Morning or Evening after Supper when the Apostle doth so distinctly mention in this relation of the Institution 1 Cor. 11.23 that it was done in the night and vers 25. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 after he had supped I leave to your Assembly to consâ—der Especially those of you that are so stiffe for the sitting together at the Table which is not mentioned or hinted in the Apostles relation and therefore may seeme as much occasionall as the other And for that which you intimate as if Baptisme were not the Sacrament for spirituall nourishment growth and continuance in the Covenant as well as for entrance I take to be but a dictate like the rest which upon exact examination will not hold it seems to me somewhat neare of kinne to that of Bellarmine and other Papists that the efficacy of Baptisme extends not to the remission of the sinnes of our whole life but of originall sinne onely But you have yet one more Instance and thus you speake The like Instance I give in our Christian Sabbath the fourth Commandement binds as for the substance of it as much as ever it bound the Jewes there God once for all separated one day of seven to be sacred to himselfe and all the world stood bound in all ages to give unto God that one day of seven which should be of his own choosing Now untill Christs time God chose the last day of the seven to be his Sabbath and having by the death and Resurrection of our Lord Jesus put an end to the Saturday Sabbath and surrogated the first day of the week instead thereof to be the Lords day wee need no new Commandement for the keeping of the Lords day being tyed by the fourth Commandement to keep that day of seven which the Lord should choose the Lord having chosen this the fouâ—th Commandement binds us to this as it did the Jewes to the former so in like manner I say in the Sacrament of Baptisme What I conceive about the Lords day I have before declared Part. 2. Sect. 8. where also I shewed you how different the case of Paedobaptisme is from it which I shall not now repeate Onely whereas you bring the Sabbath for an Instance of a Command of God about the Sacraments of the Jewes binding us as well as the Jewes you forget the marke at which you shoote the Sabbath or Lords day being not to be reckoned among the Jewes Sacraments or ours according to the usuall Ecclesiasticall acception and definition of the word You see now your maxime which is the foundation of your undeniable consequence undermined I presume you may see quickly the superstruction it selfe overturned one blow more will doe it You piece things together thus When God made the Covenant with Abraham and promised for his part to be the God of him and his seed what God promised to Abraham wee claime our part in it as the childâ—en of Abraham and whâ—t God required on Abrahams part for the substance of obedience wee all stand charged with as well as Abraham Wee as Abraham are tyed to beleeve to love the Lord with all our heart to have our hearts circumcised to walke before God in uprightnesse to instruct our children and bring them up for God and not for our selves nor for the Devill to teach them to worship God according to his revealed will to traine them up under the Ordinances and Institutions of Gods own appointment All these things God commanded to Abraham and charges upon all the children of the Covenant though there were no expresse reviving these Commands in any part of the New Testament And therefore consequently that Command of God to Abraham which bound his seed of the Jewes to traine up their children in that manner of worship which was then in force binds the seed of Abraham now to traine up their children in â—onformitie to such Ordinances as are now in force Supposing you meane by what God promised to Abraham the spirituall part of the Covenant and the persons claiming to be beleevers I grant this passage to be truth for these duties are morall duties and binde at all times but that which follows I cannot tell how to take for any other then plain Judaisme You say And the sâ—me Command which enjoyned Abraham to seale his children with the seale of the Covenant enjoynes us as strongly to seale ours with the seale of the Covenant and that Command of God which expresly bound Abraham to seale his with the signe of Circumcision which was the Sacrament then in force pro tempore for the time doth virtually binde us to seale ours with the signe of Baptisme which is the Sacrament now in force and succeeds into the roome of the other by his owne Appointment This is your undeniable consequence inferred from a Judaizing principle without so much as one Scripture to prove either the principle or conclusion Whereas â— have brought ten arguments most of them out of the Scripture against your principle and for the Conclusion what construction can be made of it but this that the Command of God to Circumcise binds us still for that was the seale of the Covenant God enjoyned to Abraham and so the Law given by Moses as touching Ceremonies and rites binds Christian men contrary to Art 7. of the Church of England Then must wee Circumcise our Males at the eighth day as they did But you say it binds us virtually only to seale ours with the signe of Baptisme I pray you then what meane you by this virtuall binding The opposite Member was expresly and in Terminis in termes Is this then your meaning that it doth not binde expresly and in terminis but virtually that is implicitely and by Interpretation Tell us then I beseech you by what rule of Divinitie Logick Grammar or Rhetoricke is a man to conceive this Command Cut off the foreskin of the secret part of all the Males in thy house the eighth day That is let a Preacher of the Gospel wash with water at any time after birth the young Infants male and female of Beleevers all over or on the face You call this undeniable Consequence if so it 's either Demonstrative from the cause or effect or definition or propertie or the like or it 's onely Topicall and then not undeniable you say 't is by cleare consequence you may as well say this is good consequence Tu es Petrus super hanc Petram Thou art Peter and upon this rocke Ergo the Pope is Monarch of the Church or with Baronius Arise Peter kill and eate Ergo the Pope may deprive Princes if you can apprehend cleare consequence in it you may enjoy your conceit Nos non sumus adeò sagaces wee are not so quick-witted I passe to the next Command which
