thing is to bee required of the children of baptized parents but as holy by birth being borne of such parents are to be baptized in their infancy because in their infancy God hath made them holy and declared so much unto us The Covenant under which children are borne makes them capable of the initiall seale according to the ministration under which they are borne whether of a Saviour to come or of a Saviour already come Anabaptist Againe there is difference in the persons for there were none but males circumcised but wee have example of male and female baptized Further c. ut infra Answer This is no argument at all against paedo-baptisme for males were circumcised in their infancy and the Covenant with the Jewes and us Christians is the same spirituall and eternall Covenant binding to divine faith and obedience assuring us and them of eternall happinesse through Gods mercy in the merits of Jesus Christ Now if Male Infants had the seale of such an inheritance and Covenant upon such spirituall grounds in Such a Saviour binding the circumcised Infant to divine faith universall obedience though he could discern none of these matters then Male-Infants of Christians being borne under the same holy Covenant of grace are subjects capable of the initiall seale thereof as children of parents in Covenant with God and of the holy seed by birth So then to exclude females grant males to bee capable of Baptisme upon the ground of circumcision is to conclude against your owne principle But all Israelites females as well as the males stood in Gods acceptation for circumcised as appears in the story of Sampson who seeing a woman of the daughters of the Philistines in Timnath fell in love with her and spake to his Father and Mother to get her for him to wife Then his Father and his Mother said unto him Is there never a woman among the daughters of thy brethren or among all my people that thou goest to take a wife of the uncircumcised Philistines Judges 14.1 2 3. Now if the women of Israel had been reputed uncircumcised then as good for Sampson to chuse one as well as the other as good a woman of the daughters of the Philistines as a woman of the daughters of his brethren What cause then had his Father and his Mother to blame him for his choice As good one uncircumcised woman as another More of this is to be seen in our Sermon-notes to which as yet I have received no answer But I beleeve that this concerning females is none of your maine foundations you build your Religion upon Anabaptist Further they differ in the time for they were to bee circumtised the eighth day but we have no set time for Baptisme but when they doe beleeve then they are to be baptized And therefore if you rightly consider these things and the maine differences hereof I think there is no reasonable man that understands himselfe and the Scripture will goe about to parallell circumcision with Baptisme in respect of the practising of it Answer We shewed you out of Levit. 12.2 3. that there was a speciall reason why the man-childe should not be circumcised till the eighth day And this reason you passe by untouched because you couldnot answer it And I finde no such reason why baptisme now should be forborne untill any set time Now if circumcision had beene forborne untill the eighth day because till then infants could not and then they could beleeve this were to the purpose But I see you faulter in all things You say much and prove nothing If you aske Physitians why in time of the Law infants were not to be circumcised till the eighth day They will tell you that untill the seventh day being a criticall day and so a dangerous day were past no wound was to be made in the flesh of a tender infant But you say that under the Gospell when persons beleeve then they are to be baptized But I say that Infants of Christians in their infancie are not Insidels but Saints and of the holy seed and therefore beleevers and so are to be baptized in their infancy unlesse you can shew where the Scripture calls the Infants of Gods people in Covenant Vnbeleevers And therefore if you rightly consider these things and the substantiall agreement betweene Circumcision and Baptisme I thinke there is no reasonable man that understands himselfe and the Scripture but will judge your exceptions to be frivolous and that this Argument stands firme which is that Baptisme is unto us as Circumcision was to the Jewes Col. 2.11 The Covenant the same the ends and significations the same for substance Infants were admittable there Ergo here else children in worse case since Christ than before Reason 3 The third Reason Anabaptist Thirdly you seeme to draw a reason from divine Authority for Infants baptisme and you seeme to prove it out of Mat. 28.19 But here give us leave to tell you plainly that you are foulely mistaken and you wrest the Text For Christ bids them goe and teach all Nations and them that are taught must be baptized For Christ doth not say goe and teach all Nations and so baptize all the Nation but goe teach them Now you know there is great difference betweene preaching to a people and teaching of a people for you may preach to a thousand people and it may be not above two or three of all those taught And therefore Christ bids teach them first and then baptize them But however c. ut infra Answer My third Argument for Paedo-baptisme from Mat. 28.19 runs thus The Commandement of baptizing is universall to the whole Church but Infants of Christian parents are members of the Church and therefore the command of baptizing is to be extended unto them as before we have amply declated Now if Infants of such parents be not members of the Church then so dying they cannot be saved sithence none can be saved but by Christ and Christ came to save his Church onely Ephes 5.26 Wherein now I pray am I so fouly mistaken and wherein doe I wrest the Text Christ saith indeed that such as are taught must be baptized but Christ saith not that none must be baptized but such as are taught Prove that or let this Text alone The Text saith baptize all in the Church therefore Infants of baptized parents unlesse you can shew a place that exempts them Christ doth not say goe teach all Nations and so baptize all the Nation Neither did I nor will unlesse the whole Nation shall embrace the doctrine of Christ And then the whole Nation must be baptized and their seed after them in their infancy as Christians by birth Ob. But the baptized must believe and repent Acts 2. Matth. 3. c. Sol. Those Texts must bee restrained to the persons in hand So 1 Thess 3. He that labours not must not eate i.e. men that can labour Children though they cannot labour yet must eate Infants
baptisme if the preaching to the Nation would bring all the rest to have right to baptisme Then the Disciples did bestow labour in vaine by this rule Againe c. ut infra Answer You now sight with your own shadow and that is a strange folly indeed And what is it that may be so easily overthrowne by other Scriptures your owne fancy and forgery downe with it enough it shall have no countenance from me But had I said as you affirme how would that helpe your cause or wound ours It would have argued my weaknesse unlesse the whole Nation had received the Gospell but not have established the grand principle of your sacrilegious religion which is Anti-paedo-baptisme As for that of Mar. 16.16 we shall still grant that as such as were to be made Jewes were first to be taught the Covenant and then to enjoy the Seale but such as were borne Jewes were first to be sealed and then taught afterwards so here Christians-made must first be taught and then be sealed but Christians-borne of those made-Christians are first to be sealed by baptisme and afterward taught for this Scripture doth barre children no more from baptisme than it doth from heaven Thus out of the Text you argue viz. He that beleeveth and is baptized shall be saved But infants doe not beleeve Ergo Infants are not to be baptized Thus I argue viz. He that beleeves not shall be damned as it followeth in the Text. But say you Infants beleeve not Ergo Infants shall be damned Answer this and you answer you selves Now some of your side say for answer thus viz. He that is of years and believes not shall not be saved and so say I he that is of yeares and believes not is not to be baptized And this is all that I require namely that made-Christians must first testifie their faith before baptisme but borne-Christians not so Anabaptist Againe if this Commission had been from divine authority then the Apostles had not dared to omit the practice thereof but we have not any example of one person in all the Scripture that was baptized but what had the Gospell first preached unto him and did beleeve it Againe further you say c. ut infra Answer The non-practice of the Apostles doth not argue the non-divinity of our warrant for paedo-baptisme from Matth. 28.19 For the businesse of the Apostles lay in planting of foundations and in erecting of Churches consisting of persons of yeares And the Apostles baptized but a poore few of the multitudes that were converted by their ministry 1 Cor. 1.13 17. Now if these words Mat. 28.19 must be urged in the strict letter then it had beene a sinne for the Apostle not to baptize such as by his preaching he converted but this is no sinne for then he would not have thanked God that he baptized none of the Corinthians but Crispus and Gaius 1 Cor. 1.14 And yet Paul did beget the Corinthians in Jesus Christ by his preaching 1 Cor. 4.15 Or he made them Disciples but baptized very few of them and therefore the text cannot be urged in the strict letter Againe to dispute negatively from the Scripture in a matter of fact viz. we doe not reade that the Apostles or any else baptized any Infants therefore there were none baptized by any of them is a kinde of arguing fit for fooles not for schooles and yet this is the onely Divinity of your Church Upon this ground I argue upon more probable reason We doe not reade in the story of the Church from the Baptist to the end of the Acts that the Apostles or any others did baptize a childe of any Christian when he was growne up to yeares but the baptized Christians being millions had many children in that great tract of time and baptized they were Now we reade not that it was done in their growth on profession of their faith and therefore in theiâ— infancie Wee reade of aboundance that were converted from Jews and Pagans who on profession of their faith were baptized but we reade no such thing of the children of any baptized Jew or Gentile but that such children were holy by birth This shewes a maine difference between them and their children viz. That such parents became children of the Church by instruction but the children of such baptized parents were holy and the children of the Church by birth Anabaptist Againe further you say that this Commission was partly circumstantiall as for to goe from Nation to Nation Wee would know how you can prove it so by what Scripture or where ever Christ did say so For Christ gave this Commission in particular to his Disciples and they were to goe unto all Nations to preach the Gospell and so they did fulfill the Commission that Christ gave them And as they were to doe this so they were to teach all Nations to observe the like rules of them as they had from Christ For Christ bid them to teach the Nations to observe whatsoever he commanded them So they were to leave the like Commission with every Nation as they did teach Now we see Christ commanded the Disciples to teach and make them Disciples before they should baptize them and so the Disciples were to teach all Nations to follow the same rule and so the Apostle doth exhort to follow their rule and example as they left us Answer Thomas Lambe your deare brother and messenger of Jesus Christ put apart to preach the Gospell-grace as he stiles himselfe in his letter to you his brethren and prisoners of Jesus Christ was as he writes in that letter to goe to Norwich in February last Anno 1641. about the Lords worke as he had beene with you about the like worke Now the substance of this worthy instruments commission is the Lords worke in erecting Churches and planting new foundations but his going to Norwich and comming to Gloucester and Painswicke and Cranham is but a circumstance of this mans commission as things concerning time and place about actions may be termed circumstances of such actions without any text of Scripture to warrant the expression I told you that Christs Commission in Mat. 28.19 20. was a full Commission to all Christs Ministers under the Gospell extraordinary and ordinary and that this Commission was that the Word should be preached and that the Sacraments should be administred and that ordinary Pastours and Teachers in seâ—led Congregations did execute this Commission fully though they went not from Nation to Nation and from place to place Now if such a circumstance may be dispensed withall without violation of the Commission then the Commission of Christ there given bindes not all Ministers in every circumstance For wee told you that this being a full Commission to all the Ministers of Jesus Christ to direct them in the worke of the Ministry and the Ministers of Jesus Christ being partly extraordinary and partly ordinary therefore in this Commission here must be something peculiar unto the
