same practise I added that Circumcision was to be administred upon the eighth day onely was an accidentall thing and therefore binds not meaning that it had some peculiar relation to that manner of administration and had nothing common either to the nature of a Sacrament in generall or to the end and use of that Sacrament as it was the Seale of admission you answer if reason may rule the rost there is more reason that Circumcising on the eighth day should rather belong to the substance of the Covenant then but once circumcising both because it was commanded by God and typified as some conceive Christs resurrection on the eighth day I reply if you please but once to understand that by the substance I understand the res signata the spirituall part of the Sacrament you will no longer insist upon making every thing a substantiall part of the Sacrament which God hath made a part of the outward administration onely Indeed if Circumcising upon the eighth day had had any such spirituall meaning of Christs resurrection upon the eighth day you had spoke something to the purpose but had I pleaded any such Type in it as that Circumcision was to be upon the eighth day because Jesus Christ was to rise the first day of the weeke you would have laught at me though Cyprian had joyned with mee and told mee as you doe here mens conceits are voin◠without the light of the word My next instance was from the Passeover which being yearely to bee repeated binds us to a repetition of the Sacrament of the Lords Supper which succeeds the Passeover it being the Sacrament of spirituall nourishment and growth as the other was for birth and enterance but that the Passeover was to be eaten in an evening and upon one set evening in the yeer was accidentall and so binds not us You answer here are a heape of dictates and you as confidently dictate the contrary you grant that the Passeover was to bee yearely repeated but that this yeerly repetition belonged to the substance of the Covenant or that this binds us to a frequent use of the Sacrament of the Lords supper you utterly deny but I doubt not that the Reader who knowes that by belonging to the substance of the Covenant I meant nothing but the end and use of it to bee a standing memoriall of that deliverance and a typicall representation of Jesus Christ and our deliverance by him will not reject this because you magisterially deny it That our Lords Supper comes in the roome and stead of it there is such a cleare demonstration of it from the very manner of the first Institution and the ends and uses of it Christ our Passeover being then to bee sacrificed for us and wee in this service shewing it forth and in this parallell there is such a harmony of consent that I intend not to lead the Reader into a digression about it As for the maintaining of Easter and such superstitious customes my discourse gives not so much as one hint for it yea in my Sermon I expressely shewed That that Circumstance of once a yeere belonged onely to the Jewes administration And I pleaded for a frequency of it but because you love to knit knots for others to untie you demand since wee have so cleere an Example Acts 20. 7. of the disciples comming together the first day of the weeke 〈◊〉 eate the Lords Supper and that that Action gave denomination to the whole service and by the relation of Justin Martyr and others this was the received practise in the primitive Churches whether wee are not tied to have 〈◊〉 Sacrament every Lords day in the weeke I answer though I conceive no absolute tie to have it so yet when it can bee with convenience I know no reason why it may not bee so but you making this one of your great Arguments to prove the Institution of the Lords day viz. An Apostolicall example and practise of the primitive Churches whether you bee not further engaged in this point to a Sacrament every Lords day I leave to your selfe to consider You demand further since the Apostle does so expresly and distinctly in his relation of the Institution mention the time of it you would know of the Assembly of Divines especially such of them as have beene earnest for sitting at the Sacrament how wee can be loose to receive it at another time I answer certainly the Assembly would answer you as Cyprian did in the like case that the time was an occasionall circumstance and that the cleere examples recorded in the New Testament of the Disciples partaking of the Lords Supper at any of their Church-meetings whether by night or by day doth abundantly manifest it nor can I conceive why you put this question to the Assembly unlesse it be to shew you are not pleased with the dispute about sitting at the Communion it seemes you still like kneeling better for the thing it selfe you either judge thus of it that it was an occasionall circumstance and so you pick quarrells even against your owne light and principles or if you thinke it a binding circumstance whence comes it that you use it not You have yet another quarrell about that expression of mine in caliing Baptisme the seale of our extrance and new birth and thence you would insinuate that I deny Baptisme to be a Sacrament of our nourishment and continuance and you tell me that 's but a dictate like the rest and somewhat akin to Bellarmine and the rest of the Papists who make the efficacy of Baptisme to extend not to the remission of the sinnes of our whole life but of originall sinne onely I answer that Baptisme is a Sacrament of our Birth and entrance I have proved and your selfe grant that it is not of use afterward I never spake never thought but as for my being akin to Bellarmines assertion if your assertions were no more akin to Socinus Servetus Marcion c. then mine are to the Papists it were better for you My next Instance was from our Christian Sabbath the fourth Commandement binds us for the substance as much as ever it bound the Jews there God once for all separated one day of seven to be sacred to himselfe and all the world stood bound by vertue of that Commandment in all ages to give unto God that one day of seven which should be of his owne choosing though onely the seventh day of the week be named in the fourth Commandement Now said I God having put an end to the Saturday Sabbath and surrogated the first day of the weeke in stead thereof to be the Lords day we need no new Commandement for keeping of the Lords day being tyed by the fourth Commandement to keep that day of seven which the Lord should choose And though no day bee mentioned in the fourth Commandment but onely the seventh from the Creation yet our Divines think it no absurdity to reason thus Thou shalt keepe the Sabbath thou
Baptizing of Infants but none for the observation of the â—ords day although herein I humbly conceive they are mistaken I doubt not but it doth and will appeare to impartiall and unprejudiced Readers that there is sufficient evidence of an Institution for both of them though not in such expresse Texts of Scripture in the New-Testament as the Anabaptists require and I shall now examine whether you bring any better evidence for the one then is to be found for the other First you say they meane it of positive worship consisting in outward rites and not of worship which is naturall or morall Answ But this but a blind morall and naturall are not to be confounded whatever worship is naturall may bee indeed acknowledged to be morall but not whatever is morall is to be esteemed naturall I know you cannot bee ignorant of the received distinction of Morale Naturale and Morale positivum and I beseech you though a Sabbath be grantâ—d to be Naturall yea if I should adde that one day in the revolution of seaven should bee so yet that this or that seventh day in the revolution of a weeke should bee observed all grant this depends upon an Institution and hath no more moralitie in it then what can bee made out from an Institution and consequently that the first day of the weeke should be the Christian Sabbath or that this one day of seven which God hath separated to himself and had once expresly fixed upon the seventh or last day of the week should be translated from the last day to the first day of the weeke must depend wholly upon an Institution and consequently they who reject that which depends upon positive Institution unlesse its Institution can bee expresly found in the New-Testament are as much at a losse for the