Believers are to be baptized with Christs baptisme by the lawfull Minister according to ordinary rule I deny it That which you say for the practise of baptizing infants may be reduced 1. To the testimonies of Antiquity 2. To the novelties and miscarriages of the opposers of it 3. To the arguments produced for it 4. To the answering objections against it I shall by Gods assistence examine each of these First you affirm That the Christian Church hath been in possession of it for the space of fifteen hundred years and upwards as is manifest out of most of the Records that weâ— have of Antiquity both in the Greek and Latine Churches To this I answer that if it were true yet it is not so much as may be said for Episcopacy keeping of Easter the religious use of the Crosse c. which I conceive you reject 2. That the highest testimonies you produce come not so high 3. Those that be alleaged being judiciously weighed will rather make against the present doctrine and practise then for it 4. There are many evidences that do as strongly prove as proofes usually are taken in such matters Quod ab initio non fuit sic That from the beginning it was not so and therefore it is but an innovation The first of these I presume you will acknowledge that for Antiquity not-Apostolicall there are plain testimonies of Episcopacy keeping of Easter the religious use of the Crosse being in use before any of the testimonies you or any other can produce for baptizing of infants and therefore I will forbear mentioning proofes so obvious to Schollars The second and third thing I shall make good in the weighing of the Testimonies you produce and the fourth in the close YOur Testimonies are either of the Greek or Latine Churches Of the Greekes you alleage foure The first is Justine Martyr of whom you say That he lived Anno 150. which wants somewhat of 1500. years and therefore you did somewhat overlash in saying that it is manifest out of most of the Records of the Greeke and Latine Church The Church hath been in possession of the priviledge of baptizing Infants 1500. years and upwards and then you say In a Treatise that goes under his name By which it is manifest that you know that it was questioned whether it was his or no and I conceive you could not be ignorant that it is not only questioned but also proved by Perkins in his preparative to the demonstration of the Probleme by Rivet in his Critieus sacer by Robert Cooke of Leeds if my memory faile me not to which I am inforced to trust in many things being spoiled of my bookes in his Censure and confessed by Papists to be none of Justine Martyrs but to bee written a great while after his dayes for as much as it mentions not only Irenaeus but also Origen and the Manichees Now what doth this bastard Treatise say You say Question 56. Justine Martyr disputes the different condition of those children who die baptized and of those children who die unbaptized The question propounded is If Infants dying have neither praise nor blame by works what is the difference in the resurrection of those that have been baptized by others and have done nothing and of those that have not been baptizâ—d and in like manner have done nothing The Answer is this is the difference of the baptized from the not baptiâ—â—d that the baptized obtaine good things meaning at the Resurrection by baptisme but the unbaptized obtain not good things And theâ— are accounted worthy of the good things they have by their baptisâ—â— by the faith of those that bring them to baptisme You may by thâ—â— testimony see what ever Age the book was made in what the reason of baptizing of Infants was Not the supposed Covenant of grace made to believers and their seed which you make the ground of baptizing of infants but the opinion that the not baptized should not obtain good things at the resurrection meaning the Kingdome of God mentioned Joh. 3.5 but the baptized should and that by reason of the faith of the bringers what ever the Parents were and therefore they baptized the children of unbâ—lievers as well as believers if they were brought YOur next Greek Author is Irenaeus who was indeed a Greeke and wrote in Greek but now only we have his works in Latine except some few fragments for which reason we are not so certain of his meaning as we might be if we had his own words in the language in which he wrote You say he lived in the same Century and it is acknowledged he lived in the same Century with Justine Martyr but not with the Author of the Questions Answers ad Orthodoxâ—s who as hath been said lived in some Age after Irenaeus is by Vsher placed at the yeare 180. by Osiander at the yeare 183. so that though he were of that Century yet he flourished in the latter part of it and so reacheth not to your 1500. years upwards Of him you say that l. 2. c. 39. he saith Christus venit per seipsuÌ„ omnes salvare omnes inquaÌ„ qui per eum renascuntur in DeuÌ„ infantes parvuloâ— pueros c. Now it is well knowne say the Glossers upon that text renascentiâ— nomine Dominica Apostolica Phrasi Baptismum intelligi You might have added what follows Aperte confirmans Apostolorum traditionem de baptismo infantium parvulorum adversus Anabaptisticam impietatem But I pray you whose Glosse was this Was it any other then Fevardentius if I mistake not of whom Rivet Crit. Sacr. lib. 2 cap. 6. Juniores tantum qui in opera Irenaei incident monitos volo ut caveant ab illis Editionibus quas impudentissimus ille Monarchus Fevardentius homo projecta audacia et nullius fidei foede in multis corrupit annotationibus impiiâ— et mendacibus conspuâ—cavit And for the glosse its false for no where doth our Lord or the Apostles call baptisme Now birth although our Lord speake of being borne againe of water Ioh. 3.5 and Paul of the washing of regeneration Tit. 3.5 and for the words themselves without the glosse all the strength lyes in this that the word Renascuntur is used for Baptisme by the Ancients which yet possibly was not the word Irenaeus used in his owne writing and how the Latine translation alters the meaning of Irenaeus you may see somewhat in Rivet Vossius Thesibus Theologic de Padebapt Thesi. 7. intimates that the proper acception is of sanctification and that the word may be so taken yea and that it is not meant of Baptisme the words and the whole scope of Irenaeus in that place shew For the scope of Irenaeus in that chapter is to refute the Gnosticks who sayd that Christ did not exceede one and thirty yeeres of age against whom Irenaeus alleageth that Christ lived in every age of infancy youth old age that by his age example
