being taught or at least they would gather from Christs Commission they are uncapable of being preached to and taught Therefore of being baptized But this is not a sufficient cause why they should not be baptized For teaching the doctrines and commands of Christ should go after not before Baptism according to the order of Christs Commission It 's enough that persons be devoted to Christ upon the tender of the Gospel by those that have power externally to dedicate them to him and then they are to be baptized and as it were matriculated into his School and after taught all things that Christ hath commanded them the contrary course is a preposterous inverting of the order of Christ Therefore Baptism is not to be denied to the Infants of Beleevers But they are by their parents to be dedicated to Christ and then baptized and afterwards instructed and taught in all the doctrines and commands of Christ which way is most agreeable to the order of Christs Commission 4. Whereas it is said in Mark 16.16 He that beleeveth and is baptized shall be saved he that beleeveth not shall be condemned If you will take these words precisely as containing a generall and compleat rule by which we must judge who must be baptized and saved who not without limitation to the first calling of Jews and Gentiles to Christianity I reason thus against you from this Scripture Children even the Infants of Christians either beleeve or not If they beleeve Deut. 30.6 having faith though but seminal or virtual comprehended in regeneration or circumcision of the heart which God promiseth to the seed of the faithfull or maybe said to beleeve in their parents who accept of the Covenant for themselves and their seed then they are to be baptiye◠as this Scripture shews and your own argument against their Baptism yields this being your great reason against baptizing children because say you they cannot beleeve But if you say they do not cannot beleeve they are all damned by you from this Scripture which saith expressely Whosoever beleeves not shall be condemned Take which you will If you say the former the cause is yielded by you If the later viz. That all the children of Beleevers whiles Infants are condemned and that there is no hope of salvation if they die before grown years this being so contrary to the Covenant of God and his promises will make you deservedly abhorred of all those that know God his Covenant and Scriptures If you to avoid this dilemma say this Scripture belongs only to those of grown years as were those unbeleeving Jews and Heathens to whom the Apostles were immediatly sent and therefore the condemnation of Infants through want of actual faith cannot be hence concluded you answer your selves and might as easily see that the exclusion of Infants from Baptism for want of actuall personal professed faith cannot hence be gathered especially seeing these words are far more peremptory and expresse against the salvation then against the Baptism of non-beleevers Secondly You say What you practise is proved to be the Baptism of Christ by the practice of the Disciples in obedience to those commands as Act 2.38 Then Peter said unto them Repent and be baptized every one of you in the Name of Jesus Christ unto the remission of sins ver 41. Then they that gladly received the word were baptized and the same day added to the Church Ans You cut off in the citation of this Scripture a very material part namely the ground of the Apostles exhortation to them to be baptized which if you would have considered seriously might have made you afraid to urge this place for your purpose It seems you thought it good policy to omit it least others should see how little it makes for your purpose or rather how much against you The words you omitted are in ver 39. The Apostle having exhorted them to repent and be baptized in the Name of Christ for the remission of sin and that they might receive the gift of the holy Ghost adds this reason ver 39. For the promise is to you and to your children and to all that be afar off so many as the Lord our God shall call Using this argument to perswade them to be baptized and to expect the spiritual blessing signified in Baptism viz. the remission of sins and pouring of the Spirit on them for the promise saith he is to you and your children and least we should think that this priviledge was peculiar to the Jews to have their children interested in the promise with their parents he adds And to all that be afar off so many as the Lord your God shall call Noting that all that shall be called of the remote Gentiles shall enjoy the like priviledge namely that the promise shall belong not only to them but also their children Whence I reason thus To whom the promise of remission of sins and the gift of the holy Ghost belongs to the same also Baptism the pledge thereof belongs for this is the summe of the Apostles reasoning to be gathered out of the 38. and 39. verse But the promise is to the faithfull or people of God and their children whether Jews or Gentiles Deut. 4.2 Mat. 46. compared with Psal 91.11 12. even those that were afar off whom God shall call and therefore Baptism belongs to them and their children You know who forbids to add to or take from the word and who is the ringleader of that art of curtayling the word 2. Whereas it is said Those that gladly received the word were baptized It may be well understood as they received the word they received Baptism the seal and appendix of the word But they received the word of promise as it was propounded to them by the Apostles which was thus That it belonged to them and their children Therefore answerably the seal of the word viz. Baptism belonging to them and their children they were baptized and their children 3. Whereas you say They that received the word were added to the Church The text saith And the same day there were added to the Church three thousand souls It is not safe thus to make bold with and mis-report Scripture The next Scripture which you cite is Act. 8.1 But when they beleeved Philip preaching the things concerning the Kingdom of God in the Name of Jesus they were baptized both men and women To this I answer 1. Who knows not that the words men and women are names rather noting the sexes then ages and are appliable to Infants as well as grown persons Did not Eve when she had born her first childe say Gen. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I have gotten a man from the Lord Will you hence gather that because she cals him a man therefore he was at perfect age at the day of his birth When Christ saith that the woman when she is delivered of a childe Ioh. 16.21 remembred not her anguish for joy that a man
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
