hence conclude that infants of Christian parents should bee debarred from the Sacrament of Baptisme in their infancy And the reason is because their parents are not now found in the state of heathenish Paganisme as were those among whom Christ sent His Apostles before they received Christ and His Gospell but now they stand in Grace and Covenant with God as His peculiar people holy and beloved Now albeit it is a truth that all children of baptized parents are baptizable and to be baptized yet to prevent impertinencies and all collaterall cavillations I propound the question concerning paedo-baptisme in these termes viz. Whether children of holyest parents in purest Churches are to be baptized in their infancy The point between us and the compleat Anabaptists is simply concerning paedo-baptisme If my controversy lay with the Semi-Anabaptists I would lay my proposition in other termes but the compleat Anabaptist doth hold that no child in infancy is baptizable let his parents be never so holy and let the administration be never so pure Now we maintaine the affirmative of this question against the Anabaptists upon these grounds viz. Reason 1 First because Infants of Christians are holy 1 Cor. 7.14 cum Rom. 11.16 And à Spiritu Sancto recepto ad Baptismi administrationem is an invincible argument with St. Peter Acts 10.47 Can any man forbid water that these should not be baptized which have received the Holy Ghost as well as wee Ob. I but say our busy-Anabaptists there was a visible manifestation of the holy Ghost in a miraculous manner up-those that Peter speakes of there but there is no manifestation of the Holy Ghost upon Infants of Christian parents in their infancy more then upon Infants of Turks and Pagans Sol. I answer that there was a manifestation of the Holy Ghost as well to the eye of sense as to the eye of faith but here to the eye of faith only That was miraculous extra ordinary this oraculous ordinary And a standing Oracle is as much to be credited as a Miracle if not more For miracles are but secondary confirmations of divine faith but Gods written Oracles are primary Manifestations of holinesse may be fallacious but Gods Oracles are certain and can never deceive And the singer of God hath written holinesse upon Infants of Christians and Paul Gods Embassadour hath proclaimed it unto us A writing and a proclamation that the heilish spite and virulent tongues of clamouring Anabaptists shall never be able to obliterate or disanull by their bastard exposition of this sacred Oracle forcing it to speak the strange language of a seduced Anabaptist and not the heavenly language of the sacred Scriptures a practise plainly diabolicall and hellish But put case oh monster that God the Father God the Sonne and God the Holy Ghost should come unto thee and say these are holy children Doest thou think Gods meaning were that they are no bastards but lawfully begotten Surely if that should be Gods meaning He should not speak according to the usuall language of his owne written word For tell me where God termes children holy for their being meer legitimates Canst thou bring one text of Scripture where children are said to be holy unlesse it be in relation unto the holy Covenant under which they were borne And if God should say that such children are holy because of the holy Covenant under which they were borne as children are said to be holy for that only reason in the Scripture Did not God in this say unto thee I have set these children apart unto my selfe Psal 4.3 Did not God in so saying say unto thee set them a part unto Me as My Portion And how wouldest thou set them apart unto God but by putting Gods seale upon them Well we need not suppose Gods speaking thus unto thee for God doth so speak unto thee and unto all men in this sacred Oracle And on children of Christian parents it must stand as an unchangeable Oracle that they are holy Quest But say Anabaptists that children of Christians are holy the text is expressely cleare but what holinesse doth the Apostle meane Sol. I answer that doubtlesse the Apostle meanes such holinesse as the Prophets in the old Testament doe meane when they call the children of Gods Covenant-people the holy seed Not holinesse by legitimation as Bellarmine the Jesuite and his disciples the Anabaptists dreame but such holinesse as hath the promise of the kingdome of heaven Mark 10.13 16. Matth. 19.13 14 15. Luk. 18.15 16 17. Ob. I but say Anabaptists these were not children in propriety of speech but young beginners in Christianity and such as were little in their own eyes as Matth. 18.1 6. Sol. The stories are not the same For it 's said in Mat. 18. that Christ called a little child and set him in the middest of His disciples to teach them humility and in the other places that we have cited Mark 10. Matth. 19. Luk. 18. that they brought children unto Christ that He should blesse them And to say that the words are not taken in propriety of speech in these texts is just like their other stuffe For 1. In the places that we have quoted its said that the children were brought unto Christ not led and presented only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 apportabant borne to Christ as wee beare a burthen 2. They were such 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as St. Luke termes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 children newly borne 3. The disciples blamed those that brought them And would they blame men for bringing young beginners in in Christianity weake Christians and such as were little in their owne eyes unto Christ 4. They very gesture of Christ proves them to be children in propriety of speech For it is said that Christ tooke them up in his armes And thus you see how these shuffling juglers will catch at any thing and so can they alleage Scripture they care not how little it is to purpose so they may puzzle others and avoid the evidence of truth against themselves Quaest But put case say they we grant the places to be meant of Children in propriety of speech how can you hence conclude that they ought to be baptized Sol. Very well for if the Kingdome of God which is the proper inheritance of Saints doth belong unto them then the seale and cognizance thereof is theirs in all equity But the end wherefore wee alleaged these Scriptures is to prove that the holinesse attributed unto children by Paul 1 Cor. 7.14 is the holinesse of Gods Kingdome or the holinesse of Gods grace under which these children were borne as the children of the Covenant by birth because borne of a parent in covenant And infants are no where in Scripture phrased holy but in relation to the holy Covenant under which they were borne And so from the covenant their title stands good to the initiall seale thereof which under the Gospell is Baptisme Quaest If the holinesse of the Covenant gives
the mysticall part of them as they are of spirituall use to confirm the Covenant of Grace and to further a man in the way to Heaven And so circumcision was that unto the Jewes before Christs incarnation as Baptisme is to Christians since Now to overthrow this Anabaptists usually alleadge two things viz. First they alleadge that Baptisme cannot be the same unto Christians since Christs incarnation as Circumcision was unto the Jewes before and why Because say they Circumcision was to be administred unto Infants on the eighth day but Baptisme is not to bee administred unto Infants on the eight day Sol. This objection proves nothing against the point in hand for the eighth day fell out to bee in such a time wherein the Infants could make no sacramentall use of the Sacrament of Circumcision and they were a blanke in their sense as much as our Infants Under the law they were to be kept from Circumcision untill the eight day for a ceremoniall reason Levit. 12.2 3. And this makes nothing at all against what we have said touching the substantiall identity of Circumcision and Baptisme For things that doe differ circumstantially may yet be altogether one in substance Secondly they alleadge that under the law females were not circumcised but under the Gospell they are baptized Sol. We answer that this neither makes nothing against the point in hand which is paedo-baptisme for grant that the proportion holds between Circumcision and Baptisme were it but in males this were enough to refute their owne conclusion For this would inferre that the state of infancy doth not make persons uncapable of the initiall seale of the Covenant of grace under the Gospell But they oppose paedo-baptisme in males and females But we answer that under the law the females were circumcised in the males as the Church is circumcised in Christ The males bearing the type of Christ upon their flesh and the males and females in matrimoniall conjunction representing Christ and His Church And unto this the Apostle alludes Ephes 5.22 33. And now such a typicall discrimination of sexes being removed Christ exhibited puts no difference in Baptisme between males and females Gal. 3.27 28. So then the argument stands good that Infants are capable of Baptisme because borne under the Covenant of Grace Reason 3 Thirdly Infants of Christians are to be baptized in their infancy because we have divine warrant for it For the text here Matth. 28.19 imports that all the children of the Christian Church are to be baptized And Gods Covenant of grace with the parents put under seale unto them by Baptisme doth necessarily put the Infants of such parents under the same Covenant of grace as the seed of such parents For to grant that baptized parents are put under the Covenant of grace by divine warrant is to grant that the children of such parents are put under the same Covenant by the same warrant For the separating of Children from parents in Covenant is to dissolve that Covenant which God made with Abraham in the promised seed for the eternall salvation of Jewes and Gentiles Now the very being of the parents under the seale of this Covenant doth prove unanswerably that their infants are in this Covenant And if this proves the being of Infants in Covenant then it proves unanswerably their right of having the Covenant put under seale unto them by divine warrant and so by necessary consequence their divine right unto Baptisme For by birth they are in the Covenant because borne under the Covenant as children of such parents And admit the parents unto Baptisme upon the testimony of their faith and that brings the children of such parents into the Church by birth so then baptize the parents and thereby of necessity you make the Infants of such parents baptizable by divine warrant and it cannot be avoyded Now that Matth. 28.19 doth warrant our baptizing of Infants whose parents are baptized may thus be evinced and made good viz. All true members of the Christian Church are to be baptized by Christs warrant in Matth. 28.19 But all Infants of baptized parents are true members of the Christian Church Ergo All Infants of baptized parents are to bee baptized by Christs warrant in Matth. 28.19 The Minor proposition I thus prove viz. That proposition whose contradictory is false and absurd is a true proposition But the contradictory of this Minor proposition is false and absurd ergo This Minor proposition is a true proposition Now the contradictory of this Minor proposition is this viz. Some Infants of baptized parents are not true members of the Christian Church But this proposition is false and absurd and as much as to say as some Infants of baptized parents are Aliens Pagans and Insidels Thus then I argue viz. Infants of baptized parents are either true members of the Christian Church or else they are Aliens Pagans and Infidels there is no medium there is no neuter But Infants of baptized parents are not Aliens Pagans and Infidels Ergo. Infants of baptized parents are true members of the Christian Church And so by necessary consequence Christs Commission Matth. 28.19 is a divine warrant for the baptizing of Infants whose parents are baptized Now let the Anabaptists shew us any child or infant of baptized parents that is not a true member of the Christian Church and prove him by the word of God to be no member of the Christian Church and we will not baptize that child Again to contrive my Syllogisme in another mood which may as well accomplish my purpose and prove that Christs Commission for baptizing is for the baptizing of Infants whose parents are baptized as well as for the baptizing of the alien upon the testimony of his faith in Christ Thus I argue viz. All true members of the Christian Church are to bee baptized by vertue of Christs Commission in Matth. 28.19 But some Infants of baptized parents are true members of the Christian Church Ergo. Some Infants of Christian parents are to be baptized by vertue of Christs Commission in Matth. 28.19 Now that some Infants of Christians are true members of the Christian Church may thus be proved viz. All true members of Christ in the Church are true members of the Christian Church But some Infants of baptized parents are true members of Christ in the Church ergo Some Infants of baptized parents are true members of the Christian Church Now then if Christs Commission Mat. 28.19 be that we should baptize all true members of the Christian Church and that some Infants are true members of the Christian Church then some Infants of Christian parents are to be baptized by vertue of Christs Commission Mat. 28.19 And this proves that persons may be baptizable in their infancy and ought to be baptized And as for what you instance from the practise of the Apostles that will not serve your turne For the Apostolicall Ministery lay in gathering of a primitive Church from Judaisme and Paganisme But instance