would have him viz. you and your children hâ—ve hitherto been an holy seed but now if you beleeve in Châ—ist your selves your children shall be in no better condition then the rest of the Pagan world strangers from the Covenant of God but if afterward any of them or any of the heathen shall for their parts beleeve and be baptized their particular persons shall be taken into covenant but their children still left out had this thinke you been a comfortable argument to perswade them to come in in relation to the good of their children after them You suppose here that the Apostle used this argument onely in relation to the good of their children whereas the maine matter was concerning themselves to erect them who being told that they had crucified Iesus who was both Lord and Christ verse 36. and had said Matth. 27.25 His blood be upon us and our children were pricked in their hearts and said to Peter and the rest of the Apostles Men and brethren what shall we doe and was it not a comfortable argument for men in that case to be told that notwithstanding all this the promise of Christ and remission of sinnes by him was yet to them and their children on whom they had wished Christs blood to be and to all the Jewes that dwelt afarre off in the diâ—persion as many as the Lord should call and a great incitement to repent and be baptized in the Name of the Lord Jesus for the remission of sinnes However you conceive now sure if your soule had been in their soules stead you would have conceived it a very comfortable speech in this sensâ— that I now give As for that witlesse descant you put on your adversaries I know not whether it be their meaning or not sure I am no such thing follows on the applying the restriction in the end of the verse to them their children and all that are afarre off And that which you would burden your adversaries tenent with as if they put beleivers infants out of the covenant into the condition of Pagans children it is a coccysme answered before and therefore I may well let it passe in this place You adde The plaine strength of the argument is God hath now remembred his Covenant to Abraham in sending that blessed seed in whom he promised to be the God of him and his seed doe not you by your unbeliefe deprive your selves and your posteritie of so excellent a gift In this passage I thinke you hit the marke it is the very interpretation I gave in the reasons of my doubts before mentioned in answering the arguâ—ent from this text onely the alleâ—dging the promise Gen. 17.7 〈◊〉 that expression do not you by your unbeliefe deprive your posteritie of so excellent a gift have a little relish of your interpretation of the promise concerning the naturall seed of beleevers But letting that passe in the maine you expound it rightly The promise is to you and your children that is God hath now remembred his Covenant to Abâ—aham in sending that blessed seed in whom hee promâ—sed to be the God of Abraham and his seed and the sense is plaine Tâ—e promise which is made to Abraham is now fulfilled in sending Christ to you and your children and to all that are afarre off as many as the Lord our God shall call that they might bee turned from their iniquity â—nd baptized in his name for the remission of their sinnes And this agrees with the Apostles exhortation to the same purpose Acts 3.25.26 Ye are the children of the Prophets and of the covenant which God made with our fathers saying unto Abraham and in thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed unto you first God having raised up his Sonne Jesus sent him to blesse you in turning away every one of you from his iniquities And Acts 13.32 33. And we declare unto you glad tidings how that the promise which was made unto the fathers God hath fulfilled the same unto us their châ—ldren in thâ—t he hath raised up Jesus againe You adde And except in relation to the covenant there was no occasion to name thâ—ir children it had been sufficient to have said a promise is made to as many as the Lord shall call Though I deny not their children are mentioned in relation to the covenant in the sense I have given or rather in allusion to the forme of expressions in the covenant and predictions of the Prophets yet there was other occasion to wit their imprecation Matth. 27.25 and especially because Christ was as it is Acts 3.26 first sent to the Jews and their children and to be offered first to them as it is Acts 13.46 But it was not to intimate that which you would gather that the promise is such to them if they did beleeve that their children even their infants upon their fathers faith whether the children were called or not were taken into the covenant either of saving graces or visible church-membership which you should have proved but never will prove out of this Scripture But taking your Hypothesis that these to whom Peter speakes were within the covenant made to Abraham and cirumcised rightly and yet the Apostle requires these to repent afore they are to be baptized the Antipaedobaptists have hence a good argument against baptizing infants because Peter required of such as were in the covenant repentance afore Baptism I passe on to the next proof you bring for your Conclusion YOu say as plain it is out of the 11. Rom. 16 c. where the apostles scope is to shew that we Gentiles have now the same graffing into the true olive which the Jews formerly had and our present graffing in is answerable to their present casting out their taking in in the latter end of the world shall be the same graffing in though more gloriously as ours is now Now all know that wheÌ„ they were taken in they and their children were taken in when they were broken off they and their children were broken off when they shall be taken in in the latter end of the world they and their children shall be taken in and that because the root is holy that is Gods covenant with Abraham Isaac and Jacob extends yet unto them when their unbelief shall be taken away The root being like Nebuchadnezars tree the tree hewen down and the root bound with a hand of iron until seven times were passed over it and then the bands should be broken the root should spring and the tree should grow again So their present nation like this tree is cut down and this holy root the covenant made with their forefathers is suspended bound with an iron bar of unbelief blindnesse being come upon them untill the fulnes of the Gentiles were come in and then all Israel shall be saved And mark that in all this discourse the holines of the branches there spoken of is not meant of a personall inherent holines
