29.9 10 11 12. proves either that there were no little children in that assembly or that they had no right to the Covenant both which are expresly contradicted in the context vers 9. Keep therefore saith Moses the words of this Covenant and do them that ye may prosper in all that ye do Vers 10. Ye stand this day all of you before the Lord your God your Captains of your Tribes your Elders and your Officers with all the men of Israel Vers 11. Your little ones your wives and thy stranger that is in the Camp from the hewer of thy wood to the drawer of thy water Vers 12. That thou shouldest enter into Covenant with the Lord thy God and into his Oath which the Lord thy God maketh with thee this day c. Now as Moses made this exhortation to all Israel though the little children amongst them were not able to understand it and be affected with it for the present and yet were present to be admitted into Covenant and had right to the seal of entrance thereinto and this exhortation was for their good as their parents embracing it were with their children received into Covenant and put in minde of their duty in devoting their children to and bringing them up for God and as it might serve for the childrens instruction when they should come to age So Paul and Silas might speak to the whole family amongst whom might be little ones who though they understood not the doctrine and exhortation propounded for the present yet might upon the parents imbracing of this doctrine be received into Covenant with them and to the seal of entrance thereinto and afterward by their parents instructed in that doctrine which for the present they understood not 4. It is said that he and all his were baptized straitway There is no expression or intimation that every one beleeved and made a profession of his faith for themselves severally 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but when the Jaylour had manifested his repentance and faith he and all his were baptized straitway It seems that the faith and profession of the head of the family was sufficient to give right to the members at least to those that did not express their dissent or refusal of it 5. The word having beleeved vers 34. is of the singular number and masculine gender and must be referred to the Jaylour only according to the Grammatical construction 6. Though it should be granted that he and his whole house may be said to beleeve which yet the words of the text prove not It may be well understood so as Abraham and all his family were beleevers in Covenant and circumcised Gen. 18.19 even those that were Infants the Head having made profession of his faith and ingaged himself to take care of all his family should be instructed in the faith and obedience of God And this last answer beside divers of the former general and special may serve for the last Scripture viz. Act. 18.8 And Crispus the chief Ruler of the Synagogue beleeved in the Lord with all his house and many of the Corinthians beleeved and were baptized And indeed how can it be thought probable that such families as the Jaylours the Rulers of the Synagogue and Lydias whose houshold was baptized upon her hearing and beleeving of the word no mention being made of the rests hearing or beleeving should have no children in them Hence I gather thus If at the first preaching of the Gospel the faithfull with their whole families were baptized so soon as God had opened the hearts of the governours to receive the word and beleeve then now the families and children of those that have long professed the Gospel at least so many in their family as do not stubbornly reject Jesus Christ are to be acknowledged within the Covenant and admitted to Baptism the seal of entrance But the former is true Therefore the later Whereas you conclude your first Paper thus Having proved by positive and plain Scripture what we affirm we conclude with the doctrine of the Church of England which maintains the same viz. That repentance and faith is required in persons to be baptized and that Infants by reason of tender age can neither repent nor beleeve which we leave to your consideration and desire your answer Ans How positive and plain the Scriptures cited by you to prove what you affirm and practise are we have seen and leave to the judgement of others 2. In your concluding with the doctrine of the Church of England you might have done well to have told us what you mean by the Church and in what book or place that doctrine is main ained and then we should have given answer thereto if the very citation of the place be not sufficient to answer it and make you ashamed of your citing of it But in the mean space you have our consideration and answer to what you bring out of Scripture By me William Cooke You Preface to your second Paper thus IN stead of an expected answer in writing H.H. and J.B. to this our Paper according to promise we have received another verbal request from you viz. That we would give some reasons why Infants should not be baptized By which we conclude you can give no reason why you baptize them we having so much urged you herein to prove your practice by Scripture having given you so large a proof of our practising the contrary by so many plain truths wherein you may finde reason enough against yours if you have any minde without further cavil to answer them Answer 1. IT was agreeable to reason and equity that seeing you had so fully and frequently expressed your selves against infant-Infant-Baptism you should give your reasons thereof especially we having been so long in possession and being by you charged to want right it was fit that you should be required to produce the grounds of your charge 2. Whereas you conclude so hastily that we can give no reason of our practice we see that though you dislike syllogisms you are pleased with sophisticall Enthymems making a conclusion from so weak a premise 3. How much the many plain written truths prove for your own judgement and practice or against ours we wish you to review in the foregoing Answer and you will there finde that without cavils we had a minde to answer You proceed But that you may see how really we intend the discovery of truth and to satisfie you in every desire that may any way tend thereto we give you these further in answer 1. Because Christ hath no where commanded it And whatsoever is practised as an ordinance of his without institution is Will-worship and Idolatry Ans This your reason in its full strength stands thus Whatsoever is practised as an Ordinance of Christ without an institution is Will-worship and Idolatry But baptizing of Infants is practised as an Ordinance of Christ without any institution Therefore it is Will-worship and
Idolatry The assumption which would by us be denied you back thus It hath no command from Christ Therefore it is without an institution Ans In answer to this I desire you to take notice of two distinctions necessary to remove mistakes 1. We must distinguish between the essentials of an Ordinance and the accidentals and circumstantials in respect of the application of it to such or such persons in such a time place or manner This is necessary to be observed Christ instituted the Ordinance of the Supper or Communion of the body and bloud of Christ but never expresly commanded that it should be administred to women It 's sufficient that it may be gathered from Scripture He hath instituted Baptiâ—â— but nâ—ver expresly commanded that it should be administred to or by Ta 〈…〉 Wâ—avâ—rs Jersey-combers or Coblers If from general rules of Scriptuâ—◠〈…〉 that this Ordinance is to be applied to or by such persons thâ—â— being found to have such qualifications as the Scripture requires in these cases it is sufficient It is an Ordinance of Christ that his people should reade the Scripture but it 's no where expresly commanded that such as understand not the original should reade it in a translated printed English Bible it sufficeth that this may be proved out of Scripture by good consequence The second distinction is this An Ordinance in respect of circumstantials or applications may be said to be instituted by Christ either expresly and immediatly or so as that the institution is to be gathered by consequence of this later kinde is a beleeving womans receiving the Sacrament of the Communion of the body and bloud of Christ and meer English-mens and English-womens reading the Scripture for spiritual instruction and edification in a printed English Bible distinguished into Chapters and Verses There is no expresse command for admitting women to the Lords Table nor for the translating and printing of Scripture for the help of ignorant people yet these are not Will-worship and Idolatry It may be sufficiently proved from Scripture that these are good and warrantable and that Gods people should be greatly wronged if women should be driven from the Communion and those that are ignorant of Hebrew and Greek should be debarred from reading the Scripture I answer therefore 1. By granting the proposition taken in a right sense viz. That whatsoever is practised as an Ordinance and worship of Christ without an institution from him at least in respect of the essentials yea whose essentials and circumstantials may not be gathered out of the Scripture either expresly or by good consequence is at least Will-worship if not Idolatry and therefore unlawfull to be maintained or practised But I deny the assumption for the essentials and substantials of Baptism are expresly commanded in Scripture Mat. 28.19 20. Mar. 16.15 16 c. The particular application of Baptism to Infants though not expresly in so many words in Scripture yet may be gathered therefrom by good consequence as shall appear hereafter God assisting Therefore the assumption being false in that sense wherein the proposition is true nothing can be concluded I come now to your second argument which is this It cannot be proved that Christ or his Apostles practised infant-Infant-Baptism Which reason stands in its whole strength thus What cannot be proved that Christ and his Apostles practised that is unlawfull in Gods worship But it cannot be