nor diping is essential to the constitution of a true Church Seventhly You say or imply This baptizing or dipping is that whereby they became and were truly called Christians Ans This is false that men cannot be right Christians without your dipping Yea though we understand it of true Baptism for faith or interest in Christ properly maketh Christians Being interested in Christ though we should be hindered by death or other providence from Baptisme yet we are true Christians as the thief on the Crosse Those three thousand mentioned in the Acts when they had beleeved Act. 2 19 40. were Christians even before they were baptized so Philip before he came to the water Baptism is rather an effect or consequent then a cause or antecedent of our Christianity People are rightly baptized because Christians not Christians because baptized 2. Neither were men hence at first called Christians because baptized for many thousands had been baptized a long time before they were called Christians For whereas great multitudes had been baptized by John the Baptist Mat. 3.5 6. Ioh 4 5 6. See Act 2. 3. to the 7 chap. and more by the Disciples of Christ before his death and many thousands also after his ascension at Jerusalem Samaria and elsewhere Beleevers were not called Christians untill a good time after the Persecution and dispersion at Jerusalem For the faithfull were first called Christians at Antioch Act. 11. â—6 where Paul and Barnabas had taught an whole year and the number of Disciples was mightily increased there is not the least intimation that Baptism or dipping gave them the name of Christians but rather their famous profession of Christ Thus much for particulars observable in the main proposition Eightly From the whole proposition in respect of the matter let it be noted that besides your implicit fastning on us some things which we own not and asserting as your own some things which you neither have nor can prove The whole state of the Question is mistaken by you You speak of Baptism which is for the constitution of Churches whereas the Question is What Baptism is to be used amongst us who are a Church or Churches constituted already We grant that to the first constituting of Churches amongst Jews or Infidels which were never a Christian people a Profession of repentance faith or obedience must be made by men upon the preaching of the Gospel that they and their children may be accepted into Covenant and baptized As Abraham professed his faith before that he and his family were circumcised but after that his children were circumcised without requiring of actual faith and repentance from them as precedaneous to Circumcision They that will constitute new Churches amongst Infidels ought as we judge first to require actual faith and repentance of that people before they admit them and their seed as members of the Church But whatsoever you think of us we Christians in England know that we were through Gods grace a Church constituted long ago whose defects and corruptions though many yet have not been inconsistent with the being of a Church neither such hath been the indulgence of our Lord Jesus Christ the head and King of the Church were we ever unchurched If you will go and preach among Jews Turks and infidels and make it appear that you have a commission for it we will not gainsay your constituting of Churches amongst them and baptizing Professors of faith But in the mean space let me advise you to take heed lest whiles you talk of constituting Churches amongst Gods people Act. 1â— 3 2 Tim. 3.6 Tit 1. 11. Satan use you as his instrument to overthrow Churches by subverting souls and whole houses through speaking things you ought not for filthy lucre sake as he did those noted in the margin Ninthly Let it be also observed in the form of your propounding the whole state of the Question that you which would be accounted great disputers and discussers of the truth laying down a negative Proposition as is evident to any that can discern a negation from an affirmation in propounding it say we affirm when indeed you deny Will not these so grosse mistakes in the parts and the whole the matter and manner of this main question stated by you give just cause to judge that you are such men as those of whom the Apostle speaks in these words 1 Tim 1.5 6 7. Now the end of the commandment is charity out of a pure heart a good conscience and faith unfeined from which some having swerved have turned aside to vain jangling desiring to be teachers of the law understanding neither what they say nor whereof they affirm Whereas you say H. H J.B. If it be we desire you to prove it by plain Scriptures Ans We have nothing to do to prove that which we never affirmed but you falsly father upon us as it may seem that you may fight with your own shadow But we shall by Gods assistance prove upon solid Scripture grounds That the Infants of Christians which are members of a constituted Church or Churches have right to the Covenant of grace and so to Baptism the seal of entrance into the Covenant and that it is agreeable to Gods word that constituted Churches should be continued by baptizing of children that are members thereof But first let us hear what you say for your way You proceed thus That the Baptisme of beleeving men and women by us practised H.H. J.B. is the Baptism of Christ we prove by these Scriptures Ans For the answering of your Scripture-proofs taken from Christs command and the Apostles practice I will first propound some things in general to be considered secondly make answer to the several Scriptures 1. I answer therefore That neither any nor all these Scriptures do prove plainly positively immediatly and directly without consequence or syllogism which I take to be your meaning when you call for plain and positive Scripture which I have heard that some of your way abhor and protest against that the Baptism practised by you is the Baptism of Jesus Christ In none of these Scriptures it is expressely said The dipping of beleeving men and women practised by Henry Huggar and James Brown is the Baptism of Jesus Christ Nor do we reade in the Evangelists Go Henry Huggar and Ja. Brown teach all Nations and baptize c. Nor do we reade that Christ gave a command to you two to preach the Gospel to every creature Nor do we finde in the Acts of the Apostles that H.H. and J.B. said to the Jews Repent and be baptized or that the Samaritans heard you two preaching or that the Eunuch went down with you to the water or that the Jaylour or Crispus the Ruler of the Synagogue were baptized by you or either of you If you have any plain positive Scriptures mentioning your selves you may produce them Neither have you cause to take it ill to be urged thus Seeing
that you call for plain and positive Scripture without syllogism or consequence to prove that children or infants by name should be baptized or sprinkled why may not we require of you plain and positive Scripture without syllogism or consequence that H.H. and J. Br should dip men and women When you shew us expresse Scripture for the one we will for the other 2. But it may be you will say It will follow by good consequence from these Scriptures that your Baptism is the Baptism of Christ Ans 1. It is well if you be not afraid of syllogisms consequences and argumentation 2. Yet you have drawn no syllogisms nor arguments hence and untill we see them we cannot answer them 3. If you take liberty to use reasonings and consequences you cannot rationally deny to us the like liberty 4. If you will have these Scriptures brought home by any just consequence for the proving of your Baptism to be the Baptism of Christ you must undertake an hard task for beside your skill in Logick c. you must either prove your selves Apostles or Evangelists for to such were these commands given and of such were these histories Mat. 2â— 19 20. and that you have power and authority to preach to the whole world power to speak with strange tongues to any Nation whatsoever and to work miracles and that you ought to preach to none Mat. 16.15 16 17. Act. 2. 8. Rom. 16 15â— but or at lest principally to Jews and infidels not building on others foundations for these things belonged to those first founders of Churches Or else at least you must prove that you are Pastors or Teachers whom God hath appointed to succeed those extraordinary primitive Ministers who were imployed in founding and constituting Churches Ephes 4 11 12 13 14. which are to build on the Apostles foundation for perfecting of the Saints set apart for the work of the Ministry and for edification of the mysticall body of Christ And if so you must make it appear that upon due trial and examination of your gifts Act 14 23. 