will Christ take it that his people and Churches are thus compared with the slaves and Synagogues of Antichrist 2. Yet we are not ashamed to own that which is of God amongst the Italians Spaniards and French Shall we reject the Scriptures of the old Testament or be equalled with the Jews because we embrace them as Gods word which the Jews also professe to do Or must we cast off the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament and many precious truths gathered out of them because professed by the Papists who yet overthrow by many false doctrines and superstitions what truths they professe no sure Neither are we to think the worse of Infant-baptism because it is used amongst them 3. Yea we make no doubt but that if in Italy Spain and France they would hold only that in doctrine worship and practice which is agreeable to Gods word even the holy Scripture which they professe to imbrace with us and cast away superstitious idolatry and impieties contrary thereunto reforming according to the word God would own them for his Churches neither should they need a new constitution or new Baptisme any more then new Scripture They have added indeed to Scripture and Baptism of their own but let them repent of and cast away their additions and keep that which is of God in judgement practice and worship according to the Scriptures which are amongst them and they become forthwith true and good Churches The Church of Judah after it had fallen to idolatry by casting away that idolatry in the time of Asa Jehosaphat Hezekiah and Josiah was acknowledged a true and good Church without new constitution Nay more if backsliding Israel after her many abominations had returned to God when they had lien long in idolatry Ier. 3.1 2. 4.1 God would have received them as his people without new Circumcision Fourthly Whereas you say From this Infant-Baptism they are called Christians or Christendom You do not prove it We deny it and assert That we are called Christians or Christendom from our faith in Jesus Christ and the profession thereof and from our interest in the Covenant of Grace which God hath made with us in Christ the Mediatour exhibited yet granting that Baptism is the badge of our Christianity but not that which constitutes Christians What they of Rome or Spain say we passe not Fifthly Whereas you say or imply Baptism is dipping in your sense and call it sprinkling by way of scorn in our sense and would imply that Christ ordained and his Apostles practised dipping or as others expresse it dousing over the head not infusion or sprinkling We wish you to prove it if you can either from the proper signification of the word Mark 7.4 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Mat. 3.11 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 See the accomplishment of this Prophecie Act. ◠v. 3. 17 18. Act 10.44 11 15 16. Luk. 12.50 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Mat 20 22. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Isa 63 1 3. or from the nature of the Ordinance or from the historical relation of the Apostles practice or otherwise We finde that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies to wash or bedew or imbrew lightly whether by infusion of or dipping into any liquid thing with a light touch but that it should signifie only dipping or dousing the use of the word will not allow 1. It is used to signifie the ceremonial washing of cups pots brazen vessels or tables which may be as well done by infusion or pouring water upon them as by immersion or diping into the water yea in some of them much better 2. The same word is also used to signifie Christs baptizing with the holy Ghost and with fire This cannot be so understood that Christ should dip or douse men into the holy Ghost and fire but that in the Primitive times the holy Ghost should be poured upon them as the texts in the margin shew and that Christ would in after times pour his Spirit ordinarily on his people which Spirit in respect of operation is compared to fire as giving light heat c. 3. This word is used to signifie Christs death wherein his bloud was poured forth and sprinkled on himself and he washed in his own bloud I have saith he a Baptism to be baptized with and again Are you able to be baptized with the Baptism that I am baptized with 4. This word is also used to signifie Christs execution of Justice on his enemies he being compared to a mighty warriour which with wounding and slaying his enemies is besprinkled with their bloud which spouts out of their body when they are gashed and pierced by him Our Translators render that in the Revelation having his garments dipped in bloud Rev. 19 13. But it may be well read as that in Isaiah sprinkled with bloud For warriours do not use to dip or douse their garments in their enemies bloud lying on the ground but well may they have their garments besprinkled therewith as it gusheth out of their bodies being wounded by them 2. As for the nature use and end of Baptism it is to signifie the pouring of the bloud and spirit of Christ on our souls for regeneration