proved that Christ and his Apostles practised Infant-baptism Therefore it is unlawfull Ans The proposition is not universally â—rue we may not argue from the practice of Christ and his Apostles universally either affirmatively or negatively not affirmatively for they might do some things as such eminent persons which it is not the duty of nor possible for all Ministers or Christians ordinarily to do so Nor negatively for there may be some things which are the duties of inferiour men which yet were below Christ and his Apostles We reade not that they practised or submitted to the Office of Pastors Elders or Deacâ—â—â— properly so called will it follow therefore that these are Will-worshiâ— They never as can be proved translated Bibles or read the Scripture 〈…〉 â—â—unded the text of a Sermon out of a translated printed Bible nor took thâ— notes of Sermons Are these therefore Will-worship If they being busied in laying the foundation of Churches practised not some things which are agreeable to our work which is for the superstruction we need not to be troubled having warrant or institution either immediate or to be gathered by consequence Neither is the assumption so clear as to be easily granted and though it might suffice for the present to deny the main proposition yet take also this answer to the assumption Though Christ did not baptize Infants nor any at all in his own person and therefore if his example is to be followed herein by Ministers Ioh. 4.2 or those that may be conceived to have authority to baptize none at all must be baptized by them Yet he did that for Infants which is at least equivalent to baptizing or layeth sufficient ground to warrant their baptizing he laid his hands on them blesseth them pronounceth them to have right to the Kingdom of God or Covenant of the Gospel and gives command to his Apostles to disciple all Nations and baptize them The Apostles acted according to this Commission held forth the promise whereof Baptism is a seal or pledge as belonging to the faithfull and their children and baptized Beleevers and their whole families of which more largely partly before partly hereafter Your third Argument is this Because they are uncapable subjects having neither understanding reason nor faith and whatever is not of faith is sin Being put into form it stands thus Subjects uncapable of Baptism are not to be baptized But Infants are subjects uncapable of Baptism Therefore not to be baptized The proposition is granted the assumption denied you endeavour to prove it thus They that have neither understanding reason nor faith are subjects uncapable of Baptism But Infants have neither understanding reason nor faith Therefore subjects uncapable of Baptism 1. I answer to the proposition by denying it if by understanding reason and faith you mean ripe actual and visibly exercised and professed understanding reason and faith such as is in persons of ripe years and I give these two reasons of my denial 1. The children of the Jews when they wanted the actual use of understanding which belongs to persons of age were not uncapable of Circumcision which was of the same use to Jews Gen. 17.7 Rom. 4 1â— Deut. 30.6 as Baptism is to us Christians viz. to be a seal of the Covenant and of the righteousnesse of faith and a sign of renewing and sanctifying the heart 2. That they are capable I prove it by the parts Reason and even sense and experience shews that they are capable of the outward sign there being required a meer passion of them in the Ministers application
to accept the Covenant for themselves and their children Gen. 17.7 They that hold out a new way must shew some Scripture for the abolishing of the Old and establishing the New or must expect no regard from those that are not willing to be deluded 3. Shew the ground of this distinction Jewish children were to be educated for God as being under Covenant and seal but the children of Christians only that they may be brought under the Covenant and seal when they come to actual faith professed in their own person What Scripture or reason puts such a vast difference between them that those should be brought up Religiously as actually in Covenant and sealed these only as in a remote possibility to be brought to the Covenant and seal 5. The fifth consideration will not only strengthen the Proposition but also further answer the foregoing objection It 's this If the children of the faithfull be not already actually in Covenant from their infancy and so interested in the priviledges of the Covenant not only parents may be afraid to instruct them in Scripture Catechise and pray with them require their presence in the Congregation and family duties and their sanctification of the Lords day which are both duties and priviledges of the Covenant least they should cast Pearls to swine and judge them that are without But also the children if urged hereunto may demand of their parents What have you to do to require of us any Christian duties or to correct us for the neglect thereof or for the commission of any sin against the Gospel as profanation of the Lords day blaspheming Christ Christian Religion or the Scripture c. Might not they plead liberty of conscience and say What have you to do to judge us that are without we are to chuse our Religion and as free to worship Mahomet as Christ The Jews indeed had authority to bring up their children in the Jewish Religion as being devoted thereto from their infancy by the Covenant and seal thereof under which they were but now we children of Christians are under no such priviledges nor ingagements Which practice I fear will be the genuine fruit of this opinion argued against and swallowed down as no absurdity by those that are poisoned with Anabaptisticall fancies but must needs be detested by all that prize the Covenant of God and love Christ sincerely or their own and childrens souls spiritually To clear the Assumption let these things be considered Gen. 18.19 Exod. 12.26 27. Iosh 24.15 Psal 78.5 6. Prov. ◠3 4 5. 2 Tim. 3.15 1. How can it be doubted but that all those morall duties that lay upon Abraham and his children and the Israelites and their children enjoining the one party to teach and the other to learn the way and commandments of God lye now upon Christian parents and their children 2. Paul greatly commends Timothies happinesse and his parents care in that he had been brought up from his infancy in holy Scripture which he would not have done if either Timothy had not been in Covenant from his infancy for what have those to do with the tables of the Covenant that are strangers or aliens to the Covenant or that example had not been of moral equity to be imitated by Christian parents and their children in the time of the Gospel 3. That Scripture cited to prove the Assumption contains a full expresse charge which lies on all Christian parents to teach 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and children to learn the fear and information of the Lord Eph. 6.4 which argues also that children of the faithfull are disciples of the Lord to be trained up in his school being dedicated to his discipline and nurture 4. Were not this so that moral Law which the Apostle in special manner above all the rest urgeth upon Christians children would be abrogated or greatly weakened as to the children of Christian parents at least untill they come to actual faith Children saith he obey your parents in the Lord. Eph 6.1 2. And Honour thy father and mother which is the first commandment with promise For how can they obey them in the Lord when the parents have no authority to command them any thing in the name of the Lord they not being under his yoke and Covenant How can parents challenge honour from their children by virtue of Gods command when they bring not up their children for God and to his honour Or how can children Religiously and Christianly honour their parents that have left them in the state of Infidels Especially considering this commandment Honour thy father c. as it was given to the Israelites supposed their children to be in Covenant with their parents and to have the like interest with their parents in the Covenant and its seal and the like ingagement to the duties thereof in respect of outward dispensation which is denied now to the children of Christians unlesse the Assumption yea and the main point in controversie be granted Twelfthly I argue thus Arg. 12 Children of beleeving parents must either be baptized while children or while able to professe the faith or not at all 1. This last your practice shews you will not hold and it were unreasonable to think that their being born of beleeving parents should deprive them of this priviledge seeing in the Old Testament this procured to children the seal of entrance 2. That they should be kept without Baptism untill they be able to make a profession of faith is no where commanded neither can any Scripture-example or good reason be given for it 1. Not commanded for the command which was given for baptizing of professours of faith and repentance did expressely and immediatly belong to those Jews and Gentiles which had not been born of Christian parents 2. Neither is there Scripture-example for it for the examples we reade of were according to Commission none as we reade in Scripture that were born after their parents were Christians were baptized when grown Scripture speaks only of those that had been Jews and Infidels children that were baptized by the Apostles 3. Neither stands it with right reason that Beleevers children should be left untill they professe their faith in the same state with Jews Turks and Infidels considering Gods promises and Covenant Therefore it remains that they must be baptized while Infants this being most agreeable 1. To Gods dealing with Abraham the father of the faithfull that children while Infants should be admitted with their beleeving parents and that Covenant and seal thereof 2. To the nature of this Sacrament which is to be administred the first opportunity to persons known to be in Covenant and members of the Church 3. To all those commands and examples of baptizing new converted Jews and Infidels for as their conversion did put them into the Covenant of grace whereupon they had right to the seal of entrance So these Infants being born of Christian parents doth inright them to the Covenant