or children holy Look upon his letter and you shall find that either he speakes that or plaine non-sense But I have had speech with your Master already about his judgement upon this text and I think that if your Master will be but ingenous we are agreed But you his Disciple have gotten another trick to put the Holy Ghost to silence here in this text As the proverbe is seldome comes a better a bad Master and a worse Scholler You talke of Childrens being holy in the Apostles estimation Happily you have gotten that old Popith shift that the Papists are wont to have against Pauls writings They say that all Pauls writing is not to be taken for the holy Canon because Paul saith not the Lord but I not I but the Lord. And in that you said that children were holy in the Apostles estimation I suppose you rested upon that rotten prop of Popery And so you will have the Holy Ghost to have no tongue where you will have no eare for the Holy Ghost speakes as well by necessary deductions as in expresse words and the Holy Ghost hath a tongue in the true sense of the Scripture as well as in the expresse letter But you have said enough you confesse you have no example in the new Testament where Baptisme was ever denied unto Infants of baptized parents neither have you any Command or Commission from Christ our only Monarch and Law giver for denying of Baptisme unto Infants of baptized parents And therefore you doe not derive your power from Christ the King of the Church but from the devill in so doing Thus I argue from this ground Such as deny Baptisme unto persons to whom Christ denies it not are from the devill and not from Christ But Anabaptists deny Baptisme unto persons to whom Christ denies it not Ergo Anabaptists are from the devill and not from Christ The assumption may thus be proved irrefragably Infants of baptized parents are persons to whom Christ denies not Baptisme But Anabaptists deny Baptisme unto Infants of baptized parents Ergo. Anabaptists deny Baptisme to persons to whom Christ denies it not Now bring forth any Commission from Christ where Baptisme is denied unto Infants of baptized parents If you can bring no such thing forth as indeed you cannot then let all men know that you are from the devill and not from Christ in denying Baptisme unto such Infants And so you set up the devill and not Christ in that practise For Christ hath no proviso in His Commission for Baptisme wherein the Infants of baptized parents are denied Shew us any place in the new Testament where Christ saith either expressely or by true deduction you shall not baptized parents See then whom you serve and whence you derive your power even from the devill Now take the same weapons and sight against us and argue thus against us Viz. Such as administer Baptisme unto persons to whom Christ denies it are from the devill and not from Christ But Ministers of the Church of England administer Baptisme to persons unto whom Christ denies it Ergo Ministers of the Church of England are from the devill and not from Christ Wee will deny your minor proposition and you will prove it thus viz. Infants of baptized parents are persons unto whom Christ denies Baptisme But Ministers of the Church of England administer Baptisme unto Infants of baptized parents Ergo Ministers of the Church of England administer Baptisme unto persons that Christ denie it unto Now the major proposition of the this later Syllogisme is false and it cannot possibly be made good by the Scripture Make that good and the day is yours I say make this good viz. That Christ in His Gospell doth any where deny Baptisme unto Infants of baptized parents and then we will acknowledge that you have your power of debarring Infants of baptized parents from Christ the which untill you doe we will look upon you as persons that have your Commission from the devill and not from Christ And wee in baptizing Infants of baptized parents are in the way of Christ and have our Commission from Him and He will defend us from your virulent rage and blesse our ministery Anabaptist Next you seem to say something concerning the Covenant and you bring us the example of the Church of the Ephesians which were Jewes and Gentiles converted and brought out of the miserable estate that they were in before and now being converted they were engrafted into Christ not before but now being in a new condition yet those priviledges that are there spoken to the Church of the Ephesians which were all converts I say you make these priviledges and benefits that they were partakers of to belong to the whole nation of Pagan Jew and Gentile in their naturall condition which is most grosse wresting of the text and much prejudice to the priviledge of the Gospell And likewise that place 1 Cor. 12. concerning being baptized into one spirit which priviledge you attribute to all before conversion which was only peculiar to the converts of the Church of Conrinth and therefore pray take heed how you wrest the Scripture to accomplish your owne humours Answer I said in opposition to the state of the Pagan Gentiles that the condition of the Gentiles where the Gospell is imbraced and they baptized is not now the same in point of religion for now in Jesus Christ wee who were sometimes farre off are made nigh c. Ephes 2.13.22 And by one spirit are we all baptized into one body whether wee be Jewes or Gentiles 1 Cor. 12.13 And whether this bee not faithfull dealing with the Scripture let the texts by your selfe alleadged judge Did I at all make any mention of persons in their naturall condition or say that the priviledges of the Gospell did belong to the whole nation before conversion Fye Fye Is this faire dealing I spake no more nay not so much as is expressely written in the texts alleadged But somewhat your venemous tongues must utter and if you cannot wound our cause you wil traduce our persons Our question was about paedo-baptisme and we conveighed and contrived the matter in these termes viz. whether children of holiest parents even in purest Churches are to bee baptized in their infancy And we propounded the question of purpose in these termes that we might come directly to the point And therefore all that you say in this cavill is rather ad personam then adrem The like false aspersion you east upon me before and there you are answered And so to answer here were but to answer you in your folly And now what humour you are here led by let the reader judge Anabaptist Further you would know whether the Covenant be not sociall we answer that it 's sociall in respect of the durance or continuance of it As thus that it is to all generations unto the end of the world or else woe unto us if wee are left without a Covenant or Promise
children of the Prophets and of the Covenant because borne under the holy Covenant Act. 3.25 And how were not the Jewes sinners of the Gentiles Surely Divines whom you may seem sooner to refute then understand tell us that such as were borne Jewes had not their sinnes imputed unto them otherwise they were borne in originall sinne as well as the Gentiles but the holy Covenant of Grace was establisht upon them which Covenant was appointed as a remedy to fre e them from originall corruption and to restore them to Gods favour But this is a kind of language which you Anabaptists haply doe not understand For had you any knowledge this way you would not reason so wildly and turne Gods Covenant out of doores by putting no difference by nature between such as are born Christians in the Church under the holy Covenant and such as are born Pagans out of the Church strangers from the covenant And therefore seeing by nature there is so wide a difference between such as are born Christians and such as are born Pagans you in effect as good as say nothing For God bath engraven His Covenant upon the Infants of Christians and made this knowne unto his Church and therefore the Infants of Christians are to have the priviledge of Baptisme in their infancy But God hath not engraven His Covenant upon children of Pagans therefore they are not to have it untill they testify faith and repentance And this covenant written upon children of Christians in their infancy is the Commission that the Holy Ghost hath given in Scripture for baptizing Infants of Christians in their infancy 1 Cor. 7.14 And now I pray put your heads all together and let me heare what you can say against this But goe on Anabaptist Againe further This argument of yours is but from humane conception and doth tend to the overthrow of a divine institution which may not nor ought not to be unles you can prove where and when the holy Ghost hath or doth expresly lay down or give commission for the alteration of that expresse institution that Christ gave unto His Disciples to teach and instruct all Nations to observe and follow the rule that they left them And therefore the alteration of times and state is not sufficient to alter a divine institution untill it be altered by divine Authority by which it was at first commanded As for instance Suppose the King should establish a Law and an Act of Parliament for the practising of any particular action in the Land and the cause may be removed for which this Law was established yet this Act doth still remaine in force to be practised untill the Author thereof doth disanull it by proclamation or alteration So in like manner Christ hath established an Institution for Baptisme and confirmed it by the Apostles practice according to their commission and therefore untill Christ doth disanull this Institution or alter it wee may not nor dare not to alter it upon paine of open rebellion against the King of Heaven let the time alter never so much that is not a ground sufficient to alter an Institution And this for answer unto your first and chiefest Argument Now to passe by many groundlesse and sensuall arguments which are not worth answering because they savour of nothing but censuring we desire to come to your chiefest reasons wherefore Infants should be Baptized Answer No Argument that is truly deducted from the Scriptures of God is from humane conception But this Argument of mine against which you except is truly deducted from the Scriptures of God Ergo This Argument of mine against which you except is not from humane conception And then againe thus viz. No Argument that is deducted from the Scriptures of God can overthrow a divine Institution But this Argument of mine against which yee except is truly deducted from the Scriptures of God Ergo This Argument of mine against which you except cannot overthrow a divine Institution Now let mee but prove the Minor Proposition and you are overthrowne irrecoverably though you seeme to be armed with Law and Gospell against us Well the point that I have to make good is this namely that the Argument I here used was truly deducted from the Scriptures of God And to make this good the very rehearsall of what I said will be enough without any more adoe The summe of what I said was that the state of the Pagan Gentiles before the Apostles planted the Gospell among them was not the same in point of religion as is the state of the Christian Gentiles where the Gospell is embraced and they baptized Now I represented the state of the Pagan-Gentiles unto you in two particulars 1. I told you that before the Gospell came among the Pagan-Gentiles they were without Christ being aliens from the Common-wealth of Israel and strangers from the covenants of promise having no hope and without God in the world Ephes 2.12 And I am sure this is no humane conceipt unlesse the Oracles of God are humane conceipts 2. I said againe that before the Gospell came among the Pagan-Gentiles they were carried away to dumbe Idols even as they were led 1 Cor. 12.2 Neither is this any humane conceipt Then finally the Gentiles where the Gospell is planted are not of this condition in point of religion but in covenant with God and of Gods family and houshold as you may see in any Sermon-notes prefixed If this Argument doth overthrow the sense that you give of Matth 28.19 then you doe not give the right sense of the text For no argument truly deducted from the Scripture can overthrow the true meaning of any Scripture And so if your manner of baptizing which you would have to be warranted by that of our Saviour Matth. 28.19 will not stand with the nature of Gods covenant of Grace among the Gentiles where the Gospell is planted then Christ meanes not your way of baptizing in Churches where the Gospell is planted So then this argument of mine tends not to the overthrowing of any institution of Christ in Mat. 28.19 but layes a ground for the refuting of your wrong interpretation of the text the true meaning of which text you may afterwards see in due place For it should seem this is the keeping of your song and afterwards iterated againe and againe And for me to run over the same things againe and againe would argue me to be as void of mater as you are of reason But I pray one thing more What are those sensuall and groundlesse arguments of mine that you so sleightly passe over as not worth the answering I termed Anabaptists indeed a monstrous broode sacrilegious theeves Bellarmines Disciples c. Doe these savour of nothing but censuring Are these the sensuall and groundlesse arguments you mean But I argued that the promises of God made unto the Jewes in the Messias were spirituall and eternall promises Mat. 23.32 Act. 3.25 26. Heb. 11.16 And this you passe by untouched