in the practise of ordinary pastours in a Church gathered as the Church of Corinth or any other mentioned in the new Testament and bring me thence but one instance that any children whose parents were baptized and in the state of Christianity were held back from baptisme untill they could give an accompt of their faith in person and then you will speak to the present condition of Gods Church in these times But this you cannot doe and therefore in drawing extraordinary instances into an ordinary canon to binde all the Churches of God unto like practise is to overthrow the nature of Gods Covenant of Grace and to make that a personall Covenant i. e. to terminate in the person baptized which God hath made sociall i. e. to beleevers and their seed jointly saying I will be thy God and the God of thy seed in their generations Now for this Commission in the 28. of Matth. verse 19 20. It s a full and univerfall Commission belonging to all the Ministers of Christ under the Gospell unto the worlds end And of these Ministers some are extraordinary and to cease and some are ordinary and to continue So then in this short Commission here is somewhat Apostolicall and peculiar to extraordinary Ministers which cannot be applyed unto nor expected from ordinary pastours in setled Churches As to plant foundations to work miracles as proofes of their immediate calling from God to be led by an unerring spirit in delivering immediate oracles from Christ as standing canons of divine faith and worship c. And so their practise was extraordinary and no such thing is to be expected from ordinary pastours but to build upon the foundation which the Apostles laid Now the Apostles committed the Churches gathered unto ordinary pastours and teachers which must proceed in the work of the Ministery where the Apostles left for the edifying of the body of Christ c. And that this is such an universall Commission as we speak of the Apostle Paul makes cleare and puts it out of all doubt Ephes 4.8 13. where he expoundes the meaning of this Commission For whereas Christ in this text here saith All power is given unto Me goe yee therefore and teach all Nations c. Paul upon the same ground and occasion saith when He ascended up on high meaning Christ He led captivity captive and gave gifts unto men c. And He gave some Apostles some Prophets and some Evangelists and some pastours and teachers for the perfecting of the Saints for the work of the Ministery for the edifying of the body of Christ c. For how long Vntill the end of the world saith Christ Vntill we all come in the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Sonne of God unto a perfect man unto the measure of the stature of the fulnesse of Christ sayes Paul See then what confusion the Anabaptists doe speak when they urge from this text Apostolicall imitation in ordinary pastours without distinguishing of what is herein peculiar to extraordinary Ministers and what is common to Apostles and ordinary pastours This I thought good to speak to prevent a mischiefe that might befall unstable soules through the jugling fraud cunning craftinesse of the Anabaptists for want of a right understanding of our Saviours mind in this text For they will hence take occasion to cry up Christs Commission unto His Apostles in Matth. 28.19 20. viz. of making men Disciples before they could bee capable of Baptisme putting no difference between those that are to be made Christians of Aliens and those that are borne Christians of Christians and also putting no difference between the Apostolicall ministration and the Pastorall ministration and so by a confused urging of the text in the strict letter they seduce many an unstable soule unto their hereticall practise of rebaptizing Whereas could they but look upon this Commission as an universall Commission they would soone discerne the fraud of these men and would not bee carried away by them Christians then in these dayes should labour to be men in knowledge and not bee alwayes children tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine by the sleight of men and cunning craftinesse whereby they lye in waite to deceive Ephes 4.14 Seducers have a sleight whereby they can deceive children i. e. men of little knowledge in divine mysteries and of an unstable and wavering mind These seducers can use the Scriptures as the juglers use their dice. For as the jugler hath a sleight to make his dice to turne up what may serve his turne to defraud such as he playes withall so seducers have a sleight when they deale with men of little knowledge and of a wavering minde to make the Scriptures speak their owne language for to winne men unto their party And the metaphor is here by the Apostle taken from the jugler for hee saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Men deceive novices and ungrounded Christians But how In the dice-playing of men And so our Anabaptists meeting with Novices and ungrounded christians will make this and other Scriptures speak their own principles and language to deceive men and lead them into error And therefore I thought good to acquaint you with the true meaning of this text which the jugling Anabaptists pervert to their own ends and doe not make it speak the mind of Christ but the language of their own seduced and seducing hearts and t is blasphemy to say that any text of Scripture doth speak their hellish principles Simple ones may be carried away with their good words and faire speeches but grounded Christians know and see their juglings and method of deceiving well enough The text warrants and commands the baptizing of all true members of the Christian Church And therefore it warrants the baptizing of Infants of baptized parents and this Inference cannot be avoyded And so much for this third reason for paedo baptisme Reason 4 Fourthly we baptize Infants of baptized parents because the Lord doth ordinarily make our baptizing of Infants effectuall to the proper ends whereunto true Baptisme is appointed in the Gospell Now the ends are to put on Christ Gal. 3.27 To dye unto sinne and to live unto God Rom. 6.3 4 5. 1 Pet. 3.21 And God doth ordinarily make Baptisme effectuall unto these ends in persons that were baptized in their infancy For among those that were baptized in their infancy wee have as humble meek and mortified Christians men and women as any among the Anabaptists to say no more We have those that dye dayly unto sinne and are vexed in soule to see the abominations of others Againe wee have those that beare upon them the markes of the Lord Jesus Their lives are holy and lovely They are sound in the faith grave in their behaviour and ready unto every good work They deny themselves they advance free grace they afflict their soules and seek the peace of Hierusalem Ordinarily our ministery doth gaine them and sweetly
winne upon them they grow in grace and submit unto Gods word in all duties And certainly God doth not ordinarily work by a false ministery and a false Sacrament I say God doth not thus ordinarily by false and unlawfull meanes though sometimes He brings light out of darknesse Now I challenge all the Brownists and Anabaptists in the world to answer me this one thing though nothing bee more rife with them then to condemne our Ministers and Baptisme as false and Antichristian Certainly God would not ordinarily give testimony to a false Ministery and false Sacrament by making them effectuall to the proper ends whereunto the true Ministery and Sacraments are appointed in the Gospell The Apostle Paul useth this very argument to prove his calling to be right and from the Lord. 1 Cor. 9.1 2. saying Am I not an Apostle Am I not free Have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord Are not you my work in the Lord If I bee not an Apostle to others yet doubtlesse I am to you for the seale of mine Apostleship are yee in the Lord. 1 Cor. 4.15 Reason 5 Fiftly and lastly we baptize Infants of Christian parents because it is the practise of other reformed Churches which God hath blessed in that way with great increase of heavenly gifts Now if we should forbeare by virtue of a divine restraint as we pretend then wee should lay iniquity upon whole kingdomes and godly societies as taking liberty where God hath put a restraint And how should we justifie our practise and condemne theirs by the word of God For they would tell us that we put restraint upon mens consciences where God hath put none And that we misinterprēt the 28. of Matth. verse 19. And that our inter pretation of the text is absurd and ridiculous and that neither Christs Commission nor the Apostles practise doth any way countenance our cause Againe they would tell us that wee doe evade the evidence of 1 Cor. 7.14 against us by a base and beggerly shift plainly derogatory to the Majesty of the holy Scriptures in saying that children of a beleever are said there to bee holy in opposition to bastardy as if they were holy for no other more noble cause but for their being meer legitimates a notion too low for the Spirit of divine Oracles a notion plainly ridiculous in the apprehension of every ordinary capacity the Scriptures no where terming children holy but for the holy Covenants sake under which they were borne Now for us to pretend Apostolicall imitation and walking according to Christs primitive Commission and yet to put off Apostolicall Authority with such a bastardly glosse would give other Churches which we oppose just cause to think that our way is rather a diabolicall delusion then an ordinance of Christ and that phantasticall humours doe rather sway with us then conscience Againe they would tell us that our way of rebaptizing hath been alwayes condemned in all reformed Churches by the holiest and ablest Christians for an heresie and that paedo-baptisme was never so condemned in any reformed Church but practised and maintained an Ordinance of Jesus Christ under the Gospell and that God ordinarily hath blessed it by making the same effectuall to the comfort and sanctification of the baptized Furthermore they would tell us that denying Baptisme unto Infants of baptized parents is grounded upon an hellish foundation and is the inlet of many hatefull heresies which have been alwayes found with the abettours of this practise though at their first entrance into this trade they have not been so vile and loathsome Yet for the maintaining of this way when opposed by the Churches and Ministers of Christ they have been enforced to hold many grosse and palpable heresies which our Anabaptists will be driven unto though as yet they deny not the doctrine of predestination orginall sinne in Infants the morality of the Christian Sabbath the Person of the Holy Ghost c. I say though as yet they seem to be more tolerable they must be driven unto these and many moe such abominations or else they cannot hold up their trade Finally they would produce many learned authours that have condemned our practice and refuted our tenents which to this day are not answered by any of the contrary party Now for us to make so pitifull a schisme from all the Churches of God and not to refute those that have written against us would argue rather obstinate folly then conscience and zeale And so much for this first Generall THE COVENANTS Plea for INFANTS vindicated Anabaptist A Briefe answer unto Mr WYNNNELS arguments and reasons that hee delivered in publique for to prove the lawfulnesse of Infants Baptisme with propositions annexed Answer A full reply to your answer vindicating the arguments and reasons for paedo-baptisme against your frivolous exceptions with an answer to your annexed propositions Anabaptist First you argue from the difference of state and time of the Pagan Gentiles in the Apostles times and us now under the Gospell For you say that they were such as had their severall country Idols and that they were strangers to the Common-wealth of Israel and without God in the world For answer unto this First we grant that this was the generall state and condition of the Pagan-Gentiles but there were many particular persons as Cornelius and others is the Acts who were men truly fearing God and such as were called out of the state of Paganisme unto the profession of the Gospell and therefore they were not all under Paganisme and yet we doe not find that any of the seed of those persons were baptized but only such that did heare the word and beleeve Act. 10. latter end Answer Well If this were their state in generall that is as much as I require And for particular extraordinary instances they cannot infringe the truth of an ordinary and generall canon However to the point Shew one example that any of the seed of Cornelius or of any Jew or Gentile converted to Christianity were baptized when they were able to answer for themselves and not before and then and not before then the cause is yours Iohn Baptist baptized a world of people And from Iohn Baptist to the end of the Acts was about forty yeares But shew that any one of the posterity of those John baptized or of those the Disciples baptized who were more then those Iohn baptized Jo. 4.12 I say give one example of any one such baptized when growne up and then you speak to the purpose Else give over calling for examples Anabaptist Againe further Admit we grant you that this were the condition of them all in particular as well as in generall yet this would make nothing for your purpose For wee Gentiles are all Generally as bad in our naturall condition as they were and we are such as know not God nay are open and professed enemies to God as well the seed of beleevers as other stand therefore seeing our condition by nature
first baptized were denied Baptisme untill they could give account of their faith or else you speak not to the point seeing children borne of Christian parents are Christians by birth but such as you instance in were not And is this faire dealing think you And what talke you of an imputed holinesse in a child that it should draw from it parents What imputed holinesse is it you meane Imputative righteousnesse Doe you think that imputative righteousnesse is in us How differs it then from inherent righteousnesse The words imply a contradiction And had you ever been rightly grounded in the principles of our Religion you would never have vented so absurd a passage For the children doe not draw holinesse from their parents in Covenant but as companions in Covenant with their parents are primitively holy as well as their parents by vertue of the same Covenant For the expresse words of the Covenant are I will be thy God and the God of thy seed Here the Covenant puts parents and children both in equall relation unto God But here you renew your old quarrell against the Covenant of grace like an old trotting horse let never so skilfull a rider use his best art to bring him into a better pace yet the carrion will fall into his old joulting trot againe so you tell us againe that circumcision was not administred unto Abrahams seed by vertue of any holinesse imputed unto Infants by the Covenant but by vertue of Gods command This is your meaning however your expressions be And we answer againe that because they were an holy seed that therefore the Lord commanded them to be circumcised For the Covenant in order of nature must goe before the confirmation and seale thereof So that the ground of Gods commanding Abrahams seed to be circumcised was their being in the holy i. e. a seed set apart unto God from other nations And therefore the Lord doth not barely command Abraham to circumcise his males but He brings it in with a THEREFORE to shew that the Covenant having made them an holy seed therefore they wereto have the initiall seale imprinted on those holy persons For marke the words Gen. 17.7 12. of the Covenant I will establish my Covenant between Me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting Covenant to be a God unto thee and to thy seed after thee And will give unto thee and thy seed after thee the land wherein thou art a stranger all the land of Canaan for an everlasting possession and I will be their God verse 7 8. And hereupon God said unto Abraham thou shalt circumcise thy males therefore Not barely thou shalt circumcise thy males but thou shalt circumcise thy males therefore i. e. Because of the foregoeing Covenant in the 7. and 8. verses This inference we have verse 9. in these words viz. Thou shalt keep my Covenant therefore thou and thy seed after thee in their generations And then whereas they might have asked the Lord what that Covenant was which He would have them to keep The Lord answers in