being taught or at least they would gather from Christs Commission they are uncapable of being preached to and taught Therefore of being baptized But this is not a sufficient cause why they should not be baptized For teaching the doctrines and commands of Christ should go after not before Baptism according to the order of Christs Commission It 's enough that persons be devoted to Christ upon the tender of the Gospel by those that have power externally to dedicate them to him and then they are to be baptized and as it were matriculated into his School and after taught all things that Christ hath commanded them the contrary course is a preposterous inverting of the order of Christ Therefore Baptism is not to be denied to the Infants of Beleevers But they are by their parents to be dedicated to Christ and then baptized and afterwards instructed and taught in all the doctrines and commands of Christ which way is most agreeable to the order of Christs Commission 4. Whereas it is said in Mark 16.16 He that beleeveth and is baptized shall be saved he that beleeveth not shall be condemned If you will take these words precisely as containing a generall and compleat rule by which we must judge who must be baptized and saved who not without limitation to the first calling of Jews and Gentiles to Christianity I reason thus against you from this Scripture Children even the Infants of Christians either beleeve or not If they beleeve Deut. 30.6 having faith though but seminal or virtual comprehended in regeneration or circumcision of the heart which God promiseth to the seed of the faithfull or maybe said to beleeve in their parents who accept of the Covenant for themselves and their seed then they are to be baptiye◠as this Scripture shews and your own argument against their Baptism yields this being your great reason against baptizing children because say you they cannot beleeve But if you say they do not cannot beleeve they are all damned by you from this Scripture which saith expressely Whosoever beleeves not shall be condemned Take which you will If you say the former the cause is yielded by you If the later viz. That all the children of Beleevers whiles Infants are condemned and that there is no hope of salvation if they die before grown years this being so contrary to the Covenant of God and his promises will make you deservedly abhorred of all those that know God his Covenant and Scriptures If you to avoid this dilemma say this Scripture belongs only to those of grown years as were those unbeleeving Jews and Heathens to whom the Apostles were immediatly sent and therefore the condemnation of Infants through want of actual faith cannot be hence concluded you answer your selves and might as easily see that the exclusion of Infants from Baptism for want of actuall personal professed faith cannot hence be gathered especially seeing these words are far more peremptory and expresse against the salvation then against the Baptism of non-beleevers Secondly You say What you practise is proved to be the Baptism of Christ by the practice of the Disciples in obedience to those commands as Act 2.38 Then Peter said unto them Repent and be baptized every one of you in the Name of Jesus Christ unto the remission of sins ver 41. Then they that gladly received the word were baptized and the same day added to the Church Ans You cut off in the citation of this Scripture a very material part namely the ground of the Apostles exhortation to them to be baptized which if you would have considered seriously might have made you afraid to urge this place for your purpose It seems you thought it good policy to omit it least others should see how little it makes for your purpose or rather how much against you The words you omitted are in ver 39. The Apostle having exhorted them to repent and be baptized in the Name of Christ for the remission of sin and that they might receive the gift of the holy Ghost adds this reason ver 39. For the promise is to you and to your children and to all that be afar off so many as the Lord our God shall call Using this argument to perswade them to be baptized and to expect the spiritual blessing signified in Baptism viz. the remission of sins and pouring of the Spirit on them for the promise saith he is to you and your children and least we should think that this priviledge was peculiar to the Jews to have their children interested in the promise with their parents he adds And to all that be afar off so many as the Lord your God shall call Noting that all that shall be called of the remote Gentiles shall enjoy the like priviledge namely that the promise shall belong not only to them but also their children Whence I reason thus To whom the promise of remission of sins and the gift of the holy Ghost belongs to the same also Baptism the pledge thereof belongs for this is the summe of the Apostles reasoning to be gathered out of the 38. and 39. verse But the promise is to the faithfull or people of God and their children whether Jews or Gentiles Deut. 4.2 Mat. 46. compared with Psal 91.11 12. even those that were afar off whom God shall call and therefore Baptism belongs to them and their children You know who forbids to add to or take from the word and who is the ringleader of that art of curtayling the word 2. Whereas it is said Those that gladly received the word were baptized It may be well understood as they received the word they received Baptism the seal and appendix of the word But they received the word of promise as it was propounded to them by the Apostles which was thus That it belonged to them and their children Therefore answerably the seal of the word viz. Baptism belonging to them and their children they were baptized and their children 3. Whereas you say They that received the word were added to the Church The text saith And the same day there were added to the Church three thousand souls It is not safe thus to make bold with and mis-report Scripture The next Scripture which you cite is Act. 8.1 But when they beleeved Philip preaching the things concerning the Kingdom of God in the Name of Jesus they were baptized both men and women To this I answer 1. Who knows not that the words men and women are names rather noting the sexes then ages and are appliable to Infants as well as grown persons Did not Eve when she had born her first childe say Gen. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I have gotten a man from the Lord Will you hence gather that because she cals him a man therefore he was at perfect age at the day of his birth When Christ saith that the woman when she is delivered of a childe Ioh. 16.21 remembred not her anguish for joy that a man
of water That they are capable also of the spiritual grace of Baptism Gods many promises of circumcising the hearts of the faithfull seed and pouring his Spirit upon them c. prove as also the example of Jacob and John the Baptist whereof the one was beloved of God the other filled with the holy Ghost while little ones 2. I answer to the assumption by distinction of the first second act of reason faith The power or faculty of understanding or reason which we may call the first act Infants have else they were bruits and unreasonable creatures though the actual exercise thereof which is in man they want so a seminal virtual habitual faith implied in regeneration and the gift of the holy Ghost they have not a professed faith of ripe Beleevers 2. If men will needs have actual professed faith for the admission of persons to Baptism I answer Gen. 17.7 Act. 2.39 As parents by faith accept the Covenant for themselves and children according as Scripture propounds the Covenant Gen. 17.7 Act. 2.39 which is agreeable to the usual way of contracts and Covenants amongst men that parents take a Lease for themselves and infant-children and binde themselves and children to the condition as infant-children are parts and adherents of their parents having no use of power reason or will to provide for or dispose of themselves in their own persons untill they come to years of discretion so the faith of their parents may be said to be their faith as the parents act in taking a house or making a bargain may be called the childes act as no lesse beneficiall and obliging to the childe then to the parent at least untill he come to the use of reason where in his own person he may by some voluntary act ratifie or disannul it And here observe a second distinction of faith namely actual and professed It is this professed faith may be distinguished into Personal and private which is required of all persons which are at their own dispose at their first entrance into Covenant and admission to the seal of entrance and Common or publick faith which in a common or publick person may suffice in the behalf of those that are wholly under his power and at his dispose as Infants are to their parents This is sufficient for such to interest them in the Covenant and seal of admittance as we see in Abrahams and the Jewish Infants and Christians children which are holy by virtue of their parents faith 1 Cor. 7.14 and in this respect they may be said to have actual professed faith viz. of their parents If the Jews with their children were broken off by unbelief as the Apostle affirmeth Rom 11.29 then by faith they and their posterity had continued implanted untill their posterity should by actual professed unbelief break off themselves and their posterity The same is the case of the ingraffed Gentiles and will be of the Jews that are to be reingraffed vers 20.23 24 25. that by virtue of the faith of the parents infant-children should be in Covenant and beleevers even professedly by the profession of parents as it had been with Gods people for many generations before Christ for the Apostle speaks of such a growing up in the Olive tree that the implanted Gentiles and reimplanted Jews must expect as was that which the Church of the Jews had enjoyed to that time And sure if the unbelief of professed Infidels leave their infant-children in the case of professed infidelity and estrangement from the Covenant untill by their own personal individual faith they embrace that Covenant no lesse must the saith of beleeving parents leave their Infants in the state of professed or known Beleevers and persons in Covenant until by their own wilfull voluntary act they reject the Covenant for Gods promises to the faithfull and their posterity are no lesse full then his curses to the wicked and their posterity Exod. 20.5 6. 