Lords day as for the baptizing of Infants Nay give me leave to adde that in this point in question the advantage lies more on this hand I meane for Infant-Baptisme because there is more necessitie of clearing the Institution for the Lords day then for baptizing of Infants because in the one the ordinance it selfe and its institution is questioned but in this of Infant-Baptisme the question is not of the Institution of the Ordinance it selfe but onely of the subject to whom the Ordinance is to be applyed If the question bee betwixt Baptisme and the Lords day all grant that we have clearer Institution for the Sacrament of Baptisme then for the Lords day Baptisme is clearly instituted in the New-Testament to bee the Sacrament of our admission into the Covenant of grace and to succeed in the roome of Circumcision as your selfe grant Now the onely question is whether taking this for granted that baptism succeeds in the roome of Circumcicision and to bee applyed unto all persons by the will of God who are in Covenant with him whether the same persons may partake of this Sacrament as might partake of the other unlesse those persons bee expresly set downe in the New-Tement I hope in the judgement of all indifferent men a question about the persons to whom an ordinance is to bee applyed is a question of a farre inferiour nature to that question whether such a thing pretended to be an Ordinance have any Institution at all or not It 's one thing to invent a new Ordinance of worship another and that of inferiour rank to mistake in some of the persons to whom an Ordinance is to be applyed In some of the ancient times the Lords Supper was given to Infants and carried to sick persons when absent to testifie their communion with the Church I take them both for errours but yet not for errors of the like nature with inventing a new Sacrament I say againe there is a great difference betweene bringing in a new Ordinance and applying it to these or these persons especially when the question is not of the persons in generall who are the subject matter as whether men or Angels men or beasts but whether men of such an age or of such a Sex Sir to my best understanding these two questions are not parallell a just parallell question to this of Infant-Baptisme would be such a one as was once disputed betwixt Mr. Bifield and Mr. Brerewood viz. Taking it for granted that by a cleare Institution the Lords day succeeds in the roome of the old Sabbath whether yet the same persons are tied to keepe the Lords day who of old were tied to keepe the Sabbath unlesse those parties were mentioned in the New-Testament as whether servants as well as their masters the same holds here All this I speake not as any whit doubting that there is as cleare evidence for Baptizing of Infants as there is for the religious observation of the Christian Sabbath notwithstanding the latter seemes to require fuller evidence then this doth Your second explication gives you as little advantage you say that Apostolicall example which hath not a meâ—re temporary reason is enough to prove an Institution from God to which that practise doth relate especially when such examples come to bee backed with the constant practise of all Churches in all ages And then you bring in Pauls preaching at Troaâ— the collections upon the first day of the weeks in the first of the Corinthians and the sixteenth the mentioning of the Lords day Revel 1. Sir I except against none of all this to bee a part of that good evidence which wee have for the religious observation of the Lords day but I dare confidently speake it that out of these you can never evince more laying all things together to prove the Institution of the Lords day then I have done for the lawfulnesse of baptizing of Infants and I appeale to all learned Readers whether the many bookes written of late against the Institution of the Lords day give not as specious and plausible answers to these places alledged by you concerning the Christian Sabbath as yours are against Infant-baptisme although they have received sufficient cleare and solid answers yea and tread under their feet all arguments taken from these examples with as much confidence and scorne as your selfe doe that which I and others have named for Paedo-Baptisme And as for the supplement which you bring out of the constant practise of the Churches for the religious observation of the Lords day in stead of the old Sabbath I earnestly desire you in your next to produce as many of the ancients to beare witnesse to that truth as I have done in this point for Paedo-Baptisme and I promise you you shall receive my hearty thanks among the rest of your Readers in the meane time the Reader shall judge whether I have not brought a moity of that for the Baptizing of Infants which you have done for the Lords day Further whether you have not abused your reader in so confident averring that there are no footsteps in Antiquity for Paedo-Baptisme till the erroneous conceit of giving Gods grace by it the
shalt rest the seventh day that is thou shalt rest the seventh day from the Creation while the Lord continues that day to be his Sabbath and thou shalt rest the first day of the week when the Lord chooses that to be his Sabbath in like manner I say of the Sacrament of Baptisme To this you answer You referre your selfe to what you have before declared Part 2. Sect. 8. And thither also I referre the Reader where I have vindicated this answer from you I further adde you neither there nor here deny this Argument from a consequence to be sufficient for practise of some things in the Worship of God which are not expresly laid downe in the New Testament onely you adde here I forget the marke at which I shoot the Sabbath or Lords day being not to be reckoned among the Iews Sacraments I reply first I might as well reckon the seventh day from the Creation among the Jews Sacraments as you may say the Jewes had as many Sacraments as Ceremonies Secondly I never numbred the Sabbath amongst Sacraments but because the Sabbath belongs to the instituted Worship of God as well as the Sacrament and requires its institution to bee at least as cleare as this about Infant-Baptisme which touches but a circumstance of age this Argument from the one to the other will appeare to the impartiall Reader to bee too strong for you to answer Next follows the blow which will tumble downe all if your selfe may be believed Mark Reader how heavie a one it is I said 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 we claime our part in it as the children of Abraham and what God required on Abrahams part for the substance of obedience wee stand charged with as well as Abraham to beleeve to love the Lord with all our heart to walke before God in uprightnesse to instruct and bring up our Children for God not for our selves nor for the Devill to teach them to worship God according to his revealed will to traine them up under Ordinances and Institutions of Gods owne appointment All these things God commanded Abraham and wee by vertue of that Covenant being Covenanters with Abraham stand bound to all these duties though there were no expresse reviving these Commandements in any part of the New Testament and therefore consequently that command of God to Abraham which bound his seed of the Jews to traine up their children in that manner of Worship which was then in force binds beleevers now to traine up their children in conformity to such Ordinances as are now in force To all this you answer supposing I meane the spirituall part of the Covenant to be that which God promised to Abraham and the persons claiming to bee beleevers this passage you grant to bee true beâ—ause these are morâ—ll duties Well then the deadly blow is not yet given I meane this which you suppose and I meane more then this I meane that what Abraham might claime as an invisible beleever we may claime as invisible beleevers what he might claime as a visible beleever or Professor wee claime the same as visible Professors and so what he stood obliged unto as a visible beleever or professor the same are wee obliged to I meane all this and you say nothing against it but the next passage is that which kills all I said and the same command which enjoyned Abraham to seal his children with the seal of the Covenant enjoyns us to seal ours with the seale of the Covenant and that command of