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 believing wife and believing husband and a copy of Clermont had 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the husband a brother yet all the copies besides reade simply without that Epithet to the wife to the husband without believing The reason cannot be conceived righâ—ly to be any other but that although the person meant were a believer as well as a wife or a husband yet in this passage they were considered onely as husband or wife and not as believers to intimate that the sanctification did not come from the faith of the party but from conjugall relation So that whereas you say that upon the interpretation given it would follow that there would be no lawfull marriage amongst heathens or legitimate children because you conceive the sanctification holinesse here proper to believers and their children the contrary is most true and most agreeable to the Apostles meaning who doth not here ascribe the sanctification either of the unbeliever or the children to the faith of either partie but to the conjugall relation and mentions here no priviledge but what was common to all married persons amongst the heathens Thus is your principall argument answered I passe on to the next You say besides S t Pauls reason had no strength in it supposing the text were to be interpreted as these men would have it Their doubt say they was that their marriage was an unlawfull wedlocke and so consequently their children bastâ—rds You doe not herein rightly set downe your adversaries explication of the Apostle the doubt was onely whether the beleever might continue with the unbeliever in conjugall use the Apostles resolution was they might for they were sanctified each to other notwithstanding the unbeliefe that was in the one partie for if it were otherwise their children were bastards There was no doubt as you say of their childrens bastardy the Apostles reason supposeth it was out of doubt with them You adde Now marke what kinde of answer they make the Apostle give Were you not lawfull man and wife your children were bastards but because the unbelieving wife is sanctified in the husband c. because your marriage is a lawfull marriage your children are legitimate What strength of reason is in this if this had been their doubt or question whether their marriage were not a nullitie the Apostle by his Apostolike authoritie might have definitively answered without giving a reason your marriage is good and your children legitimate But if Paul will goe about to satisfie them by reason and prove them to be mistaken it behoved him to give such a reason which should have some weight in it but this hath none Set their doubt as these men frame it and the Apostles answer as these men interpret it together and you will easily see the invalidity of it Wee doubt say the Corinthians wee are not lawfull man and wife and that therefore our children are bastards No saith Paul you are mistaken and I prove it thus Were you not lawfull man and wife your children were bastards but because you are lawfull man and wife your children are not bastards Is there any argument or proofe in this As you frame your adversaries meaning it may be thought ridiculous but your mistakes must not be charged on them for their errour All this passage of yours is built on this that you make that the doubt which was not the doubt to wit whether their children were bastards and make that the conclusion which is the medium to prove the conclusion by for it was so far from being a doubt whether their children were bastards that the Apostle argues from this as an absurditie he knew they would not grant and therefore supposed this to be without doubt with them that their children were not bastards but legitimate And herein Mr Thomas Goodwin spake rightly that the Apostle supposed it to be a received principle with them though his paraphrase but now are they holy that is you see your children baptized is his owne comment and that not onely a very bold but absurd one that I say no worse of it And whereas you say the Apostle might by his Apostolike authoritie have definitively answered 't is true and so he did as appeares from ver 12. and yet he might give a reason ad homines to the men to convince them which it may be as you make it is invalide but rightly conceived as the Apostle framed it is convincing and cogent You say Fourthly according to this their interpretation the Apostles answer could no way have reached to the quieting of their consciences their doubt was whether according to the example in Ezra they were not to put away their wives and children as not belonging to God as being a seed whom God would not owne among his people Now what kinde of quiet would this have given them to tell them that their children were not bastards Wee know the Jewes did not put away their bastards as not belonging to the Covenant of God Pharez and Zarah and Jepthah and innumerable others though bastards were circumcised and not cut off from the people of God All this argument is grounded on a mistake as if the question were whether they were to put away their wives and children as not belonging to God and that according to the example in Ezra Whereas that is but a conjecture that they had any relation in this matter to the action mentioned in Ezra and some other occasion is as likely if not more likely as hath been shewed and it is certaine there were no doubts at all about the putting away of their children for the Apostles argument proceeds upon this as a thing undoubted with them that their children were not uncleane but holy What their doubt indeed was and how the Apostles answer fits it is shewed before You goe on And whereas some object out of Deut. 23.2 that bastards did not belong to the Covenant among the Jewes because God there forbad a bastard to come into the Congregation of the Lord. I answer that is meant onely of bearing office in the Church or some such like thing and not of being under the Covenant belonging to the Church as is manifest not onely by what hath been now said of Jepthah and others who were circumcised and offered sacrifices and drew nigh to God as well as any other but the very Text alledged gives sufficient light that it cannot be meant otherwise because in that place who ever is an Eunuch or wounded in his stones hath the same exclusion from the Congregation of the Lord and I hope that none will dare to say that none such are holy to the Lord if they should the Scriptuâ—e is full enough against them that putting away in Ezra was of an higher nature then illegitimation and therefore it behooved the Apostle to give another manner of satisfaction to their doubtfull consciences then to tell them their children were not bastards Therefore I