remission of sins and sanctification wherein we are not said to be dipped or doused into Christs bloud or spirit but to be sprinkled therewith or to have them poured upon us Heb. 9.13 14. chap. 12.24 1 Pet. 1.2 Isa 44.3 Act. 2.18 So that Prophecie of Christs besprinkling many Nations Isa 52.15 may be understood of his sprinkling them with his bloud which having spilled he was so deformed more then any man ver 14. for justification and his Spirit which by his truth he purchased for sanctification The scope of the text and coherence speaking of Christs sufferings and the fruits thereof confirm the interpretation as most natural and proper 3. As for the relation which the Scripture makes of the manner of baptizing Iosh 3.17 Sometimes indeed it speaks of baptizing at the river Jordan but how improbable is it that they should go into that mighty stream 2 King 2.8 14. Act. 2.41 which could not be passed over safely on foot without a miracle and there be dipped with extream danger of drowning 2. We reade of baptizing in a City divers thousands in one day without any mention of their going forth to any great water to be dipped 3. We reade of baptizing a whole houshold in a City in the deep night without the least intimation of their going forth to a river or any great water to be dipped which if you consider well it may be you will not be so confident in calling baptizing dipping Sixtly You say that This baptizing or dipping of Beleevers was ordained of Christ and practised by the Disciples for the right constitution of true Churches This you speak as your own sense Ans This opinion was confuted before and by that which follows it shall further appear that neither Baptism
of water That they are capable also of the spiritual grace of Baptism Gods many promises of circumcising the hearts of the faithfull seed and pouring his Spirit upon them c. prove as also the example of Jacob and John the Baptist whereof the one was beloved of God the other filled with the holy Ghost while little ones 2. I answer to the assumption by distinction of the first second act of reason faith The power or faculty of understanding or reason which we may call the first act Infants have else they were bruits and unreasonable creatures though the actual exercise thereof which is in man they want so a seminal virtual habitual faith implied in regeneration and the gift of the holy Ghost they have not a professed faith of ripe Beleevers 2. If men will needs have actual professed faith for the admission of persons to Baptism I answer Gen. 17.7 Act. 2.39 As parents by faith accept the Covenant for themselves and children according as Scripture propounds the Covenant Gen. 17.7 Act. 2.39 which is agreeable to the usual way of contracts and Covenants amongst men that parents take a Lease for themselves and infant-children and binde themselves and children to the condition as infant-children are parts and adherents of their parents having no use of power reason or will to provide for or dispose of themselves in their own persons untill they come to years of discretion so the faith of their parents may be said to be their faith as the parents act in taking a house or making a bargain may be called the childes act as no lesse beneficiall and obliging to the childe then to the parent at least untill he come to the use of reason where in his own person he may by some voluntary act ratifie or disannul it And here observe a second distinction of faith namely actual and professed It is this professed faith may be distinguished into Personal and private which is required of all persons which are at their own dispose at their first entrance into Covenant and admission to the seal of entrance and Common or publick faith which in a common or publick person may suffice in the behalf of those that are wholly under his power and at his dispose as Infants are to their parents This is sufficient for such to interest them in the Covenant and seal of admittance as we see in Abrahams and the Jewish Infants and Christians children which are holy by virtue of their parents faith 1 Cor. 7.14 and in this respect they may be said to have actual professed faith viz. of their parents If the Jews with their children were broken off by unbelief as the Apostle affirmeth Rom 11.29 then by faith they and their posterity had continued implanted untill their posterity should by actual professed unbelief break off themselves and their posterity The same is the case of the ingraffed Gentiles and will be of the Jews that are to be reingraffed vers 20.23 24 25. that by virtue of the faith of the parents infant-children should be in Covenant and beleevers even professedly by the profession of parents as it had been with Gods people for many generations before Christ for the Apostle speaks of such a growing up in the Olive tree that the implanted Gentiles and reimplanted Jews must expect as was that which the Church of the Jews had enjoyed to that time And sure if the unbelief of professed Infidels leave their infant-children in the case of professed infidelity and estrangement from the Covenant untill by their own personal individual faith they embrace that Covenant no lesse must the saith of beleeving parents leave their Infants in the state of professed or known Beleevers and persons in Covenant until by their own wilfull voluntary act they reject the Covenant for Gods promises to the faithfull and their posterity are no lesse full then his curses to the wicked and their posterity Exod. 20.5 6. 