God which expresly bound Abraham to seal his with the sign of circumcision which was the Sacrament then in force pro tempore for the time doth vertually bind us to seale ours with the sign of Baptisme which is the Sacrament now in force and succeeds into the room of the other by his owne appointment Your answer is This Consequence is inferred from a Judaizing principle without Scripture proving either principle or Conclusion whereas you have brought ten Arguments out of the Scripture against it and that the meaning of the Concluclusion must be that we are still bound to circumcise that our males must be circumcised at the eighth day that by no rule of Divinity Logick Grammar or Rhetorique any man can construe this Command Cut off the foreskin of the males upon the eighth day that is let a Preacher of the Gospel baptize young Infants male or female by as good Consequence I might say thou art Peter and upon this rock Ergo the Pope is Monarch of the Church or arise Peter kill and eate Ergo the Pope may deprive Princes So then the dinâ— of your mortall blow lyes in this that you magisterially call it a Judaizing principle that you have brought ten Arguments to prove that Moses Ceremonies Rites do not bind Christian men but that they are all abrogated substance and circumstance whole and part that this vertuall consequence from the command of Circumcision to baptism cannot be made good either by Divinity or Logick but sure if this be all you can say against it the Consequent and Conclusion will easily recover of this wound When I said but just now That Gods Command to Abraham and the Jews to traine up their children in that manner of Worship which was then in force binds us now to traine up our children in conformity to such Ordinances as are now in force You granted this rule was true if meant of beleevers I pray what difference is there betwixt this consequence and that especially it being cleare in the Scripture that Baptisme succeeds Circumcision as the initiall seale of the Covenant and our children have the same right with theirs to bee reckoned to the Covenant if it be a good consequent That because Abraham was bound to traine up his Children in conformity to those institutions which were then in force because their children had right to be so trained up therefore we are bound to traine up our children in conformity to the present institutions because our children have right to be so trained up is not this other consequence I say as good That because God commanded Abraham to administer to his children the seale of admission into Covenant because his children were to be accounted to belong to that administration we are to doe the like to our children now because they belong to this administration I say further because Abraham and the Jews were to traine up their children to celebrate the seventh day of the week to be Gods Sabbath we therefore are bound by vertue of that Commandment to traine up ours to keep the first day of the weeke as Gods Sabbath which consequence your self grant to be good though the thing be a part of instituted Worship and no expresse command or example of it in the new Testament I appeale to al Divinity Logick whether this consequence
of imitation of Jewish circumcision Thirdly without universall practice Fourthly together with the error of giving Infants the Lords Supper and with many other humane inventions under the name of Apostolicall Traditions that is deservâ—dly doubtfull But such was Infant-Baptisme in those ages Ergo c. I answer first by denying your Major the observation of the Lords day hath beene by some accounted a Tradition others have said it is Jewish to keep any Sabbath at all because Sabbath dayes were a shadow of things to come but the body is Christ what will you thence conclude against our Christian Sabbath And for what you say about the practice of it that it was not universall I desire you to remember that argumentum ductum a non facto ad non jus est absurdissimum may wee plead thus such and such a thing was not generally observed Ergo it was not a duty the boyes in the Schooles would stamp and hisse at such an inference from the dayes of Iosoua to the dayes of Nehemiab the children of Israel had not kept the feast of Tabernacles in Booths or Tents which was about a thousand yeares was it therefore not their duty to have done it Dr. Hoylin in his History of the Sabbath urgeth this very argument against the Lords day in such and such Fathers days many did not observe the Lords day many did tipple and dance upon the Lords day ergo the Lords day was not generally observed and if it were not generally observed in those days Ergo we are not bound to observe it This kind of arguing is almost as wilde as that which the Schools call a baculo ad angulum my staffe stands in the corner Ergo it will rain tomorrow morning Your last Exception under this fourth argument is yet more strange There were many other things went under the name of Traditions which were meer humane inventions Ergo Infant-baptism which went under the name of a Tradition is also a humane invention Shall I shew the naturall face of this argument in a glasse such and such men who went under the name of honest men were knaves Ergo all that goe â—nder the name of honest men are knaves It is true many things went in those dayes under the name of Traditions which were but humane inventions and it is as true that many points of faith and other divine institutions went in the same ages under the name of Traditions as I have made apparent Part 1. Sect. 2. You see what a poore argument this would prove although your minor were true though the things were as you set them downe but I have abundantly proved the contrary I have shewed the Ancients received it as a Divine Institution and upon such arguments as we doe though some of them prest some corrupt grounds which we reject and as for the universality of the practice of it both in the Greek and Latin Churches I have abundantly cleared it from all Objections you make against it and you out of all your reading have not been able to produce one of the ancients who either beld it unlawfull or denyed that it was in use from the Apostles dayes One or two indeed you bring who advised the deferring Infant-Baptism as they did also the baptisme of grown men and some examples you produce of the children of Christians not baptized as you think in their Infancy to all which I have spoken at large Part. 1. sect 2. And as for what you alledge of their giving the Lords Supper unto Infants I have denyed and shall doe still till you bring some evidence for it that there was any such universall practise indeed in the African Churches that errour did obtain in the days of Cyprian and Austin but I finde no such generall practice of it however the Argument follows not That it was their error to give Infants the Lords Supper Ergo it was their error to baptize Infants Your sixth Argument runs thus that which hath occasioned many humane inventions partly by which Infant-Baptisme it selfe may bee underpropt partly the defect in the pâ—licy of the Church supplyed that is deservedly douhtfull But the matter iâ— so in the businesse of Infant-Baptisme and here you bring in witnesses in Baptisme Episcopall confirmation the reformed union by examination confession before receiving the Lords Supper Church-Covenant before the admission of Church-members into Church-fellowship c. I answer briefly if by occasioned you meane that Infant-Baptisme hath exnaturâ rei given occasion to these things I deny your minor Infant-Baptisme is no more an occasion of these things in the Christian Church then circumcising of Infants was an occasion of the like in the Jewish Church Infant-Baptisme may very well stand and doth very well stand in many reformed Churches without such witnesses without confirmation or any other examination confession c. before the Lords Supper or other Church-discipline then such as might bee in use to men though they were not baptized in their Infancy but if by occasioned you meane not 〈◊〉 daâ—a but 〈◊〉 temerâ— aâ—â—â—pta that the corrupt mind of man hath thence tooke occasion for other errors and mistakes if you meane that which hath thus â—â—casioned many humane inventions is doubtfull then I deny your major there is scarse any common place in the body of Divinity but hath occasioned humane inventions