1 Tim. â— â— 2 3 4 5. 〈◊〉 1 Tim. 4.14 5 22. Tit. 1.7 8 9. Act. â—0 28 1 Tim. â—â—3 14 15. and fitness in point of knowledge and holiness you have been set apart to that Office by the approbation or imposition of hands of the Presbytery for that is the Gospel-order You must make it appear also that you have a Flock to oversee and watch over and that you give your selves wholly to reading meditation and study and that you fully discharge your Ministry in the Flock of Christ if you will with any comfort to your selves and satisfaction to others that are godly and judicious apply the Scriptures which you have cited to your selves Besides if you be Apostles why do you build on others foundations If Pastours what talk you of constituting Churches as if that were your work 3. The reason is not in all things the same of a Church to be constituted and of a Church constituted already as I have shewed before in the example of Abraham when his family was to be made a Church under the dispensation of the Covenant sealed by Circumcision upon his professed faith and repentance he was circumcised with his whole family and after this his Domesticall Church grew up into a National his posterity being acknowledged members of the Church by Circumcision in Infancy were not to stay for Circumcision untill they actually beleeved after Abrahams example The same course was taken with Proselytes Exod. 12.48 49. they at first were to professe faith and afterwards their children to be circumcised in Infancy In like manner in the New Testament when Governours of families were baptized Act. 16.14 15. 31 32 33 34 their whole families were baptized with them of which hereafter When men are infidels they and their seed are aliens from the Common-wealth of Israel and therefore must actually repent and beleeve before they and their children be admitted to the Covenant But having by faith laid hold on the Covenant for themselves and theirs their children are interested therein at least externally so far as to have right to the seal of entrance There is not the same reason of the foundation and superstruction in all things nor of planting trees and their growing up and nourishing Indeed at the first planting of a Park Vineyard or Orchyard there must be a rooting or fastning of the first stock stemme or branch immediatly in that ground or grafting stock but afterward it is not necessary or fit that every sprig that sprouts forth thence should be cut off and immediatly rooted in the earth this course would hinder growth and fruitfulnesse So the first receivers of the Gospel being planted into Christ his Covenant and Church by faith do successively convey according to the tenour of the Covenant of grace the blessing to their children whiles succeeding parents the offspring of those first Beleevers continue in the faith so far forth as that their Infants have right to the Covenant and seal of entrance which runs thus Gen. 17 7. I will be thy God and the God of thy seed after thee Thus it was unquestionably from Abrahams unto Christs time the Apostle using the like similitude tels us that some of the Jews were broken off from the Olive tree by unbelief for a time Rum 11.17 else they might with their seed still have partaked of the root and fatnesse of the Olive tree as before which priviledge doubtlesse those that were not broken off by unbelief did retain and these unbeleevers when they shall return to Christ by faith shall recover and the beleeving Gentiles being for the present planted in in their room must enjoy Ephes 3 5. The same Apostle saith that the beleeving Gentiles are fellow-heirs and of the same body with beleeving Jews and so partakers of the same priviledges It is true some things are common to the constituting and founding of a Church with its continuance and superstruction these must be alike observed in both cases some things are proper to each and here heed must be taken of confounding these Heb. 6.1 2 left if we be alwaies laying the foundation we never come to perfection 4. Whereas your practice is to perswade beleeving parents to forbear baptizing of their children untill they can actually repent and beleeve Where do you prove that Christ commanded or his Apostles practised this I am sure those Scriptures which you set down mention no such thing The Apostles according to Christs command preached to Jews and infidels and having converted them baptized them with their families but no where bid them keep their children untill they professe their repentance and faith and then baptize them this you practise without any Scripture-warrant 5. Neither do any or all these Scriptures prove that it is according to Christs institution to baptize or dip those which have been already baptized Into
should be circumcised at eight daies old did put a yoke on the neck of the disciples so that they are called disciples on whom they urged Circumcision but they urged Circumcision not only on grown Christians but also on their children Therefore their children are disciples 4. In Act. 21.4 5. verses Those of Tyre which are called disciples ver 4. whereof some were endued with the spirit of Prophecie indeed but all are not Prophets and warned Paul of the danger of going to Jerusalem 1 Cor. 12.29 seem to be comprehended under these three heads 1. Men or the husbands and fathers 2. Women 3. Their children who accompanied the Apostle to the sea-shore and most likely the Infants in their mothers arms are here intended who with their parents were taken along when they went to take their last farwell of the Apostle as well to expresse that dear affection and honour that they did owe to him as to obtain not only for themselves but also for their little ones the benefit of the last prayer wherein they were to join in presence with that faithfull Embassadour of Christ The presence of children and sucklings tending much to move the bowels of parents to crave and the Apostle to make affectionate prayers for those Saints and their children whom he should never see more Deut. 19.10 11 12. As Moses before his last farwell to the Israelites would have them stand before God with their little ones and enter into Covenant with him So these at their farwell-taking with the Apostle did present themselves before God with their little ones And as Ezra in that solemn humiliation sought of God a good way not only for the aged but also for the little ones So it seems these pious parents would have Paul to seek unto God for themselves and their little ones Ezr. 8.21 they no lesse belonging to God and being disciples now then in the time of Moses his law and therefore they enjoy the priviledge of disciples or persons in Covenant viz. communion with the Apostle and the other Saints in solemn prayer which undiscipled persons and aliens from the Covenant Ob. were never admitted to Ob. But the fathers are evidently distinguished by the names of disciples from their children therefore the children were not disciples Ans seeing the name of disciples is appropriated to the men only Ans If this reason were good the wives should be no disciples or beleevers for they are no lesse distinguished from the men to whom the name of disciples is appropriated then the children but no man will deny the wives to be disciples or beleevers for this distinction therefore neither the children 2. But the children and wives did equally partake in the priviledge