And they put on the businesse with such peremptory boldnesse as if all the world had beene unable to gain-say their practice or refute their doctrine VVhereupon to clear my selfe and to satisfie others I undertooke the controversie at Cranham where they had left their poyson And when I undertooke it the Anabaptists from Gloucester and Painswicke came to heare mee and set upon mee in the open face of the Congregation as soone as I came downe out of the Pulpit I desired them to forbeare publique tumults and to send in their exceptions against what I had laid downe for Poedobaptisme And at first they sent mee in a paper with no hand to it but this I rejected and delivered back to them againe because I knew no one of them would stand to it when once the folly thereof was declared At length I received about two sheetes of paper and yet though it came in the names of them all there was but one hand unto the same and this Champion doth so stoutly mannage the matter that surely if his cause were suitable to his stomacke neither men nor Angels could stand before him It is high time then for us to bestirre our selves when condemned heresies shall find such bold abettours and that in the Land of light and truth The Lord put it into the heats of our Parliament to settle a Government among us with speed that out-facing impudencie may be called to an account that truth and peace may dwell in our Land And now Gentle Reader peruse the ensuing tractate wherein if thou find any benefit give God the glory and afford mee thy help at the Throne of Grace And so I have done and do thou begin Thine in the Truth T.W. ERRATA PAg. 6. line 1. for Cor. read King p. 8 l.7 for up r. upon p. 10. l. 21. r. Gods Covenant of Grace p. 11. l. ult adde of Gods command but because p. 16. l. 31. for their God r. thâ— God p. 36. l. 22. for under r. of p. 42. l. 16. dele not p. 81. l. 4. let Petitio principii be put in the Margin Ib. for disputationibus r. disputations Ib. l. 20 for well by r. well as p. 107. l. 14. for profession in the r. profession of faith in the. p. 110. l. 16. for as whatsoever r. as if whatsoever p. 111. l. 20. dele or p. 114. l. 17. dele saved and. p. 115. l. 22. for certifie r. rectisie p. 116. for to r. of p. 119. l. 6. â—or hearts 6.1 heart p. 122. l. 28. for not r. not the. THE COVENANTS Plea for INFANTS MATTH 28.18 19 20. All power is given unto Me in Heaven and in earth Goe yee therefore and teach all nations baptizing them in the Name of the Father and of the Sonne and of the Holy Ghost Teaching them to observe all whatsoever I have commanded you And loe I am with you alwayes even to the end of the world AMEN THE monstrous brood of Anabaptists in former ages and now in these our dayes have made and doe make this portion of Scripture their maine Fort and strongest Barricado to beat back poore helplesse and harmlesse infants from being consecrated into Gods peculiar by baptisme though born of Christian parents Now against these unjust oppressours and sacrilegious theeves I am now come into the field to maintaine the christian birth-right of infants whose parents are sealed unto God and of His Family And to set them into their own border possession and inheritance And because some of Satans troopers of late in mine absence have made an in-rode into this Parish and by perverting of this Scripture have carried away some and staggered many others therefore I have chosen to insist upon this Text to let all men see how it makes nothing at all for the establishing of their wicked purpose This whole Chapter contains the History of our Saviours resurrection and a Rehearsall of what He did on earth between the time of His triumphant resurrection and His glorious Ascension The former we omit for brevities sake In the latter the Spirit of God relates how Christ being risen from the dead by vertue of His resurrection possessed of all power and authority over all things and persons in heaven and in earth gave a command and commission unto his Apostles to goe out among the Pagan-Gentiles and plant the Gospell among them and not confine themselves any longer within the precincts of Iudea And why Because all power is given unto Christ in heaven and in earth which before was not given unto him This is our Saviours preface and it is a materiall passage and the ground of our Saviours sending of His Apostles to plant the Gospell among the Pagan-Gentiles Now all power and authority concerning the Church of God was conferred on Him for ministring the kingdome of heaven among Jewes and Gentiles And hence observe this point for your instruction Doct. Viz. That all power and authority concerning the Church of God was given unto Christ and conferred on Him by vertue of His meritorious death and triumphant resurrection from the dead Eph. 1.19 23. Ps 2.6 9. compared with Acts 13.33 Heb. 2.9 10. Luk. 24.46 47. Reason And the reason is because thereby Christ vanquished the enemies of our salvation led captivity captive received gifts for men and became the head of the Church among Jewes and Gentiles Quest But had not Christ this power from the beginning Ans 1. He had it in the mind and decree of His Father for we were chosen in Him and He was still the head of His the Church 2. He had it vertually in His sufficiency to vanquish enemies and to deliver His chosen for Hee was a lambe slaine from the beginning 3. Actually and by way of execution among Iewes and Gentiles without difference He had it not untill the time of His glorious resurrection Acts 2.32 36. For then was Hee declared to be the sonne of God and the Jewes Messiat Rom. 1.4 Now this point may be put to sundry good uses Vse 1 It may serve to pierce the hearts and soules of all wicked men and move them to repentance and amendment of life Acts 2.36 37. Vse 2 It may serve to deterre all Church-enemies from their furious and vaine attempts against Christ and His Gospell Psal 2.1 8. Vse 3 This should teach us to yeild divine honour and worship unto Christ We are to set him up as the Lord of our faith having His warrant for what wee doe in His worship under the Gospell making Him our King and Law-giver and obey him in all things that He shall say unto us depending upon him alone for salvation as our All-sufficient Saviour Vse 4 Let us then labour to be so qualified and so to live as that all this power of Christ may be improved for our advantage Now if we would bee so qualified wee must see that wee are true members of Jesus Christ And the truth of this may be discerned by our threefold
onenesse with Christ viz. 1. Of Spirit 1 Cor. 6.17 2. Of image Gal. 4.19 3. Of carriage Gal. 2.20 Now if wee are thus one with Christ Christ will be Alsufficient unto us against every evill and for all good things of soule or body in life and death that we shall stand in need of Vse 5 This consideration may lastly afford precious matter of substantiall and lasting joy Psal 118.22 23 24. Ps 149.2 And let this suffice for the Preface Wee are now to treat of Christs glorious Commission unto His Legates and Apostles Wherein before we come unto the particular scanning of the whole text we will premise two things in Generall which will appositely reach the present controversy between us and the Anabaptists 1. The first Generall is this viz. That the Apostles and first planters of the Gospell must no longer keep within the precincts and borders of Iudea but goe out among the Pagan-Gentiles and instruct them in the Mystery of the Gospell and so seale them also into Gods peculiar by baptisme 2. The second Generall is this viz. That the Apostles had a Commission from Christ to goe unto all Nations without limitaion and were not to take up their setled residence in any one Nation but to travell from Countrey to Countrey their Commission was so large and ample They were for Spaine they were for Rome for Italy for Corinth for Asia for Macedonia for Philippi c. And in this they had a peculiar Commission which was to plant foundations where Christ was not named to beare the Name of Christ before lewes and Gentiles to be the immediate pen-men of the Holy Ghost to deliver unto them the immediate will of God concerning faith and worship and to confirme their doctrine by miracles as part of their extraordinary Commission Now let the Anabaptists shew us any such Commission among all the mopping apes of their Apostolicall instructers by whose miraculous endowments they hope to see all the world brought to the obedience of their faith Now this second observation we shall not speak of here in this treatise for such was the impetuous madnesse of the Anabaptists at their first entrance into their new way for young beginners are most fiery that I thought it prudence to forbear the further prosecuting of this text for their objections would have been so many that in answering of them I should have spent whole sermons and so have deprived mine auditory of more necessary instructions and therefore I resolved to deale with them by writing and to publish my Sermon-notes or at least the summe of them upon this first Generall this being the very hinge upon which the controversy betwixt us and the Anabaptists is turned The first Generall point then is this viz. That the Apostles and first planters of the Gospell were no longer to keep within the borders and precincts of Judea but to goe out among the Pagan-Gentiles and instruct them in the mystery of the Gospell and being so instructed to seale them into Gods peculiar by Baptisme Now as this point stands clearely upon the text so other Scriptures suffrage with it as Mark. 16.14 18. Act. 10.34 38. Act. 13.47 48. And this primitive administration of the Gospell unto the Pagan Gentiles is called a bearing of Christs name before them Act. 9.15 And an opening of a doore of faith unto the Gentiles Act. 14.27 1 Cor. 16.9 And here faith must be the doore of admittance But to make briefe way to the clearing of the truth against the obstreperous clamours and darkening cavillations of the Anabaptists or opposers of paedo-baptisme we are to consider what the state of the Gentiles was in point of religion before the Gospell was preached among them by the Apostles and first planters of Christs Kingdome and then what their estate is now where the Gospell is planted and they baptized in point of Religion The state of the Pagan-Gentiles in point of religion before the Gospell was planted among them may be presented unto you in two Generalls viz. 1. They were without Christ aliens from the Common-wealth of Israel strangers from the Covenants of promise having no hope and without God in the world Ephes 2.12 2. They had their visible and Country-Idols and they were carried away to dumbe Idols even as they were led 1 Cor. 12. 