3. How ignorantly and impertinently that sentence is added by you Whatever is not of faith is sin any one may see And thus for the answer to your Arguments You prevent an Objection thus But you will say H. H. and J.B. Where doth the Scripture forbid That your Ministers will say is an unreasonable and unlearned question there being no proving negatives for then where doth the Scripture say You shall not worship the Pope go to Masse you shall not reade the Common prayer book or wear the Surplesse But it doth forbid Idolatry Will-worship which is that if you have no Scripture rule for the same and teaching for doctrine the commands of men which is this being only traditionall and that acknowledged by one of your Ministers lately in this Town that it was Ecclesiasticall and not Apostolicall Ans Deut. 4.2 Prov. 30.6 Iam 4.11 17. Rev. 22.8 9. The Scripture is such a perfect rule to Gods people of faith worship and holy walking both affirmatively and negatively that nothing may be urged as a duty Divine worship or truth but what is there commanded or taught nor charged as a sin Will-worship or errour but what is there forbidden or condemned either particularly and expresly or at least in general and to be gathered by good consequence 2. They are very ignorant and rash that will condemn worshipping the Pope going to Masse c. and yet cannot finde them forbidden in the Scripture yea they are too great friends to the Pope Masse and other superstition that will say or but insinuate that the Scripture doth no where condemn them or that will match Infant-baptisme with them 3. Forbear charging us with Will-worship Idolatry and teaching for doctrines the commands of men untill you have heard what Scripture grounds we can bring for our judgement and practice in this particular 4. Why do not you name the Minister which acknowledged this traditional and Ecclesiastical not Apostolical If there were any such let him answer for himself The Papists indeed call it a tradition of the Church to prove the imperfection of the Scripture and necessity of tradition Our Protestant Writers confute them in this shewing that it is grounded on Scripture not on tradition If any whom you call one of our Ministers speaks as the Papist against the whole current of Protestant Divines we are no more bound to stand to his principles or to defend him therein or answer for him then we are bound to do it for you and the Papists which agree with him in that opinion Now before I lay down our Arguments I must for the clearing of the truth confirm one thing which I have partly touched already It 's this That it is not only lawfull but necessary to argue from Scripture by way of consequence or deduction for the finding out of the truth neither must we alwaies expect expresse and immediate commands in Scripture for the particular circumstances and applications of the Ordinances of God or for the justifying of every matter of judgement and
29.9 10 11 12. proves either that there were no little children in that assembly or that they had no right to the Covenant both which are expresly contradicted in the context vers 9. Keep therefore saith Moses the words of this Covenant and do them that ye may prosper in all that ye do Vers 10. Ye stand this day all of you before the Lord your God your Captains of your Tribes your Elders and your Officers with all the men of Israel Vers 11. Your little ones your wives and thy stranger that is in the Camp from the hewer of thy wood to the drawer of thy water Vers 12. That thou shouldest enter into Covenant with the Lord thy God and into his Oath which the Lord thy God maketh with thee this day c. Now as Moses made this exhortation to all Israel though the little children amongst them were not able to understand it and be affected with it for the present and yet were present to be admitted into Covenant and had right to the seal of entrance thereinto and this exhortation was for their good as their parents embracing it were with their children received into Covenant and put in minde of their duty in devoting their children to and bringing them up for God and as it might serve for the childrens instruction when they should come to age So Paul and Silas might speak to the whole family amongst whom might be little ones who though they understood not the doctrine and exhortation propounded for the present yet might upon the parents imbracing of this doctrine be received into Covenant with them and to the seal of entrance thereinto and afterward by their parents instructed in that doctrine which for the present they understood not 4. It is said that he and all his were baptized straitway