of disciples viz. communion in the prayer with the Apostles and Saints as well as the men Therefore they were disciples as well as the men 5. They that are so to be received in Christs Name that Christ himself is received in them belong to Christ and are Christs disciples For to shew kindnesse or do service to any in Christs Name and because they belong to Christ and because they are disciples or in the name of disciples or because they are such as beleeve in Christ are all one in Scripture phrase as may appear by comparing these Scriptures Mat. 10.42 Mar. 9.41 42. But the little children of Beleevers or Church-members are so to be received in Christs Name that Christ himself is received in or with them Mat. 18.5 Mat. 18 5. Therefore they are Christs Disciples and belong to him So much concerning the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and hence I argue thus 1. Disciples according to Christs Commission laid down in Scripture are to be baptized But children of the faithfull even whilst Infants are disciples Therefore to be baptized 2. Whereas it is said Make disciples all Nations baptizing them hence I gather Children are not to be excluded 1. Because children are a very considerable and essential part of a Nation 2. As the Jewish Nation had been a Nation of disciples and an holy people so now in the time of the Gospel the Christian Nations were to become Gods people But the Jews were so a Nation of disciples and an holy people as that their children were taken with them into the Covenant 1 Pet. 8.9 and admitted to the seal of entrance so should these for Christians are called an holy Nation now as the Jews heretofore Hence I argue Discipled Nations or Nations made disciples and all their members and considerable integral parts no where excepted are to be baptized For the whole comprehends all the parts and the command that appoints all Nations to be baptized must needs take in the several parts of those Nations which are no where excepted But children of beleeving Nations are members and considerable integral parts of discipled Nations as being more in number for the most part then grown persons the hope of posterity in whom the parents live and by whom States Churches and families are continued being also more free from sin as uncapable of actual rebellion and provocation against God Num. 14.30 31. whom he is pleased sometimes to spare when he punisheth rebellious and Covenant-breaking parents and for whose sake sometimes he spareth flagitious parents neither are children in this Scripture or elswhere excluded out of Christs Commission Ion. 4.11 Therefore they are to be baptized 3. From the order of Christs Commission it may be gathered That discipling and baptizing goeth before teaching Mat. 28.19 20. Thus we reade Going therefore make disciples all Nations Baptizing them into the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy Ghost teaching them to keep all things whatsoever I have commanded you Indeed the Gospel was to be offered to Jews and Infidels and they exhorted to accept Christ and the Covenant of grace before they were baptized but Baptism was not to be deferred nor they rejected as no disciples untill they should have learned the whole Doctrine of Christianity and all the commands of Christ But whosoever on the preaching of the Gospel and offer of Christ should not subbornly refuse him but Idolatry being renounced were dedicated to the worship of God and Christ whether such as had power to dispose of themselves by themselves professedly consenting or such as were at the dispose and under the power of others and by their consent and authority given up to Christ they were to be admitted into Christs school acknowledged his disciples and baptized into his Name and afterward to be instructed in his doctrine and commands Hence I gather thus If Infants of Beleevers are not to be baptized it is because they are not capable of being taught Ministerially in the doctrines and commands of Christ for the present All the arguments of the Anabaptists may be referred to this head They say they cannot repent beleeve enter into Covenant c. Why because say they they are uncapable of
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
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-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
practice in point of Religion It is sufficient sometimes and in some cases that by good consequence we deduce them from Scripture 1. Mat 22.32 33 This was very usuall with our Saviour and the Apostles Thus our Saviour proves the doctrine of the Resurrection against the Sadduces by consequence from that Scripture I am the God of Abraham the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob laid together with another principle God is not the God of the dead but of the living Which doctrine also the Apostle Paul proves by many Arguments and consequences 1 Cor. 15.13 to 33. 1 Cor. 15. from vers 13. to 33. So our Lord Christ argues for the lawfulnesse of his disciples pulling ears of corn and eating them on the Sabbath day Mat. 12.3 4 5 6 7. by consequence 1. From Davids eating of the Shew-bread 2. From the Priests sacrificing on the Sabbath and 3. From that sentence in Hosea I will have mercy and not sacrifice Hâ—â— 6. â— Which Scripture-examples and testimony do not expressely and immediatly say It is lawfull for the disciples being hungry to pluck ears of corn on the Sabbath day and eat them But by good consequence each of these Scriptures much more all jointly prove it So whereas it is said Luke 24.27 44. Luk. 24.27 44. That Christ expounded the Scriptures of all the Prophets shewing that they were fulfilled in him It is not to be understood that those things which were written of Christ in Moses the Prophets and Psalmes did expressely immediatly plainly and positively say that Jesus the son of Mary was the Messias and must suffer all those things and then rise again and enter into glory But by Christs expounding them and arguing from them the two disciples were brought to see the truth So Act. 2.25 26 c. the Apostle Peter sheweth to prove the resurrection of Christ from Scripture that what was contained in Psal 16.9 10. was spoken of Christ It doth not appear immediatly and expressely but by consequence thus It was to be understood of David himself or of Christ the seed of David No of David for he had seen corruption and his Sepulchre was yet extant as Act. 2.29 Therefore it must be meant of Christ Davids seed vers 30.31 32. So the other Apostles in the Acts and the Epistles and the Prophets before them usually deduce conclusions by way of reasoning or syllogizing either from Scriptures or other known principles or both laid together as is evident to any that with understanding and care reade the Scriptures so that further to prove this were to light a candle at noonday and sure he is miserably blinde that cannot see it 2. If you deny the use of consequence you have no warrant or proof for the reading of Scripture in an English translation Printed and so you must cast away your English Bibles as well as Infant-baptism or else fall into Will-worship and Idolatry Nor for womens receiving the Communion nor for the Christian-Sabbath Overthrow these and overthrow all Christian Religion Yea I may confidently say there is no Ordinance of God or religious act can be externally observed which you can perform but at least in respect of some accidentals or circumstantials thereof you must be beholden to consequence from Scripture or else must want warrant for the using of them and so either forbear them all and cast off all