the to verse after this manner viz. This is My Covenant which yee shall keep between Me and you and thy seed after thee every man-child shall bee circumcised c. Here circumcision is called by the name of the Covenant because the Covenant is the ground of it And circumcision did but put the covenant under seale in which Covenant those children were before by birth being borne of parents with whom God had stricken Covenant And so this lame shift will not serve your turne And to conclude as little to the purpose is it which you say concerning Baptisme for you say that Baptisme is not to be given by vertue of holinesse imputed to the child but by vertue of Christs Commission as if holinesse imputed unto a child by vertue of an holy Covenant were not Christs Commission The nations which Christ sent His Apostles unto were not said to bee holy and therefore by teaching they must make them holy before they baptize them But the children of those holy ones were holy by birth and so called by God himself and therefore to be put under the initiall seale of Gods holy Covenant as their right and priviledge by nature and birth Anabaptist Againe the Apostle doth not so much as any way make mention of baptisme in that place viz. 1 Cor. 7.14 and therefore your reason is groundlesse from this place for Baptisme of Infants Answer How groundlesse this exception is he that hath but halfe an eye may see As if to be holy by vertue of Gods holy Covenant were not a sufficient reason to argue a mans right unto the initiall seale of this holy Covenant according to the ministration of the covenant under which he is born doth live Now the initiall seale of the Covenants ministration under the Gospell is Baptisme but children borne of Christian parents under the Gospell are holy by vertue of Gods holy Covenant and therefore children borne of such parents have right unto Baptisme The Covenant of God is engraven upon them by birth and therefore the initiall seale is their present priviledge And so the place proves it And the reason is substantiall And it proves you to bee sacrilegious theeves and robbers for denying Infants baptisme in their infancy And by Gods help I 'le maintaine this charge against you before the dreadfull tribunall of the Lord Jesus Christ at the last day And in the interim I shall endeavour to preserve as many as I can from being seduced by your faire pretences Anabaptist Againe you parallell this place with Rom. 11.16 where you say that is the root be holy so are the branches Now this root if you take it in the litterall sense as it is spoken then it is meant of Abraham only and he was the root and the beleeving Jewes the branches and therefore Abraham is called the Father of the faithfull and in this sense beleevers are his seed and branches But if you take it in a more spirituall sense then it may be meant of Christ being the root and all beleevers are His members But we conceive to be chiefly meant of Abraham the root and beleevers the branches and so will this make nothing to the purpose neither is it the same with the other place in Corinthians 1 Epist cap. 7. verse 14. Answer If I paralled Rom. 11.16 and 1 Cor. 7.14 to prove that the children of parents in Covenant are holy by vertue of Gods holy Covenant I shall not draw my lines awry Seeing the expresse words of the Covenant are I will bee thy God and the God of thy seed And both places prove that both parents and children are holy by vertue of Gods holy Covenant with them And so both places are coincident to prove the same thing though there may be some circumstantiall differences The place then in Rom. 11.16 makes much for my purpose For my purpose was to prove that as
thing is to bee required of the children of baptized parents but as holy by birth being borne of such parents are to be baptized in their infancy because in their infancy God hath made them holy and declared so much unto us The Covenant under which children are borne makes them capable of the initiall seale according to the ministration under which they are borne whether of a Saviour to come or of a Saviour already come Anabaptist Againe there is difference in the persons for there were none but males circumcised but wee have example of male and female baptized Further c. ut infra Answer This is no argument at all against paedo-baptisme for males were circumcised in their infancy and the Covenant with the Jewes and us Christians is the same spirituall and eternall Covenant binding to divine faith and obedience assuring us and them of eternall happinesse through Gods mercy in the merits of Jesus Christ Now if Male Infants had the seale of such an inheritance and Covenant upon such spirituall grounds in Such a Saviour binding the circumcised Infant to divine faith universall obedience though he could discern none of these matters then Male-Infants of Christians being borne under the same holy Covenant of grace are subjects capable of the initiall seale thereof as children of parents in Covenant with God and of the holy seed by birth So then to exclude females grant males to bee capable of Baptisme upon the ground of circumcision is to conclude against your owne principle But all Israelites females as well as the males stood in Gods acceptation for circumcised as appears in the story of Sampson who seeing a woman of the daughters of the Philistines in Timnath fell in love with her and spake to his Father and Mother to get her for him to wife Then his Father and his Mother said unto him Is there never a woman among the daughters of thy brethren or among all my people that thou goest to take a wife of the uncircumcised Philistines Judges 14.1 2 3. Now if the women of Israel had been reputed uncircumcised then as good for Sampson to chuse one as well as the other as good a woman of the daughters of the Philistines as a woman of the daughters of his brethren What cause then had his Father and his Mother to blame him for his choice As good one uncircumcised woman as another More of this is to be seen in our Sermon-notes to which as yet I have received no answer But I beleeve that this concerning females is none of your maine foundations you build your Religion upon Anabaptist Further they differ in the time for they were to bee circumtised the eighth day but we have no set time for Baptisme but when they doe beleeve then they are to be baptized And therefore if you rightly consider these things and the maine differences hereof I think there is no reasonable man that understands himselfe and the Scripture will goe about to parallell circumcision with Baptisme in respect of the practising of it Answer We shewed you out of Levit. 12.2 3. that there was a speciall reason why the man-childe should not be circumcised till the eighth day And this reason you passe by untouched because you couldnot answer it And I finde no such reason why baptisme now should be forborne untill any set time Now if circumcision had beene forborne untill the eighth day because till then infants could not and then they could beleeve this were to the purpose But I see you faulter in all things You say much and prove nothing If you aske Physitians why in time of the Law infants were not to be circumcised till the eighth day They will tell you that untill the seventh day being a criticall day and so a dangerous day were past no wound was to be made in the flesh of a tender infant But you say that under the Gospell when persons beleeve then they are to be baptized But I say that Infants of Christians in their infancie are not Insidels but Saints and of the holy seed and therefore beleevers and so are to be baptized in their infancy unlesse you can shew where the Scripture calls the Infants of Gods people in Covenant Vnbeleevers And therefore if you rightly consider these things and the substantiall agreement betweene Circumcision and Baptisme I thinke there is no reasonable man that understands himselfe and the Scripture but will judge your exceptions to be frivolous and that this Argument stands firme which is that Baptisme is unto us as Circumcision was to the Jewes Col. 2.11 The Covenant the same the ends and significations the same for substance Infants were admittable there Ergo here else children in worse case since Christ than before Reason 3 The third Reason Anabaptist Thirdly you seeme to draw a reason from divine Authority for Infants baptisme and you seeme to prove it out of Mat. 28.19 But here give us leave to tell you plainly that you are foulely mistaken and you wrest the Text For Christ bids them goe and teach all Nations and them that are taught must be baptized For Christ doth not say goe and teach all Nations and so baptize all the Nation but goe teach them Now you know there is great difference betweene preaching to a people and teaching of a people for you may preach to a thousand people and it may be not above two or three of all those taught And therefore Christ bids teach them first and then baptize them But however c. ut infra Answer My third Argument for Paedo-baptisme from Mat. 28.19 runs thus The Commandement of baptizing is universall to the whole Church but Infants of Christian parents are members of the Church and therefore the command of baptizing is to be extended unto them as before we have amply declated Now if Infants of such parents be not members of the Church then so dying they cannot be saved sithence none can be saved but by Christ and Christ came to save his Church onely Ephes 5.26 Wherein now I pray am I so fouly mistaken and wherein doe I wrest the Text Christ saith indeed that such as are taught must be baptized but Christ saith not that none must be baptized but such as are taught Prove that or let this Text alone The Text saith baptize all in the Church therefore Infants of baptized parents unlesse you can shew a place that exempts them Christ doth not say goe teach all Nations and so baptize all the Nation Neither did I nor will unlesse the whole Nation shall embrace the doctrine of Christ And then the whole Nation must be baptized and their seed after them in their infancy as Christians by birth Ob. But the baptized must believe and repent Acts 2. Matth. 3. c. Sol. Those Texts must bee restrained to the persons in hand So 1 Thess 3. He that labours not must not eate i.e. men that can labour Children though they cannot labour yet must eate Infants
Apostles being extraordinary Ministers which did not nay could not be found in ordinary Pastours and Teachers Now ordinary Pastours must preach and baptize as well as the Apostles What then is peculiar to Apostles as being extraordinary Ministers in this Commission I answer that it 's peculiar to Apostles here being pen-men of the Holy Ghost inspired immediately by the Holy Ghost to plant foundations to deliver binding rules of faith and worship immediately from God unto the Churches which before were not given unto the sonnes of men By their preaching and working of miracles they were to convince Jewes and Gentiles that Christ the sonne of the Virgin Mary which the Jewes did crucifie was the true Messias and Saviour of mankinde the onely begotten sonne of God And such as did embrace the doctrine and faith of Christ they must baptize And many were called unto the obedience of the faith by the doctrine and miracles of the Apostles and these did fulfill their ministery when they had planted these foundations and delivered the full canon of the Gospell unto the Churches and so being thus planted they did deliver over the Churches unto ordinary pastours and teachers as holy companies in Covenant with God whereas before they were Idolaters and Pagans and murtherers Now I hope you expect not new canons of sacred Scriptures you doe not expect that ordinary Ministers should work miracles The practise of the Apostles is not then to be followed in things of extraordinary priviledge but in matters of ordinary faith and mortality Now ordinary pastours finde parents in the state of Christianity in Covenant with God and under His seale and therefore they doe and must baptize their children in their infancy The strict urging of Apostolicall imitation is wicked and plaine confusion something is here peculiar to extraordinary Ministers Anabaptist Nay further you grant us that Baptisme hath its Commission from this text Why then wee would know where and when Christ gave any Commission to alter it If any I pray shew it us If none how dare you or any man to alter and change the Commission and Commands of Christ Answer I told you that Baptisme was here mentioned occasionally and that it was instituted long before in John the Baptist Neither did Apostles now begin to receive a Commission to preach and baptize for they had received this Commission before and they did preach and baptize But now they had a Commission to goe unto all nations whereas before Christs resurrection they were to keep within the precincts of Judea And for an alteration of the commission by baptizing Infants of Christians we acknowledge none neither can you prove it an alteration but distinguish of what is peculiar to Apostles in this generall Commission and of what is common to Apostles and ordinary pastours and you are answered I say in this short summe of words we have the Apostolicall ministery and the pastorall ministery included The Apostolicall ministery being extraordinary and to bee but for a time is ceased and no ordinary Ministers are to exercise such a ministery as the Apostles did by vertue of their peculiar function neither doe we nor can wee expect any such Ministers because we ought not to expect any new canon of holy Scripture nor an alteration of the present Liturgy Heb. 8.6 The canon of the sacred Scripture is full and the present Liturgy is to continue unto the worlds end And therefore it 's absurd and impious for you to utter such confusion to use your owne phrase and urge the Apostolicall Commission upon ordinary pastours in the strict letter And you run it over againe and againe and still you have the Apostles Commission and practice up whereas if you look upon their Commission and practice as extraordinary and Apostolicall both are peculiar unto them and to cease with them And as I said before Apostles are not to be followed by us in things of extraordinary priviledge but in matters of ordinary faith and morality And so however your peevish reasonings may lead your selves into a fooles paradise yet they shall never drive us from the wayes of Christ Anabaptist Nay further those to whom Christ gave this Commission unto He said He would be with them unto the end of the world but wee know that the Disciples lived not to the end of the world And therefore the Commission doth still last to the end of the world Thus for your third reason Answer The Commission indeed may be meant of a succession of persons in the ministeriall function unto the worlds end But yet it cannot be denyed but that somewhat in this generall Commission is Apostolicall as to plant foundations and to have an immediate Commission from God for to be the pen-men of the sacred canon Ministers doe not now deliver a new canon of divine faith and worship nor doe they prove their calling by miracles They teach the Church of Saints only that which is left them by Apostles and Prophets Ordinary Ministers preach and baptize and God is with them and also will be with their survivers in that holy function unto the worlds end And thus my third reason is good and stand it will against the strongest assaults of Satan and his wicked instruments Reason 4 The fourth Reason Anabaptist Fourthly you reason from the fruites and effects of Baptisme saying that God did ordinarily blesse this Baptisme unto Infants But truly S wee cannot but wonder at your folly in rendring such a reason as this Well Seeing you have rendred it we desire to answer it You say c. ut infra Answer To see impudency in the face of an Anabaptist is a thing that I no more wonder at then to see fishes in the water or flying fowles upon the wing And to clamour where you cannot answer is an old trick that haply you learned of Can that great Cabalist for schisme while you were of the separation before you came to this perfection of impiety Were I to deale with reasonable men I should wonder to see them so bereft of all reason as to sentence that argument folly which the wisest in the schoole of Reason judge to bee demonstrative And that is an argument drawne from the effect Thus I argued we baptize children in their infancy because God doth ordinarily make our baptizing of Infants effectuall to the ends whereunto true Baptisme is appointed in the Gospell Now the ends whereunto true Baptisme is appointed in the Gospell are to put on Christ to dye unto sinne and to live unto God And certainly God would not ordinarily give testimony to a false Sacrament by making it effectuall to the ends whereunto a true Sacrament is appointed If this be folly then you doe well in excepting against it but if truth then you have verily the old proverb viz. That a fooles bolt is soone shot But let us heare your answer for refutation hereof Anabaptist You say it is effectuall but we would know wherein it doth appeare for