There is no expression or intimation that every one beleeved and made a profession of his faith for themselves severally 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but when the Jaylour had manifested his repentance and faith he and all his were baptized straitway It seems that the faith and profession of the head of the family was sufficient to give right to the members at least to those that did not express their dissent or refusal of it 5. The word having beleeved vers 34. is of the singular number and masculine gender and must be referred to the Jaylour only according to the Grammatical construction 6. Though it should be granted that he and his whole house may be said to beleeve which yet the words of the text prove not It may be well understood so as Abraham and all his family were beleevers in Covenant and circumcised Gen. 18.19 even those that were Infants the Head having made profession of his faith and ingaged himself to take care of all his family should be instructed in the faith and obedience of God And this last answer beside divers of the former general and special may serve for the last Scripture viz. Act. 18.8 And Crispus the chief Ruler of the Synagogue beleeved in the Lord with all his house and many of the Corinthians beleeved and were baptized And indeed how can it be thought probable that such families as the Jaylours the Rulers of the Synagogue and Lydias whose houshold was baptized upon her hearing and beleeving of the word no mention being made of the rests hearing or beleeving should have no children in them Hence I gather thus If at the first preaching of the Gospel the faithfull with their whole families were baptized so soon as God had opened the hearts of the governours to receive the word and beleeve then now the families and children of those that have long professed the Gospel at least so many in their family as do not stubbornly reject Jesus Christ are to be acknowledged within the Covenant and admitted to Baptism the seal of entrance But the former is true Therefore the later Whereas you conclude your first Paper thus Having proved by positive and plain Scripture what we affirm we conclude with the doctrine of the Church of England which maintains the same viz. That repentance and faith is required in persons to be baptized and that Infants by reason of tender age can neither repent nor beleeve which we leave to your consideration and desire your answer Ans How positive and plain the Scriptures cited by you to prove what you affirm and practise are we have seen and leave to the judgement of others 2. In your concluding with the doctrine of the Church of England you might have done well to have told us what you mean by the Church and in what book or place that doctrine is main ained and then we should have given answer thereto if the very citation of the place be not sufficient to answer it and make you ashamed of your citing of it But in the mean space you have our consideration and answer to what you bring out of Scripture By me William Cooke You Preface to your second Paper thus IN stead of an expected answer in writing H.H. and J.B. to this our Paper according to promise we have received another verbal request from you viz. That we would give some reasons why Infants should not be baptized By which we conclude you can give no reason why you baptize them we having so much urged you herein to prove your practice by Scripture having given you so large a proof of our practising the contrary by so many plain truths wherein you may finde reason enough against yours if you have any minde without further cavil to answer them Answer 1. IT was agreeable to reason and equity that seeing you had so fully and frequently expressed your selves against Infant-Baptism you should give your reasons thereof especially we having been so long in possession and being by you charged to want right it was fit that you should be required to produce the grounds of your charge 2. Whereas you conclude so hastily that we can give no reason of our practice we see that though you dislike syllogisms you are pleased with sophisticall Enthymems making a conclusion from so weak a premise 3. How much the many plain written truths prove for your own judgement and practice or against ours we wish you to review in the foregoing Answer and you will there finde that without cavils we had a minde to answer You proceed But that you may see how really we intend the discovery of truth and to satisfie you in every desire that may any way tend thereto we give you these further in answer 1. Because Christ hath no where commanded it And whatsoever is practised as an ordinance of his without institution is Will-worship and Idolatry Ans This your reason in its full strength stands thus Whatsoever is practised as an Ordinance of Christ without an institution is Will-worship and Idolatry But baptizing of Infants is practised as an Ordinance of Christ without any institution Therefore it is Will-worship and