religious exercise and become visible Atheists or run into that which is Will-worship and Idolatry in your conceit and act against conscience and not in faith which to do is sin 3. Whereas all Scriptures were written for our learning Rom. 15.4 2 Tim. 3.16 that we may have patience comfort and hope and are profitable for doctrine reproof correction and instruction All or most of this benefit will be lost unto us if we reject the use of consequences The Scripture doth not positively and plainly make particular application to several men that live amongst us by name this must be done either by publike Ministry or private brotherly instruction and conference or by our own conscience which must by reasoning shew that the Scripture applied is pertinent and sutable to us or else we shall get no good by it 4. For what use should the Ministry of the word or preaching and teaching by others serve Pro. 2 2 3 4. or what use is there of studying and diligently searching the Scriptures as for gold silver and hid treasures if all things therein were so plain and particular to us in them that there were no need of drawing particulars from generals gathering obscurer truths from plainer Scriptures and applying them according to exigency Yea what use should there be of reason it self if we might not exercise it in this case which so much concerns Gods glory and our own and others edification and salvation I study shortnesse else it might be easily made to appear that they who deny and abhorre syllogisms and consequences in matters of Religion do not only deny the principall use of the most excellent gift of reason which God hath given to men for the finding out of the truth Rom. 2.15 Rom. 12.1 but also must cast off all right use of Conscience Scripture and Religion if they stick to that irrationall and irreligious conceit Taking it therefore for granted that no man who hath the use of reason and the heart of a Christian will deny us the liberty of reason in drawing out the truth from Scriptures by consequence I will lay down several Arguments grounded on Scripture whereof some were touched in the Answer to the former Paper what I shall here omit which there I touched the Reader may fetch thence for the baptizing of Infants Arg. Arg. 1 1. Such persons as have had by Gods gracious grant right to the Covenant of grace and seal of entrance thereinto in the time of the Old Testament and from whom this grant was never repealed by God nor cast off by themselves are not to be debarred by any man from the priviledges of Gods Covenant and the seal of entrance thereinto whiles the Covenant of grace and a seal of entrance is dispensed to the Church But the children of beleeving parents have by Gods gracious grant had interest in the Covenant of grace and the seal of entrance thereinto at least from Abrahams time to Christs which grant God did never repeal neither did the children of Beleevers cast it off but God hath continued in his Church the Covenant of grace and seal of entrance thereinto though in a different manner yet far more comfortable and glorious Therefore the children of beleeving parents are not to be debarred from the Covenant or seal of entrance thereinto which now in the time of the Gospel is Baptism For the clearing of the Proposition let these things be noted 1. Gods gracious grants of priviledges to his people wherein are also implied ingagements to thankfulnesse and obedience laid on them
are so sacred that they cannot without high offence to his Majesty Deut. 4.1 great wrong to Gods people and extream danger to their own souls be denied by any to those to whom they belong God no lesse forbidding detracting from then adding to his word and so much the more dangerous is diminution in this case as it tends to darken the glorious grace of God in the times of the Gospel which times he hath reserved for the more full illustration thereof above former times 2. That those main priviledges which God granted ordinarily to persons in Covenant before Christ as That their children should be in Covenant and admitted to the seal of entrance thereinto should cease in the time of the Gospel is so unagreeable unto the wisdom and goodnesse of God which reserves his greatest and choicest blessings for the last times to be bestowed on his people so contrary to the nature of the Covenant of grace which under Evangelical dispensation is far more glorious and comfortable to the faithfull then under legall so contrary to the end of Christs coming which was to multiply increase and ratifie not cut off diminish or abolish blessings and priviledges to his Church and so contrary to the promises and prophecies concerning the glory of the Church in the times of the Gospel that he deserves to be abhorred of all that know God and Christ and his Covenant that should tell us of a great fall and diminution of priviledges in Evangelicall times compared with legall and yet can bring no pregnant and pertinent Scripture to prove a repeal of those priviledges 3. I grant that where God hath repealed priviledges of the Old Testament which whiles they continued unrepealed were priviledges yet cease to be so when greater answerable thereto yet more sutable to the Gospel-dispensation are vouchsafed in their place in the New Testament they in respect of that old administration are not to be accounted priviledges neither are priviledges in this case properly revoked but altered and inlarged when the old administration indeed is abrogated but the same spiritual blessing is given in a more comfortable manner under a new dispensation As when Christians 1 In stead of the Old Testament Scriptures in the Jews mother tongue which was the Jews priviledge have both Old and New Testament Scriptures translated into a known tongue 2 In stead of the Jews seventh-day-Sabbath Ioh. 19.36 2 Cor. 5.7 have the first day or Lords-day-Sabbath 3 In stead of the Passeover which to the Jews was a Type of Christ to come have Christ exhibited and now represented in the blessed Communion And 4 in stead of Circumcision have Baptism And 5 generally when Christians in stead of the old Legal dispensation of the Covenant of grace which the Jews had have the new Evangelical dispensation of the Covenant Here the same priviledges are continued with inlargement under a new and different garb or dresse 4. It 's granted also that when men have wilfully rejected priviledges and therefore God hath cast them off neither they nor theirs lying under that obstinacy may lay claim to obstinatly rejected priviledges as in the case of the body of the Jews and their seed at this day To the Minor 1. Gen 17.7 Exod 12.48 Ezek. 16.10 21. Mat. 2.15 Act. 3.25 It 's plain that from Abrahams time and so forward to the last of the Prophets yea to the time of our Saviour Christ unto which time Circumcision of children was in force the faithfull had interest in this priviledge that their children were in Covenant and had the seal of admission 2. It 's plain also Gen. 17 10 11 12 13. Rom. 4.11 Rom 3.1 2. Phil. 3.5 that this was a great priviledge or prerogative to the people of God and their children that they were in Covenant and had Circumcision which is called the sign of the Covenant yea the Covenant and the seal of the righteousnesse of faith As to be an Hebrew and Israelite was a great priviledge before Christs coming so to be circumcised 3. That God hath not recalled this grant of Beleevers children having right to the Covenant and seal of entrance it is evident for neither the Scriptures of Old or New Testament speak any such thing but rather the contrary heightning the priviledges of