2. Rom. 1.18 32. Psal 115.2 8. Thus the Sidonians had their Astaroth the Moabites their Chemosh the children of Ammon their Milchom 1. Cor. 11.33 The Philistines their Dagon 1 Sam. 5.1 2. The Ephesians their Diana Act. 19. And the Athenians their Hotch potch This was their state in point of religion And therefore is there any reason that these should be baptized before they were turned from their Idols and called to faith in Christ and repentance towards God Surely none And therefore Christ would that such should be first made Disciples before they should be baptized into the name of the sacred Trinity And the Apostles did so For it s expressely said that many of the Corinthians hearing beleeved and were baptized And there is good reason for this for First its fit that meere aliens and professed Idolaters Gods professed enemies should manifest their faith and repentance before they should be sealed into Gods peculiar by baptisme Secondly none of their kindred were ever before in the state of Christianity from whence they might claime right unto Gods seale of Admittance But now a Church was to be raised of persons growne up to yeares and so confession of faith must be the ground of their baptisme their parents being not baptized before and in the state of Christianity But secondly the condition of the Gentiles where the Gospell is embraced and they baptized into the Name of the holy Trinity is not now the same in point of religion For 1. First it cannot be said that such Gentiles are aliens from the Common-wealth of Israel without Christ strangers from the Covenants of promise having no hope and without God in the world 2. It cannot be said that such Gentiles have their Countrey-Idols by which they are carried away seeing they are turned from them 1 Thess 1.9 3. It must needs be acknowledged that such Gentiles are not farre off but in Jesus Christ made nigh by the blood of Christ Ephes 2.13 having accesse unto the Father through Christ by the Spirit verse 18. 4. It must needs be acknowledged that such Gentiles are no more strangers and forreiners but fellow-citizens with the Saints and of the houshold of God and are built upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets Jesus Christ himselfe being the chiefe corner-stone Eph. 2.19 20. 5. It must needs be acknowledged that such Gentiles are all baptized into Christs body 1 Cor. 12 13. Gal. 3.27 28 29. Now bring me any such Gentiles as these among the Pagan-Gentiles before the Gospell came among them and was embraced by them And therefore these things being considered who but a stupid dolt and perverse wrangler can
hence conclude that infants of Christian parents should bee debarred from the Sacrament of Baptisme in their infancy And the reason is because their parents are not now found in the state of heathenish Paganisme as were those among whom Christ sent His Apostles before they received Christ and His Gospell but now they stand in Grace and Covenant with God as His peculiar people holy and beloved Now albeit it is a truth that all children of baptized parents are baptizable and to be baptized yet to prevent impertinencies and all collaterall cavillations I propound the question concerning paedo-baptisme in these termes viz. Whether children of holyest parents in purest Churches are to be baptized in their infancy The point between us and the compleat Anabaptists is simply concerning paedo-baptisme If my controversy lay with the Semi-Anabaptists I would lay my proposition in other termes but the compleat Anabaptist doth hold that no child in infancy is baptizable let his parents be never so holy and let the administration be never so pure Now we maintaine the affirmative of this question against the Anabaptists upon these grounds viz. Reason 1 First because Infants of Christians are holy 1 Cor. 7.14 cum Rom. 11.16 And à Spiritu Sancto recepto ad Baptismi administrationem is an invincible argument with St. Peter Acts 10.47 Can any man forbid water that these should not be baptized which have received the Holy Ghost as well as wee Ob. I but say our busy-Anabaptists there was a visible manifestation of the holy Ghost in a miraculous manner up-those that Peter speakes of there but there is no manifestation of the Holy Ghost upon Infants of Christian parents in their infancy more then upon Infants of Turks and Pagans Sol. I answer that there was a manifestation of the Holy Ghost as well to the eye of sense as to the eye of faith but here to the eye of faith only That was miraculous extra ordinary this oraculous ordinary And a standing Oracle is as much to be credited as a Miracle if not more For miracles are but secondary confirmations of divine faith but Gods written Oracles are primary Manifestations of holinesse may be fallacious but Gods Oracles are certain and can never deceive And the singer of God hath written holinesse upon Infants of Christians and Paul Gods Embassadour hath proclaimed it unto us A writing and a proclamation that the heilish spite and virulent tongues of clamouring Anabaptists shall never be able to obliterate or disanull by their bastard exposition of this sacred Oracle forcing it to speak the strange language of a seduced Anabaptist and not the heavenly language of the sacred Scriptures a practise plainly diabolicall and hellish But put case oh monster that God the Father God the Sonne and God the Holy Ghost should come unto thee and say these are holy children Doest thou think Gods meaning were that they are no bastards but lawfully begotten Surely if that should be Gods meaning He should not speak according to the usuall language of his owne written word For tell me where God termes children holy for their being meer legitimates Canst thou bring one text of Scripture where children are said to be holy unlesse it be in relation unto the holy Covenant under which they were borne And if God should say that such children are holy because of the holy Covenant under which they were borne as children are said to be holy for that only reason in the Scripture Did not God in this say unto thee I have set these children apart unto my selfe Psal 4.3 Did not God in so saying say unto thee set them a part unto Me as My Portion And how wouldest thou set them apart unto God but by putting Gods seale upon them Well we need not suppose Gods speaking thus unto thee for God doth so speak unto thee and unto all men in this sacred Oracle And on children of Christian parents it must stand as an unchangeable Oracle that they are holy Quest But say Anabaptists that children of Christians are holy the text is expressely cleare but what holinesse doth the Apostle meane Sol. I answer that doubtlesse the Apostle meanes such holinesse as the Prophets in the old Testament doe meane when they call the children of Gods Covenant-people the holy seed Not holinesse by legitimation as Bellarmine the Jesuite and his disciples the Anabaptists dreame but such holinesse as hath the promise of the kingdome of heaven Mark 10.13 16. Matth. 19.13 14 15. Luk. 18.15 16 17. Ob. I but say Anabaptists these were not children in propriety of speech but young beginners in Christianity and such as were little in their own eyes as Matth. 18.1 6. Sol. The stories are not the same For it 's said in Mat. 18. that Christ called a little child and set him in the middest of His disciples to teach them humility and in the other places that we have cited Mark 10. Matth. 19. Luk. 18. that they brought children unto Christ that He should blesse them And to say that the words are not taken in propriety of speech in these texts is just like their other stuffe For 1. In the places that we have quoted its said that the children were brought unto Christ not led and presented only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 apportabant borne to Christ as wee beare a burthen 2. They were such 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as St. Luke termes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 children newly borne 3. The disciples blamed those that brought them And would they blame men for bringing young beginners in in Christianity weake Christians and such as were little in their owne eyes unto Christ 4. They very gesture of Christ proves them to be children in propriety of speech For it is said that Christ tooke them up in his armes And thus you see how these shuffling juglers will catch at any thing and so can they alleage Scripture they care not how little it is to purpose so they may puzzle others and avoid the evidence of truth against themselves Quaest But put case say they we grant the places to be meant of Children in propriety of speech how can you hence conclude that they ought to be baptized Sol. Very well for if the Kingdome of God which is the proper inheritance of Saints doth belong unto them then the seale and cognizance thereof is theirs in all equity But the end wherefore wee alleaged these Scriptures is to prove that the holinesse attributed unto children by Paul 1 Cor. 7.14 is the holinesse of Gods Kingdome or the holinesse of Gods grace under which these children were borne as the children of the Covenant by birth because borne of a parent in covenant And infants are no where in Scripture phrased holy but in relation to the holy Covenant under which they were borne And so from the covenant their title stands good to the initiall seale thereof which under the Gospell is Baptisme Quaest If the holinesse of the Covenant gives
is the same with the Pagan-Gentiles I know no reason why we so long as we remaine in our naturall condition should have greater priviledges then they unlesse the holy Ghost had any where given commission for is in Scripture And therefore untill you can prove a difference between them and us by nature you in effect as good as say nothing Answer Here as a man more then confident of his cause you seem to grant your antagonist more then is required Here you have found out an argument which in your opinion is more then demonstrative And oh how happy is your Church in having so mettalsome a champion that is able to say something that your Apostolicall fraternity be not troden down of the Idolatrous paedo-baptists But however your words may passe in your Church as oracles yet wee the maintainers of Gods Covenant judge your assertion in all this prattle to be but an aspersion And either make your charge good or else we will look upon you as an agent for the devill and not for Christ Prove that all the children of beleeving parents are open and professed enemies to God Shew where the Scripture so termes Infants of Christian parents seeing such are borne Christians and called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Saints I Cor. 7.14 You shew your selfe to be an open and professed enemy to the holy seed in casting so soule a reproach upon persons that God hath so highly honoured And as much may be said of the Infants of the Jewes namely that they were borne in originall sinne yet the Scripture termes them no where open and professed enemies to God though you say the promises made unto them were but temporary Nor did this estate debarre them from being sealed into Gods peculiar in their infancy by the seale of His holy and eternall Covenant Now if you say that infants in their infancy must not be baptized because they cannot understand the meaning of that mysticall Ordinance nor have saith to apply the promises therein held forth by the same reason the Infants of the Jewes should not have been circumcised for circumcision had in it the same essentiall mystery with Baptisme though held forth in a type And so your argument blames God Himselfe for preposterous dealing in prescribing the seale of the righteousnesse of faith to be imprinted on persons before they manifested or could manifest any faith at all by profession or practise And circumcision was a seale of the same righteousnesse of faith which we Christians build our eternall salvation upon and that is faith in Jesus Christ Rom. 4. and Rom. 5. Ob. But there was a speciall command for circumcision in the time of infancy Sol. But your reason I say blames God for that command because Infants of Jewes were as much in the state of nature as Infants of Christians So then the same reason that you alleadge to blame us for our practise doth blame God for His command Againe we answer that there was such a command for the circumcising of such Infants in their infancy whose parents were under Gods seale but no such command for Infants whose parents were not Profession of faith was needfull unto such whose parents were not under Gods foederall seale And so Abraham in whom the Church of the Jewes began had saith before hee had the seale