the Lords Supper hath occasioned kneeling at the Sacrament and that hath occasioned suspension excommunication separation what will you thence conclude against the Lords Supper Ergo the Lords Supper is a humane invention Your seventh eighth and ninth Arguments are but so many branches or rather so many repetitions of your sixth Argument possibly you have thus divided them that you might make up a whole Jury And the selfe same answer serves them as was given to the other I will conclude as strongly against you out of your owne premisses thus Antipaedobaptisme hath occasioned many errours many abuses and faults in discipline divine worship and conversation of men together with many unnecessary disputes fostering contention onely Ergo Antipaedobaptisme is what you please to all Infant-baptisme I leave out that passage onely in the major of your ninth Argument viz. which cannot bee determined by any certaine rule because therein you doe very heartily beg the question Your tenth argument is framed thus That in the midst of the darknesse of Popery the same men who opposed invocation of Saints Prayer for the dead adoration of the crosse and such like opposed also the baptizing of Infants and here you bring in Bernard his 66 Sermon upon the Canticles and his 140. Epistla against Henry the Heretick as you call him and Cluniacinsis against Peter de Bruis and Henry also a passage out of Ostander accusing the Albingenses â—s consenting with the Anabaptistâ— To which I answer first I deny the consequence because they opposed invocation of Saints prayer for the dead c. and also opposed Infant-Baptisme
further Reformation is to begin with this your darling the casting out this point of Infant-Baptisme a point which you conceive to bee a mother corruption which carries in her wombe most of those abuses in discipline and manners and some of the errors in doctrine which defile the reformed Churches without which all after Cathechizing Censures separaton Church-Covenant c. are altogether insufficient to supply the want of it Secondly that Baptisme therefore hath not that influence into the comfort and obligations of Consciences as it had of old And thirdly that the Assemblies not beginning with this point is one great cause why Gods blessing doth no more accompany them whilst they waste much time about things inconsiderable in comparison of this and either hastily passe over or exclude from examination this which deserves most to bee examined Ah Sir How deare and lovely are our owne children in our eyes did ever any before you conceive so many and great evills to follow upon the baptizing the children of beleevers that such Monsters should be bred in the wombe of it or conceive that the removing of this would bee the healing of all I verily thinke should another have spoke such things of farre greater points you would have called them dictates Chimaraes bold assertions and what not Whether your Examen of my Sermon and your twelve Arguments in your exercitation will prove it to bee a corruption of Christs institution whether the reasons for Paedo-Baptisme be far fetched whether there be a cleare institution of Christ against it as here you affirme wee shall have leisure God willing to examine in their due place but for the present suppose mee to grant your postulâ—tum that it is an applying of an institution to a wrong subject yet I would faine learne of you how all these odious consequences will bee made good how these abuses in doctrine discipline and manners which you mention would be taken away if Paedo-Baptisme were removed nay would not the selfe same things still bee found as grounds or occasions of the same differences while some professe they would baptize any whether Turkes or Heathens who onely would make a profession of their faith in Jesus Christ and then admit them to all other Ordinances and not have them Excommunicated è sacris but onely a private consortio though their lives should prove scandalous and I am misinformed by good friends who know and love you very well if your selfe incline not this way others would take the same course before Baptisme which now they doe before admitting men to the Sacrament of the Lords Supper and would proceed to excommunication à Sacris as well as privately withdraw from such as prove scandalous and obstinate yea and take themselves bound to separate from mixt communions with them as much as they doe now notwithstanding their admission by Baptisme in your way And in this various manner of admitting men to Baptisme and dealing with men in other censures every Church or Eldership proceeding according to the largenesse or strictnesse of their owne principles I can see nothing but that the same abuses in discipline and manners which are now found among Christian people the same controversies about such as should be admitted to the Lords Supper the same divisions and separations would be sound in the Church which now alas take too much place amongst us This I say supposing your Postulatum were a truth But on the contrary supposing it not to be a truth what a Deformation instead of a Reformation should wee bring in in casting the children of Beleevers out of the visible Church reputing them no better then Turkes and Indians and especially doing it upon such grounds as are pleaded by you and others which even alter the state of the Covenant of grace As for your second I know not what influence of comfort or obligation upon conscience Baptisme had of old which is not now to bee found among them who are truely baptized who injoy not onely the putting away the filth of the flesh but the answer of a good conscience towards God by the resurrection of Jesus Christ And lastly for what you speake of the Assembly I impute it to your prejudice and extreame doting upon your owne opinion that you thinke this Point most worthy of their examination and to your misinformation to speake no worse that they waste much time about things inconsiderable in comparison or that they exclude this from Examination or seeke to stop it from any Tryall or that they hastily passe it over This is a very bold charge which you give upon the Assembly in the face of the world What evidence have you for this unlesse your Compassionate Samaritan bee Authentick with you The Apostle commands Timothy not to receive an accusation against an Elder unlesse it bee under two or three witnesses But for one man to cast thus much filth in the face of an Assembly of Ministers is very high and savours little of that modesty or meeknesse to which you did sometimes pretend How farre the blessing of God who hath not hitherto altogether left us notwithstanding our unworthines doth and will accompany the endeavours of the Assembly it is fit to leave to himselfe who gives increase to Pauls planting and Apollo's watering according to his good pleasure But as for their shutting out the due examination of this Point you are wholly mistaken though they have returned no answer to your paper It is true as I told you in the beginning that wee are shut up by Ordinance of Parliament from answering any private mens Papers or Bookes without leave from the Houses but I dare speake it in the name of the whole Assembly that they would bee glad you were admitted to dispute all your grounds among them In your next Paragraph which containes a comparison betweeve the evidences held out in the New Testament for the Religious observation of the Lords day and this of Infant-Baptisme you first make your selfe merry with my expressions that all who reject the baptizing of Infants because there is not an expresse Institution or Command in the New-Testament doe and must upon the same grounds reject the observation of the Lords-day But I am no whit ashamed of those words They doe and they must upon the same Principles if they be true to their Principles reject the one as well as the other And though I want the skill which some others have to plead for the lord-Lord-day yet I suppose you shall find I have skill enough to make this good That there is no more expresse Institution or Command in the New-Testament for the Lords day then there is for Infant-Baptisme And whereas you alledge that some of the reformed Churches reject the Lords day and yet entertaine Infant-Baptisme and thence inferre that these two must not necessari'y stand and fall bee received and rejected together I answer Those Churches which doe so conceive that there is an institution for the