3. How ignorantly and impertinently that sentence is added by you Whatever is not of faith is sin any one may see And thus for the answer to your Arguments You prevent an Objection thus But you will say H. H. and J.B. Where doth the Scripture forbid That your Ministers will say is an unreasonable and unlearned question there being no proving negatives for then where doth the Scripture say You shall not worship the Pope go to Masse you shall not reade the Common prayer book or wear the Surplesse But it doth forbid Idolatry Will-worship which is that if you have no Scripture rule for the same and teaching for doctrine the commands of men which is this being only traditionall and that acknowledged by one of your Ministers lately in this Town that it was Ecclesiasticall and not Apostolicall Ans Deut. 4.2 Prov. 30.6 Iam 4.11 17. Rev. 22.8 9. The Scripture is such a perfect rule to Gods people of faith worship and holy walking both affirmatively and negatively that nothing may be urged as a duty Divine worship or truth but what is there commanded or taught nor charged as a sin Will-worship or errour but what is there forbidden or condemned either particularly and expresly or at least in general and to be gathered by good consequence 2. They are very ignorant and rash that will condemn worshipping the Pope going to Masse c. and yet cannot finde them forbidden in the Scripture yea they are too great friends to the Pope Masse and other superstition that will say or but insinuate that the Scripture doth no where condemn them or that will match Infant-baptisme with them 3. Forbear charging us with Will-worship Idolatry and teaching for doctrines the commands of men untill you have heard what Scripture grounds we can bring for our judgement and practice in this particular 4. Why do not you name the Minister which acknowledged this traditional and Ecclesiastical not Apostolical If there were any such let him answer for himself The Papists indeed call it a tradition of the Church to prove the imperfection of the Scripture and necessity of tradition Our Protestant Writers confute them in this shewing that it is grounded on Scripture not on tradition If any whom you call one of our Ministers speaks as the Papist against the whole current of Protestant Divines we are no more bound to stand to his principles or to defend him therein or answer for him then we are bound to do it for you and the Papists which agree with him in that opinion Now before I lay down our Arguments I must for the clearing of the truth confirm one thing which I have partly touched already It 's this That it is not only lawfull but necessary to argue from Scripture by way of consequence or deduction for the finding out of the truth neither must we alwaies expect expresse and immediate commands in Scripture for the particular circumstances and applications of the Ordinances of God or for the justifying of every matter of judgement and
practice in point of Religion It is sufficient sometimes and in some cases that by good consequence we deduce them from Scripture 1. Mat 22.32 33 This was very usuall with our Saviour and the Apostles Thus our Saviour proves the doctrine of the Resurrection against the Sadduces by consequence from that Scripture I am the God of Abraham the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob laid together with another principle God is not the God of the dead but of the living Which doctrine also the Apostle Paul proves by many Arguments and consequences 1 Cor. 15.13 to 33. 1 Cor. 15. from vers 13. to 33. So our Lord Christ argues for the lawfulnesse of his disciples pulling ears of corn and eating them on the Sabbath day Mat. 12.3 4 5 6 7. by consequence 1. From Davids eating of the Shew-bread 2. From the Priests sacrificing on the Sabbath and 3. From that sentence in Hosea I will have mercy and not sacrifice Hâ—â— 6. â— Which Scripture-examples and testimony do not expressely and immediatly say It is lawfull for the disciples being hungry to pluck ears of corn on the Sabbath day and eat them But by good consequence each of these Scriptures much more all jointly prove it So whereas it is said Luke 24.27 44. Luk. 24.27 44. That Christ expounded the Scriptures of all the Prophets shewing that they were fulfilled in him It is not to be understood that those things which were written of Christ in Moses the Prophets and Psalmes did expressely immediatly plainly and positively say that Jesus the son of Mary was the Messias and must suffer all those things and then rise again and enter into glory But by Christs expounding them and arguing from them the two disciples were brought to see the truth So Act. 2.25 26 c. the Apostle Peter sheweth to prove the resurrection of Christ from Scripture that what was contained in Psal 16.9 10. was spoken of Christ It doth not appear immediatly and expressely but by consequence thus It was to be understood of David himself or of Christ the seed of David No of David for he had seen corruption and his Sepulchre was yet extant as Act. 2.29 Therefore it must be meant of Christ Davids seed vers 30.31 32. So the other Apostles in the Acts and the Epistles and the Prophets before them usually deduce conclusions by way of reasoning or syllogizing either from Scriptures or other known principles or both laid together as is evident to any that with understanding and care reade the Scriptures so that further to prove this were to light a candle at noonday and sure he is miserably blinde that cannot see it 2. If you deny the use of consequence you have no warrant or proof for the reading of Scripture in an English translation Printed and so you must cast away your English Bibles as well as Infant-baptism or else fall into Will-worship and Idolatry Nor for womens receiving the Communion nor for the Christian-Sabbath Overthrow these and overthrow all Christian Religion Yea I may confidently say there is no Ordinance of God or religious act can be externally observed which you can perform but at least in respect of some accidentals or circumstantials thereof you must be beholden to consequence from Scripture or else must want warrant for the using of them and so either forbear them all and cast off all religious exercise and become visible Atheists or run into that which is Will-worship and Idolatry in your conceit and act against conscience and not in faith which to do is sin 3. Whereas all Scriptures were written for our learning Rom. 15.4 2 Tim. 3.16 that we may have patience comfort and hope and are profitable for doctrine reproof correction and instruction All or most of this benefit will be lost unto us if we reject the use of consequences The Scripture doth not positively and plainly make particular application to several men that live amongst us by name this must be done either by publike Ministry or private brotherly instruction and conference or by our own conscience which must by reasoning shew that the Scripture applied is pertinent and sutable to us or else we shall get no good by it 4. For what use should the Ministry of the word or preaching and teaching by others serve Pro. 2 2 3 4. or what use is there of studying and diligently searching the Scriptures as for gold silver and hid treasures if all things therein were so plain and particular to us in them that there were no need of drawing particulars from generals gathering obscurer truths from plainer Scriptures and applying them according to exigency Yea what use should there be of reason it self if we might not exercise it in this case which so much concerns Gods glory and our own and others edification and salvation I study shortnesse else it might be easily made to appear that they who deny and abhorre syllogisms and consequences in matters of Religion do not only deny the principall use of the most excellent gift of reason which God hath given to men for the finding out of the truth Rom. 2.15 Rom. 12.1 but also must cast off all right use of Conscience Scripture and Religion if they stick to that irrationall and irreligious conceit Taking it therefore for granted that no man who hath the use of reason and the heart of a Christian will deny us the liberty of reason in drawing out the truth from Scriptures by consequence I will lay down several Arguments grounded on Scripture whereof some were touched in the Answer to the former Paper what I shall here omit which there I touched the Reader may fetch thence for the baptizing of Infants Arg. Arg. 1 1. Such persons as have had by Gods gracious grant right to the Covenant of grace and seal of entrance thereinto in the time of the Old Testament and from whom this grant was never repealed by God nor cast off by themselves are not to be debarred by any man from the priviledges of Gods Covenant and the seal of entrance thereinto whiles the Covenant of grace and a seal of entrance is dispensed to the Church But the children of beleeving parents have by Gods gracious grant had interest in the Covenant of grace and the seal of entrance thereinto at least from Abrahams time to Christs which grant God did never repeal neither did the children of Beleevers cast it off but God hath continued in his Church the Covenant of grace and seal of entrance thereinto though in a different manner yet far more comfortable and glorious Therefore the children of beleeving parents are not to be debarred from the Covenant or seal of entrance thereinto which now in the time of the Gospel is Baptism For the clearing of the Proposition let these things be noted 1. Gods gracious grants of priviledges to his people wherein are also implied ingagements to thankfulnesse and obedience laid on them