the Gospel above those of the Law but never depressing them Obj. But Circumcision is repealed and abrogated Ans 1. True Ob. in regard of the outward ceremony Ans 1 so the former dispensation of the Covenant of grace in regard of the Legal manner of administration Doth the Covenant it self therefore and duties and priviledges therefore which are essential and perpetual cease Womens going up to Jerusalem to the sacrifices and Passeover ceaseth Must not they therefore come to and partake of the Lords Supper The Church of the Jews which understood the Scriptures of the Old Testament without translation is cast off Must not Gods people now have the Scriptures in their mother language by translation because there is no direct expresse Scripture for that purpose The Jews Sabbath being the seventh day of the week with us called Saturday is abolished Must we not therefore have a Christian Sabbath or Lords day Nay rather we may well gather from the Jewish-beleeving womens priviledge to partake of the Passeover and sacrifices in the Old Testament the priviledge of Christian women to come to the Lords Table and from Jewish Beleevers liberty to have the Scriptures in a known tongue we may gather against the Papists the priviledge of Christian common people of the like nature though in a different way they by the Originall writing we by Translation and from the Jews Sabbath of the seventh day that being appointed by the moral Law we may gather our Christian Sabbath and so from the Jewish infants priviledge to have the seal of initiation into the Covenant and Church we may gather the like priviledge to belong to Christians Infants though in a different ceremony if we compare those priviledges of the Jews in the Old Testament with what is spoken in the New Testament concerning Gospel-priviledges that are analogicall and succedaneous to these legal priviledges and lay together other common grounds warranting unto them these priviledges though there be no expresse immediate particular command for womens partaking at the Lords Table nor for the common peoples enjoying vernaculous translations of the Scripture nor for the Christian Sabbath nor for the baptizing of Infants 2. I answer to this objection If it had been the pleasure of God and Christ that children should in the time of the Gospel lose their former interest in the Covenant and seal thereof and their priviledge of Church-membership as well as he would have Circumcision abolished he would have no lesse revealed that in the Scripture then this But he hath no where revealed either expressely or to be gathered by consequence that whereas untill Christs time Infants of Beleevers were in Covenant Gods children Church-members
and signed with the seal of the Covenant now in the time of the Gospel they have no interest in God his Covenant or the seal thereof or Church-membership but are quite cast out from these priviledges 4. Infants of beleeving parents never did cast off this priviledge so that by any act of theirs all Infants should be deprived of it For to cast off Covenant-priviledges imports actually to rebell against the Covenant which children cannot do neither can any child's suppose him capable of actual rebellion and rejection of the Covenant or aged persons actual rebellion deprive all Infants of this priviledge unlesse he be the root head and fountain of all Beleevers Infants which is not supposable Anabaptists may cast themselves and their children out of Covenant but they cannot cast out the children of other Christian parents otherwise then by seducing the parents into the same errour and impiety with themselves or worse which oft fals out that those that compasse land and sea to make proselytes Mat. 23.15 help to make them twofold more the children of hell then themselves 5. Yea the Scriptures of the New Testament are so farre from repealing the priviledges of Beleevers Infants that they strongly confirm and advance them as expressely telling us that to such belongs the Kingdom of God Gospel-promises belong to them they are holy Mark 10.14 Act. 2.39 1 Cor. 7.14 c. of which hereafter 6. That now the same Covenant of grace for substance remains amongst Christians as that which the Jews were under that there is instituted a seal of entrance into this Covenant now in the time of the Gospel viz. Baptism That Baptism the seal of entrance into the new is come in the place of Circumcision the seal of entrance into the old as the new dispensation it self succeeds the old and is of the same use for the main Col. 24 12. 2 Cor. 3.6 7 8 9 c. Heb. 8 8 9 10 and that the priviledges of the Gospel-dispensation are more glorious and comfortable then those of the legal were are truths so clear that he is very ignorant of Scripture I had almost said scarce worthy to be called a Christian that questions them much more that denies them But for the clearing of this truth out of Genesis 17.7 a In my answer to A. R. I have written elsewhere and may further if it be thought needfull communicate b In answer to M.T. some things I have by me for vindication thereof Arg. 2. Those persons to whom Christ is so loving and gracious Arg. 2 that he would have them come or be brought to him and by no means kept from him have right to Baptism the sign and pledge of admission to Christ But our Lord Jesus Christ was Mat. 19.14 Mar. 10.14 Luk. 18.15 16. and is so loving to children of beleeving parents that he would have them come or be brought to him and cannot indure that they should be forbidden or hindred from him Therefore the children of beleeving parents have right to Baptism the sign and pledge of admission to Christ and so are to be baptized For the clearing and confirming of the Proposition I will propound some few things which I desire may be considered 1. That Christ refused commerce with or admittance of any persons to him with kinde entertainment but such as were in Covenant at least externally or in a way thereto by their attentive hearkning to his word and receiving his doctrine Mat. 15.23 24 25 28. He tels the woman of Canaan that he was not sent but to the lost sheep of the house of Israel and that the childrens bread was not to be given to dogs implying that the Canaanites out of Covenant were as dogs and not to be entertained by him neither doth he give any comfortable answer to that woman untill she had discovered by her faith that she had right to Christ and the Covenant Ioh. 4.15 19 The woman of Samaria indeed was received by Christ as ready to hear his doctrine and be humbled Pilate and Herod he would hardly or not at all answer much lesse familiarly and kindly invite to him Therefore whom Christ so kindly invites he looks on not as aliens to the Covenant but as having some interest in himself and the sign of admission to himself and the Covenant 2. We are said in Baptism to put on Christ Rom. 6 3 ◠Gal. 3.27 Col 2.12 Ioh. 5.40 be baptized into Christ and his death and to be buried with him which is for substance as much as to come to him and by coming unto him to be partakers of him and have Communion with him 3. There is now no visible way for children to come to Christ since his ascension ordinarily but by Baptism that being the first visible way of admission to Christ and that this coming of children was not confined to those children o◠that time of his humiliation will appear by the reason for theirs is the Kingdom of God but the Kingdom of God is dispensed since Christs ascension Therefore children must come of which anon Of coming to Christ in hearing the word prayer the Lords Supper they are uncapable of inward invisible coming to or being