ignorant concerning some things in the worship and service of God then it 's very probable that fooles and unlearned men may be blinde and ignorant concerning some things in the worship and service of God much more But your meaning is that you have a priviledge of not erring That indeed is a thing that your Church holds And why say you that Apollos was deceived about the same point of baptisme and that Aquila and Priscilla a couple of private persons did instruct him in the perfect way of the Lord Was it paedo-baptisme that Apollos was deceived about If not how the same point of baptisme For the point in controversie betweene you and us is paedo-baptisme And what meane you in saying that Apollos was instructed in the perfect way of the Lord by Aquila and Priscilla a couple of private persons That your way of baptizing is the perfect way of the Lord and that Ministers must be instructed by you being private persons in this point And for Nicodemus you doe well to wonder where his wisdome was when he talked so carnally of regeneration as if hee were to returne unto the state of infants-unborne before he could be truely regenerated as we wonder where your wisedome was when you talked so carnally of baptisme as if you Christians by birth and baptized in your infancie must returne into the state of Pagans and Infidels and so come into the Church by confession before you could be truely baptized And what talke you of Balaam that went to curse the people of God and of his Asse that saw the Angell of the Lord in his way It must be granted that you are the people of God and that I am Balaam that curse you because I preach against you But are you mine Asse that see the Angell of the Lord viz. your baptisme in my way Surely they are silly fooles that will ride upon Asses where Horses are so plentifull I have many good books to enforme me and many grave Ministers learned and godly to advise withall if need were And I must tell you that I am so farre from scrupling about paedo-baptisme that I see the impression of the Holy Ghost upon it But to what purpose all this is alleadged by you here in this place I know not it shewes onely that men may erre and so may you And now let all men see your folly in charging me of folly for rendring of this reason Reason 5 The fift and last Reason Anabaptist Also you bring the practise of true Churches against us but this argument is as weake as the others For we have examples in Scripture of true Churches that have beene deceived in some things and held grosse things and great disorders and yet true Churches too as the seven Churches of Asia most of which held grosse things and so the Church of Corinth with others Therefore we see it possible and practicall for true Churches to be out Answer Your meaning is that all other true Churches as you call them are out in this point of baptisme and that you onely are right This is a very compendious and pithy refutation of the argument drawne from the example of other true Churches But looke upon this argument in my Sermon-notes and you shall finde that the matter will not be so easily put off as you seeme to intimate For in this last reason I said that we baptize children of Christian parents because it 's the practice of other reformed Churches which God hath blessed in that way with great increase of heavenly gifts Now if we should forbeare baptizing of infants by vertue of a divine restraint then we should lay iniquitie upon whole Kingdomes and godly societies where Paedo-baptisme is practised And this would make a mighty division rent and schisme betweene us and other true Churches with whom we should endeavour to hold communion and fellowship as companies of Saints that stand as immediately under Christ as our selves Now you will say that In sinne we are not to hold communion with other Churches But to hold communion with other Churches in the practice of Paedo-baptisme is to hold communion with other Churches in sinne Ergo We are not to hold communion with other Churches in the practice of Paedo-baptisme Prove say they that baptizing of infants is a sinne We prove it thus say you To baptize those that are not baptizable is a sinne But infants of baptized parents are not baptizable Ergo To baptize infants of baptized parents is a sinne Well you will prove the assumption thus viz. Onely beleevers are baptizable But infants of Christians are not beleevers Ergo Infants of Christians are not baptizable They now will tell you that the minor proposition is false for the Scripture doth no where terme persons unbeleevers for the habit of unbeliefe negatively but for the habit of unbeliefe positively And to be a beleever in your sense is requisite unto baptisme for a made-Christian but not for a borne-Christian And to say that infants of Christians are not beleevers is absurd And therefore however you may seeme to passe over this argument as a sleight thing you shall sinde there was more weight in it than ever you can answer But you say well however in saying that this argument of mine is as weake as the others I beleeve it indeed and so as the others doe stand upon such a foundation as you cannot undermine so let this And now let all men see how well your boasting and your answering doe agree together for you have boasted up and downe that you have answered all mine arguments and I thinke all as well as any But let us now proceed and consider your miscellance rhapsodie that followes in your papers Anabaptist Againe there is as much controversie among you Ministers concerning who should be baptized as it is betweene you and us For you and Mr Capeâ— and Mr Marshall and diverse others of the best Ministers doe hold that all the children within the Nation should be baptized and the Ministers of New-England and other reformed Churches doe hold that none should be baptized but the children of beleevers who are judged to be beleevers at least Now here is as much difference among you as between you and us And therefore we may justly say goe and reconcile your selves and you may doe the better with us For if we should yeeld unto you we cannot tell to which of you to turne unto whether to you that hold all to be baptized or those that hold some to be baptized But the truth is unlesse you give us better grounds then any yet we see we shall turne to neither of you with Gods helpe to strengthen us Answer We all agree in the point of Paedo-baptisme namely that children of beleevers are to be baptized in their infancie and so in this point the difference is not so wide as betweene you and us Herein you lay a false imputation upon us a thing too frequent in you and that which your
Infants right unto Baptisme why then do you not administer the Lords supper unto them also Answ Because the Lords Supper belongs onely unto such as can spiritually examine themselves and discerne the Lords body 1 Cor. 11.27 28 29. Now the summe of all is this viz. Children of Christian parents are holy by vertue of Gods holy Covenant in their infancie and therefore to be Baptised in their infancie Or thus more largely viz. Whensoever persons appeare unto the Church under the Gospell to be holy by vertue of Gods holy Covenant then the Church is to baptize such persons But Infants of Christians even in their infancie are persons that appeare unto the Church under the Gospell to be holy by vertue of Gods holy Covenant Ergo The Church under the Gospell is to Baptize infants of Christians in their infancie Quaest But how do Infants of Christians appeare unto the Church under the Gospell to be holy prove that say they and we have done Sol. I answer that persons may appeare to be holy unto the Church under the Gospell two wayes viz. 1. Sensitively by their words and pious actions and and this is the only way that the Anabaptists do know for they are altogether led by sense and thus Infants of Christians neither do nor can appeare unto the Church under the Gospell to be holy 2. Oraculously by vertue of a Divine Oracle and thus children of Christians appeare unto the Church under the Gospel to be holy The Holy Ghost hath engraven this Oracle 1 Cor. 7.14 upon such children And such children do utter this Oracle in the circumcised eares of all understanding Christians though Anabaptists heare no such voyce And let these suffice for our first ground Reason 2 Secondly Infants of Christians are to be baptized in their infancie because they are subjects capable of it Now that they are subjects capable of this initiall seale in their infancie appeares conspicuously by Gods expresse command that the infants of Jews their proselytes should be circumcised in their infancie If they had not beene subject a capable of it God would not have commanded it but God did command it and therefore they were subjects capable of it And these infants were not therefore capable because of Gods Covenant with Abraham and their Fathers which were sealed unto God by Circumcision and in Covenant with him For the Text saith not Thou shalt keepe My command therefore but thou shalt keepe My Covenant therefore thou and thy seed after thee in their generations Gen. 17.9 implying that this command had reference to the Covenant and was part of it For here God is to be considered as God in covenant with His people and all his commands are branches of His Covenant all grounded upon His free grace in Jesus Christ and therefore in the next verse viz. v. 10. Hee calls Circumcision by the name of His Covenant saying This is my Covenant which ye shall keepe betweene Mee and you and thy seed after thee every man-child among you shall be circumcised And to put the matter out of all doubt that Circumcision is called by the name of the Covenant the Lord speakes expresly afterwards saying And My Covenant shall be in your flesh v. 13. to teach us that the Covenant made infants capable of the seale and not Gods meere Mandamus as our abstracting Anabaptists play with notions And so they will consider God here in His absolute prerogative and not as in Covenant with this people Whereas the Seale can be nothing but a confirmation of the promises of Grace unto such as have the promises made unto them So then the promises of grace made these infants capable of having the promises confirmed unto them by Gods initiall seale Now what seale should be authentique in Heaven and seale up divine promises unto persons under the promises or in covenant with God that depended upon Gods institution Now God instituted Circumcision and commanded it to be imprinted on the flesh of his people in covenant as the proper subjects capable of the same So that the command that the Anabaptists talke of so much are the words of institution it being Gods prerogative incommunicable to institute Sacramentall signes because He onely can make them effectuall to supernaturall ends and give the things signified thereby Now Circumcision did bind the circumcised to the obedience of the whole Law Gal. 5.3 And this obligation was laid on very Infants before they could have any knowledge of the Law And againe Circumcision is a seale of the righteousnesse of faith in the Messias Rom. 4.11 And this seale was imprinted on very infants before they could have any actuall faith or knowledge of righteousnesse And unto this obedience and faith the Covenant under which they were borne had bound them though the initiall seale had beene denyed them Such an Anabaptisticall wickednesse could not have put these infants into the condition of aliens The Covenant it selfe would have bound them to faith and obedience And the Covenant it selfe would have made them capable of Gods saving mercy though the initiall seale had beene denyed them Such an Anabaptisticall cruelty could not have blockt up heaven against them Consider this you stout Champions for Hell which do what in you lyes to make Gods Covenant of free grace void and of none effect unto his people And to stop the course of Gods mercy unto the soules of men Well the being of infants in covenant under the Law made them capable of Circumcision the initiall seale of the Covenant To be in covenant then with God makes a man capable of the initiall seale in infancie according to the ministration of Christ under which he is borne i.e. whether the ministration be of Christ to be exhibited in the flesh or of Christ already exhibited in the flesh The substance is the same The Covenant is nothing but Christ ministred Whether it be mans Saviour to come that is ministred as to the Jewes and their proselytes in types or mans Saviour already come be ministred as to Christians without types in cleare demonstrations in the ordinances of Grace yet it is the same Saviour Jesus Christ The same yesterday to day and for ever Heb. 13.9 i.e. In the Ordinances of Grace in times past present and to come nothing hath beene is or shall be ministred for the eternall salvation of the soule but Jesus Christ The Covenant now and formerly with Jewes is the same in relation to the eternall welfare of the soule For 1. The foundation of the Covenant is the same as Gods free eternall and unchangeable love to his elect 2. The occasion of the covenant the same as mans misery by his fall in the loynes of Adam of which this Covenant of Grace is a pregnant and mercifull remedy 3. The Author is the same as God gracious mercifull flow to anger pardoning iniquity c. 4. The thing promised is the same as Christ the Redeemer and Saviour of mankind 5. The spirituall eflicacie