and signed with the seal of the Covenant now in the time of the Gospel they have no interest in God his Covenant or the seal thereof or Church-membership but are quite cast out from these priviledges 4. Infants of beleeving parents never did cast off this priviledge so that by any act of theirs all Infants should be deprived of it For to cast off Covenant-priviledges imports actually to rebell against the Covenant which children cannot do neither can any child's suppose him capable of actual rebellion and rejection of the Covenant or aged persons actual rebellion deprive all Infants of this priviledge unlesse he be the root head and fountain of all Beleevers Infants which is not supposable Anabaptists may cast themselves and their children out of Covenant but they cannot cast out the children of other Christian parents otherwise then by seducing the parents into the same errour and impiety with themselves or worse which oft fals out that those that compasse land and sea to make proselytes Mat. 23.15 help to make them twofold more the children of hell then themselves 5. Yea the Scriptures of the New Testament are so farre from repealing the priviledges of Beleevers Infants that they strongly confirm and advance them as expressely telling us that to such belongs the Kingdom of God Gospel-promises belong to them they are holy Mark 10.14 Act. 2.39 1 Cor. 7.14 c. of which hereafter 6. That now the same Covenant of grace for substance remains amongst Christians as that which the Jews were under that there is instituted a seal of entrance into this Covenant now in the time of the Gospel viz. Baptism That Baptism the seal of entrance into the new is come in the place of Circumcision the seal of entrance into the old as the new dispensation it self succeeds the old and is of the same use for the main Col. 24 12. 2 Cor. 3.6 7 8 9 c. Heb. 8 8 9 10 and that the priviledges of the Gospel-dispensation are more glorious and comfortable then those of the legal were are truths so clear that he is very ignorant of Scripture I had almost said scarce worthy to be called a Christian that questions them much more that denies them But for the clearing of this truth out of Genesis 17.7 a In my answer to A. R. I have written elsewhere and may further if it be thought needfull communicate b In answer to M.T. some things I have by me for vindication thereof Arg. 2. Those persons to whom Christ is so loving and gracious Arg. 2 that he would have them come or be brought to him and by no means kept from him have right to Baptism the sign and pledge of admission to Christ But our Lord Jesus Christ was Mat. 19.14 Mar. 10.14 Luk. 18.15 16. and is so loving to children of beleeving parents that he would have them come or be brought to him and cannot indure that they should be forbidden or hindred from him Therefore the children of beleeving parents have right to Baptism the sign and pledge of admission to Christ and so are to be baptized For the clearing and confirming of the Proposition I will propound some few things which I desire may be considered 1. That Christ refused commerce with or admittance of any persons to him with kinde entertainment but such as were in Covenant at least externally or in a way thereto by their attentive hearkning to his word and receiving his doctrine Mat. 15.23 24 25 28. He tels the woman of Canaan that he was not sent but to the lost sheep of the house of Israel and that the childrens bread was not to be given to dogs implying that the Canaanites out of Covenant were as dogs and not to be entertained by him neither doth he give any comfortable answer to that woman untill she had discovered by her faith that she had right to Christ and the Covenant Ioh. 4.15 19 The woman of Samaria indeed was received by Christ as ready to hear his doctrine and be humbled Pilate and Herod he would hardly or not at all answer much lesse familiarly and kindly invite to him Therefore whom Christ so kindly invites he looks on not as aliens to the Covenant but as having some interest in himself and the sign of admission to himself and the Covenant 2. We are said in Baptism to put on Christ Rom. 6 3 ◠Gal. 3.27 Col 2.12 Ioh. 5.40 be baptized into Christ and his death and to be buried with him which is for substance as much as to come to him and by coming unto him to be partakers of him and have Communion with him 3. There is now no visible way for children to come to Christ since his ascension ordinarily but by Baptism that being the first visible way of admission to Christ and that this coming of children was not confined to those children o◠that time of his humiliation will appear by the reason for theirs is the Kingdom of God but the Kingdom of God is dispensed since Christs ascension Therefore children must come of which anon Of coming to Christ in hearing the word prayer the Lords Supper they are uncapable of inward invisible coming to or being united to Christ we speak not now neither doth Christ here speak of it But by Baptism now as heretofore by Circumcision Infants may be brought to Christ and the Covenant in a visible manner For the illustration and strengthening of the assumption let these things be considered 1. These were properly little children or Infants which Christ would have brought to him and not hindered 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as may appear 1. By their titles Little children Young children Infants 2. By Christs manner of receiving them viz. in his arms which is proper to babes 2. They were children of beleeving parents in Covenant 1. It 's out of question they were children of Jews at least by outward profession of Religion which then were the peculiar people of God 2. They which brought them whether parents or other appointed by them had a reverend perswasion concerning Christ and beleeved that his blessing might profit the children 3. Our Saviour approves the act of them that brought them which he would not if it had not been done in faith Heb. 7.6 3. That Christ speaks not only of those children that were then brought to him but generally of the children of Beleevers or all parents that are willing to bring their children to Christ is plain in that he saith not Suffer those or these individual children to come unto me but Suffer little children generally or indefinitely 4. And moreover that these words of Christ are not to be restrained to those children only or their manner of coming only or to the time of Christs being on earth may be gathered 1. In that all the three Evangelists so carefully and fully set down that History with all its circumstances and holding forth Christs gracious expressions of
his love to little children which is doubtlesse to shew what is his affection to the Infants of the faithfull at all times otherwise what profit or comfort were it for Christians to know that Christ was indeed so loving to those Infants at that time but would never shew afterwards when in glory any more respect to Infants of Christians whiles such then to the Infants of Infidels 2. But the reason given by Christ puts the matter out of question that this expression of his affection to Infants is not to be restrained to those particular Infants that manner of coming and that time of his visible abode on the earth For of such saith he is the Kingdom of God or of heaven implying that so long as God hath a Kingdom of grace on earth in the administration of the Gospel and affords ordinary means of bringing people to the Kingdom of glory so long the children of the faithfull are to come or be brought to Christ in such a way as they may be acknowledged subjects of this Kingdom which is by admission to the sign or seal of entrance thereinto 5. That it is the will and pleasure of Christ that little children in the time of the Gospel should be brought to him appears in the text in three particulars worthy to be distinctly observed 1. In that he was much displeased and moved with high indignation against his disciples which rebuked and discouraged the bringers of the children Mat. 11.29 Maâ— 12.29 Now Christ which was so admirably meek and gentle would not have been so much moved if it had not been a great fault in his disciples to hinder Infants from coming to him It is doubtless a wrong to poor Infants that cannot plead for themselves and to pious parents to be checked in so good a work and to the Church of God to have these young members cut therefrom and especially to God and Christ and the Gospel to seek to cast out Infants from the priviledge of the Covenant of grace wherein they had been interested in the time of the Law Though in the disciples it was more excusable by ignorance because likely before this time they had heard nothing expressely from Christs mouth to hold forth the priviledges of Infants in the time of the Gospel howbeit they might have gathered enough out of the Old Testament if they would have heeded it to have prevented this miscarriage else Christ would not have been so angry with them if it had been out of invincible ignorance Now if Christ was so offended with this first failing of his disciples through ignorance what may they expect that after this warning continue clamouring against and reproaching the bringing of Infants to Christ 2. Christ gives an express command to suffer little children to come to him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 let not any that professe obedience to Christ and acknowledge his soveraignty over them dare to violate this command in not suffering children to come to Christ 3. Christ adds Forbid them not which charge by way of addition doth not only shew our Lord Christs earnestnesse in this point and confirm the former precept But also sufficiently warns all under pain of his displeasure that neither by word nor action policy nor power they dare to do any thing to hinder the Infants of Beleevers from Christ My third argument I will draw from the same Scripture which is this Arg. 3. Arg. 3 To whom the Kingdom of God or heaven belongs now in the time of the Gospel to them also Baptism which is the seal of entrance thereinto belongs But to the children of beleeving parents the Kingdom of God or heaven belongs now in the time of the Gâ—spel Mat. 19.14 Mar. 10 14. Luk. 18.16 Therefore Baptism which now in the times of the Gospel is the seal of entrance into this Kingdom belongs to the children of beleeving parents For the clearing and confirming of the proposition let these things be noted 1. That whether by the Kingdom of God or heaven be meant a state of grace and professed subjection to Christ the King of the Church in this life and the state of the Church Militant under Christ already exhibited in the flesh as the word is very frequently a Mat. 3.2 Mat 14.17 Mat 1â— 24 32 24 47. Mat. 21.41 Mat. 25. â— 14. used or the Kingdom of glory and state of the Church Triumphant as it is sometime b 2 Tim. 4.18 used It is all one for our purpose and that argument holds most clearly in the former and most strongly in the later sense 2. That Baptism is the sign pledge or seal of entrance into a Gospel state or Christian Church is I think out of question on all sides and if need were might easily be proved by these and such like Scriptures Mat. 3.2.6 Mat. 28.18 19. Act. 2.38.40 Act. 8. 