as Mr. Mather in answer to Mr. Herle or that there must be an imparity in the Clergy and so Bishops above Presbyters as the Prelates Bilson Davenâ—nt Dâ—terminat Quest. 42. and others were wont to argue or that a Doctor in Divinity may be a Justice of Peace because Eli and Samuel were Judges as the Prelaticall Doctors or that there must be a Pope because there was an High Priest as Bellarmine and the Papists If the consequence be not good in the one neither is it in the other You say in the next words that the Lords Supper succeeds in the room of the Passeover This I confesse goes current but the Scripture doth not say so that I know The Scripture expresly saith that Christ our Passeover was sacrificed for us 1 Cor. 5.7 It iâ— true the Lords Supper was appointed after the Paschal Supper but it is but our collection that thereby the Lord would make an end of the Passeover and substitute the other in its room In other places we rather finde the Lords Supper to answer the Manna and the Rock or water out of the Rock in the Wildernesse 1 Cor. 10.3 4. It is true the Apostle 1 Cor. 10.16 17. argues from the eating of the sacrifices to the eating of the Lords Supper But that was not only from the Passeover but from the rest of the peace-offerings as well as it yea from the Heathens feasts upon their sacrifices It is true 1 Cor. 5.8 we are required to keep the feast and the allusion is to the Paschal Supper but whether the keeping the feast be meant of the Lords Supper or as Beza paraphraseth it totam vitam in justitia integritate consumamus let us spend our whole life in justice and integrity or something else sub judice lis est is a controversie undetermined But let it be granted that the Lords Supper imitates I will not say succeeds into the room of the Jewish Passeover for that was a sacrifice and Christ offered is only in stead of it the Paschal Supper which because of the time and the form of words used in the institution and such like circumstances is very probable and therefore there is great Analogy between them yet he that should argue therefore we must receive the Lords Supper with unleavened bread as the Papists or that the bread and wine must be first consecrated on an Altar as was the Paschal Lamb or that the Lords Supper is not to be administred but in a Church gathered after the Church-way as the Elders of New-England in answer to the nine Positions or that we must keep an Easter and then have the Lords Supper as in ancient and later times hath been conceived you would reject these things as ill gathered and perhaps call them superstitious But whether these and more like to them do not as well follow as baptizing of Infants from circumcision of Infants because of their Analogy I leave to your self to consider You adde And this our Lord himself taught us by his own example who was circumcised as a professed member of the Church of the Jews and when he set up the new Christian Church he would be initiated into it by the Sacrament of Baptisme It is confessed that Christ was circumcised and baptized but that it was to teach us by his example either your conclusion or the agreements between Baptisme and Circumcision which you set down or that which next goes before your speech the succession of the Lords Supper to the Passeover remains yet to be proved much more that which you drive at that there is such a parity or rather identity between Baptisme and Circumcision that the command to circumcise Infants is a command to baptize Infants The circumcision of Christ was undoubtedly as his presenting in the Temple and the offering for him to accomplish the Law under which it pleased him to be made of a woman Gal. 4.4 5. and it had a spirituall use to assure our circumcision in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh Col. 2.11 This is certain we have cleare Scripture for it if you shall shew the like Scriptures for the inferences you make from Christs circumcision I shall imbrace them with both arms The Baptisme of Christ was that Christ might fulfill all righteousnesse Mat. 3.15 But how to expound this speech hath not a little difficulty Various conjectures there are about the meaning of it this seems to me most likely that righteousnesse is there taken for that which was appointed by God either in secret instructions or some particular Prophecy from God But then if it be asked why God did appoint it this seems most likely sith it is plain that this was the time of Christs anointing with the Spirit as appears Luke 4.18 that Baptisme was used to signifie his anointing by the Spirit for his great function he was then to enter on which me thinks the story it self and the speech of Peter Acts 10.37 38. do evince That which you say That being to set up the new Christian Church he would be initiated into it by the Sacrament of Baptisme seems not probable partly because Christ did not set up in his own dayes on earth a visible Church Discipline and Worship distinct from the Jewish partly because his Baptisme was of a far higher nature then our Baptisme Who was anointed with the oyl of gladnesse above his fellows Heb. 1.9 and therefore his Baptisme was of a transcendent nature above ours But if it were granted that Christs Baptisme were to teach us that he that is a member of the Church must be initiated by baptisme it will rather disadvantage your cause then advantage it sith Christ who was the holy One of God and the Angel of the Covenant and the seed of Abraham in whom all the nations of the earth should be blessed to whom the promises were made in whom the Covenant was confirmed Gal. 3.16 17. yet was not baptized till he began to be about thirty yeers of age Luke 3.23 So that you see how little help you have from your parities or Christs example to prove a like reason of circumcising and baptizing Infants But you have yet another string to your bow out of Col. 2.11 12. I will follow you to try the strength of that also You say of this conclusion there iâ— no great doubt but becâ—use some of the Anabaptists do deny the Sâ—crament of Baptisme to succeed into the room place and use of Circumcision be pleased to observe how plain the Apostle makes it Col. 2.8 9 10 11 12. It is necessary that I should first consider in what sense your Position is to be taken before I examine your proof for it The thing that you say the Apostle makes plain is that the Sacrament of Baptisme doth succeed in the room place and use of Circumcision Succession properly notes a coming after another as we say Kings succeed one another High priests one after another To speak exactly Baptisme