Idolatry The assumption which would by us be denied you back thus It hath no command from Christ Therefore it is without an institution Ans In answer to this I desire you to take notice of two distinctions necessary to remove mistakes 1. We must distinguish between the essentials of an Ordinance and the accidentals and circumstantials in respect of the application of it to such or such persons in such a time place or manner This is necessary to be observed Christ instituted the Ordinance of the Supper or Communion of the body and bloud of Christ but never expresly commanded that it should be administred to women It 's sufficient that it may be gathered from Scripture He hath instituted Baptiâ—â— but nâ—ver expresly commanded that it should be administred to or by Ta 〈…〉 Wâ—avâ—rs Jersey-combers or Coblers If from general rules of Scriptuâ—◠〈…〉 that this Ordinance is to be applied to or by such persons thâ—â— being found to have such qualifications as the Scripture requires in these cases it is sufficient It is an Ordinance of Christ that his people should reade the Scripture but it 's no where expresly commanded that such as understand not the original should reade it in a translated printed English Bible it sufficeth that this may be proved out of Scripture by good consequence The second distinction is this An Ordinance in respect of circumstantials or applications may be said to be instituted by Christ either expresly and immediatly or so as that the institution is to be gathered by consequence of this later kinde is a beleeving womans receiving the Sacrament of the Communion of the body and bloud of Christ and meer English-mens and English-womens reading the Scripture for spiritual instruction and edification in a printed English Bible distinguished into Chapters and Verses There is no expresse command for admitting women to the Lords Table nor for the translating and printing of Scripture for the help of ignorant people yet these are not Will-worship and Idolatry It may be sufficiently proved from Scripture that these are good and warrantable and that Gods people should be greatly wronged if women should be driven from the Communion and those that are ignorant of Hebrew and Greek should be debarred from reading the Scripture I answer therefore 1. By granting the proposition taken in a right sense viz. That whatsoever is practised as an Ordinance and worship of Christ without an institution from him at least in respect of the essentials yea whose essentials and circumstantials may not be gathered out of the Scripture either expresly or by good consequence is at least Will-worship if not Idolatry and therefore unlawfull to be maintained or practised But I deny the assumption for the essentials and substantials of Baptism are expresly commanded in Scripture Mat. 28.19 20. Mar. 16.15 16 c. The particular application of Baptism to Infants though not expresly in so many words in Scripture yet may be gathered therefrom by good consequence as shall appear hereafter God assisting Therefore the assumption being false in that sense wherein the proposition is true nothing can be concluded I come now to your second argument which is this It cannot be proved that Christ or his Apostles practised Infant-Baptism Which reason stands in its whole strength thus What cannot be proved that Christ and his Apostles practised that is unlawfull in Gods worship But it cannot be proved that Christ and his Apostles practised Infant-baptism Therefore it is unlawfull Ans The proposition is not universally â—rue we may not argue from the practice of Christ and his Apostles universally either affirmatively or negatively not affirmatively for they might do some things as such eminent persons which it is not the duty of nor possible for all Ministers or Christians ordinarily to do so Nor negatively for there may be some things which are the duties of inferiour men which yet were below Christ and his Apostles We reade not that they practised or submitted to the Office of Pastors Elders or Deacâ—â—â— properly so called will it follow therefore that these are Will-worshiâ— They never as can be proved translated Bibles or read the Scripture 〈…〉 â—â—unded the text of a Sermon out of a translated printed Bible nor took thâ— notes of Sermons Are these therefore Will-worship If they being busied in laying the foundation of Churches practised not some things which are agreeable to our work which is for the superstruction we need not to be troubled having warrant or institution either immediate or to be gathered by consequence Neither is the assumption so clear as to be easily granted and though it might suffice for the present to deny the main proposition yet take also this answer to the assumption Though Christ did not baptize Infants nor any at all in his own person and therefore if his example is to be followed herein by Ministers Ioh. 4.2 or those that may be conceived to have authority to baptize none at all must be baptized by them Yet he did that for Infants which is at least equivalent to baptizing or layeth sufficient ground to warrant their baptizing he laid his hands on them blesseth them pronounceth them to have right