existence of the duty but the Covenant of grace is the motive to it 4. Whereas you alledge concerning Melchisedeck Lot Job we find no such thing that they either received this seale of circumcision or were tyed to it I reply it 's very hard for you to prove that Melchisedeck was then alive and had he been alive he was of an higher Order and above that Paedagogie Or in what age of the world Job lived though hee bee thought to be of the posterity of Esau and so might have a right to it even in your sense as descending lineally from Abraham however this is a meere negative Argument in matter of fact which your self know to bee of no validity Negative arguments from Scripture are good in matters of faith I am not bound to beleeve this or that unlesse it be found in the Scriptures but they are not good in matter of fact this or that fact is not recorded in the Scripture therefore I am bound to beleeve it was not done is no good consequence A non scripto ad non factum non valet consequentia No Scripture saith they were circumcised though very good Authors thinke that Lot and Iob were circumcised nor doth any Scripture say they were not circumcised As to that you say of Infants under eight dayes old and of all the females in Abrahams family I answer to that of Infants there was a peculiar exemption of them by God himself whether for any typicall reason or in regard they were not fit in nature to undergoe so sharp a paine as was to bee indured in Circumcision before the seventh and criticall day was past or whether for any other cause I dispute not it is sufficient God forbad them to have the seale till they were eight dayes old For the women they were not subjectum capax circumcisionis there was in them a naturall impediment against it therfore could not be injoyned them and suppose some men among them or some who turned proselytes to them had not had a praeputium as some sort of Eunuchs this Ordinance had not reached them whether the wisdome of God purposely chose a signe that Women might not be capable of receiving it for some typicall use as some conjecture I cannot tell it is sufficient that they were not capable of it were exempted from it by God himselfe so that if you please to state the generall Proposition as you needs must That all who since Abrahams time are foederati or covenanters with God must by Gods own appointment receive the seale of admission into covenant unlesse they be either uncapable of it or are exempted by a particular dispensation This proposition will indure all the shock of your arguments and remain unmovable Next you reply to my answer concerning Women among the Jews I said they were circumcised in the males this you cast away with scorne affirming it to be an easie answer because it 's easie to bee answered Indeed Sir you answer it as easily as he who undertooke to answer Bellarmine in one word and said Bellarmine thou lyest so you it is an insufficient answer to take away the exception against the proposition and that you might have a little matter to worke upon you goe to another part of my Sermon and thence you fetch the word virtually with which you make your selfe merry putting my proposition into severall shapes and formes and in one form you say it concludes not the thing in question in another it hath 4 termes in another the major is false Wheras my plaine meaning was and is that the women being uncapable of it in their own person because of their sex wherein was a naturall impediment as to this Sacrament God imposed it onely upon the Males and yet the women were not esteemed as uncircumcised being as Divines use to expresse in this point viris annexae in iis censerentur qui familiarum capita debebant esse and whether this will not be justified we shall presently inquire But first give me leave to observe by the way how you pinch me with a point of law That no man can be said virtually to have that by his Proxie or Atturney which he might not actually receive himself in his own person I question whether this be good law but I am confident it is bad Divinity sure we sin'd virtually in Adam yet we could not actually though that sin of Adam be ours by imputation The sun is virtually hot yet Philosophers say it 's not actually And the Jews of old offered to God such things by the hands of the Priests who were their Proxies in that work which they might not offer in their own persons yea and received such things by the hand of the high Priest who bare their names in the most holy place which they might not receive in their owne persons immediately and the Saints now in this world do virtually and quoad effectum juris receive some such priviledges in Christ their Advocate who in their right is at Gods right hand which here they are not capable of receiving immediately in their own persons I also obiter desire you to remember this expression of yours That it had beene a sinne for a child to have been circumcised after the eighth day was past And try how you will reconcile this with an opinion of yours delivered elsewhere viz. That circumcision might bee administred oftner then once surely those other times must be after the first eighth day The other fault you note in my argument is That I conclude of a signe of the Covenant indefinitely and not of Baptisme onely whereas the Lords Supper is also a signe of the Covenant which yet you thinke I will say is not to bee delivered to them because not appointed for them I answer I clearely in my Sermon shewed this Proposition onely to be meant of the initiall sign and not of the other and I am confident your self who durst baptize an Infant known to you to be regenerate durst not yet give the other Sacrament to it because more is required to make one capable of that Sacrament then is required to make them capable of Baptisme a regenerate Infant you thinke is capable of this but besides regeneration I am sure you will grant That an examination of a mans selfe and an ability to discernâ— the Lords body is required to make one capable of that Now let us see how you avoid my proofes That the Women were circumcised in the men My first was That the whole house of Israel are in the Scripture said to be circumcised You answer That by the whole house of Israel must not be meant all but the major part or the most confiderable part But Sir doe you imagine that any of your judicious Readers can be satisfied with this answer when you know well enough that the Circumcision is put for the Church and people of God in opposition to the uncircumcised that is
Circumcision was the seal of the Covenant of Grace Gen. 17. so Baptisme it being the nature of every Sacrament Secondly Circumcision was the way of entrance and admittance into the Church during the time of that administration so is Baptisme during the time of this administration Matth. 28. Acts 2. and throughout the whole Story of the Acts Circumcision was the distinguishing badge between them who were Gods people and the rest of the world so is Baptisme now all who are not belonging to the Church the solemn way of entrance whereinto is acknowledged to be by Baptisme are said to bee without 1 Cor. 5. 12. Ctrcumcision was to be but once administred nor Baptisme any oftner as I have largely proved before in answer to your 4 Sect. Part 4. None might eate the Passeover till they were circumcised Exod. 12. nor of any to bee admitted to the Lords Supper till they be baptized as appears Acts 2. 