united to Christ we speak not now neither doth Christ here speak of it But by Baptism now as heretofore by Circumcision Infants may be brought to Christ and the Covenant in a visible manner For the illustration and strengthening of the assumption let these things be considered 1. These were properly little children or Infants which Christ would have brought to him and not hindered 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as may appear 1. By their titles Little children Young children Infants 2. By Christs manner of receiving them viz. in his arms which is proper to babes 2. They were children of beleeving parents in Covenant 1. It 's out of question they were children of Jews at least by outward profession of Religion which then were the peculiar people of God 2. They which brought them whether parents or other appointed by them had a reverend perswasion concerning Christ and beleeved that his blessing might profit the children 3. Our Saviour approves the act of them that brought them which he would not if it had not been done in faith Heb. 7.6 3. That Christ speaks not only of those children that were then brought to him but generally of the children of Beleevers or all parents that are willing to bring their children to Christ is plain in that he saith not Suffer those or these individual children to come unto me but Suffer little children generally or indefinitely 4. And moreover that these words of Christ are not to be restrained to those children only or their manner of coming only or to the time of Christs being on earth may be gathered 1. In that all the three Evangelists so carefully and fully set down that History with all its circumstances and holding forth Christs gracious expressions of
his love to little children which is doubtlesse to shew what is his affection to the Infants of the faithfull at all times otherwise what profit or comfort were it for Christians to know that Christ was indeed so loving to those Infants at that time but would never shew afterwards when in glory any more respect to Infants of Christians whiles such then to the Infants of Infidels 2. But the reason given by Christ puts the matter out of question that this expression of his affection to Infants is not to be restrained to those particular Infants that manner of coming and that time of his visible abode on the earth For of such saith he is the Kingdom of God or of heaven implying that so long as God hath a Kingdom of grace on earth in the administration of the Gospel and affords ordinary means of bringing people to the Kingdom of glory so long the children of the faithfull are to come or be brought to Christ in such a way as they may be acknowledged subjects of this Kingdom which is by admission to the sign or seal of entrance thereinto 5. That it is the will and pleasure of Christ that little children in the time of the Gospel should be brought to him appears in the text in three particulars worthy to be distinctly observed 1. In that he was much displeased and moved with high indignation against his disciples which rebuked and discouraged the bringers of the children Mat. 11.29 Maâ— 12.29 Now Christ which was so admirably meek and gentle would not have been so much moved if it had not been a great fault in his disciples to hinder Infants from coming to him It is doubtless a wrong to poor Infants that cannot plead for themselves and to pious parents to be checked in so good a work and to the Church of God to have these young members cut therefrom and especially to God and Christ and the Gospel to seek to cast out Infants from the priviledge of the Covenant of grace wherein they had been interested in the time of the Law Though in the disciples it was more excusable by ignorance because likely before this time they had heard nothing expressely from Christs mouth to hold forth the priviledges of Infants in the time of the Gospel howbeit they might have gathered enough out of the Old Testament if they would have heeded it to have prevented this miscarriage else Christ would not have been so angry with them if it had been out of invincible ignorance Now if Christ was so offended with this first failing of his disciples through ignorance what may they expect that after this warning continue clamouring against and reproaching the bringing of Infants to Christ 2. Christ gives an express command to suffer little children to come to him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 let not any that professe obedience to Christ and acknowledge his soveraignty over them dare to violate this command in not suffering children to come to Christ 3. Christ adds Forbid them not which charge by way of addition doth not only shew our Lord Christs earnestnesse in this point and confirm the former precept But also sufficiently warns all under pain of his displeasure that neither by word nor action policy nor power they dare to do any thing to hinder the Infants of Beleevers from Christ My third argument I will draw from the same Scripture which is this Arg. 3. Arg. 3 To whom the Kingdom of God or heaven belongs now in the time of the Gospel to them also Baptism which is the seal of entrance thereinto belongs But to the children of beleeving parents the Kingdom of God or heaven belongs now in the time of the Gâ—spel Mat. 19.14 Mar. 10 14. Luk. 18.16 Therefore Baptism which now in the times of the Gospel is the seal of entrance into this Kingdom belongs to the children of beleeving parents For the clearing and confirming of the proposition let these things be noted 1. That whether by the Kingdom of God or heaven be meant a state of grace and professed subjection to Christ the King of the Church in this life and the state of the Church Militant under Christ already exhibited in the flesh as the word is very frequently a Mat. 3.2 Mat 14.17 Mat 1â— 24 32 24 47. Mat. 21.41 Mat. 25. â— 14. used or the Kingdom of glory and state of the Church Triumphant as it is sometime b 2 Tim. 4.18 used It is all one for our purpose and that argument holds most clearly in the former and most strongly in the later sense 2. That Baptism is the sign pledge or seal of entrance into a Gospel state or Christian Church is I think out of question on all sides and if need were might easily be proved by these and such like Scriptures Mat. 3.2.6 Mat. 28.18 19. Act. 2.38.40 Act. 8. 9. c. 3. Though some may have right to this Kingdom and yet want Baptism as the penitent thief and some may have Baptism that have no internal right to the Kingdom of God and spiritual blessing signified yet those that have right to the Kingdom of God holden forth in the Gospel have right to Baptism and those that are acknowledged according to the rules of Gods word to have right to this Kingdom must also be acknowledged to have right to the seal of entrance thereinto 4. Though only internal right to Gods Kingdom and the priviledges thereof argue right to or possession of the inward seal of the spirit yet external professed or known right to this Kingdom and the outward priviledges thereof so as that persons are according to the Scriptures acknowledged members and subjects thereof is sufficient to give Ecclesiastical and external right to the seal of entrance thereinto as the Jews whiles they were not actually discovenanted were the children of the Kingdom though so wicked as that they were shortly cut off Therefore let none object If all the children of Beleevers have right to the Kingdom of God they shall be all saved But they are not all saved Therefore all have not right This is answered by distinction of external right which gives interest to the external priviledges of the visible Kingdom and internal right which gives interest in or implies possession of internal spiritual and eternal priviledges The former right all Infants of Beleevers have and of this we speak now the later only some peculiar sanctified ones according to the election of grace as it is in the case of visible professours and sincere Beleevers 5. That to whom the Kingdom belongs to them the seal or sign of entrance belongs right reason will yield from the nature of correlatives there being a clear relation between the thing signified or sealed and the sign or seal and the whole current of Scripture speaking of Baptism historically or doctrinally sheweth that so soon as any were acknowledged to have right to the benefit signified or sealed they had right to the