the children of the Jewes were holy by vertue of the holy Covenant with their parents so also are the children of the Gentiles holy by vertue of the same holy Covenant with their parents an argument never too often to be inculcated And now having spoken of that text of 1 Cor. 7.14 already in our former discourse we will say some what for the sense and meaning of Rom. 11.16 which text must needs bee understood and meant of Abraham and his branches only Now the question is who are meant by Abrahams branches Well the point there to prove is that as Abrahams children among the Jewes were partakers of the priuiledges of the Covenant so among the Gentiles children engrafted into Abraham are partakers of the Covenant as well as the naturall branches of Abraham the Jewes And hence I inferred that as the Jewes receiving the faith of Abraham were circumcised so Gentiles receiving the faith of Abraham are to be baptized And as the Jewes that were not internally and inherently godly as long as they did not renounce Abrahams faith had a right to circumcision so the children of the Gentiles receiving the faith of Abraham were by Baptisme as Jewes by circumcision to bee admitted into the enjoyment of the priviledges of the Christian Church Peter tels the Jewes that the promise is unto them and their children Acts 2.39 Now the promise was not made to their seed because they did beleeve but the seed did beleeve because they were under the promise viz. I will be thy God and the God of thy seed If this must be restrained thus viz. I will be thy God and the God of thy seed too when thy seed shall beleeve then no more is promised to this seed then to the seed of the Gentiles for when the seed of any Gentile should make prosession of his faith in the Messias he was to be circumcised as well as the seed of Abraham But more was due by this promise to the seed of Abraham then to the seed of a Gentile therefore the seed of Abraham was under the promise in a peculiar manner and not the seed of a Gentile uncircumcised yea among the Jewes a parent who was orthodoxall in judgement albeit he shewed no proofe of justifying faith in his life yet he was put under the Covenant for him and his seed And the children of such had as much right to circumcision as the children of David So then externall subjection to the doctrine of faith doth entitle the parent and his seed to the right of the externall benefit of the Covenant The summe is that as Jewes were born Jewes so the seale of circumcision was their due not to put them under the Covenant but to seale up the Covenant under which they were borne So say I Christians children are borne Christians and a right to the Covenant is not given them by Baptisme but that right which they had by birth is put under seale The very Covenant under which a Christian Infant is born stands good unto him and bindes him to faith obedience and so albeit Anabaptists like so many enraged devills doe what in them lies to cancell the hand-writing of Almighty God by withholding Gods owne seale from Infants of Christian parents upon whom Hee hath engraven His Covenant and written His promises of grace and mercy by virtue of their being born of such parents A wickednesse so heinous so horrible so full of impiety and hellish cruelty that I want a parallel I want words to expresse it unto my reader yet Gods Covenant I say stands good unto them Now the Lord make you to understand what I have written and give you a sight of your wickednesse And thus you have my first reason vindicated Which is that Infants of Christians are Christians borne and therefore are to be baptized in their infancy The second Reason Anabaptist Againe your second reason is that children are capable of Baptisine and your ground is from circumcision Because children were circumcised therefore they may be baptized in their infancy Answer If children because borne under the Covenant before Christs incarnation were therefore capable of the initiall seale even by the sentence of Almighty God because born under that Covenant then children of Christians borne under the same Covenant of grace since Christs incarnation are capable of the initiall seale and 't is their due by virtue of their Christian birth-right Now that the Covenant before Christ with the Jewes and since Christ with the Christians is the same Covenant namely A Covenant which concernes mans deliverance from misery by sinne and mans restitution unto happinesse by Jesus Christ we have shewed before we will now instance only in three things Viz. 1. The Covenant of God with the Jewes before Christ caused the godly in Covenant to seek for immortality after death in heaven as their country and abiding city for ever Heb. 11.13 14 15 16. Acts 26.6 7 8. 2. All the ministrations of Gods Covenant with the Iewes tended to the debasement of nature and to the advancement of Gods free grace in the whole work of mans Redemption though in types 3. All the promises that God made to the Iewes looked towards Iesus Christ as the only Mediatour in whom all Gods promises are yea and Amen 2 Cor. 1.20 cum Heb. 13.8 and Gen. 3.15 Christ was the subject of Moses and the Prophets writings Job 1.45 And the Iewes were justified in the sight of God by the same righteousnesse of faith as we Gentiles are justified by Rom. 4.3.13 And this justification hath essentiall connexion with eternall salvation Rom. 5.9 10. And is not our Covenant the same for substance reducible to these three heads Quest Why then is the Covenant said to bee a better Covenant and established upon better promises Heb. 8.6 Ans It 's better only in regard of the ministration and permanency of which wee shall bee necessitated to speak more fully afterwards in due place Now if the Covenant be the same and the manifestation of this Covenant upon persons unto the Church bee the Churches warrant to minister the initiall seale unto them then if the Covenant manifested by God unto the Church to be upon Infants of persons in Covenant under the law was their warrant to administer the initiall seale that there God did appoint to be used then the like manifestation is a warrant for us to administer the initiall seale unto Infants under the Gospell whose parents are in Covenant But let 's consider your exceptions against this reason Anabaptist But we deny the sufficiency of this reason to prove Infants Baptisme and that upon this ground 1. They differ in the institution 2. In the signes 3. In the subjects 1. They differ in the Institution for the Institution of circumcision was that infants should be circumcised even all Abrahams lineall seed as well the seed of the bond woman as the free but the Institution of Baptisme is that they should first be taught
must have meate though they know not what belongs to meate In Painswick children that know not what they doe are taken Tenants by a rod or pen by the custome of the Manour This stands good bindes the Lord of the Manour and bindes the childe to Courts and Orders and Priviledges of the Manour Paul challenges priviledges of Romans by birth and children of baptized parents challenge baptisme by birth as individuall associates with their parents in covenant As for your descant about preaching and teaching it s a frogge of your owne slime and were a man as sicke of body as you are of fancies it were high time to send to the Clerke or Sexton to tole the bell The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Matth. 28.20 shewes what Christ meanes by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 v. 19. and Mar. 16.15 where the same commission is rehearsed the word ΚΗΡΥΞΑΤΕ i.e. preachthe Gospell doth the same The Church of Gentiles was to be raised by men and women of yeares and when they came in they brought in their children by course with them as Abraham and his Proselytes did theirs Were we disposed to shift as you doe we might say that in Mat. 28. they were to be made Disciples by baptizing first because it is said in the next verse v. 20. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 teaching them And againe it is not said goe make disciples and baptize them but make disciples baptizing them to intimate that by baptizing them they made them disciples Chiefly considering that Mar. 1.4 it 's said that John in whom baptisme was first instituted did baptize in the wildernesse and then preach as though he did baptize first and then preach Besides to exelude such children from being disciples is harsh sith they were borne under the Covenant and Christians by birth and to be disciples and to be Christians are synonymaes Acts 11.26 Anabaptist But however if this answer will not serve to confute your seeming reason yet here is another will I thinke which is this You confesse unto us that the word in the originall is Matathusita that is goe make disciples and baptize them Now you know who are disciples they that believe and these by your owne confession must be baptized and none else from that place nor else-where as we finde and therefore you are much deceived in this reason Againe c. ut infra Answer If it were but a seeming reason you should doe well to shew where the fallacie thereof lies the word in the originall doth not unloose the joynts of my Argument But what your monster Matathusita may doe I know not but for you to say that children of baptized parents are nop believers is harsh as we have said before because they are borne under the Covenant and so by birth are not infidels therefore believers I say that such children by birth are either believers or insidels but not infidels therefore believers And therefore you are much deceived in this exception And who are to come into the Church upon confession and who by birth we have shewed you And to raze the foundation of Paedo-baptisme that we have laid you must have better workemen and better engines And for you to cry out against a seeming reason and to conclude a falleris upon so poore a ground argues rather a rash head than deliberate reason Anabaptist Againe you doe plainly deserve Mt Wynnell to have the same scandalous terme cast upon your selfe as you cast upon us which was that we were Juglers but I submit unto any reasonable Judgo whether this is not plaine jugling for you to turne your tongue and Text to your owne purpose and preach that confusion and wrest the Scripture Nay further c. ut infra Answer I said indeed that Anabaptists were Juglers and this you take to your selves and so now I know where to have you and what to call you though formerly you have declined the name And for what I have herein done I have done in love to my Nation and doe commit the same to the view of all my brethren and doe submit unto their censure promising to rectifie whatsoever is herein amisse if any just blame may be found out And I shall desire you also to maintaine Gods covenant of free grace and to submit unto your lawfull governours which you Anabaptists refuse to doe Anabaptist Nay further you affirmed diverse times over that considering the estate and condition of the Pagan Gentiles that they were in you said that there was no reason in the world why any of those should be baptized without confession of Christ and the Gospel and yet here you bring a groundlesse argument that all the whole Nation should be baptized where the disciples did preach the Gospel yet before you affirmed that there was no reason in the world why any of these should be baptized before they had confessed Christ and beleeved the Gospel Now if this be not grosse confusion I know not wat is Againe c. ut infra Answer What I said before I will rehearse over and over againe if that will serve your turne And that is that there is no reason why the Pagan-Gentiles should be baptized untill they had given testimony of their faith in Christ but I said that the children of those so baptized are holy by birth and so are to have the Covenant put under seale by baptisme in their infancy This is all I said and so I spake distinctly without confusion The point that I insisted on was that children borne of Christian parents are to be baptized in their infancy and therefore you bring a groundlesse accusation and make me the Author of your owne forgeries And that I spake no such thing as this aspersion doth import is cleare by this viz. A near neighbour of mine after the Sermon against which you have brought these exceptions came to me and told me that you apprehended I meant that the whole Nation was to be baptized upon the very bringing of the Gospell among them I answered I intended no such thing but that such as were to be baptized of the Pagans where the Apostles came to lay the first foundations must give testimony of their faith and that the children of baptized parents onely were to be baptized And this answer was immediately returned unto you But either you have forgotten or you conceive that slandering may helpe your cause when you want better arguments And my hearers at that time who without passion tooke my Sermon-notes can note you for a slanderer but haply you learned that tricke of your brethren of the separation before you left them Anabaptist Againe we may casily see this overthrowne by other Scriptures as Mar. 16.15 16. There the Disciples are commanded to preach the Gospell to every creature that is reasonable creatures and he that did beleeve was to be baptized Now it were a strange folly in us to thinke that Christ would so strictly charge his Disciples to preach to every creature before