to the Kingdom of God or Covenant of the Gospel and gives command to his Apostles to disciple all Nations and baptize them The Apostles acted according to this Commission held forth the promise whereof Baptism is a seal or pledge as belonging to the faithfull and their children and baptized Beleevers and their whole families of which more largely partly before partly hereafter Your third Argument is this Because they are uncapable subjects having neither understanding reason nor faith and whatever is not of faith is sin Being put into form it stands thus Subjects uncapable of Baptism are not to be baptized But Infants are subjects uncapable of Baptism Therefore not to be baptized The proposition is granted the assumption denied you endeavour to prove it thus They that have neither understanding reason nor faith are subjects uncapable of Baptism But Infants have neither understanding reason nor faith Therefore subjects uncapable of Baptism 1. I answer to the proposition by denying it if by understanding reason and faith you mean ripe actual and visibly exercised and professed understanding reason and faith such as is in persons of ripe years and I give these two reasons of my denial 1. The children of the Jews when they wanted the actual use of understanding which belongs to persons of age were not uncapable of Circumcision which was of the same use to Jews Gen. 17.7 Rom. 4 1â— Deut. 30.6 as Baptism is to us Christians viz. to be a seal of the Covenant and of the righteousnesse of faith and a sign of renewing and sanctifying the heart 2. That they are capable I prove it by the parts Reason and even sense and experience shews that they are capable of the outward sign there being required a meer passion of them in the Ministers application
that had such qualifications only as their children but that those very babes might be admitted to Christ for prayer and laying on of his hands The Disciples rebuked them for bringing not humble persons of ripe years and otherwise qualified as children but those babes Christ is angry with them for hindering those very children pleads for the children and the bringers of them commandeth that the children should be permitted to come to him not such as them in humility and like qualifications at this time and gives this reason For of such is the Kingdom of heaven Now how were this speech and reason of Christ pertinent or convincing if when the question was about little ones he should speak only of those which were endued with humility and such qualifications yet of ripe years 2. The word such is taken most usually in Scripture if not alwaies for the same persons or things of which mention was made immediatly before and those that are of the same nature and kinde not those of different kinde of form that only agree in some remote unquestioned unmentioned qualifications 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as may appear by these and such like Scriptures Joh 4.23 But the hour cometh and now is when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in Spirit and truth for the Father seeketh such to worship him 1 Cor 5.5 To deliver such an one to Satan this is meant of the incestuous man of whom the Apostle had spoken before and of those that were guilty of the same or like sins as he so 2 Cor. 12.2 Such an one taken up into the third heaven vers 3. I know such a man ver 5. Concerning such a man I will glory It 's plain that this is spoken of the man that had Visions and Revelations of God whether in the body or out of the body he knew not and that Paul would glory of that very man or such others for whom God had done such things as none of the false Apostles could glory of the like The same may be observed Gal. 5.21 Heb. 7.26 and Heb. 13.16 By which examples it is plain that though the word such in the English tongue often signifies but similitude yet in the Original it notes entity both specifical and numerical and consequently here are not meant those who were only like babes in humility and such qualifications but those very Infants that were brought and other such Infants viz. of the Church 3. If therefore only Christ admitted children took them in his arms laid his hands on them and blessed them because of their humility and such qualifications wherein these that will enter into the Kingdom of God must resemble them not because they themselves had interrest in the Kingdom of God and were capable of spiritual blessings then it will follow that it had been lawfull and commendable for men to have brought to Christ Sheep Doves or Serpents Salt Lights or Vine-branches good Wheat o◠good Fish Mat 5.13 14. Mat. 10 16. Ioh. 10 14. Mat. 13. Ioh. 13.1 c. to have him put his hands upon them and prayed for them and that Christ would have taken these all or any of them into his arms or hands laid his hands on them and blessed them for the Godly are resembled to these and we required to be like unto them in some qualifications as we will be saved and where the same or like cause is the same or like effect will follow But the consequent is absurd and ridiculous