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
whereupon they have right to the seal of entrance Arg. Arg. 13 13. That doctrine and practice is to be abhorred which puts the Infants of Christians into the same condition with the children of Turks and Infidels leaves them in the visible kingdom of the devil as no visible members of the Church denies to them reasonable souls and cuts them off from all hopes of salvation whiles they are Infants This doctrine and practice I say is to be abhorred as most contrary to the Covenant of God set forth in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament contrary to the hopes prayers and comforts of Christian parents concerning their children while Infants and contrary to reasons and natures light which shews that Infants are reasonable creatures But the doctrine and practice of these Anabaptists leaves Christians children in the same condition with the children of Turks and Infidels as casting them out of Gods Covenant and Christs Kingdom which is the Church and denying to them the seal of admittance thereto and so leaving them in the visible kingdom of the devil denying to them faith without which they must certainly perish and reason without which they are bruits and so cut off from all hopes of salvation Therefore their doctrine and practice is to be abhorred Thus you have seen our Arguments or at least some of them Now before I conclude I will Answer two or three Questions or Objections Obj. 1. But if children of Beleevers have right to the Covenant Christ the promises and gift of the holy Ghost How can we know this Men of years if they beleeve and repent can make profession but how can children make profession in the Covenant that we may have sufficient warrant to baptize them Ans It 's true they cannot make profession of their interest in the Covenant and promises but that is done sufficiently for them by God the Father Son and holy Ghost speaking in Scripture as Gen. 17.7 Exod. 20.6 Psal 102.28 and 103.17 18. Psal 112.2 and 127.3 4 5. Es 44.3 Mar. 10.14 Act. 2.39 1 Cor. 2.14 c. These and many other Testimonies are given in Scripture by God himself concerning the right of the faithfuls children to the Covenant promise and Kingdom of God which I wish the Reader to turn over unto and observe Surely this testimony of God for children is not lesse then the testimony of men of years for themselves So that if parents when they bring their children to Baptism make a due profession of their repentance faith and resolution to walk with God in Covenant and both to accept Gods Covenant for themselves and their children and give up themselves and theirs to God in Covenant the Ministers and Congregations may have satisfaction concerning their childrens right to the Covenant and promise by vertue of these Scriptures and so to Baptism Obj. 2. If children of beleeving parents have title to the Covenant and promises either all have this title or some only If some only how will you distinguish them that those only may be baptized If all how is it that many prove wicked which were baptized in infancy Do you hold falling away from grace Ans The promises and Covenant belong to all the faithfuls children in regard of outward station in Covenant and right to the seal of entrance which is the thing now in question the inward efficacy we leave to the good pleasure of God The whole body of Israelites aged and children 1 Cor. 10.5 were Gods people by Covenant and under the promise Yet with many of them God was not well pleased The Churches of the New Testament are called Saints said to be in Christ and yet many persons therein proved wicked and eâ—roneous as may appear in those Epistles that are written to them giving them the title of Saints The Covenant and promises as they are outwardly dispensed are conditional neither doth God therein any further binde himself to his people then as the condition of regeneration holinesse repentance faith or obedience are found in them or performed by them Indeed the inward working of regeneration drawing to and giving Communion with Christ giving a new heart and spirit faith c. are absolutely bestowed according to Gods good pleasure upon what number of these persons externally in Covenant he seeth good according to the election of grace agreeably to those Scriptures Rom. 9.15 16 18. 2. Here is no more necessity then possibility of distinguishing between Elect and non-elect Infants their being members of the visible Church gives them right to the priviledge of new admitted members 3. Neither do we hold falling from the inward efficacy of grace Ioh. 13. â— 2 Per. 2.1 Rev. 3.1 7. Heb. 6.4.5 6. as from true solid Sanctification Justification and Adoption though we grant men may fall from the outward dispensation of the Covenant of grace and turn Apostates or continue under the outward dispensation and yet fall short of the saving efficacy of grace Mat 25.29 Yea moreover that those which have seemed to themselves and others to be Justified Sanctified and Adopted may fall from what they seemed to have and utterly perish 4. The Objection will hold as strongly against the baptizing of the professours of faith for not all those whom the Apostles or any others baptized upon their profession have held our many proved wicked and reprobate none can certainly distinguish among professours which are elect and which not Must they not therefore be baptized To conclude therefore They that by their own profession or Gods profession for them are discovered to have right to the outward dispensation of the Covenant let them enjoy it without gainsaying and let us leave the inward efficacy of the Covenant to God to whom alone it belongs Obj. 3. But what need you write so much in answering so little It seems your cause is not good you take so much pains about it Why did not you Answer as briefly as the other party Propounded Ans 1. The truth oft lies deeep and will not easily be found out as it is more precious then gold and silver Pro. 3 13 14. so it requires more diligent search Gold Mines are not obvious to every eye much skill and labour are requisite to finde them out and bring the gold to light 2. Though the other party have but briefly propounded their judgement and grounds thereof in their now-Answered Papers yet it is known what large discourses they have made amongst the people and how many Treatises are written on this subject 3. It is not an argument of a bad cause to be somewhat large in clearing it the better the cause is the more it deserves diligence in handling of it least we should wrong God his people and truth by sleightinesse A cup of poison may be prepared drunk down and dispersed into the body in an hour which the wisest Physitian can hardly expell out of the body with all his skill and pains in many moneths A desperate