9. c. 3. Though some may have right to this Kingdom and yet want Baptism as the penitent thief and some may have Baptism that have no internal right to the Kingdom of God and spiritual blessing signified yet those that have right to the Kingdom of God holden forth in the Gospel have right to Baptism and those that are acknowledged according to the rules of Gods word to have right to this Kingdom must also be acknowledged to have right to the seal of entrance thereinto 4. Though only internal right to Gods Kingdom and the priviledges thereof argue right to or possession of the inward seal of the spirit yet external professed or known right to this Kingdom and the outward priviledges thereof so as that persons are according to the Scriptures acknowledged members and subjects thereof is sufficient to give Ecclesiastical and external right to the seal of entrance thereinto as the Jews whiles they were not actually discovenanted were the children of the Kingdom though so wicked as that they were shortly cut off Therefore let none object If all the children of Beleevers have right to the Kingdom of God they shall be all saved But they are not all saved Therefore all have not right This is answered by distinction of external right which gives interest to the external priviledges of the visible Kingdom and internal right which gives interest in or implies possession of internal spiritual and eternal priviledges The former right all Infants of Beleevers have and of this we speak now the later only some peculiar sanctified ones according to the election of grace as it is in the case of visible professours and sincere Beleevers 5. That to whom the Kingdom belongs to them the seal or sign of entrance belongs right reason will yield from the nature of correlatives there being a clear relation between the thing signified or sealed and the sign or seal and the whole current of Scripture speaking of Baptism historically or doctrinally sheweth that so soon as any were acknowledged to have right to the benefit signified or sealed they had right to the
sign or seal The Assumption is expressely in the text Mat. 19.14 Of such is the Kingdom of heaven Mat. 10.14 Of such is the Kingdom of God So Luk. 18.16 speaking of little children yea ver 17. Christ with a serious asseveration asserts That whosoever receives not the Kingdom of God as a little childe shall in no wise enter thereinto And that this is meant not only of those particular children that were brought to Christ is plain 1. From what was said before to the former Argument 2. From the very words of Christ he saith not of these little children as excluding all other but of such that is the children of parents beleeving and in Covenant as those were which only the disciples and other men that are not able to see the hearts can judge to be such Ob. Ob. Here one objecteth This reason is grounded on a great mistake of the sense of the text A. R. for the words are not To such belongs the Kingdom but Of such is the Kingdom that is of none else but such as the next words which do follow in this text do manifestly declare for in Luk. 18.17 Mar. 10.15 in both places where Christ had said Suffer little children to come to me for of such is the Kingdom of God he presently confirms it in the next words thus Verily I say Whosoever shall not receive the Kingdom of God as a little childe shall not enter therein As also Mat. 18.34 Christ speaking to his disciples saith Except ye be couverted and become as little children ye shall not enter into the Kingdom of heaven Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little childe the same is greatest in the Kingdom of heaven his meaning is not of them or such as them in age nor understanding 1 Cor. 14.20 but of such as them in humility and like qualifications Ans Ans We neither by mistake say nor judge this place is to be rendred Vnto them belongs the Kingdom But the words are Of such is or to such belongs the Kingdom c. which makes more for our cause then if it had been said To them belongs c. two waies 1. Hence it is clear that our Saviour speaks not of those individuall Infants only but of all such as they Notwithstanding the Disciples through ignorance as before the Ascension they had many mistakes about Christs Kingdom thought possibly that such Infants were unfit subjects for the Kingdom of heaven he peremptorily affirms that Of such is the Kingdom of heaven indefinitely speaking of such that their non-age cannot debarre them from this heavenly and spiritual Kingdom Whereas if Christ had said of them it might have been thought that those children brought to Christ had by extraordinary priviledge or miracle right to Christs Kingdom Whereas by our Saviours expression such it appears to be the common and ordinary priviledge of the children of the faithfull 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Whereas Christ saith Of such is the Kingdom though our Translators render it To such belongeth because the idiom of our Language will not so well bear the other phrase it implies that such are already in the Kingdom of God or visible Church as subjects and members thereof Whereas if Christ had said Belongs to them It might have been understood for the future in a remote possibility as the inheritance belongs to the Infant-heir though he be not in present possession viz. That when they should come to riper years they might be externally called and so brought within the Church whereas this expression of our Saviour shews that such are already within Christs Kingdom 2. Though we should mistake this place as the objector chargeth us in that we would gather hence that children are to be admitted to Christ and have the Seal of spiritual blessings Whereas he would make it the scope of this place not that they or such as they in age or understanding have right to the Kingdom of heaven but such as they in humility and like qualifications yet it 's not like that they which brought the children to Christ should be mistaken in their ends seeing none of the Evangelists speak of them as mistaken but rather mention their act by way of approbation which were for prayer and imposition of hands to conferre and signifie spiritual blessings which are the peculiar priviledges of Gods Kingdom Or if they should so far mistake themselves as to come for Christs blessing for their children though uncapable it is not probable but Christ would have reproved them for their errour before he admitted them and have told them that he would receive them to him only that they might be patterns of humility and such like qualifications to his Disciples but not so as if the Kingdom of heaven did belong to them or such as they were in age and understanding lest he should harden them in their errour But if Christ should have forborn to tell them of their errour and make use of it that he might set before his hearers a pattern of humility and such qualifications yet surely Christ himself would not so far mistake as to lay his hands on and blesse them that were uncapable of his blessing as they must needs be if the Kingdom of heaven belonged not to them nor any such for age for Christs blessing of persons so solemnly represented and signified or sealed with imposition of hands are doubtlesse the priviledges of his Kingdom so that this charge of mistake which the Objector makes must lie on the Objector himself or Christ 3. It cannot be proved that these words Whosoever receives not c. are brought as a reason of that saying Of such is the Kingdom It is not joyned to the former sentence by a causall particle But rather it is brought as a second reason why they are to be brought and admitted to Christ because they are not only fit subjects of the Kingdom of heaven but also may be patterns to the more ripe and aged 4. That place Mat. 18.34 nothing pertains to this History for it speaks of Christs teaching his Disciples humility of which doctrine he took occasion from his Disciples pride and emulation which discovered it self in that question Who is greatest in the Kingdom by setting in the midst of them there 's no mention of taking in his arms a little childe and therefore though this sentence may somewhat illustrate the later of these reasons in Mark and Luke yet it belongs not to this History or doctrine that is principally and purposely handled therein 5. But to make it evident that Christ when he saith Of such is the Kingdom means it of these very children and such as they in respect of age take these reasons 1. The Question was not Whether such as were indued with humility and like qualifications might come to Christ but Whether those Infants and such as they for age might The parents or whosoever brought them whose piety is here approved desired not that those