41 42. And throughout the whole Story of the New Testament all examples are for it not one against it and the reason is plaine because none might partake of the Lords Supper but such as were in visible Communion and your selfe know and grant that Baptisme is the doore and entrance of our solemne admittance into visible communion wee are by Baptisme say you according to Christs institution exhibited members of Christ and his Church Exercit. p. 30. These parallels you see are made by the Spirit of God and your exceptions against the comparisons between them or rather your adding of more comparisons similitudes and dissimilitudes between them by them to destroy these are such as arise from the diverse administration of the Covenant and do indeed manifest that they belong to severall administrations but doe not prove that they had not the same general state signification and use as Sacraments which seale the same thing in their diverse administrations Christ to come and Christ already come is the cause of difference of administration and so of Ordinances but hinders not the succession of one ordinance into the place of another and therefore all those differences hinder not the inference of the one from the other As for your exceptions That Circumcision did confirme the promise made to Abrahams naturall posteritie concerning their multiplying bringing out of Egypt the yoake of the Law of Moses setling in Canaan c. I answer if this were granted it hurts not me these things concerning the manner of administration of the Covenant Secondly how prove you this which you say Thirdly did circumcision confirme these things to all Abrahams naturall posteritie was the posteritie of Ismael and Esau to come out of Egypt possesse Canaan â—ee yoaked with the Law Fourthly what is the sense of these words Circumcision confirmed the yoake of the Law it was indeed a part of the yoake and obliged a person to it Secondly to that of womens being not circumcised and children under eight dayes old I have at large spoke to them in the first Section of this third part Thirdly the catechumini though they were members yet they were not received into visible and Sacramentall communion of the Lords Supper till baptized the case of the Israelites travelling in the wildernesse was an extraordinary one Fourthly for that which you except against Circumcision being a distinguishing badge because others were Gods servants who had not this badge I answer that of Melchisedeck Lot c. was answered before beside may not a livery bee a distinguishing mark of such a mans servant and yet haply every servant not under the livery the Sabbath was a signe to Gods people yet it may bee you hold that all Gods people till Moses did not keepe a Sabbath Fiftly and for what you adde that you make question whether an unbaptized person might not eate the Lords Supper though you confesse you finde no example of it and that in 1 Cor. 10. 2. 3. 4. and 1 Cor. 12. 13. Baptizing iâ— put before eating and drinking I reply this I must number among your freakes and out-leaps and is a spice of your itch after singular opinions and inconsistent even with your own grant that Baptisme is the way and manner of solemne admission into the Church and that nothing iâ— to bee done about the Sacraments whereof we have not either institution or example and yet here for oppositions sake you will allow men to come to the Sacrament of the Lords Supper though unbaptized and I thinke it never yet was a question in the Church whether an unbaptized person might receive the Lords Supper but say you these and a hundred morâ— cannot make â—â— other then a humane invention if the holy Ghost doe not shew that they agree in this particular of Baptizing as well as Circumcising of Infants I answer but when these Arguments and parallels made by God himselfe are added to the parity of Jewes and Christian Infants in being comprehended with their Parents in the Covenant which is to be sealed it 's a vertuall warrant it 's not meere analogy we reason from for wee have a command to Baptize and wee have the competency of infants to receive baptisme sufficiently proved elsewhere your selfe grant right to Baptisme arises from the present state of a person and therefore wee apply this seale which succeeds that seale to our Infants which succeed their Infants in the priviledge of being faederati with their Parents there being not the least hint in the word that they should be left out To slurre this Argument from Circumcision to Baptisme you frame a large and needlesse comparison between the Priests of old under the Jewish administration and the Ministers of the Gospel now and you demand are Ministers therefore Priests and shew how many absurdities and dangerous consequences will follow if wee give way to such kind of comparisons hence the Papists have pleaded for an universall Bishop and the Prelates for superioritie of Ministers A short answer will serve all this you demand whether therefore Ministers be Priests and so make simile to be idem against all sense and reason as if I had gone about to prove Baptisme to be Circumcision Secondly wee onely apply things set up by God himselfe and make the parallell as God hath made it when any can prove that God hath set up an universal Bishop or appointed superioritie of Ministers one above another and hath made such parallels between them as you speake of let them plead those comparisons and spare not they had in their ministery many things which were typicall of Christ which we have nothing to do with but in other things where the Scripture hath made a comparison wee may doe it safely and may plead from the one to the other as that they must have a call to their office so must wee they that serve the altar must live upon the Altar so they who preach the Gospell are to live upon the Gospel they must bee pure who barâ— the vessels
against baptisme to succeed circumcision as a Lord Major elect succeeds the old though the old continue after his election for a time Yet further You inquire in what sense Baptisme succeeds in the roome and place of Circumcision and say if by roome and place I meane locus communis et proprius so Baptisme being an action hath no roome or place at all properly and if by roome and place I meane the baptized and baptizers that is true but in part seme who were to be baptized were not to bee circumcised as women Thirdly if by roome and place I meane the same society that is not true Circumcision admitted into the Jewish baptisme into the Christian Church Fourthly if of the Commandement upon which both are sealed that is not true neither Circumcision was commanded long before Baptisme Fiftly if of the same use that is most untrue for the use of Circumcision obliged to keepe the Law to be a partition between Iewes and Gentiles and to initiate into the Iewish Church or rather into Abrahams family Then lastly you say if I meane it of confirming and sealing the same Covenant neither is that true save onely in part because their Covenant was a mixt Covenant and although Circumcision did confirme righteousnesse by faith and signified holinesse of heart so also did the Cloud Sea Manna the Rock the Deluge or Arke and the same are also confirmed by the Lords Supper and therefore to say that Baptisme succeeds in the roome and place of Circumcision is a position erroneous and very dangerous I am prone to thinke that time as well as paper and Inke are very cheape with you who thus needlesly waste them this poore quibbling about succession and roome place c. is too Pedanticall for a grave Divine what Reader will not at the first view see this to bee my meaning of Baptisme succeeding in the roome and place of Circumcision that Baptisme succeeds Circumcision as a signe substituted in the place and stead of Circumcision to signifie and seale the same Covenant of grace which Circumcision did Circumcicision more darkely sealing Christ being not yet exhibited baptisme more clearely the shadow being taken away and the substance come almost all your differences refer onely to the severall manners of administration of the Covenant not to the Covenant it selfe or thing administred yet I shall touch upon each particular First your fancy of Locus proprius communis is too idle to require any answer Secondly that of the Iewish women hath been sufficiently spoken to in the first Section of this third part Thirdly when you say circumcision admitted into one Church baptisme into another I am very loath to impute to your sense which you intend not if you meane onely the severall administrations the Church of the Jewes being Christs Church under one administration the Christian Church the same Church of Christ under another administration you speake truth but not to purpose my conclusion never said Circumcision and Baptisme doe initiate into the same Administration of the Covenant but if you meane that the Church of the Jewes and wee are not one and the same Church you speake pure Anabaptisme indeed and contradict the Scripture expresly which every where makes the Church of the Jewes and the Gentiles one and the same Church though under divers administrations I count it needlesse to annex any proofes because I thinke you dare not deny it Fourthly you