for being uncircumcised or before circumcision hee had the righteousnesse of faith Rom 4.11 But no such thing afterward required of Abrahams seed but the contrary commanded namely that his seed should be circumcised in their infancy So for baptisme under the Gospell For such whose parents are not under the seale of Gods Covenant are not to be baptized but first to manifest the righteousnesse of faith And here as in Abraham the righteousnesse of faith must goe before the initiall seale but when parents as Abraham are once under the seale of Gods Covenant their seed as the seed of Abraham are to bee sealed unto God in their infancy by vertue of their Christian birth-right for by birth they are under Gods Covenant and that Covenant under which they were borne is to bee put under seale and ratified unto them as joint confederates with their parents and of Gods peculiar people with them For the expresse words of the Covenant are I WILL BEE THY GOD AND THE GOD OF THY SEED And therefore when God doth put the initiall seale upon the parents He doth enright the seed of such parents unto the Covenant and initiall seale thereof in their infancy as the Lord hath clearely resolved the case when He put His Covenant under seale with Abraham And therefore you Anabaptists are destroyers of Gods Covenant and will have it to terminate in the party baptized and not to extend to his or her seed as their Christian jointure by birth So then the Covenant that God makes with us Christians is not I will be thy God and the God of thy Seed jointly But I will be thy God and not the God of the seed untill they manifest faith in practice and profession and then I will be the God of thy seed also And so this Covenant will be no priviledge unto children of Christian parents at all for the children of Turkes shall bee received by Baptisme when they testify faith in christ and and repentance towards God And so Gods Covenant of Grace must alwayes terminate in the party baptized and goe no further And is not this mad Divinity that the children shall be excluded when God hath joyned parents and children as joint-partakers of the same Covenant and inheritance And are not you herein the devills attournies sent of purpose to wrangle children of Christian parents out of the spirituall inheritance unto which they are borne as Christians by birth The Lord plead the cause of His Covenant against these perverse disputers maintaine the inheritance of our seed and of-spring against the cursed machinations of these sacrilegious theeves and robbers which steale from God from us and from our children But you call for a difference beteeen us Christians and the Pagan-Gentiles by nature unles this be shewed nothing in effect is spoken against you or for us By nature that is by naturall generation this I beleeve is your meaning a notion indeed high enough for Anabaptists who look upon all Gods ordinances like sensuall beasts But upon that naturall generation of procreation of seed you may behold the Covenant of Grace established and set up had you any sparke of spirituall discerning in you for so did St. Paul Ephes 2.3 4. c. And had you learned the language of the Scriptures you might truly say that the children of Christians are Christians by nature and not sinners of the Pagans as the Apostle speakes of the Jewes saying we are Jewes by nature and not sinners of the Gentiles Gal. 2.15 Here Jewes by nature and sinners of the Gentiles are opposite members But how were they Jewes by nature Surely as St. Peter speaks because they were the
not because the argument is sensuall and groundlesse but because you cannot answer it Moreover I told you that circumcision was the seale of the righteousnesse of faith and that this seale was imprinted on very Infants in their infancy And is this a groundlesse and sensuall argument not worth the answering Alas alas you cannot answer it And therefore for ought you have said or can say my doctrine must stand good and the gates of hell cannot prevaile against it View it over againe and consider it more punctually And then haply you will either be †Hodson an Ambaptist in the city of Glocester growne as light to the head since he was new baptized as he was light in the heart before Hodson-peevish or of another mind And now having made so manly an encounter let us see whether your valour will endure the brunt of the battell Let us heare your killing exceptions against my reasons that I had for paedo-baptisme Reason 1 The first reason for paedo baptisme Anabaptist Because you say that children are holy therefore they may be baptized 1 Cor. 7.14 Now we would know what holinesse you meane Answer I did not say that children are holy that 's too generall but that children of Christian parents are holy And wee therefore say so because the Apostle Paul the pen-man of the Holy Ghost speaks it And so when you aske me what I meane by holinesse in this discourse you demand withall what the Apostle meanes by it for I only relate his words The meaning then of the Apostle is the same as was the meaning of the Prophets when they said that the Iewish Infants were holy because borne under an holy Covenant Iewes by nature and not sinners under the Gentiles So the meaning of the Apostle is that the children of Christians are holy i. e. Christians by nature and birth not sinners of the Pagans unto which Pagans God hath not committed His Oracles nor put them under His seale But goe on and we will follow you Anabaptist If you say an inward holinesse then grace must come successively from parents And so by this rule wee shall make our parents the authors and conveighers of grace and so mightily wrong the Lord Jesus Christ For there is nothing doth make us truly holy but grace for by nature wee are all filthy and corrupt from top to toe and by this ground we draw grace from our parents loynes which to affirme is most grosse and false and no lesse then high blasphemy against the Spirit of God and the Lord Jesus Christ Answer What holinesse we meane you may see in our answer immediately going before But if we should say that it was inward holinesse How doth that inferre that grace must come successively from parents Seeing parents and children doe not derive inward holinesse and grace from one another but as joint-confederates they both derive and draw holinesse from the Covenant of Grace under which they both are For the expresse words of the Covenant are I will be thy God and the God of thy seed jointly as co-partners in the same Covenant And therefore you erre not knowing the Scriptures nor the nature of the Covenant The Sadduces endeavouring to overthrow the doctrine of the Resurrection drew an argument ab absurdo wherein there were more words then matter like the arguments of you and your brethren of the separation Matth. 22.23 28. thinking to puzzle their answerer with multitude of words seeing they wanted weight of argument So you use many words and sport your selves with your owne fancies But as Christ answered the Sadduces that they did erre because they neither knew the Scriptures nor the power of God So say I to you that you therefore erre not knowing the Scriptures nor the Nature of Gods Covenant of free Grace with His people And who wrongs Christ think you You or I You in making the grace of God of lesse extent by the comming of Christ in setting Moses above Christ For Moses allowed Infants of Gods Covenant people the initiall seale in their infancy but Christ denies it unto them if your Divinity will hold Or I in setting Christ above Moses both for clearenesse and extent of grace Now if Moses in his typicall ministration afford unto the Infants of Gods Covenant-people the initiall seale and Christ denies it in His Gospell-ministration then surely the shadow is to bee preferred before the substance And herein you shew your selfe to bee as stout an advocate for the obstinate Jewes agaist Christ as if from them you had received thirty peeces of silver to betray Him But what high blasphemy against the Spirit of God and the Lord Jesus Christ have you found out spray you Oh this namely that children shoulâ— draw grace from their parents loinesâ— But who a â—irmes this you or â—â— If â— then the Apostle affirmes it for â—d only said that children of Christian parents are holy and so saies the Aâ—ostle Anâ— is the Apostle an high blasphemer in saying so But goe on I pray I know you love not to be interrupted in so weighty a case of conscience as this is Anabaptist Againe if this be true then the unbelieving wife is made holy too and shee may be baptized as well as the children although shee be an infidell which is agaist your owne affirmation Answer T is true that children of Christian parents are holy if that be your meaning and upon this ground are to bee baptized as is said in my Sermon-notes But how doth it hence follow that the unbeleeving wife though holy to the beleeving husband is therefore as well to be baptized as the children of the beleeving parent For the Covenant is I will be thy God and the God of thy seed not I will be thy God and the God of thy wife though an infidell It 's one thing to be under an holy use another thing to be under an holy conditition The beleeving party is said to have a sanctified use of the infidell but the infidell is not said to be holy as the children are For such children are not said to bee sactified unto the parents but holy in themselves by reason of the holy Covenant under which they were borne as children of a parent in Covenant with God and joint-confederates In the originall the unbeleeving party is said to bee holy not to but in the beleeving party Not that one of them absolutely considered were sanctified in another for wee are sanctified only in the Lord Jesus Christ but as considered in the relation of husband and wife in lawfull matrimony so the infidell party is sanctified in the beleeving party for conjugall society and for raising up of an holy seed unto God And if you can but look into the originall and consider the scope of the place you cannot but suffrage with me But goe on Anabaptist But you say it is such an holinesse as hath the promises of the Kingdome of heaven If so then thus we affirme
the children of the Jewes were holy by vertue of the holy Covenant with their parents so also are the children of the Gentiles holy by vertue of the same holy Covenant with their parents an argument never too often to be inculcated And now having spoken of that text of 1 Cor. 7.14 already in our former discourse we will say some what for the sense and meaning of Rom. 11.16 which text must needs bee understood and meant of Abraham and his branches only Now the question is who are meant by Abrahams branches Well the point there to prove is that as Abrahams children among the Jewes were partakers of the priuiledges of the Covenant so among the Gentiles children engrafted into Abraham are partakers of the Covenant as well as the naturall branches of Abraham the Jewes And hence I inferred that as the Jewes receiving the faith of Abraham were circumcised so Gentiles receiving the faith of Abraham are to be baptized And as the Jewes that were not internally and inherently godly as long as they did not renounce Abrahams faith had a right to circumcision so the children of the Gentiles receiving the faith of Abraham were by Baptisme as Jewes by circumcision to bee admitted into the enjoyment of the priviledges of the Christian Church Peter tels the Jewes that the promise is unto them and their children Acts 2.39 Now the promise was not made to their seed because they did beleeve but the seed did beleeve because they were under the promise viz. I will be thy God and the God of thy seed If this must be restrained thus viz. I will be thy God and the God of thy seed too when thy seed shall beleeve then no more is promised to this seed then to the seed of the Gentiles for when the seed of any Gentile should make prosession of his faith in the Messias he was to be circumcised as well as the seed of Abraham But more was due by this promise to the seed of Abraham then to the seed of a Gentile therefore the seed of Abraham was under the promise in a peculiar manner and not the seed of a Gentile uncircumcised yea among the Jewes a parent who was orthodoxall in judgement albeit he shewed no proofe of justifying faith in his life yet he was put under the Covenant for him and his seed And the children of such had as much right to circumcision as the children of David So then externall subjection to the doctrine of faith doth entitle the parent and his