they are grown men nor any example where ever that was done will any man therefore say that Christian women are not to be partakers of the Lords Supper I think none will be so absurd as to affirm it If it be said though these things be not expresly and in terminis in the new Testament yet they are there virtually and by undeniable consequence I confesse it is true You do in this perioch give two instances of practice warranted by command or example gathered by consequence in the new Testament in the positive worship of the Sacraments to wit womens receiving the Lords Supper and the baptizing of children of Believers when grown persons which you grant are virtually and by undeniable consequence in the new Testament though not expresly and in terminis in terms Now this thing you need not have proved I readily grant it that what ever in positive worship is commanded in the new Testament though it be not in formall terms commanded yet if it may be gathered by virtuall consequence ought to be done Neverthelesse I observe First that you do well expresse the institution of Christ Matth. 28.19 when you say expresse command there is that they should teach the Heathen and the Jews and make them Disciples and then baptize them of which I may make further use afterwards Secondly that when you say there is no expresse command no example in all the new Testament where women received the Sacrament of the Lords Supper you imply there is for males Now herein you Mr. Vines and Mr. Blake and generally others follow Zwinglius whose conceit this was if he were not the first inventor And Mr. Blake expresseth himself thus pag. 22. No particular president more then for this of Infant-baptisme But I pray you tell me is not that 1 Cor. 11.28 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Let a man examine himself and so let him eat of that bread and drink of that cup an expresse command in formall terms And doth not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 comprehend both Sexes When the Apostle sayes vers 23. I delivered unto you that which I received from the Lord was not that a command and that to the whole Church women as well as men when he saith 1 Cor. 10.17 We being many are one bread and one body for we are all partakers of that one bread and are not women as well of the body as men And if so here is an expresse example in formall terms for womens receiving the Lords Supper The like may be said of 1 Cor. 12.13 Acts 20.7 unlesse you will say that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 himself all Disciples comprehend not women because they are of the Masculine Gender which from you that have learned that Logica non curat sexum Logick regards not sex and that hundreds of places there be where the Masculine Gender is put the matter so requiring it for both Sexes I do not suspect And for your other instance as I do not remember any brings it but your self so it is as little to the purpose as the other For that which you say that there is no expresse command that the children of Believers should be baptized when they are grown men It is true except they professe the faith but there is an expresse command as your self grant to baptize Disciples and so to baptize the childe of a Believer that professeth the faith not otherwise so that these your instances are brought to prove that which is not denied and yet the instances are impertinent to prove it You say further So have we virtually and by undenyable consequence sufficient evidence for the baptizing of children both commands and examples This assertion is full if you mean by children Infant-children of Believers prove this and you need prove no more But your fetching such a compasse about makes me imagine your attempt will prove but a Parturiunt montes the mountains bring forth especially when your proof is but from Analogy concerning which the rule holds as Mr. Bowles in his Sermon on Joh. 2.17 Allegorica Theologia unlesse the Lord himself make the application non est argumentativa Allegoricall Divinity is not argumentative but it is fit you should be heard You say For first you have Gods command to Abraham as he was the father of all covenanters that he should seal his children with the seal of the covenant I grant we have Gods command to Abraham who is indeed called the Father of the faithfull no where that I know the father of all covenanters to circumcise his males of eight dayes old and I deny not but that this was a seal that is a confirming signe of the covenant God made with Abraham whence Gods covenant was said to be in their flesh Gen. 17.13 and 't is called the covenant of circumcision Act. 7.8 But you have need of the Philosophers stone to turn this into a command to baptize Infants of Believers which you thus attempt You tell us Now this truth all our Divines defend against the Papists that all Gods commands and institutions about the Sacraments of the Jews binde us as much as they did them in all things which belong to the substance of the Covenant and were not accidentall unto them This is your foundation for your undeniable consequence it had need then be very undeniable and so you conceive it because it is a truâ—h all our Divines defend against the Papists But this is no undeniable Axiome that what all the Protestant Divines defend against the Papists must be truth undeniable I do not think all the Divines in the Assembly will subscribe to it I for my part do disclaim it I give that honour only to the Holy Scripture and have learned from Art 21. of the Church of England that Generall Councels have erred and may erre and consequently all the Divines in the world And one Paphnutius is to be heard against a whole Oecumenicall Councel sometimes And for this which you call a truth all our Divines defend against the Papists I marvell how you can averre it unlesse you had read them all which I think neither you nor any one else hath and for this Maxime I question whether any one leading Author have delivered that which you charge all our Divines with because you direct not where they deliver it it is in vain for me to make search it were to seek a needle in a bottle of hay but I will examine whether it be truth or no. You suppose that there are commâ—nds of God about the Sacraments of the Jews which is granted But then let me tell you I do not assent to this that Circumcision and the Passeover are all the ordinary Sacraments of the Jews I do approve of the words of R. C. that is as I learn from Mr. Selden de anno civili veter Judae c. 2. Mr. Ralph Cudworth of Cambridge whom he there commends in that book of his which is of the true notion of the Lords Supper chap.