lay the command of circumcision was loâ—g before the command of Baptisme but how this followes that therefore Baptisme doth not succeed in the roome of Circumcision I cannot guesse the Lords day succeeds the seventh day in being Gods Sabbath but certainly the institution of it was long after the other And fiftly as for the severall uses mentioned by you they all referre to the manner of administration peculiar to the Jewes I have often granted there were some legall uses of Circumcision it obliging to that manner of administration and so they were part of the Jewish paedagogy which is wholly vanished and therein Circumcision hath no succession but baptisme succeeds it as a Seale of the same Covenant under a better administration as a set and constant initiating Ordidinance onely I wonder that you say Circumcision did initiate into the Church of the Iewes or rather into Abrahams family I pray you explaine this rather into Abrauams family if by Abrahams family you meane the Church of the Jewes why say you rather into Abrahams family if you meane any thing else tell us what it is and how Circumcumcision initiated Proselytes into Abrahams family any otherwise â—hen as it was the Church of the Jewes Lastly you hit upon the right thing intended They he both seales of the same covenant but say you the covenâ—nt was not the same except in part which hath abundantly been confuted before and justified to be one and the same and the difference to lie onely in the manner of administration But say you the Cloud Sea Manna water of the rock c. signified righteousnesse by faith and holinesse of heaâ—t as well as baptisme doth and why then should we not say that Baptism succeeds these as well as it doth Circumcision I answer these were extraordinary signes not standing Sacraments to bee used in all generations much lesse were they set and standing Sacraments of initiation And yet so farre as God hath made the parallel what hurt is there in saying baptism succeeds them sure I am the Apostle Peter compares baptism and the Ark the like figure whereunto Baptisme saves us But whereas you adde And why also should not the Lords Supper succeed Circumcision as well as Baptisme I answer what ever disparity may bee made betweene Circumcision and Baptisme yet herein certainly they agree and you often grant it That both of them are initiall signes and therefore this is most wildly said of you That the Lords Supper may he as well said to succeed Circumcision did ever any thinke the Lords Supper to be an initiall signe And now let the Reader judg of that expression of yours in the close which you so boldly use against all Divines and Churches since the Apostles time who all concurre in the same truth except onely the Anabaptists That to say Baptisme succeeds in the roome and place of Circumcision 〈◊〉 a proposâ—tion 〈…〉 and very dangerous To confirme this of Baptism succeeding Circumcision much may be gathered out of many places in the New Testament which hold out the things wherein they are parallel'd I used onely that clear place Col. 2. 8 to 13. whence I made it evident Not onely that we have the same thing signified by Circumcision while we are buryed with Christ in baptism but also that the Apostle plainly setâ— Baptisme in the same state and makes it of the same use to us as Circumcision was to the Jews Christ onely to them â—nd 〈◊〉 also is the
from the command of Circumcision to Baptisme be not every way as strong clear As for your ten Arguments to prove the abolition of the Jewish Sacraments ceremonies they are al agreed to are brought nothing to he purpose in hand I have already shewed that this argument from the Analogie betweene Circumcision and Baptisme and the reason end and use of them both stands still in force though Circumcision it selfe be abolished and I doubt not but the impartiall Reader will acknowledge this argument to be as good Circumcise your children because your children have right to this initiall seale Ergo by analogie let Christians baptize their children who have the same right to the initiall seale as this ye Iewes keepe the Sabbath on the seventh or last day of the weeke Ergo ye Christians keep the Sabbath on the first of the weeke As for your ridiculous consequences which you put upon me of thou art Peter Ergo the Pope is Monarch of the Church c. I answer onely this I shall desire you in your next to deal with your Adversary by solid Arguments rather then seek to render him ridiculous by jeeres and scoffes lest in the end you meet with some adversary who may dresse you in your own kind which I have no minde to doe whether I have not made good this command of Circumcising Infants to prove baptizing of Infants by good consequence I leave the Reader to judge and proceed to try your strength against the next Another command by good consequence I gathered out of Mat. 28. compared with Mar. 16. 15. Gal. 3. 89. Rom. 1. 16 17. where our Saviour bids his Disciples goe and teach all Naâ—ions baptizing them c. VVherein I observed two things First what they were to doe viz. to teach the whole Covenant the Covenant made with Abraham whereof this was one branch I will be the God of thee and of thy seed they were also to baptize that is to administer Baptisme as a seale of the Covenant to all who received the Covenant Secondly wee have the persons to whom they were to doe this all Nations whereas before the Church was tyed to one Nation one Nation onely were disciples now their Commission was extended to make all Nations Disciples every Nation which should receive the faith should be to him now as the peculiar Nation of the Iews had been in times past now we know when that one Nation of the Iews were made Disciples and circumcised their Children were made Disciples made to belong to Gods school and circumcised with them c. To this you answer First that promise I will be the God of thee and thy seed that it should be thus interpreted the seed of beleevers are taken into Covenant with their Parents is a new Gospel no older then Zwinglius But I have sufficiently proved that this was good Gospel in the Apostles dayes and in the times of the Fathers of the Primitive Church Secondly concerning the persons who were to be baptized every Nation or all Natitions to this because it is like to trouble you you bring forth your old artifice of framing many senses whether by every Nation be meant beleevers of every Nation then you grant the sense is good or whether by Nation be meant a great or eminent part of the Nation the Goveâ—nours and chiefe Cities the representative body of a Nation Then you fly out and talke of baptizing all within the Precinâ—â— of a Parish a concâ—it which you fasten upon Cyprian and talke of necessity of baptizing by officiating Priests and bring in the Independents nothing to the purpose and enquire whether 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or them referre to Nations or Disciples in those words of our Saviour then you vent your Criticismes against the author of Infant-Baptisme and undertake to shew that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies to teach cum effectu or teach till they be made Scholars and after a long Discourse upon these things your result is that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 them may be meant of Disciples and Nations respectively Disciples of Nations or Nations who be Disciples but not to baptize any of them till they were Disciples But Sir what need all these things the meaning is plaine by Nations I neither meane the major part of a Nation nor representative body of a Nation nor the King of a Nation but whereas before onely one Nation of the Jews were Gods people in Covenant now other Nations should be taken in likewise and whereas before their Commission to preach and baptize was restrictive Goe not to the Gentiles or Samaritans now he enlarges their Commission to all Nations and wherever their Ministery should bee so blessed as to have any Nation accept the Gospel they should be his people now as the Jewes had been in times past according to that Evangelicall promise Esa 19. 