Nation and capable of being made disciples as was shewed in answer to the former Paper But all Nations were to be made disciples and baptized by the Apostles according to the command of Jesus Christ Mat. 28.19 20. Therefore the children of beleeving parents in those Nations were and still are to be baptized For the clearing of this ARgument I might suffice my self in referring the Reader to what I have written heretofore In Answer to A. R. In Answer to the first Paper for the vindicating of this Scripture Mat. 28.19 which is the ground of this Argument Yet briefly for the strengthening and clearing of the antecedent or Assumption contained in the text I shall propound these considerations to be remembred though some of them were touched before 1. That children are a very considerable part of Nations therefore comprehended under this command of discipling and baptizing Nations Especially considering 2. That no acception is made of them neither doth this or any other Scripture shew that they must be excluded out of this Commission Did ever Christ say or intimate thus much Though the children of Beleevers have heretofore been in Covenant and admitted to the sign of entrance thereto yet now in the time of the Gospel they are to be left out of Covenant and kept from the seals thereof as Infidels and Pagans till they professe their faith 3. They are not uncapable of being made disciples and baptized as hath been said 4. That one Nation of the Jews which unto the time of Christs giving this Commission to his Disciples Gen. 17.7 Exod. 12.42 had been in Covenant and enjoyed the seals thereof as his peculiar people had their children taken into Covenant with them and admitted to the seal of entrance which priviledge also Proselytes of other Nations had in common with the Jews 5. Not only among the Jews but also in all Nations Infant-children were alwaies devoted to the same God and religion as their parents and often if not alwaies by some solemn sign of initiation the devil not unfitly called Gods ape would have children with their parents dedicated to him Lev. 18.21 compared with 24 25 26. and it is so universal that children while Infants are still reputed to belong to the same religion and God with their parents as that the children of Papists Jews Turks and Indians c. are accounted from their mothers womb Papist Jews Turks and Indians c. untill by the use of reason and free-will they make defection from their fathers religion so that it seems to be of the very dictate of reason and law of nature that Infants should be esteemed to belong to the same God and religion as their parents whether true or false 6. The children of subjects and bondslaves are accounted the subjects and bondslaves to their Parents Sovereigns and Masters untill by some act of their own they cast off their yoke Now all Christians are subjects and servants to Christ their King and Lord therefore their children also are subjects and servants to God and Christ whiles Infants Lev. 25.41 42. Psal 116.16 7. Hence it cannot be rationally conceived that the Apostles did understand the Commission of discipling all Nations otherwise then so as to take in the children with their beleeving parents Arg. 6. Arg. 6 If all the Nations of the earth shall be blessed by Christ the seed of Abraham after his coming in the flesh as much or more then the Nation of the Jews were before the coming of Christ then surely the children of converted Nations must be in Covenant and have right to the seal of entrance thereinto for this was a great priviledge of the Jewish Nation before Christs coming It would be an hortible eclipsing of the blessednesse of the converted Gentiles and of the Jews when they shall be converted to have their children cut off from the Covenant and the seal thereof But the Nations of beleeving Gentiles shall be blessed as much or more in the time of the Gospel by Christ then the Jews were before his coming Gen. 22.18 Gal. 3.8 2 Cor. 3.7 8 9. Heb. 8.6 7. Therefore the children of beleeving Gentiles have right to the Covenant and seal of admittance thereinto which is Baptism For the fuller discovery of the strength of this Argument consider 4 things 1. What is said on the foregoing Argument is of use here also for the clearing of the extent and comprehensivenesse of the word Nation 2. Consider the several confirmations of the Proposition tending to clear the consequence 1. The Jews as hath been said had interest in the Covenant and seal of admission for their children in the Old Testament before Christs coming and this was in it self and their account doubtlesse a glorious priviledge Therefore Christians after Christs coming must have the same priviledge seeing no lesse but rather greater priviledges are promised to the beleeving Gentiles then the Jews had 2. Especially considering that now in the time of the Gospel this would be in it self and in the apprehension and desire of all godly parents accounted a most glorious priviledge now that their children should be in Covenant and admitted to the seal thereof and the contrary a fearfull losse I appeal to all that esteem the Covenant of God whether next to their own salvation they would not esteem their childrens being admitted to the Covenant of God and its seal an eminent priviledge what those that through the spirit of errour have cast off God his Covenant and truth judge we weigh not considering they are given over to a reprobate judgement It being unconceivable how those that ever tasted the goodnesse of God the priviledges of the Covenant and made right improvement of the seal thereof should not earnestly desire the same for their children whom nature and grace teacheth dearly to love Neither can any reason be given why this should be so great a priviledge before Christ and not remain a most desirable priviledge since Christs coming for parents to have their children in Gods Covenant and under his seal 3. Hence follows that it would be a sad eclipsing of the blessednessâ— comfort and glory of beleeving Gentiles if their children should be dashed oâ—â— from the priviledges of the Covenant which the Jews children had How could that of the Apostle be true Rom. 3.29 Is he the God of Jews only is he not also of the Gentiles yea of the Gentiles also if God have not as well taken the Gentiles with their children into Covenant as well as heretofore the Jews with their children How should the converted Gentiles rejoice with Gods people and praise him as well as the Jews according to the Prophecie cited by the Apostle Rom. 15.10 15. if they should be deprived of so grand a priviledge of Gods people which had been so long possessed by them and their Infants left out of Covenant and debarred the seal 4. What a lamentable fall and abatement of the beleeving Jews comfort and glory would befall
particulars thirdly Answered an Objection fourthly I come to the fourth thing which I promised which is to speak of the Assumption concerning which I need say no more then that it is plainly and fully proved in the Scriptures mentioned in the proposal of the Assumption and divers others setting forth the glory of Gospel-times Arg. Arg. 7 7. To whom the promise of the spiritual blessing represented and sealed in Baptism belongs Act. 2.38 39. to them the outward sign of Baptism it self belongs so the Apostle reasons and the sign and thing signified being correlatives must go together But the promise of Gods Spirit Act. 2.39 Isa 44.3 signified in Baptism and so of Regeneration Sanctification and Adoption belongs to the faithfull and their children Therefore Baptism it self belongs to them Arg. Arg. 8 8. If in the time of the Apostles when the gouernours of families beleeved their whole families thereupon were baptized with them Now also the children of beleeving parents being parts of their families are to be baptized But where the Apostles had drawn by the Ministry of the word governours of families to the faith they baptized with them their whole family Act. 16.14 15. 33 34. Therefore the children of beleeving parents are to be baptized For the clearing of the two last Arguments to avoid tediousnesse having been more large in the former then I intended I refer the Reader to what I have said in the Answer to the former Paper in the vindicating of those Scriptures Act. 2. 16. cited by the other party Arg. Arg. 9 9. They that are holy or Saints are to be baptized Children of beleeving parents are holy or Saints 1 Cor. 7.14 Therefore to be baptized See this Argument cleared in my first Book in Answer to A.R. and hereafter more may come forth for vindicating of that Scripture 1 Cor. 7.14 from exceptions Arg. Arg. 10 10. They that are members of the Church have right to Baptism for Baptism is a solemn sign or pledge of admittance into the Church 1 Cor. 12.12 13. Eph. 5.25 26. But the children of the faithfull are members of the Church 1. So they were amongst the Israelites and never yet dismembred 2. Such promises are made to them as none without the Church have right unto 3. Else they have no interest in Christs love no benefit by his death no purification and sanctification by his bloud nor is there any hope that if they die Infants they shall be presented holy and spotlesse glorious and unblamable before God all which are the peculiar priviledges of the Church not communicable to any but members thereof Eph. 4.25 26 27. So that if the children of Beleevers be not members of the Church they are without Aliens from the Common-wealth of Israel without hope without God whiles children which to affirm is most blasphemous to Gods grace Covenant and nature Therefore the children of Beleevers have right to Baptism Arg. Arg. 11 11. If the duties of the Covenant no lesse belong to Christian parents and their children in the time of the Gospel then they did to Jewish parents and their children under the Law It will follow that the Covenant it self and the priviledges and seal thereof do no lesse belong to them and their children then they did to the Jews and their children But the duties of the Covenant lie no lesse on Christian parents to teach and instruct their children Eph. 6.4 and on their children to learn the fear and nurture of the Lord now in the time