if not blasphemous Therefore the antecedent is false I come now to the third Argument taken from this History and it is my fourth Argument in order Arg. 4. Arg. 4 Those and such as those to whom Christ hath vouchsafed his dear imbraces prayers blessing and imposition of hands as a sign or pledge of his blessing are doubtlesse in Covenant and have right to the sign or pledge of entrance thereinto which is Baptism now in time of the Gospel But Christ hath vouchsafed the little children of the faithfull his dear imbraces prayed for them blessed them Mat. 10 13.15 Mat. 10.16 and laid his hands on them as a sign or pledge of his blessing Therefore the children of the faithfull are in Covenant and have right to the seal of entrance thereinto which is Baptism To the clearing of the Proposition let it be remembred 1. The tender imbraces of Christ and ready entertainments of persons argue those to be in Covenant and in his favour whom he so entertaineth For he that forbad his Disciples to go to the Gentiles and Samaritans Mat. 10.5 Mat. 15.24 Luk 7.29 Luk 15.1 2 3. was not sent but to the lost sheep of the house of Israel would not have eaten with publicans and sinners but as they had been lost sheep and prodigall sons yet sheep and sons found again which had been humbed by Johns Ministry would not doubtlesse tenderly imbrace any young or old that were without God hope Christ or Covenant 2. These whom Christ prayeth for are not of the world and therefore called out of the world to the Church and Covenant Joh. 17.9 3. Christs laying on of his hands being a sign or seal of spiritual blessing for we reade not that these children were brought to be cured of any corporal malady but Christs saying Of such is the Kingdom of God sufficiently implieth that the blessings which he bestowed and confirmed to them Rom. 14.17 by laying on of hands were blessings of his Kingdom which are principally not corporal but spiritual was of the same nature or equivalent to or at least implied right in Baptism For we never reade that God or Christ or any by Divine appointment communicated imposition of hands as a sign of the blessings of his Kingdom to unbeleevers and persons out of Covenant and so uninterested in the seal of entrance into Covenant 4. Hence follows each of these favours of Christ much more all laid together prove that those to whom they are vouchsafed are in Covenant and so have title to the pledge of admission thereto As to the Assumption let it be noted 1. That it is in the very words of the text 2. That though this priviledge of corporal or visible imbracing and laying on of hands and vocal or audible prayer and blessing from Christ was peculiar to those Infants that were then brought to him yet that the same blessings for substance invisibly and spiritually to be conferred by Christ and what is equivalent to these outward signs belong still to children of Beleevers under the Gospel may be gathered from the whole context is partly cleared in the handling of the two former Arguments and might be further proved if need were and intended brevity would suffer Arg. 5. Arg. 5 If all Nations were by the Apostles to be made disciples and baptized then the children of those in the Nations by whom the Gospel is received for children are a very great and considerable part of a
them by the coming of Christ contrary to the Propheticall predictions Evangelical Proclamations and all the faithfuls expectation if whereas before Christs coming their little ones were in Covenant had God for their God and were sealed with the sign of the Covenant now upon this imbracing of Christ whether on the first offer of the Gospel to them by the Apostles as in Act. Act. 2.37 38 39 40 c. Rom. 7 26 27 2. or at their conversion in the latter end of the world Rom. 11. their Infant-children should be left out of the Covenant in Satans Kingdome 3. I will answer one Objection once for all which may seem to have some force to take away those untheological and unevangelical absurdities that these men fall into which here and elsewhere it 's shewed their opinion leads them to it 's this Obj. In the Old Testament indeed the Church had many external visible priviledges consisting in Rites and Ceremonies and therefore they were circumcised and their children but now in the Gospel the priviledges are more spiritual and invisible and therefore it will not follow If some of those visible priviledges be withdrawn that the Gospel-dispensation is not more excellent then the Legal and so if Baptism be denied to Christians children that their state is worse then the state of the Jews Ans This Objection which would seem to take off the former absurdities will appear anon to bring in other absurdities as great or greater or leave the force of the former Arguments untouched For though it be true that amongst the Jews was a worldly Sanctuary and carnal ordinances Heb. 9.1.10 which are now abolished and no visible ordinance left to Christians in the place thereof Yet generally to say that Jews priviledges consisted in Rites and Ceremonies and Christians are