of your Baptisme by your fruits i. e. by your doctrine and tenents for that is the true meaning of Matth. 7.16 as you may see clearely evinced by the verse immediately going before I say should a man judge of the Baptisme of Anabaptists by their doctrine and tenents he could not but conclude that your Baptisme is a most abominable and execrable thing though you are adulti before you are adulti before you are baptized For Anabaptists deny originall sinne in Infants and hold a bundle of heresies as you may see in Osianders Enchiridion of controversies with Anabaptists And the most strict in your religion are the most vile and God doth not ordinarily make your Baptisme effectuall to the proper ends whereunto true Baptisme is appointed in the Gospell And whereas you say that we may see that it is the word that makes children and others fit for Baptisme and not their parentage I think herein you say you know not what in making an opposition between the word and parentage if by parentage you meane Christian parentage if not you speak not to the point in hand We say that the word fits all for Baptisme The word of instruction in the Covenant makes the alien fit for Baptisme and the word of the Covenant makes children of baptized parents fit for Baptisme as the word of instruction made Abraham and his Proselytes fit for circumcision but the word of the Covenant made their children fit for circumcision in their infancy Gen. 17.9 Anabaptist Againe God suffered the Patriarches to live in the sinne of malignity for a time through their ignorance yet God did blesse them and passe it by but this is no warrant for us to sinne wilfully against the light nor ignorantly for want of seeking light Againe c. ut infra Answer But how comes this in How doth this batter my reason and assertion Oh! I cry you mercy I apprehended not your meaning at the first Your meaning is that the Church of Christ hath sinned in baptizing Infants of Christian parents and that God passed it by because they did it ignorantly for want of light But now since Lambe your Founder and you hid Disciples have brought it into and set it up in the Countrey viz. that none must be baptized untill they give testimony of their faith and repentance All though hitherto they have baptized children in their infancy must henceforth forbeare that practice if not they sinne wilfully agianst the true light that you have brought or at least ignorantly if they will not seek unto your light for direction And so my argument is not worth a straw for albeit God hath hitherto made our baptizing of Infants effectuall to the proper ends whereunto true Baptisme is appointed in the Gospell because wee did it ignorantly before this light came into the countrey but now you as a new Apostle can tell us that God will doe so no longer If this bee not your meaning I know not how this story can argue against this fourth reason of mine And most probable this is your meaning for it suits well with your former blasphemies for when you fell upon this course of rebaptizing you were wont to say usually to your old acquaintance that we are bound to blesse God for the comming of this light amongst us However if this bee your meaning as I am confident it is yet in this you are deceived for the devill did set up this light heretofore in the countrey And God did put it out againe And so yours must out too as soone as it hath led as many wanderers into the bogges as God hath appointed it unto Anabaptist Againe you condemne many grosse things that have been practiced in the Church of England as the ceremonies and the admitting of drunkards and uncleane persons and such like to Sacraments This you know was not right as appears by your confession and practise Now God hath suffered this a long time and what shall wee therefore say that God approved of these things Nay if you will so it is But wee will not conclude so For our lives we dare not Why then the case is all one and therefore this is no ground at all Answer They say that a professed begger is never out of his way And there is a kind of reasoning which wee call beggery in Schooles and then it 's used Petitio principij in disputationibus when the opponent is drawne so drye of arguments that unlesse the answerer grant him some absurd principles hee can maintaine the opposite part no longer And so I thinke you have almost run your selfe out of breath and now unlesse I will acknowledge that the baptizing of Infants is a grosse practise in the Church of England you can say no more against this reason The baptizing of Infants in the Church of England must have no more warrant from the word of God then the admitting of drunkards to the Lords table But if I will not grant you this ex favore you cannot prove it And surely should I grant you this I should bee a man of as little conscience as you are of reason It 's one thing for God to suffer things in a Church and another thing to make an ordinance effectuall by His ordinary concurrency And the godly in all reformed Churches that have bewailed the things you mention have still defended as well by practiced paedo-baptisme and now to this day doe still the same As for the ceremonies I dare not conclude that their use is a grosse and sinfull practice but leave them to every mans conscience to use or not to use as God shall give liberty or put restraint Anabaptist Further you bring us the example of wise and learned men which doe hold for Infants Baptisme We answer that possible it is for wise and learned men as any are upon the earth for to be blind and ignorant concerning some things in the worship and service of God As for instance Apollos Act. 18.24 He was an eloquent man and mighty in the Scripture and yet this man was deceived about the same point of Baptisme for he only knew the Baptisme of John and we see Aquila and Priscilla a couple of private persons did teach and instruct this wise man in the perfect way of the Lord. And so also Nicodemus Ioh. 3. he was a Ruler among the Jewes and when Christ said he must be borne againe he thought he must have gone into his mothers wombe againe see where this were wisedome in this man And of Balaam he was counted a wise man and a Prophet and yet his Asse could see that which he could not for his Asse perceived the Angell of the Lord in the way when he went to curse the people when Balaam himselfe could not see him And so diverse other examples in Scripture we have to the same purpose and therefore this argument is no good argument Answer If it be possible for wise and learned men to be blinde and
conscience can well dispense withall as appeares by your usuall practice and whether you turne to us or New-England you must turne from your owne way Our agreement is such that we are all one in the point of Paedo-baptisme against you We in this Land hold that children of all baptized parents are baptizable in their infancie by vertue of the Covenant of Grace under which such children were borne as children of all circumcised parents were circumcisable in their infancie by vertue of the same Covenant of Grace under which they were borne and this is the opinion and practice of all reformed Churches that I know as the French Scottish Dutch High and Low c. But what they doe in New-England I know not The Records of their Church orders and tenents are not in print But they which say they follow New-England way will not baptize all children of beleevers neither except they be in their Covenant Except beleevers enter into their Covenant they shall have no commons with them at the Lords table neither shall their children be baptized by them But their warrant for this practice we desire to see for we think it unjust and impious that persons under Gods Covenant of Grace should be deprived of gods seales which he hath inseparably annexed unto that Covenant And moreover for them to deny baptisme unto children of baptized parents I see no reason though such parents are vitious in their lives as long as such parents remaine within the Church and are orthodox all in the faith I am sure that the children of the Jewes whose parents were profane in life were not kept backe from the Sacrament of circumcision for that cause And the reason is because that Covenant was the Covenant of Grace and not of Workes There are two Covenants that God hath made with men viz. the Covenant of Workes and the Covenant of Grace And of these Covenants there were two heads namely the first Adam and the second Adam With the first Adam God did strike a Covenant of Workes and Adam the head of this body in Covenant did transgresse and so destroyed the Covenant and thereby deprived himselfe and all his members of the priviledges thereof and so death entred upon all mâ—n in that all had sinned in their Head With the second Adam viz. Christ God did strike a Covenant of Grace and Christ the head of his body in this Covenant remaines just and the justifier of his members and therefore his members cannot be deprived of the priviledges of this Covenant for the default of immediate parents Now for thâ—se men in this way as they say of New-England to put a stop unto the Covenant of Grace in denying baptisme unto children of baptized parents I see no warrant For first This practice destroyes the nature of this Covenant For the parents by their miscarriage have broken the Covenant of Workes but not the Covenant of Grace this remaines entire in Christ who is the head of the children borne under this Covenant And these children though by naturall generation they are the off-spring of such wicked parents yet by reason of the Covenant under which they were borne they are the children of the Covenant This practice then is a presumption of an higher nature than these men are aware off And albeit their intent be a reformation yet the meanes is diabolicall Secondly This practice doth vertually accuse Christ the Head as a violater of this Covenant of Grace for as long as the Head remaines just and the justifier of his members his members are not to be debarred of their priviledges whereof under the Gospell Baptisme is the first And the vitious carriage of immediate parents can no more exclude a childe from Baptisme now than could formerly the vitious carriage of Jewish parents exclude their children from the priviledge of Circumcision Now some to evade this say that the Church of the Jewes was a Nationall Chruch but the Church of England is not so But this is but a meere shift to evade what they cannot answer for Proselytes who were not of that Nation were to have their children circumcised and circumcision was enjoyned and practised before the Jewes were a Nationall Church even when and while they were a Family-Church But to the point I say that the Church of the Jewes was a Nationall Church in some things after a peculiar manner as First God had tyed himselfe to remaine with that Nation by his Ordinances of grace untill Shiloh came Secondly that Nation was once a yeare in the representative body thereof to meet at one common place viz. at Hierusalem about the worship of God by divine appointment Now God hath not tyed himselfe to the Church of England for any set terme of time nor is there by divine appointment any set place of worship for the whole Nation to meet in once a yeare about the worship of God But thirdly the Church of the Jewes was a Nationall Church because the whole Nation had received the Doctrine and Covenant of grace and in this sense I hope England is a Nationall Church And if in this sense the Church of England be a Nationall Church that 's as much as I require But surely these men have some other meaning when they say that the Church of the Jewes was a Nationall Church and the Church of England is not than as yet they dare to utter though among them you shall seldome finde a man tongue-tyed Their meaning is that the whole Nation of the Jewes pell-mell were by course to be admitted to the priviledges of that typicall ministration and so the children of vitious parents too because of that Nation but under the Gospell since Christ onely the children of godly parents are to be sealed into Gods peculiar by baptisme and others are not and here they would bring in their Covenant as the forme of the Church But the children of the Jewes were not circumcised because of that Nation but because of gods Covenant with that Nation And so our children are not to be baptized because of such a Nation but because of Gods Covenant with such a Nation and the children of all baptized parents are borne under Gods Covenant of grace and whether their parents be vitious or religious in life the childes title stands good to the Covenant The religious lives of his parents being workes doe not entitle him to the Covenant and initiall seale thereof And the vitious life of parents baptized being workes cannot make voyde the childes title to the Covenant and initiall seale thereof For his title unto the Covenant and initiall seale thereof lies in Christ who remaines just and the justifier of his members and the elect seed may passe through the loynes of vitious parents and often doe whereas godly parents may have reprobates to their children If then these men have any thing to object against Christ as a violater of the Covenant of Grace let them say on and they shall bee answered but
is the same with the Pagan-Gentiles I know no reason why we so long as we remaine in our naturall condition should have greater priviledges then they unlesse the holy Ghost had any where given commission for is in Scripture And therefore untill you can prove a difference between them and us by nature you in effect as good as say nothing Answer Here as a man more then confident of his cause you seem to grant your antagonist more then is required Here you have found out an argument which in your opinion is more then demonstrative And oh how happy is your Church in having so mettalsome a champion that is able to say something that your Apostolicall fraternity be not troden down of the Idolatrous paedo-baptists But however your words may passe in your Church as oracles yet wee the maintainers of Gods Covenant judge your assertion in all this prattle to be but an aspersion And either make your charge good or else we will look upon you as an agent for the devill and not for Christ Prove that all the children of beleeving parents are open and professed enemies to God Shew where the Scripture so termes Infants of Christian parents seeing such are borne Christians and called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Saints I Cor. 7.14 You shew your selfe to be an open and professed enemy to the holy seed in casting so soule a reproach upon persons that God hath so highly honoured And as much may be said of the Infants of the Jewes namely that they were borne in originall sinne yet the Scripture termes them no where open and professed enemies to God though you say the promises made unto them were but temporary Nor did this estate debarre them from being sealed into Gods peculiar in their infancy by the seale of His holy and eternall Covenant Now if you say that infants in their infancy must not be baptized because they cannot understand the meaning of that mysticall Ordinance nor have saith to apply the promises therein held forth by the same reason the Infants of the Jewes should not have been circumcised for circumcision had in it the same essentiall mystery with Baptisme though held forth in a type And so your argument blames God Himselfe for preposterous dealing in prescribing the seale of the righteousnesse of faith to be imprinted on persons before they manifested or could manifest any faith at all by profession or practise And circumcision was a seale of the same righteousnesse of faith which we Christians build our eternall salvation upon and that is faith in Jesus Christ Rom. 4. and Rom. 5. Ob. But there was a speciall command for circumcision in the time of infancy Sol. But your reason I say blames God for that command because Infants of Jewes were as much in the state of nature as Infants of Christians So then the same reason that you alleadge to blame us for our practise doth blame God for His command Againe we answer that there was such a command for the circumcising of such Infants in their infancy whose parents were under Gods seale but no such command for Infants whose parents were not Profession of faith was needfull unto such whose parents were not under Gods foederall seale And so Abraham in whom the Church of the Jewes began had saith before hee had the seale for being uncircumcised or before circumcision hee had the righteousnesse