first conversion will subscribe to those speeches of yours when you say all who partake of that grace are but meer patients and contribute no more to it then a childe doth to its own begetting and therefore Infants as fit subjects to have it wrought in them as grown men and the most grown men are in no more fitnesse to receive this grace when it is given them in respect either of any faith or repentance which they yet have then a very little childe What doth the most grown man in any of these more then an Infant may do being only passive in them all If my memory deceive me not the Divines of great Britain at the Synod of Dort in their suffrage did set down some things which might be done in respect of faith or repentance when grace is given by grown men more then an Infant can do and so doth in like manner Mr. Rutherfurd The Triall and Triumph of Faith Serm. 14. pag. 109 110. And though you say The most grown men are only passive in them all yet D â— Twisse in his Vindiciae gratiae lib. 3. errat 9. Sect. 3. thought this subtilty necessary that the will in the first conversion is meerly passive as the willing of the will is taken forâ—ally as being in the subject but as it is taken efficiently it being a vitall act so it is not meerly passive in the first conversion And Dr. Preston in his acute Exercitation De irresistibilitate gratiae convertentis hath these words Nos sustinemus voluntatem in primo actu conversionis partim passivè partim activè id est prius passivè dein activè se habere ideoque cum Deo cooperari We hold the will in the first act of conversion to be partly passive partly active that is first of all to be passive then active and therefore to cooperate with God It is true the acts of taking away the heart of stone creating a heart of flesh forgiving iniquity loving freely as they are acts of God a man is neither active nor passive in them they are not in man as the subject nor from man as the agent only we may be said to be passive or active in respect of the terminus or effect of them a new heart faith or repentance produced by them and in respect of this in some sense we are meerly passive in some partly active and partly passive in the first conversion according to the doctrine of the two learned Doctors forenamed You conclude this Argument with this speech And whoever will deny that Infants are capable of these things as well as grown men must deny that any Infants dying in their infancy are saved by Christ. Concerning which speech if you mean that Infants are capable of these things as well as grown men simply in respect of the things it is true that Infants are capable of them as well as grown men and he that denies it denies their salvation But if you mean it in respect of the modus habendi the manner of having then it is not true for Infants are not capable in the same manner of a new heart faith and repentance by hearing and outward ordinances as well as grown men But what is all this to prove your Minor which is not of potentiall having inward grace which is not denied but of actuall having And so still it remains unproved that all the Infants of Believers or the Infants of Believers as such are actually partakers of the inward grace of Baptisme And thus have I at last examined the third part of your Sermon containing your Arguments from Scripture for Paedobaptisme I proceed now to examine the last part which followes Infant-Baptisme is a corruption of the Ordinance of BAPTISME PART IIII. Concerning the Objections against Infant-Baptisme AGainst this argument severall things are objected which I shall indeavour to râ—move out of the way First it is said that although infants are capable of these things and they no doubt are wrought by Christ in many infants yet may not we baptize them because according to the Scripture patterne both of Christs Command Mat. 28. in his institution of Baptisme where this was injoyned and John the Baptist Christs disciples and Apostles they alwayes taught and made them disciples by teaching before they baptized any It is true the institution of Christ Mat. 28.19 and the practise of John Baptist and the Apostles are the great objections against Paedobaptisme This principle being laid down as a truth avouched against the Papists by Protestants generally that it is a sinne of prophaning the Sacraments when the institution is altered by substraction as when the cup is denied to the lay people or by addition as when chrisme and spittle c. are added to the elements and by the non-conformists conformists of England that it is will-worship to administer the Sacraments any other wayes by addition of any thing to them but circumstances which are alike requisite to civill actions now the persons to be baptized cannot be conceived a meere alterable circumstance but to belong necessarily to the administration or worship as the person baptizing and as the persons receiving the Lords Supper and therefore there must be warrant from institution for it else it is a sinfull invention of man But neither Christs institution or John the Baptist or the Apostles practise doe warrant the baptizing of infants therefore it is will-worship that the institution Mat. 28.19 doth not warrant the baptizing of infants is proved 1. Because the institution appoints onely disciples of all nations to be baptized but infants are not such therefore the institution doth not warrant their Baptisme The Major and Minor of this Syllogisme have been made good Part. 3. Sect. 13. 2. Because the order Christ appoints is that teaching or preaching the Gospel should goe before Baptisme now the order of Christ is a rule of administring holy things as we argue in like manner 1 Cor. 11.28 The Apostle appoints that a man is first to examine himselfe then to eate of that bread ergo Children are not to have the Lords Supper so in like manner wee may argue wee must first teach persons and then baptize them therefore children that cannot be taught by us are not to be baptized To that which Mr Edwards answereth to this argument that John is said Mark 1.4 to baptize and preach I oppose the words of Beza annot in Mark 1.4 Quod autem Erasmus subjungit Joannem priùs baptizâsse deinde praedicâsse baptismum ejusmodi est ut ne refutatione quidem videatur indigere Quid enim cum diceret Joannes Poenitentiam agite appropinquat enim regnum coelorum non docebat quos erat baptizaturus Imò veâ—ò nisi priùs docuisset in quem finem baptizaret quis tandem ad ejus baptismum accessisset Certe cum sacramenta sint 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 necesse est ut praeeat doctrina quam obsignent 3. Because the institution is to