spiritual and invisible is to deny spiritual priviledges to the Jews and the outward profession of religion to Christians which is equally to overthrow the power of godlinesse and truth of religion in both then which what more dangerous or absurd 2. But if they will leave generals and come to the point in hand they must either deny that there is any such outward ordinance as Baptism left to the Church of the New Testament being of the same use for the main and in the place of Circumcision Col. 2.11 12. which to do were to contradict plain Scripture or if they grant it their shifting distinction of visible and spiritual priviledges cannot help them for here by their own concession it cannot take place seeing that they yield that in this case a visible priviledge is afforded alike to both Churches Jewish and Christian 3. This Objection should be acknowledged to say something to the purpose if it could be proved 1. That the Jews were only under an external Covenant without spiritual graces 2. That their priviledges were only external 3. That Christians have now only spiritual blessings bestowed on them 4. That ordinarily God now gives his Covenant and spiritual blessings thereof without any visible means or external way of dispensing the same All or any of which to assert were very false and wicked But when it is acknowledged or at least may by plentifull Scripture be proved 1. That the Jews and their children had interest in spiritual blessings of the Covenant as truly as we though in a different manner and measure 2. That we Christians are under a visible dispensation as well as they 3. That both dispensations have had alike each a visible sign seal or pledge of admission into Covenant 4. That to enjoy these signs and seals have been and still are a great benefit to them that have them according to Gods appointment 5. That now Beleevers have need of the seals of the Covenant to them and their children to confirm their faith in Gods mercy to them and theirs and ingage and incite them to obedience as well as the beleeving Jews That for themselves Beleevers need a seal or pledge is granted by all parties that acknowledge that God who institutes nothing needlesse or superstuous in his Church hath instituted Baptisme as a standing Ordinance for Christians And that for their children they need a seal as well as the Jews for their children or Christian Professours for themselves may appear thus 1. Have not Christians children souls capable of salvation as well as the Jews 2. Is it not for Gods glory to be visibly known the God of Christians children as well as of the Jews 3. Aâ—e Christian parents better able to beleeve Gods fatherly federall love to their children and devote them to his worship without his applying a seal unto them then they can beleeve his love to themselves and devote themselves to God without a seal or pledge If they can sufficiently beleeve in God for their children and devote them to Christ without the seal for a pledge or ingagement surely they might as well have beleeved and obeyed without a seal for themselves if so no seal had been instituted at all for God will make no superâ—â—uous institutions But a seal is instituted therefore they needed it if for themselves then for their children 4. Are Christian parents more carelesse of their childrens salvation or Gods being glorified by their children then the Jews were that none may say Then sure they no lesse need to see them sealed into the Covenant wherein they may be ingaged to glorifie God and God to save their souls Or 5. have Christians more obscure and sparing discovery by promise and precept concerning their own priviledges and duties that they should need the seal and pledge of Baptism for themselves but more full and clearer promises and commands concerning their childrens priviledges and duties then either the Jews had for their children or Christian Professours have for themselves that in the case of Christians children there should be no use of a seal and pledge though the Jews children did and Christian Professours do need a seal I think none will say this 6. That no Scripture or reason can be given to prove that Beleevers children in the time of the Gospel are debarred from the Covenant and seal thereof of which the beleeving Jews children had been long in possession and some more eminent priviledge bestowed on Christians children which the Jews children never had to compensate that losse of being driven from the Covenant and seal when I say these six things are at the least for the greater part acknowledged and the other may be easily proved at least so many as are necessary for this purpose it must needs be a very contradictory thing to say That the Gospel-dispensation is more glorious and comfortable then the Legal and beleeving Gentiles as much or more blessed then the Jews and yet Christians children driven from the Covenant of grace and seal thereof which the Jews children were under 4. Having first propounded something in general for the clearing of the whole Argument secondly confirmed the Proposition by some