of faith Rom 4.11 But no such thing afterward required of Abrahams seed but the contrary commanded namely that his seed should be circumcised in their infancy So for baptisme under the Gospell For such whose parents are not under the seale of Gods Covenant are not to be baptized but first to manifest the righteousnesse of faith And here as in Abraham the righteousnesse of faith must goe before the initiall seale but when parents as Abraham are once under the seale of Gods Covenant their seed as the seed of Abraham are to bee sealed unto God in their infancy by vertue of their Christian birth-right for by birth they are under Gods Covenant and that Covenant under which they were borne is to bee put under seale and ratified unto them as joint confederates with their parents and of Gods peculiar people with them For the expresse words of the Covenant are I WILL BEE THY GOD AND THE GOD OF THY SEED And therefore when God doth put the initiall seale upon the parents He doth enright the seed of such parents unto the Covenant and initiall seale thereof in their infancy as the Lord hath clearely resolved the case when He put His Covenant under seale with Abraham And therefore you Anabaptists are destroyers of Gods Covenant and will have it to terminate in the party baptized and not to extend to his or her seed as their Christian jointure by birth So then the Covenant that God makes with us Christians is not I will be thy God and the God of thy Seed jointly But I will be thy God and not the God of the seed untill they manifest faith in practice and profession and then I will be the God of thy seed also And so this Covenant will be no priviledge unto children of Christian parents at all for the children of Turkes shall bee received by Baptisme when they testify faith in christ and and repentance towards God And so Gods Covenant of Grace must alwayes terminate in the party baptized and goe no further And is not this mad Divinity that the children shall be excluded when God hath joyned parents and children as joint-partakers of the same Covenant and inheritance And are not you herein the devills attournies sent of purpose to wrangle children of Christian parents out of the spirituall inheritance unto which they are borne as Christians by birth The Lord plead the cause of His Covenant against these perverse disputers maintaine the inheritance of our seed and of-spring against the cursed machinations of these sacrilegious theeves and robbers which steale from God from us and from our children But you call for a difference beteeen us Christians and the Pagan-Gentiles by nature unles this be shewed nothing in effect is spoken against you or for us By nature that is by naturall generation this I beleeve is your meaning a notion indeed high enough for Anabaptists who look upon all Gods ordinances like sensuall beasts But upon that naturall generation of procreation of seed you may behold the Covenant of Grace established and set up had you any sparke of spirituall discerning in you for so did St. Paul Ephes 2.3 4. c. And had you learned the language of the Scriptures you might truly say that the children of Christians are Christians by nature and not sinners of the Pagans as the Apostle speakes of the Jewes saying we are Jewes by nature and not sinners of the Gentiles Gal. 2.15 Here Jewes by nature and sinners of the Gentiles are opposite members But how were they Jewes by nature Surely as St. Peter speaks because they were the
children of the Prophets and of the Covenant because borne under the holy Covenant Act. 3.25 And how were not the Jewes sinners of the Gentiles Surely Divines whom you may seem sooner to refute then understand tell us that such as were borne Jewes had not their sinnes imputed unto them otherwise they were borne in originall sinne as well as the Gentiles but the holy Covenant of Grace was establisht upon them which Covenant was appointed as a remedy to fre e them from originall corruption and to restore them to Gods favour But this is a kind of language which you Anabaptists haply doe not understand For had you any knowledge this way you would not reason so wildly and turne Gods Covenant out of doores by putting no difference by nature between such as are born Christians in the Church under the holy Covenant and such as are born Pagans out of the Church strangers from the covenant And therefore seeing by nature there is so wide a difference between such as are born Christians and such as are born Pagans you in effect as good as say nothing For God bath engraven His Covenant upon the Infants of Christians and made this knowne unto his Church and therefore the Infants of Christians are to have the priviledge of Baptisme in their infancy But God hath not engraven His Covenant upon children of Pagans therefore they are not to have it untill they testify faith and repentance And this covenant written upon children of Christians in their infancy is the Commission that the Holy Ghost hath given in Scripture for baptizing Infants of Christians in their infancy 1 Cor. 7.14 And now I pray put your heads all together and let me heare what you can say against this But goe on Anabaptist Againe further This argument of yours is but from humane conception and doth tend to the overthrow of a divine institution which may not nor ought not to be unles you can prove where and when the holy Ghost hath or doth expresly lay down or give commission for the alteration of that expresse institution that Christ gave unto His Disciples to teach and instruct all Nations to observe and follow the rule that they left them And therefore the alteration of times and state is not sufficient to alter a divine institution untill it be altered by divine Authority by which it was at first commanded As for instance Suppose the King should establish a Law and an Act of Parliament for the practising of any particular action in the Land and the cause may be removed for which this Law was established yet this Act doth still remaine in force to be practised untill the Author thereof doth disanull it by proclamation or alteration So in like manner Christ hath established an Institution for Baptisme and confirmed it by the Apostles practice according to their commission and therefore untill Christ doth disanull this Institution or alter it wee may not nor dare not to alter it upon paine of open rebellion against the King of Heaven let the time alter never so much that is not a ground sufficient to alter an Institution And this for answer unto your first and chiefest Argument Now to passe by many groundlesse and sensuall arguments which are not worth answering because they savour of nothing but censuring we desire to come to your chiefest reasons wherefore Infants should be Baptized Answer No Argument that is truly deducted from the Scriptures of God is from humane conception But this Argument of mine against which you except is truly deducted from the Scriptures of God Ergo This Argument of mine against which you except is not from humane conception And then againe thus viz. No Argument that is deducted from the Scriptures of God can overthrow a divine Institution But this Argument of mine against which yee except is truly deducted from the Scriptures of God Ergo This Argument of mine against which you except cannot overthrow a divine Institution Now let mee but prove the Minor Proposition and you are overthrowne irrecoverably though you seeme to be armed with Law and Gospell against us Well the point that I have to make good is this namely that the Argument I here used was truly deducted from the Scriptures of God And to make this good the very rehearsall of what I said will be enough without any more adoe The summe of what I said was that the state of the Pagan Gentiles before the Apostles planted the Gospell among them was not the same in point of religion as is the state of the Christian Gentiles where the Gospell is embraced and they baptized Now I represented the state of the Pagan-Gentiles unto you in two particulars 1. I told you that before the Gospell came among the Pagan-Gentiles they were without Christ being aliens from the Common-wealth of Israel and strangers from the covenants of promise having no hope and without God in the world Ephes 2.12 And I am sure this is no humane conceipt unlesse the Oracles of God are humane conceipts 2. I said againe that before the Gospell came among the Pagan-Gentiles they were carried away to dumbe Idols even as they were led 1 Cor. 12.2 Neither is this any humane conceipt Then finally the Gentiles where the Gospell is planted are not of this condition in point of religion but in covenant with God and of Gods family and houshold as you may see in any Sermon-notes prefixed If this Argument doth overthrow the sense that you give of Matth 28.19 then you doe not give the right sense of the text For no argument truly deducted from the Scripture can overthrow the true meaning of any Scripture And so if your manner of baptizing which you would have to be warranted by that of our Saviour Matth. 28.19 will not stand with the nature of Gods covenant of Grace among the Gentiles where the Gospell is planted then Christ meanes not your way of baptizing in Churches where the Gospell is planted So then this argument of mine tends not to the overthrowing of any institution of Christ in Mat. 28.19 but layes a ground for the refuting of your wrong interpretation of the text the true meaning of which text you may afterwards see in due place For it should seem this is the keeping of your song and afterwards iterated againe and againe And for me to run over the same things againe and againe would argue me to be as void of mater as you are of reason But I pray one thing more What are those sensuall and groundlesse arguments of mine that you so sleightly passe over as not worth the answering I termed Anabaptists indeed a monstrous broode sacrilegious theeves Bellarmines Disciples c. Doe these savour of nothing but censuring Are these the sensuall and groundlesse arguments you mean But I argued that the promises of God made unto the Jewes in the Messias were spirituall and eternall promises Mat. 23.32 Act. 3.25 26. Heb. 11.16 And this you passe by untouched
not to be ascribed unto those typicall sacrifices but unto Christ which they did typifie but the conversion of Gods Elect under the Gospell is to be ascribed unto the sacrifice of Christ the Captaine of our Salvation as the proper cause thereof The Law said Christ is to be sacrificed the Gospell sayes Christ is sacrificed for us And they both bespake the same Christ for the spirituall benefit of the worshippers yet the Gospell-ministration is to have the prerogative for now our High-priest is more excellent Now we have a clearer manifestation of Gods love for every necessity of the soule Now we have a Throne of Grace to goe to every where Now wee have free accesse unto God without bringing our sacrifices unto others who must as types offer them unto God for us 2. The old Covenant in the sacrifices thereof did againe call to remembrance the sinnes of the worshippers every yeare and so could not make the commers thereunto perfect as pertaining to the conscience Heb. 10.3 4. The new Covenant in the sacrifice thereof doth wrap up the sinnes of the commers thereunto in perpetuall oblivion and makes the worshippers perfect as pertaining to the conscience Heb. 10.12 18. Heb. 7.24 28. Heb. 9.14 15. And so now every worshipper hath boldnesse to enter into the Holiest by this one sacrifice and to draw neare unto God Heb. 10.19 22. And for this cause the typicall ministration must needs be inferiour and the Gospell ministration more excellent sublime and anagogicall Let these things be but seriously considered and they will affoord you a great deale of light in reading that glorious Epistle of Paul to the Hebrewes And in a word grant me that Gods Elect under the Law were saved by Gods free grace in jesus Christ in those sacrifices typified as if there be any sparke of ingenuity left in you you must needs acknowledge and you shall grant that Covenant and this under the Gospell to be all one for substance and so the difference betweene that and this to lye in the ministration onely But how say you that this Gospell-Covenant is established to better subjects I pray how better subjects you say beleevers But did God seale his Covenant under the Law to unbeleevers How prove you that To children in their infancy therefore to unbeleevers The inference is unsound neither can you bring one text of Scripture where it 's said that Infants of Jewes in Covenant were unbeleevers And therefore let all men see how well your Divinity agrees with the language of Scripture If the Scripture termes infants of the Jewes the holy seed then they are not to be termed unbeleevers and therefore you speake wickedly and more than you can justifie Turne your Bible over and by finding nothing for your purpose you shall see that you have said nothing to the purpose That unbeleevers might have the signe of Circumcision under the Law Oh abominable blasphemy And the promises under the Gospell doe no more belong to beleevers than they did to beleevers under the Law They did and doe belong to Gods people in Covenant And infants of baptized parents are under the promise and in Govenant Well thus you argue viz. The promise of the Gospell is onely to beleevers But infants of Christians are not beleevers Ergo The promise of the Gospel is not to infants of Christians This Syllogisme may well be termed a Solacisme But it may well passe in the Schoole of Anabaptists for to speake non-sence overthrowes not the principles of their Religion But we have shewed you before That infants of Christians are not Insidels Ergo beleevers And you say afterwards that infants are saved by the Election and therefore say I the promise of the Gospell belongs unto them But haply you had forgotten what you said here as indeed he that will lye had need have a good memory otherwise a fluent tongue will quickly discover a knaves heart And now give me leave to put in my plea for our poore infants Thus I argue for them viz. All the Elect have right to the promise of the Gospell But some infants of Christians are Elect Ergo Some infants of Christians have right to the promise of the Gospell And then againe thus viz. Such as have right to the promise of the Gospell have right unto the initiall seale of the Gospell But some infants of Christians have right to the promises of the Gospell Ergo Some infants of Christians have right unto the initiall seale of the Gospell Quest Why then doe you baptize all Infants of Christians seeing you confesse that the promise of the Gospell belongs only to the elect Answ And why doe you baptize any at all though they give testimony of faith by practice and confession seeing you confesse that the promise belongs only to Gods elect For if the certaine knowledge of a persons election must bee the ground of baptizing unto us then you shall never baptize any but every particular person must baptize himselfe For no man by ordinary grace can have certaine knowledge of another mans election But you will say that albeit wee know that there bee many reprobates borne within the Church and many hypocrites may make a shew of faith by profession and not have it in truth yet when they come one and one unto us by profession of faith we have a charitable perswasion that this and that man so professing is of Gods election And so say wee that albeit wee know doctrinally that diverse Infants borne within the Church are reprobates yet as they come to us one and one upon the evidence of Gods Covenant engraven upon them by birth wee have a charitable perswasion that this and that Infant is of Gods election Quest. Why then doe you not baptize the Infants of those that are without the Church as Turks and Insidels if a charitable perswasion of Gods election be warrant enough for you Sol. We answer that such Infants are not borne under the Covenant neither are their parents under the seale of Baptisine and the Scripture no where termes such Infants holy as it doth every where the children of the Church And this is a direct answer unto A. R. in the 6. page of his childish book entituled the vanity of childish Baptisme The Adoption belongs to the children of the Church and not to the children of aliens And therefore this prophane Asse speaks wickedly in his †most ferious thoughts What sayes he if it be a warrantable ground for us to administer Baptisme to all Infants because that some particular Infants are elected by the same reason it will follow that Baptisme may lawfully be administred to every man and woman in the world because among them also wee may judge that some are elected page 6. These stout words of his doe as well beare before them a professed quarrell against God for Circumcision as against us for Baptisme Why might not such an hellish blasphemer say unto God What If it be a