24. In that day shall Israel he a third with Egypt and Assyria even a blessing in the midst of the Land whom the Lord of Hosts shalâ— blesse saying Blessed be Egypt my people and Assyria the work of my â—ands and Israel mine inheritance Here is the Nation of Egypt and the Nation of Assyria taken into Covenant as well as Israel Gods inheritance and now Abraham indeed became the Father of many Nations so that the emphasis of this Text is in the word Nations in opposition to the one Nation of the Jews that whereas the Apostles thought they were never to go to those vile nations who were esteemed as Dogs and Swine our Lord instructed them That now hee would pluck up the partition wall and that the rest of the Nations should be brought within the verge of his Church and partake of the same Covenant which the Jewes had before enjoyed as their peculiar treasure a wonder of mercy as the Jews themselves judged when they came first to understand it Act. 11. 8. and consequently when other Nations should thus by receiving and professing the Gospel come under his wing they should enjoy the same benefit of the Covenant with the Jews He would henceforth be the God of them and their seed Against this you except many things First say you then there may bee a rule assigned to know when a Nation may be called a beleeving Nation but there is none And to prove this minor you run out at large not when a King is baptized nor when the representative body nor when the greatest part are beleevers and further if the children of wicked parents in a nation may be baptized it must be either from their descent or place of birth or both if by descent it must be either from their immediate parents or forefathers within memory or beyond memory if from the place of their birth then the children of Turks born in England may be baptized and if the children of wicked parents may claime it it must be from some Charter Abraham indeed had a Charter to circumâ—ise his how wicked soever
Seale of admission neither male nor female Whereas you adde had they done it they would have left some president of such a practise whether by good consequence they have not left us some evidence of it is the question wee are now debating I added in every nation the children make a great part of that nation and are alwayes included under every administration to the nation whether promises or threatnings priviledges or burthens mercies or judgements unlesse they bee excepted whereof I gave divers instances in my Sermon you answer the Lord hath plainely given a caution in Scripture for the leaving out Infants in this administration according to ordinary rule in that hee directs them to baptize Disciples upon preaching hee excludes Infants c. and when Christ and John baptized onely such this practise excludes others I answer by what rule then durst you baptize an Infant knowne to you to bee regenerate since they cannot bee Disciples upon preaching if you say you cannot doe it by ordinary rule shew us I pray your extraordinary if you answer they are Disciples therefore they may bee baptized I answer the Infants of beleevers are visible Disciples they visibly belong to the kingdome family schoole of Christ as I have abundantly proved already any manifestation of Gods that persons belong to his Covenant is to your selfe a sufficient ground of accounting them such either a promise or powring out the extraordinary gifts of the holy Ghost though they are no infallible signes of inward sanctification or confession of faith or of repentance are warrant sufficient for us to baptize them now the promise of God to beleeving parents to bee the God of them and of their seed and his owning them as persons belonging to his Church is as reall a manifestation of it as the other signes of receiving extraordinary gifts externall profession c. either are or can be And whereas you adde that Christs and Johns Baptizing such and no other as made a visible profession is exclusive to all others I answer first it is no where said they baptized no others secondly I deny that consequence this is not an exclusive rule the practise and example of Christ and John is sufficient to make an affirmative or positive rule they baptized such therefore wee may baptize such but it 's not exclusive that therefore wee may baptize no other and the reason is plaine they possibly might not meet with all persons and occasioons and so their practise is a good rule not a full rule I shall give one instance wee read not before the tenth of the Acts that either Christs Apostles or Iohn the Baptist baptized any proselytes of the gate or that they baptized any as you say untill they made actuall confession of their faith and repentance or that there was any rule given that the receiving the extraordinary gifts of the holy Ghost should without any other confession bee a sufficient warrant to Baptize any yet Peter upon the very powring out of those gifts without requiring any further confession either of faith or repentance baptized Cornelius and all his company in one word any word or act of God declaring that such and such belong to his visible Church is a sufficient warrant without any danger of wil-worship and this wee have abundantly for the Infants of beleeving parents wee have therefore here nothing to doe with a mixture of wine and water salt and creame and spittle they are impertinent to our businesse and you bring them in to no purpose all your discourse of wil-worship which you thus often repeate reaches not the point in hand in the least tittle the Sacrament of Baptisme is an ordinance of his owne appointment and by his appointment may bee applyed to all such as himselfe doth manifest to bee in the number of those who belong to his visible Church what course soever himselfe pleases to take to manifest it whiles wee keep within these bounds we are therein out of the danger of will-worship I added it behooved the Lord to give them a caution for the leaving out of Infants in this new administration that they might know his mind if hee had intended to leave them out which that ever hee did in word or dâ—ed cannot be found in the Scripture to this you answer it behooved the Lord to give a precept to put them in into this new administration if hee intended to have them in which that ever he did you cannot find I reply but I have abundantly proved that they alwayes had a right to bee accounted as belonging to his Church to bee reputed visible members and therefore need no new putting in if God once bestow upon a people a Sabbath to bee a signe between him and them they may lay claime to that Sabbath upon what day of the week soever he please to appoint it the like is to bee said here while the Lord will own any to be visible members of his Church they have right to the administration bee it new or old if they bee capable of it and no barre put in against them by himselfe That which followes in your booke page 133. about Childrens being taken in with their parents and included unlesse excepted and of being under the former administration and so under this by paritie of reason hath been abundantly spoke already I added our Infants are capable of being Disciples as well as the Infants of Jewes and Proselytes you grant it to bee true and I aske no more for ours then they had for theirs and though they bee not capable of receiving actuall instruction from men yet they are capable of Gods owne teaching even in their Infancy as much as the Jewes Children were which is sufficient for my purpose I added in Christs dialect to belong to Christ and to bee a Disciple iâ— all one and cleared it by some Text in the Margent you answer onely this that though Mr. Blakeprâ—â—â—ph in this nâ—tion yet it is a triumph beford victory and that the Text cited by me spake not of little ones in respect of age and some of them mention not little ones at all but what 's this to the purpose when the intent was onely to prove this notion or expression that to bee a Disciple and belong to Christ is all one Lastly I argued from Act. 15. 10. to shew that Children may bee called Disciples because they upon whose necks those false teachers would have put the yoake of Circumcision are called Disciples and to bee called Disciples and it is apparent that they would have put it upon the Infants of beleevers as well as upon the beleevers themselves because they would have imposed it after the manner of Moses Law and prest that Law still to bee in force you answer you see no necessitie from this to call Infants Disciples and you first deny the major that all are to bee called Disciples upon whose necks they would have put that yoake To which I answer