with some difference Baptisme properly seales the entrance into it the Lords Supper properly the growth nourishment and augmentation of it Baptisme for our birth the Lords Supper for our food Now infants may be borne againe while they are infants have their originall sin pardoned be united to Christ have his image stampt upon them but concerning the exercise of these graces and the augmentation of them in infants while they are infants the Scripture is altogether silent You spake somewhat to like purpose before which I examined part 3. sect 15. To me it is yet as a paradoxe that Baptisme seales properly the entrance into the Covenant and the Lords Supper the growth nourishment and augmentation of it If you make the entrance at remission of sins justification or mortification the Lords Supper that seales Christs death seales the entrance into the Covenant Mat. 26.28 And for Baptisme it seales dying with Christ and rising with Christ Rom. 6.3 4 5. Gal. 3.27 Col. 2.12 1 Pet. 3.21 and therefore not onely the first worke of conversion but also after-growth and exercise of holinesse And the Lords Supper signifies the same receiving the Spirit which Baptisme doth 1 Cor. 12.13 And according â—o the doctrine of Protestants Baptisme seales as well the pardon of other sins as of originall sin And so Peter Acts 2.38 and Ananias Act. 22.16 And therefore this difference you put is a difference which the Scripture makes not that I say nothing of your strange phraseology of the growth nourishment and augmentation of the Covenant But you say And what is said concerning the infants of the Jewes eating the Passeover to which our Sacrament of the Lords Supper doth succeed there is no such thing mentioned in the Book of God It is said indeed that the severall families were to eate their Lambe if the houshold were not too little for it and that when their children should aske them what that service meant they should instruct them about the meaning of it but no word injoyning nor any example witnessing thaâ— their little children did eate of it The Commands were that all the males should thrice a yeare appeare before the Lord one of which was the Passeover Exod. 23.17 Exod. 34.23 Deut. 16.16 And at that time there was no other food to be eaten but the unleavened bread and the paschall Supper Therefore those males that could eate though not come to yeares of discretion fit to receive the Lords Supper yet were to eate the Passeover Ainsworth notes on Exod. 12.26 So both the outward rite and the meaning of it was to be taught to their children Touching whom the Jewes hold from the Law in Exod. 23.14.17 Deut. 16.14.16 that every child that could hold his Father by the hand and goe up from Jerusalem gates to the mountaine of the Temple his Father was bound to cause him to goe up and appeare before God with him to the end he might catechize him in the Commandements And who sow as bound to appeare was bound to keep the feast Maimâ—ny in Hagigah Chap. 2. sect 3 4. Also they say A childe that is able to eate a marsell of bread they catechize him in the Commandements and give him to eate so much as an Olive of the unleavened bread Maimony Treatise of leaven and unleavened bread c. 6. sect 10. But you say If they say as some of them doe that those little ones who were able to enquire concerning the meaning of that service and capable to receive instruction about it did eate of the Passeover with their parents I answer although the Scripture speaks nothing of their eating yet if that be granted it is no prejudice to us because the Gospel prohibites not such young ones from the Lords Supper who are able to examine themselves and discerne the Lords body True but children that were to appeare at the Passeover and to partake of it were many of them such as might be instructed concerning the meaning of that service and yet too young to examine themselves or to discerne the Lords body so that if the Lords Supper succeed the Passeover and a rule may be drawne from the Passeover to the Lords Supper children unable to examine themselves may be admitted to the Lords Supper THe rest of your Sermon is application which being not argumentative I shall let it passe Onely whereas you charge Anabaptists with a rash and bloudy sentence condemning infants as out of the state of grace condemning all the infants of the whole Church of Christ as having nothing to doe with the Covenant of grace and then tragically aggravate this thing as parallel or rather exceeding the cruelty of Herod and Hazael in slaying and dashing the infants of Israel against the wall till you produce some testimonies of those you call Anabaptists so determining I shall take it to be but a false accusation and a fruit of passion not of holy zeale For the thing it selfe I have shewed part 2. sect 10. that it doth not follow on the doctrine of Antipaedobaptisme and I conceive that if to be in the Covenant of grace be rightly explained to wit so as to signifie the having of the promise of justification and salvation by Christ Jesus besides which I know not any other Evangelicall Covenant of grace your selfe will be found to exclude them from the covenant of grace as much as they As they dare not say that this or that particular infant of a believer is in the covenant of grace that is certainly elected justified and to be saved so neither dare you Your owne words are pag. 48. Charitie being not tyed to conclude certainly of any of them because they ought to know that all are not Israel who are of Israel and that many are called but few are chosen If you should you would gainsay the Apostle Rom. 9.6 7 8. And on the other side as you will not say they are damned so neither will they I am perswaded but suspending any sentence concerning this or that in particular leave them to God who is the soveraigne Lord both of them and us THus have I at last in the middest of many wants distractions discouragements and temptations with the assistence of God who hath never failed me to him be the praise examined your Sermon and thereby shewed that it doth not satisfie and how little reason you had to say in your Epistle I am assured that it is Gods truth which I have preached and which he will blesse Notwithstanding which confidence I presume you will see cause to consider more exactly of this matter upon the reading of this answer I dare not thinke any otherwise of you then as of one who loves and seekes the truth Nor doe I know any reason why you should conceive that I have taken this paines for any ends crosse to the finding of truth My reall intention in this worke is to discover truth and to doe what is meete for mee in my calling towards