seed to the right of the externall benefit of the Covenant The summe is that as Jewes were born Jewes so the seale of circumcision was their due not to put them under the Covenant but to seale up the Covenant under which they were borne So say I Christians children are borne Christians and a right to the Covenant is not given them by Baptisme but that right which they had by birth is put under seale The very Covenant under which a Christian Infant is born stands good unto him and bindes him to faith obedience and so albeit Anabaptists like so many enraged devills doe what in them lies to cancell the hand-writing of Almighty God by withholding Gods owne seale from Infants of Christian parents upon whom Hee hath engraven His Covenant and written His promises of grace and mercy by virtue of their being born of such parents A wickednesse so heinous so horrible so full of impiety and hellish cruelty that I want a parallel I want words to expresse it unto my reader yet Gods Covenant I say stands good unto them Now the Lord make you to understand what I have written and give you a sight of your wickednesse And thus you have my first reason vindicated Which is that Infants of Christians are Christians borne and therefore are to be baptized in their infancy The second Reason Anabaptist Againe your second reason is that children are capable of Baptisine and your ground is from circumcision Because children were circumcised therefore they may be baptized in their infancy Answer If children because borne under the Covenant before Christs incarnation were therefore capable of the initiall seale even by the sentence of Almighty God because born under that Covenant then children of Christians borne under the same Covenant of grace since Christs incarnation are capable of the initiall seale and 't is their due by virtue of their Christian birth-right Now that the Covenant before Christ with the Jewes and since Christ with the Christians is the same Covenant namely A Covenant which concernes mans deliverance from misery by sinne and mans restitution unto happinesse by Jesus Christ we have shewed before we will now instance only in three things Viz. 1. The Covenant of God with the Jewes before Christ caused the godly in Covenant to seek for immortality after death in heaven as their country and abiding city for ever Heb. 11.13 14 15 16. Acts 26.6 7 8. 2. All the ministrations of Gods Covenant with the Iewes tended to the debasement of nature and to the advancement of Gods free grace in the whole work of mans Redemption though in types 3. All the promises that God made to the Iewes looked towards Iesus Christ as the only Mediatour in whom all Gods promises are yea and Amen 2 Cor. 1.20 cum Heb. 13.8 and Gen. 3.15 Christ was the subject of Moses and the Prophets writings Job 1.45 And the Iewes were justified in the sight of God by the same righteousnesse of faith as we Gentiles are justified by Rom. 4.3.13 And this justification hath essentiall connexion with eternall salvation Rom. 5.9 10. And is not our Covenant the same for substance reducible to these three heads Quest Why then is the Covenant said to bee a better Covenant and established upon better promises Heb. 8.6 Ans It 's better only in regard of the ministration and permanency of which wee shall bee necessitated to speak more fully afterwards in due place Now if the Covenant be the same and the manifestation of this Covenant upon persons unto the Church bee the Churches warrant to minister the initiall seale unto them then if the Covenant manifested by God unto the Church to be upon Infants of persons in Covenant under the law was their warrant to administer the initiall seale that there God did appoint to be used then the like manifestation is a warrant for us to administer the initiall seale unto Infants under the Gospell whose parents are in Covenant But let 's consider your exceptions against this reason Anabaptist But we deny the sufficiency of this reason to prove Infants Baptisme and that upon this ground 1. They differ in the institution 2. In the signes 3. In the subjects 1. They differ in the Institution for the Institution of circumcision was that infants should be circumcised even all Abrahams lineall seed as well the seed of the bond woman as the free but the Institution of Baptisme is that they should first be taught
and they that did beleeve the word might and ought to be baptized and not else as we finde in all the Scripture and therefore every ordinance must be practised upon its owne institution and not how we please Now the Lord would sure have made some mention of childrens Baptisme if they had been the subjects of Baptisme and therefore from Christs owne charge and Commission to His Disciples Matth. 28 we are bound as strictly to observe Christs rule for Baptisme as the Jewes were to observe the order of circumcision Secondly they differ in the signes ut infra Answer How doe Circumcision and Baptisme differ in the institution seeing both of them are of divine institution annexed to the Covenant of free grace and the initiall seales thereof proper to the ministrations of Christ for they both seale Christ unto Gods Covenant people the one seales Christ to come the other seales Christ already come but both seale Christ But to your meaning I answer that for the institution of circumcision Abraham by the institution was not to bee circumcised till hee gave testimony of his faith in the Messias but then his seed was to be circumcised in their infancy before they could give any other proofe of their faith then their being borne of parents in Covenant And their being borne of parents in Covenant gave them right to the initiall seale as wee have shewed before So the Gentiles were not to be baptized as Abraham not to be circumcised till they did shew forth proofes of their faith But when the parent ba entred himselfe his children were to be baptized as Abrahams seed were to be circumcised before they could shew any more proofe of faith then their being borne of parents in Covenant Christ indeed Matth. 28.19 gave charge that whom His Apostles had taught they should bee baptized but that none should bee baptized but such as were first taught that 's your additionall and of that you neither doe nor can make proofe You were answered sufficiently that in raising a Church among Pagans faith must be the doore of admittance This was the Apostles case But when beleeving Pagans were baptized I desire proofe that their seed must bring a verdict of their beleeving ere they could be baptized Divines tell us that Heb. 6.2 where the Apostle speakes of Baptismes and imposition of hands By imposition of hands the Apostle meanes a practice then in use that such children as were baptized should after make profession of their faith and so be admitted by imposition of hands to the Lords Supper Now you will have profession of faith goe before and afford such as are borne Christians no more priviledge then meere Pagans borne out of the Church You say that by Christs charge and Commission Matth. 28. we are bound as strictly to observe Christs rule for Baptisme as the Jewes to observe the order of circumcision Right And therefore as Abraham was not and no Proselyte was to be circumcised till he gave testimony of his faith so no Alien no Pagan is to bee baptized till hee shew forth his faith But as the seed of Abraham and the seed of any circumcised Proselyte were to be circumcised while Infants so the seed of baptized Pagans while young are to be baptized Baptisme herein answering circumcision Anabaptist Secondly they differ in the signes for the signe of circumcision was the cutting off of the fore-skin of their flesh and that was a mark in their flesh for ever and so the parties that were circumcised I meane the Infants that were circumcised could make use of the signe afterward as well as at the present But the signe of Baptisme is water and so it must bee a signe to the party baptized in the present act thereof or not at all Now we know that Infants cannot discerne the signe in the present act and so consequently not at all and so the signe is given in vaine Answer What though they differ in the signes yet they accord in the thing signified and they both put the Covenant of grace under seale unto the children of the Church You reason like carnall Atheists as if all the benefit of Sacraments lay in what is obvious to our senses A perpetuall mark in the flesh which the circumcised though circumcised in infancy could after make use of But when When they came to years of discretion But what if they dyed before as many of them did What use then could they ever make of this marke But what marke or signe in the flesh meane you A sacramentall marke or signe Then verily a sealing signe But what did this marke or signe in the flesh seale unto the lineall seed of Abraham Redemption by Christ or the temporall inheritance of the land of Canaan You say the temporall inheritance of the land of Canaan If so then all Abrahams lineall seed circumcised must be possessed of the land of Canaan or else God must bee unfaithfull But Abrahams seed for the space of 440 yeares were kept out of Canaan after circumcision was instituted and practiced And so by this your Divinity all this while God was a lier and failed of His promise And must this sacramentall signe of circumcision seale the land of Canaan unto all Abrahams lineall seed Why then was Ismael and his posterity excluded What became of Abrahams lineall seed by Keturah The fonnes of Jacob became 12. tribes and the land of Canaan was divided unto them only And yet not to all these neither For two tribes and a halfe were setled on this side Iordan Fye Fye What mad stuffe is this Truly hee that hath any knowledge in Divine Mysteries may see evidently that either you read the Scriptures without observation or conclude that you maintaine untruths against your owne knowledge and consciences And then you come with another flim flam You tell me that water in Baptisme must be a signe to the party baptized in the present act or not at all That is as you expound it in the case of Infants that the party baptized must discern the signe in the present act or else that that signe is given in vaine And this Divinity is as spirituall as your Religion This argues that the efficacy of Gods ordinances of grace depends upon the act of the creature In this you may shake hands with Rome and exclude grace and set up works Here is much spoken of the act of man but not a word of the Act of God in His ordinances of grace But how doth this conclude Baptisme to be in vaine unto an Infant You say the Infant discernes not the signe in the present act of administration Thus you seem to argue Such as discerne not the sacramentall signe in the present act of administration have the sacramentall signe given in vaine But Infants of Christians doe not discerne the sacramentall signe in Baptisme in the present action of administration Ergo. Infants of Christians have the sacramentall signe of Baptisme given in vaine This argument