infants that die unbaptized have faith by Christ and the Spirit of Grace Ergò Elect infants that die unbaptized have faith by ordinary meanes of faith And thus you see that all is trash on your side and meere jugling and you can as well maintaine your cause as your title to the Crowne of England Anabaptist And thus we have runne over your chiefest arguments at briefe as we could We desire you would not take it offensively from us that we have beene so tedious in writing unto you for we could have beene larger in many things but that we were fearefull of tediousnesse And if there be any thing wherein we are mistaken we desire information and we desire to submit to the judgement of judicious and reasonable men whether your reasons be not answered If you can overthrow clearely by the Word of God these answers we will cry peccavi if you cannot we expect according to your former promises that you should cry peccavi Answer You have runne over my arguments indeed but you have not refuted any one of them They all stand unmoveable as Mount Zion and the glory of the Lord is upon them And as for your tediousnesse that 's not so offensive unto me as your absurd reasonings And for your mistakes I have shewed them unto you for your information And if you will submit to judicious and reasonable men so will I And for this cause I have published this Treatise And whether I have dealt unfaithfully with Gods holy Word either in my Sermons or in this mine Answer to your Objections I leave to the censure of the godly learned And if you or any of your side can say any thing more that is materiall against the point of Paedo-baptisme I shall by Gods helpe give you such satisfaction whereby you through Gods blessing shall be able to see that they were from the Devill and not from Christ that led you into this way of re-baptizing Anabaptist And thus we desire the Lord to adde his blessing to our weake endeavours as to perswade your hearts to embrace every truth of Jesus Christ that as yet you oppose and so likewise for our selves And thus we commend all to the disposing of Almighty God in whom we rest Answer Your meaning is perhaps that I doe oppose the way of the Anabaptists and stand for Paedo-baptisme and that herein I oppose a truth of Christ Jesus If your meaning be this your prayer is impious and a taking of Gods Name in vaine And you pray unto God to blesse your wicked endeavours in going about to perswade my heart to embrace not a truth but a lye This proves evidently that God is patient and that the Devill is impudent And is this the good stuffe that you would have to be read before the whole Congregation at Cranham as you desire in your Postscript Your desire is more then granted you desired to have it as publike as Cranham and I have made it as publike as England It s now in a faire way to be read at London at Yorke at Exceter at Bristoll at Gloucester at Worcester and where not as God shall direct it And I hope my brethren will make it knowne to more Congregations than Cranham for the information of Gods people in the truth I hope that was your end in desiring leave to have it read to the whole Congregation at Cranham and not revenge on me for keeping wavering soules of that Congregation from running into Severne after you But now to your three Questions which you subjoyne as an appendix to your exceptions 1. You demand What expresse warrant we have in Scripture for the baptizing of Infants Unto this we say that the question savours more of curiosity than of conscience But seeing you may make bold as you say to propound this question unto me and desire me to answer you punctually by the Scripture or not at all I make bold to urge you with one argument and desire you to answer me either by Scripture or Right reason Thus I argue in expresse answer to your demand and quaere All persons knowne to be under the Covenant of Grace are to have the Covenant put under the initiall seale unto them by expresse warrant of Scripture But all infants of Christians are knowne to be under the Covenant of Grace Ergo All infants of Christians are to have the Covenant of Grace put under the initiall seale unto them by expresse warrant of Scripture Deny this Syllogisme or deny either proposition if you can The major I presume you will not deny The minor is as undenyable But if Lambes blasphemy must passe for orthodox with you that you will contradict Thus therefore I make it good If all Christian parents are under the Covenant of Grace then all infants of Christian parents are under the Covenant of Grace But all Christian parents are under the Covenant of Grace Ergo All Infants of Christian parents are under the Covenant of Grace Haply you will deny the sequell of the major proposition but therein you will but shew your ignorance and irrationall stupiditie For sequela ab indivisis est valida Thus then I make it good viz. If the Covenant of Grace joynes parents and children together as inseparable and immediate companions then if all Christian parents are under the Covenant of Grace all Infants of Christian parents are under the Covenant of Grace all Infants of Christian parents are under the Covenant of Grace also But the Covenant of Grace joynes parents and children together as inseparable and immediate companions saying I will be thy God and the God of thy seed Ergo If all Christian parents are under the Covenant of Grace then all infants of Christian parents are under the Covenant of Grace also And now answer or give over your fooleries nay sacrilegious practices and impious dissolution of Gods holy Covenant with his people and their seed A wickednesse haply not so well seene of you whom subtile heads seduce with good words and faire speeches the very method of the Devils agents Rom. 16.17 18. And thus we have shaken your triumphall argument with which you have mis-led many an honest heart the more is the pity And it may be just with God to scourge this Nation for our too much connivence at you High offences deserve sharper censures And to forbeare correction is to dishonour Gods image in Superiours and to throw downe Authority for Sedition to trample upon If your way must stand adieu Religion and let us all turne Atheists And so much for answer to your first quaere 2. Your second question is What Infants doe receive in Baptisme Which question as propounded by an Anabaptist implyes this blasphemy viz. That Infants receive no benefit by baptisme But unto this quaere we say that Infants of Christians by baptisme have the Covenant put under seale unto them as their native priviledge The Covenant under which they were borne makes them holy by birth And Baptisme under
warrantable ground for us to administer circumcision to all Male-Infants of Jewes because some particular Infants of them are elected then by the same reason it will follow that circumcision may lawfully bee administred unto every Male in the world because among them also we may judge that some are elected why then doest thou not command circumcision to be administred unto them also Surely to this God would say thus viz. If any among other nations in the world doe belong unto Mine election they shall become Proselytes unto the Church and come in by profession in the Messias but when these Proselytes are put under my seale their Infants shall be circumcised in their infancy though most of them be reprobates And so say wee if there be any of Gods elect among the aliens they shall become Proselytes to the Christian Church and so be baptized upon the confession of their faith in Christ but for the Infants of those Christian Proselytes they shall all bee baptized in their infancy as the children of the Covenant though most of them may be reprobates election and reprobation being not the ground of our ministration or not ministration but the Covenant under which persons are borne And thus you may see how wildly this Asse doth reason and yet what a great shew doth he make of his Greek But if he be the Authour of this pamphlet that some report to be then to my knowledge he is not overstored either with Greek or Latin And surely had he ever come to the passive voice of verbes in the Greek Grammar and learned to decline 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with his breeches downe about his heeles and a good sharp paedagogue doing justice upon his posteriors he would ever after have taken heed of playing such prankes as hee hath in his childish treatise wherein few things concerne our present businesse and in this tractate you may have matter sufficient to answer the Anabaptists about the point of paedo baptisme and to seale up their lips too But let us proceed Say on what else you have to alleadge Anabaptist Againe their being under the Covenant is not sufficient to give them the seale of Baptisme For if so then those Jewes in the second of the Acts who were within the Covenant might have been baptized all and wholly But wee finde there that though the Apostles preach't unto the Nation of the Jewes yet none were baptized but they that received the word gladly verse 41. So then we see that their being within the Covenant nor the Apostles preaching unto them could give them the seale of Baptisme but it was their receiving and beleeving of the word And so likewise of the Gentiles the Promise of the Covenant did belong unto the Gentiles too as well as to the Jewes yet I find not one example in all the book of God where Jew or Gentile was baptized but only upon their confession of Christ and beleeving the Gospell So that suppose wee grant you as much as you desire which is that we are under the Covenant yet this is not sufficient to give us proper right unto the seales and priviledges of the Covenant untill wee come to beleeve and confesse Jesus Christ Answer To be under the Covenant so as to acknowledge Jesus Christ the sonne of the Virgin Mary to be the Messias and Saviour of the world was sufficient to give men right unto the Sacrament of Baptisme But the Iewes did not so they denied the Holy One and killed the Prince of life Acts 3.14.15 They look't upon Him as one accursed and hanged Him on a tree And in this they renounced the Covenant and did depose themselves and their children from the title they had Matth. 27.25 Those Jewes were borne under the Covenant and so accordingly were circumcised but now in renounceing Christ they did renounce the Covenant they had title to by birth and so were not to have the new appointed seale of Baptisme till they should receive Christ Jesus The old ministration as it looked towards the Messias to come was now out of date and to be done away for the Messias was come And a new seale of entrance was set up which might assure them that He was Lord and Christ whom they put to death Acts 2.36 37. They were now to acknowledge that this was the Christ and so to bee baptized into His Name A Saviour they did look for and now this is He. So then this fetch will not serve your turne It proves firmly what is required of such as are to be made Christians but it will not reach unto born Christians That which is here spoken concerning examples is but a repetition of what you said before and there you are answered Anabaptist Againe you demand further of the Anabaptists where their Commission is to baptize As for the word Anabaptists we disclaime the sense of it but as it is a slanderous reproach that is cast upon us for the cause of Christ we therein rejoice in it But to answer your demand thus you would know where our Commission is we answer from the Commission of Christ Mat. 28.19 Where Christ bids His Disciples to teach all nations to observe whatsoever Hee commanded them Now Hee commanded to teach them before Baptisme and so the Disciples were to teach all nations to follow the like rule Answer I demanded whence you had your calling or Ordination to baptize at all Neither can you by the word of God justifie your practice of preaching and administring the Sacraments for you have neither extraordinary calling immediately from God as had John the Baptist and the Apostles nor ordinary from any Presbytery unto that weighty function which the ablest and holiest servants of God have been afraid to venture upon And for you to take your turnes and goe on in course as if it were a businesse for every Pedlar and Taylour lour and Felt-monger to meddle with argues clearely that you were never men of Gods sending but have your Commission from the devill and not from Christ as we have noted before And now you tell me a tale of a Tub that you derive your Commission from Matth. 28.19 where you say that Christ bids His Disciples to teach all nations to observe whatsoever He commanded them Where you would lay this foundation namely that if a man be a Disciple then he may teach and baptize and so the Ministeriall function shall be no peculiar function But if you look back upon the 16 verse of that chapter you shall sinde that the Disciples unto which Christ gave this Commission were the eleven Apostles called there by the name of the eleven Disciples And therefore you belie the Lord and pervert His word And then you shuffle in your owne confusions and glosses as whatsoever the Apostles did in their ministration all succeeding Churches and Ministers must doe which is most false and impious For as we have shewed before there were some things belonging to the Apostolicall ministration