of the Gospel then they lay on Jewish parents and children Therefore the Covenant its priviledges and the seal of admission no lesse belongs to Christian parents and their children then they did belong to Jewish parents and their children For the strengthening of the Proposition let these things be considered 1. Ordinarily and in the usual dispensation of the Covenant where God requires like duties he affords like priviledges I speak not of what God may do out of his prerogative or in some extraordinary case setting aside his dealing with men by way of command promise and threatning which is his way of transaction in Covenant 2. If there be any difference in the Christian Church compared with the Jewish and later dispensation of the Covenant compared with the former there is rather an increase of priviledges and lessening of burdens and duties then an increase of burdens and duties and lessening of priviledges 3. If you say otherwise Might not Christian parents if urged to the Religious education of their children by you answer By your judgement they are dogs and swine as being out of Covenant how can we offer holy instruction to them or exercise any Christian discipline over them bring them to publick assemblies or pray for them any otherwise then as Infidels were no this to cast Pearls to swine and give holy things to dogs Mat. 7.6 1 Cor. 5.12 What have we to do to pray with or exercise Discipline and Censure over those that are without What poor incouragements do you give us to bring them up for God when you tell us that they have no right to the Covenant of God Is not your practice in denying us the priviledge of the Covenant for our children and yet requiring the duties thereof worse then that of the false Apostles in putting a yoke on the Disciples necks which neither their fathers nor they were able to bear They indeed urged duties but allowed priviledges according to their apprehension and what had formerly been indeed a priviledge you urge duty but deny priviledges which do greatly ease burdens and facilitate duties But if you say that you do not urge the duty of Christian education of children c. as I fear practice speaks too loud What is this but to professe an intention to overthrow both the duties and priviledges of the Covenant and so bring in Atheism which if it take place in families will soon overspread the whole Church and particular persons 4. The Jews indeed were bound to circumcise their children and observe all those laws Ceremonial and Moral concerning them which were appointed by Moses but they had this ease and encouragement their children were in Covenant and had the seal thereof and they might expect the priviledges and blessings of the Covenant on their children by vertue of Gods promises Covenant and seal Now no such priviledges are allow'd to Christian parents in behalf of their children if these mens opinion stand and the Proposition hold not Obj. But if parents by their care bring them to actual faith and so under the Covenant then they shall enjoy the priviledges of the Covenant and seal thereof Ans 1. If that be all then by your opinion if they dye before actual faith as thousands of the children of the faithfull do in their infancy they perish as Aliens to the Covenant 2. The only way revealed in Scripture for parents first bringing their children under the Covenant is by faith
whereupon they have right to the seal of entrance Arg. Arg. 13 13. That doctrine and practice is to be abhorred which puts the Infants of Christians into the same condition with the children of Turks and Infidels leaves them in the visible kingdom of the devil as no visible members of the Church denies to them reasonable souls and cuts them off from all hopes of salvation whiles they are Infants This doctrine and practice I say is to be abhorred as most contrary to the Covenant of God set forth in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament contrary to the hopes prayers and comforts of Christian parents concerning their children while Infants and contrary to reasons and natures light which shews that Infants are reasonable creatures But the doctrine and practice of these Anabaptists leaves Christians children in the same condition with the children of Turks and Infidels as casting them out of Gods Covenant and Christs Kingdom which is the Church and denying to them the seal of admittance thereto and so leaving them in the visible kingdom of the devil denying to them faith without which they must certainly perish and reason without which they are bruits and so cut off from all hopes of salvation Therefore their doctrine and practice is to be abhorred Thus you have seen our Arguments or at least some of them Now before I conclude I will Answer two or three Questions or Objections Obj. 1. But if children of Beleevers have right to the Covenant Christ the promises and gift of the holy Ghost How can we know this Men of years if they beleeve and repent can make profession but how can children make profession in the Covenant that we may have sufficient warrant to baptize them Ans It 's true they cannot make profession of their interest in the Covenant and promises but that is done sufficiently for them by God the Father Son and holy Ghost speaking in Scripture as Gen. 17.7 Exod. 20.6 Psal 102.28 and 103.17 18. Psal 112.2 and 127.3 4 5. Es 44.3 Mar. 10.14 Act. 2.39 1 Cor. 2.14 c. These and many other Testimonies are given in Scripture by God himself concerning the right of the faithfuls children to the Covenant promise and Kingdom of God which I wish the Reader to turn over unto and observe Surely this testimony of God for children is not lesse then the testimony of men of years for themselves So that if parents when they bring their children to Baptism make a due profession of their repentance faith and resolution to walk with God in Covenant and both to accept Gods Covenant for themselves and their children and give up themselves and theirs to God in Covenant the Ministers and Congregations may have satisfaction concerning their childrens right to the Covenant and promise by vertue of these Scriptures and so to Baptism Obj. 2. If children of beleeving parents have title to the Covenant and promises either all have this title or some only If some only how will you distinguish them that those only may be baptized If all how is it that many prove wicked which were baptized in infancy Do you hold falling away from grace Ans The promises and Covenant belong to all the faithfuls children in regard of outward station in Covenant and right to the seal of entrance which is the thing now in question the inward efficacy we leave to the good pleasure of God The whole body of Israelites aged and children 1 Cor. 10.5 were Gods people by Covenant and under the promise Yet with many of them God was not well pleased The Churches of the New Testament are called Saints said to be in Christ and yet many persons therein proved wicked and eâ—roneous as may appear in those Epistles that are written to them giving them the title of Saints The Covenant and promises as they are outwardly dispensed are conditional neither doth God therein any further binde himself to his people then as the condition of regeneration holinesse repentance faith or obedience are found in them or performed by them Indeed the inward working of regeneration drawing to and giving Communion with Christ giving a new heart and spirit faith c. are absolutely bestowed according to Gods good pleasure upon what number of these persons externally in Covenant he seeth good according to the election of grace agreeably to those Scriptures Rom. 9.15 16 18. 2. Here is no more necessity then possibility of distinguishing between Elect and non-elect Infants their being members of the visible Church gives them right to the priviledge of new admitted members 3. Neither do we hold falling from the inward efficacy of grace Ioh. 13. â— 2 Per. 2.1 Rev. 3.1 7. Heb. 6.4.5 6. as from true solid Sanctification Justification and Adoption though we grant men may fall from the outward dispensation of the Covenant of grace and turn Apostates or continue under the outward dispensation and yet fall short of the saving efficacy of grace Mat 25.29 Yea moreover that those which have seemed to themselves and others to be Justified Sanctified and Adopted may fall from what they seemed to have and utterly perish 4. The Objection will hold as strongly against the baptizing of the professours of faith for not all those whom the Apostles or any others baptized upon their profession have held our many proved wicked and reprobate none can certainly distinguish among professours which are elect and which not Must they not therefore be baptized To conclude therefore They that by their own profession or Gods profession for them are discovered to have right to the outward dispensation of the Covenant let them enjoy it without gainsaying and let us leave the inward efficacy of the Covenant to God to whom alone it belongs Obj. 3. But what need you write so much in answering so little It seems your cause is not good you take so much pains about it Why did not you Answer as briefly as the other party Propounded Ans 1. The truth oft lies deeep and will not easily be found out as it is more precious then gold and silver Pro. 3 13 14. so it requires more diligent search Gold Mines are not obvious to every eye much skill and labour are requisite to finde them out and bring the gold to light 2. Though the other party have but briefly propounded their judgement and grounds thereof in their now-Answered Papers yet it is known what large discourses they have made amongst the people and how many Treatises are written on this subject 3. It is not an argument of a bad cause to be somewhat large in clearing it the better the cause is the more it deserves diligence in handling of it least we should wrong God his people and truth by sleightinesse A cup of poison may be prepared drunk down and dispersed into the body in an hour which the wisest Physitian can hardly expell out of the body with all his skill and pains in many moneths A desperate