we find generally all children to be as vile and as wicked when they are come to any bignesse as any wicked men For there is not any evill almost but they doe shew it in their tougues or actions And this they doe c. ut infra Answer In the amplification of this reason I told you that among us that were baptized in infancy we have as humble and as meek and mortified men and women as any among the Anabaptists to say no more We have those that dye dayly unto sinne and are vexed in soule to see the abominations of others Againe wee have those that beare upon them the marks of the Lord Jesus Their lives are holy and lovely They are sound in the faith grave in their behavior and ready unto all good works They deny themselves They advance free grace They afflict their souldes and seek the peace of Hierusalem And hereof I say we through Gods blessing have not a few and all these baptized in their infancy And whereas you say that all children generally are as vile as wicked when they are come to any bignesse as any wicked men I must tell you that this your charge is unjust wicked and slanderous for many children of godly parents among us that were baptized in their infancy doe manifest the gracious fruits of their incorporation into Christ by Baptisme as soone as they come to any bignesse And their speeches and actions considering the immaturity of their age and the corruption and frailty of mans nature are for the corruption and frailty of mans nature are for the generall tenour thereof gracious and lovely though at some times and in some particulars being provoked and stirred they are erroneous and not justifiable Anabaptist And this they d ee still remaine untill the word of God doth work upon them and new mould them so that it is the word that doth change them and not Baptisme For wee finde c. ut infra Answer Mortification and rising to newnesse of life are attributed to Baptisme Rom 6.3 4 5. And salvation by Jesus Christ his resurrection is attributed to Baptisme 1 Pet. 3.21 And therefore for you to exclude Baptisme from having any stroak in the change of man from nature to grace is not to speak according to the language of the Scriptures of God Christ doth sanctisie and cleanse His Church with the washing of water by the word Ephes 5.26 Here the Apostle doth joyn Baptisme and the word as joint-instruments in mans sanctification and therefore you are led by an anti-Apostolicall spirit in excluding Baptisme But now you have forgotten God in your discourse for I said that God doth ordinarily make our baptizing of Infants effectuall to the ends whereunto true Baptisme is appointed And now you say that it is not baptisme that changeth the baptized but the word Well God ordinarily by His word changeth and new mouldeth the baptized in their infancy and so God by His word ordinarily makes baptisme effectuall unto persons that were baptized in their infancy And this is that which wee would have And thus you see that while you had forgotten God in His ordinances of grace you forgot what you were about And why make you such an opposition between the word preached and the Sacraments seeing both are the word of God The word preached is the word audible and the Sacraments are the word visible both the word of God to the fitting of His elect for Heaven Wee baptize with water that 's our duty but it 's Christ that baptizeth with the Holy Ghost We catechise and preach but it 's God that makes His word effectuall to the ends whereunto it 's appointed God must bee look't upon in all His ordinances as a wise worker that makes them all helpful unto one another and one must not exclude another The Infants of the Jewes were circumcised in their infancy but that Sacrament became a long time afterward effectually by the instruction of their teachers Shall we now for this cause exclude circumcision as ineffectuall because God made it not effectuall unto them until a long time after by the instructions of their instructours Answer this and the proportion will hold in paedo-baptisme It 's wild divinity to say that an ordinance is not to bee used unlesse it take effect presently Anabaptist For wee finde them to shew forth as bad fruites after their Baptisme as the vilest creatures that bee so that if wee should judge of their Baptisme by their fruits before they come to understand the word of God wee may justly say that their Baptisme was abominable by its evill fruits I say if we should judge any thing of the effect of their Baptisme then this wee may judge of it But wee will bee sparing in our censures although from your affirmation we might justly conclude so Yet I say we will be sparing in that and impute those evill fruits and effects that are in children after Baptisme unto their corrupted nature and their Baptisme to bee ineffectuall by its fruits And therefore by all this well considered we may see it is the word that makes the change in the children and others and not their baptisme Thus we plainly see that it is the word that makes them fit for Baptisme and not their parentage Answer We find not all baptized children of Christian parents as bad as this your wicked charge doth import Nay there are creatures worse then the worst of them and therefore you are a false accuser and unjust slanderer and you cannot make it good But you have forgotten the businesse in hand again I told you that God did ordinarily make our baptizing of Infants effectuall to the ends whereunto true Baptisme is appointed in the Gospell And this the Lord may doe though the most of those that we baptize in their infancy prove vitious in their conversation and but few of them religious as long as the Lord doth it ordinarily i. e. by ordinary meanes and usually as by His word and ordinances in His Church for what else can you understand by the word ordinarily I say as long as the Lord doth thus ordinarily make our baptizing of Infants effectuall to the proper ends of true Baptisme appointed in the Gospell though but to a few of the baptized our argument stands good And you can no more conclude from the vitiousnesse of the baptized in infancy that that practice of baptizing Infants is abominable then you may from the vitiousnesse of the Jewes that their circumcision in their infancy was abominable because there were but few of them unto whom God ordinarily made it effectuall to the proper ends whereunto it was appointed in the word for among them there were but few that did beleive in the Messias yield obedience unto Gods holy Law in heart and life And now how just your conclusion is from my premises let all men see And no wonder that you make my premises speak what you please And should we judge
of your Baptisme by your fruits i. e. by your doctrine and tenents for that is the true meaning of Matth. 7.16 as you may see clearely evinced by the verse immediately going before I say should a man judge of the Baptisme of Anabaptists by their doctrine and tenents he could not but conclude that your Baptisme is a most abominable and execrable thing though you are adulti before you are adulti before you are baptized For Anabaptists deny originall sinne in Infants and hold a bundle of heresies as you may see in Osianders Enchiridion of controversies with Anabaptists And the most strict in your religion are the most vile and God doth not ordinarily make your Baptisme effectuall to the proper ends whereunto true Baptisme is appointed in the Gospell And whereas you say that we may see that it is the word that makes children and others fit for Baptisme and not their parentage I think herein you say you know not what in making an opposition between the word and parentage if by parentage you meane Christian parentage if not you speak not to the point in hand We say that the word fits all for Baptisme The word of instruction in the Covenant makes the alien fit for Baptisme and the word of the Covenant makes children of baptized parents fit for Baptisme as the word of instruction made Abraham and his Proselytes fit for circumcision but the word of the Covenant made their children fit for circumcision in their infancy Gen. 17.9 Anabaptist Againe God suffered the Patriarches to live in the sinne of malignity for a time through their ignorance yet God did blesse them and passe it by but this is no warrant for us to sinne wilfully against the light nor ignorantly for want of seeking light Againe c. ut infra Answer But how comes this in How doth this batter my reason and assertion Oh! I cry you mercy I apprehended not your meaning at the first Your meaning is that the Church of Christ hath sinned in baptizing Infants of Christian parents and that God passed it by because they did it ignorantly for want of light But now since Lambe your Founder and you hid Disciples have brought it into and set it up in the Countrey viz. that none must be baptized untill they give testimony of their faith and repentance All though hitherto they have baptized children in their infancy must henceforth forbeare that practice if not they sinne wilfully agianst the true light that you have brought or at least ignorantly if they will not seek unto your light for direction And so my argument is not worth a straw for albeit God hath hitherto made our baptizing of Infants effectuall to the proper ends whereunto true Baptisme is appointed in the Gospell because wee did it ignorantly before this light came into the countrey but now you as a new Apostle can tell us that God will doe so no longer If this bee not your meaning I know not how this story can argue against this fourth reason of mine And most probable this is your meaning for it suits well with your former blasphemies for when you fell upon this course of rebaptizing you were wont to say usually to your old acquaintance that we are bound to blesse God for the comming of this light amongst us However if this bee your meaning as I am confident it is yet in this you are deceived for the devill did set up this light heretofore in the countrey And God did put it out againe And so yours must out too as soone as it hath led as many wanderers into the bogges as God hath appointed it unto Anabaptist Againe you condemne many grosse things that have been practiced in the Church of England as the ceremonies and the admitting of drunkards and uncleane persons and such like to Sacraments This you know was not right as appears by your confession and practise Now God hath suffered this a long time and what shall wee therefore say that God approved of these things Nay if you will so it is But wee will not conclude so For our lives we dare not Why then the case is all one and therefore this is no ground at all Answer They say that a professed begger is never out of his way And there is a kind of reasoning which wee call beggery in Schooles and then it 's used Petitio principij in disputationibus when the opponent is drawne so drye of arguments that unlesse the answerer grant him some absurd principles hee can maintaine the opposite part no longer And so I thinke you have almost run your selfe out of breath and now unlesse I will acknowledge that the baptizing of Infants is a grosse practise in the Church of England you can say no more against this reason The baptizing of Infants in the Church of England must have no more warrant from the word of God then the admitting of drunkards to the Lords table But if I will not grant you this ex favore you cannot prove it And surely should I grant you this I should bee a man of as little conscience as you are of reason It 's one thing for God to suffer things in a Church and another thing to make an ordinance effectuall by His ordinary concurrency And the godly in all reformed Churches that have bewailed the things you mention have still defended as well by practiced paedo-baptisme and now to this day doe still the same As for the ceremonies I dare not conclude that their use is a grosse and sinfull practice but leave them to every mans conscience to use or not to use as God shall give liberty or put restraint Anabaptist Further you bring us the example of wise and learned men which doe hold for Infants Baptisme We answer that possible it is for wise and learned men as any are upon the earth for to be blind and ignorant concerning some things in the worship and service of God As for instance Apollos Act. 18.24 He was an eloquent man and mighty in the Scripture and yet this man was deceived about the same point of Baptisme for he only knew the Baptisme of John and we see Aquila and Priscilla a couple of private persons did teach and instruct this wise man in the perfect way of the Lord. And so also Nicodemus Ioh. 3. he was a Ruler among the Jewes and when Christ said he must be borne againe he thought he must have gone into his mothers wombe againe see where this were wisedome in this man And of Balaam he was counted a wise man and a Prophet and yet his Asse could see that which he could not for his Asse perceived the Angell of the Lord in the way when he went to curse the people when Balaam himselfe could not see him And so diverse other examples in Scripture we have to the same purpose and therefore this argument is no good argument Answer If it be possible for wise and learned men to be blinde and
ignorant concerning some things in the worship and service of God then it 's very probable that fooles and unlearned men may be blinde and ignorant concerning some things in the worship and service of God much more But your meaning is that you have a priviledge of not erring That indeed is a thing that your Church holds And why say you that Apollos was deceived about the same point of baptisme and that Aquila and Priscilla a couple of private persons did instruct him in the perfect way of the Lord Was it paedo-baptisme that Apollos was deceived about If not how the same point of baptisme For the point in controversie betweene you and us is paedo-baptisme And what meane you in saying that Apollos was instructed in the perfect way of the Lord by Aquila and Priscilla a couple of private persons That your way of baptizing is the perfect way of the Lord and that Ministers must be instructed by you being private persons in this point And for Nicodemus you doe well to wonder where his wisdome was when he talked so carnally of regeneration as if hee were to returne unto the state of infants-unborne before he could be truely regenerated as we wonder where your wisedome was when you talked so carnally of baptisme as if you Christians by birth and baptized in your infancie must returne into the state of Pagans and Infidels and so come into the Church by confession before you could be truely baptized And what talke you of Balaam that went to curse the people of God and of his Asse that saw the Angell of the Lord in his way It must be granted that you are the people of God and that I am Balaam that curse you because I preach against you But are you mine Asse that see the Angell of the Lord viz. your baptisme in my way Surely they are silly fooles that will ride upon Asses where Horses are so plentifull I have many good books to enforme me and many grave Ministers learned and godly to advise withall if need were And I must tell you that I am so farre from scrupling about paedo-baptisme that I see the impression of the Holy Ghost upon it But to what purpose all this is alleadged by you here in this place I know not it shewes onely that men may erre and so may you And now let all men see your folly in charging me of folly for rendring of this reason Reason 5 The fift and last Reason Anabaptist Also you bring the practise of true Churches against us but this argument is as weake as the others For we have examples in Scripture of true Churches that have beene deceived in some things and held grosse things and great disorders and yet true Churches too as the seven Churches of Asia most of which held grosse things and so the Church of Corinth with others Therefore we see it possible and practicall for true Churches to be out Answer Your meaning is that all other true Churches as you call them are out in this point of baptisme and that you onely are right This is a very compendious and pithy refutation of the argument drawne from the example of other true Churches But looke upon this argument in my Sermon-notes and you shall finde that the matter will not be so easily put off as you seeme to intimate For in this last reason I said that we baptize children of Christian parents because it 's the practice of other reformed Churches which God hath blessed in that way with great increase of heavenly gifts Now if we should forbeare baptizing of infants by vertue of a divine restraint then we should lay iniquitie upon whole Kingdomes and godly societies where Paedo-baptisme is practised And this would make a mighty division rent and schisme betweene us and other true Churches with whom we should endeavour to hold communion and fellowship as companies of Saints that stand as immediately under Christ as our selves Now you will say that In sinne we are not to hold communion with other Churches But to hold communion with other Churches in the practice of Paedo-baptisme is to hold communion with other Churches in sinne Ergo We are not to hold communion with other Churches in the practice of Paedo-baptisme Prove say they that baptizing of infants is a sinne We prove it thus say you To baptize those that are not baptizable is a sinne But infants of baptized parents are not baptizable Ergo To baptize infants of baptized parents is a sinne Well you will prove the assumption thus viz. Onely beleevers are baptizable But infants of Christians are not beleevers Ergo Infants of Christians are not baptizable They now will tell you that the minor proposition is false for the Scripture doth no where terme persons unbeleevers for the habit of unbeliefe negatively but for the habit of unbeliefe positively And to be a beleever in your sense is requisite unto baptisme for a made-Christian but not for a borne-Christian And to say that infants of Christians are not beleevers is absurd And therefore however you may seeme to passe over this argument as a sleight thing you shall sinde there was more weight in it than ever you can answer But you say well however in saying that this argument of mine is as weake as the others I beleeve it indeed and so as the others doe stand upon such a foundation as you cannot undermine so let this And now let all men see how well your boasting and your answering doe agree together for you have boasted up and downe that you have answered all mine arguments and I thinke all as well as any But let us now proceed and consider your miscellance rhapsodie that followes in your papers Anabaptist Againe there is as much controversie among you Ministers concerning who should be baptized as it is betweene you and us For you and Mr Capeâ— and Mr Marshall and diverse others of the best Ministers doe hold that all the children within the Nation should be baptized and the Ministers of New-England and other reformed Churches doe hold that none should be baptized but the children of beleevers who are judged to be beleevers at least Now here is as much difference among you as between you and us And therefore we may justly say goe and reconcile your selves and you may doe the better with us For if we should yeeld unto you we cannot tell to which of you to turne unto whether to you that hold all to be baptized or those that hold some to be baptized But the truth is unlesse you give us better grounds then any yet we see we shall turne to neither of you with Gods helpe to strengthen us Answer We all agree in the point of Paedo-baptisme namely that children of beleevers are to be baptized in their infancie and so in this point the difference is not so wide as betweene you and us Herein you lay a false imputation upon us a thing too frequent in you and that which your
not to be ascribed unto those typicall sacrifices but unto Christ which they did typifie but the conversion of Gods Elect under the Gospell is to be ascribed unto the sacrifice of Christ the Captaine of our Salvation as the proper cause thereof The Law said Christ is to be sacrificed the Gospell sayes Christ is sacrificed for us And they both bespake the same Christ for the spirituall benefit of the worshippers yet the Gospell-ministration is to have the prerogative for now our High-priest is more excellent Now we have a clearer manifestation of Gods love for every necessity of the soule Now we have a Throne of Grace to goe to every where Now wee have free accesse unto God without bringing our sacrifices unto others who must as types offer them unto God for us 2. The old Covenant in the sacrifices thereof did againe call to remembrance the sinnes of the worshippers every yeare and so could not make the commers thereunto perfect as pertaining to the conscience Heb. 10.3 4. The new Covenant in the sacrifice thereof doth wrap up the sinnes of the commers thereunto in perpetuall oblivion and makes the worshippers perfect as pertaining to the conscience Heb. 10.12 18. Heb. 7.24 28. Heb. 9.14 15. And so now every worshipper hath boldnesse to enter into the Holiest by this one sacrifice and to draw neare unto God Heb. 10.19 22. And for this cause the typicall ministration must needs be inferiour and the Gospell ministration more excellent sublime and anagogicall Let these things be but seriously considered and they will affoord you a great deale of light in reading that glorious Epistle of Paul to the Hebrewes And in a word grant me that Gods Elect under the Law were saved by Gods free grace in jesus Christ in those sacrifices typified as if there be any sparke of ingenuity left in you you must needs acknowledge and you shall grant that Covenant and this under the Gospell to be all one for substance and so the difference betweene that and this to lye in the ministration onely But how say you that this Gospell-Covenant is established to better subjects I pray how better subjects you say beleevers But did God seale his Covenant under the Law to unbeleevers How prove you that To children in their infancy therefore to unbeleevers The inference is unsound neither can you bring one text of Scripture where it 's said that Infants of Jewes in Covenant were unbeleevers And therefore let all men see how well your Divinity agrees with the language of Scripture If the Scripture termes infants of the Jewes the holy seed then they are not to be termed unbeleevers and therefore you speake wickedly and more than you can justifie Turne your Bible over and by finding nothing for your purpose you shall see that you have said nothing to the purpose That unbeleevers might have the signe of Circumcision under the Law Oh abominable blasphemy And the promises under the Gospell doe no more belong to beleevers than they did to beleevers under the Law They did and doe belong to Gods people in Covenant And infants of baptized parents are under the promise and in Govenant Well thus you argue viz. The promise of the Gospell is onely to beleevers But infants of Christians are not beleevers Ergo The promise of the Gospel is not to infants of Christians This Syllogisme may well be termed a Solacisme But it may well passe in the Schoole of Anabaptists for to speake non-sence overthrowes not the principles of their Religion But we have shewed you before That infants of Christians are not Insidels Ergo beleevers And you say afterwards that infants are saved by the Election and therefore say I the promise of the Gospell belongs unto them But haply you had forgotten what you said here as indeed he that will lye had need have a good memory otherwise a fluent tongue will quickly discover a knaves heart And now give me leave to put in my plea for our poore infants Thus I argue for them viz. All the Elect have right to the promise of the Gospell But some infants of Christians are Elect Ergo Some infants of Christians have right to the promise of the Gospell And then againe thus viz. Such as have right to the promise of the Gospell have right unto the initiall seale of the Gospell But some infants of Christians have right to the promises of the Gospell Ergo Some infants of Christians have right unto the initiall seale of the Gospell Quest Why then doe you baptize all Infants of Christians seeing you confesse that the promise of the Gospell belongs only to the elect Answ And why doe you baptize any at all though they give testimony of faith by practice and confession seeing you confesse that the promise belongs only to Gods elect For if the certaine knowledge of a persons election must bee the ground of baptizing unto us then you shall never baptize any but every particular person must baptize himselfe For no man by ordinary grace can have certaine knowledge of another mans election But you will say that albeit wee know that there bee many reprobates borne within the Church and many hypocrites may make a shew of faith by profession and not have it in truth yet when they come one and one unto us by profession of faith we have a charitable perswasion that this and that man so professing is of Gods election And so say wee that albeit wee know doctrinally that diverse Infants borne within the Church are reprobates yet as they come to us one and one upon the evidence of Gods Covenant engraven upon them by birth wee have a charitable perswasion that this and that Infant is of Gods election Quest. Why then doe you not baptize the Infants of those that are without the Church as Turks and Insidels if a charitable perswasion of Gods election be warrant enough for you Sol. We answer that such Infants are not borne under the Covenant neither are their parents under the seale of Baptisine and the Scripture no where termes such Infants holy as it doth every where the children of the Church And this is a direct answer unto A. R. in the 6. page of his childish book entituled the vanity of childish Baptisme The Adoption belongs to the children of the Church and not to the children of aliens And therefore this prophane Asse speaks wickedly in his †most ferious thoughts What sayes he if it be a warrantable ground for us to administer Baptisme to all Infants because that some particular Infants are elected by the same reason it will follow that Baptisme may lawfully be administred to every man and woman in the world because among them also wee may judge that some are elected page 6. These stout words of his doe as well beare before them a professed quarrell against God for Circumcision as against us for Baptisme Why might not such an hellish blasphemer say unto God What If it be a
infants that die unbaptized have faith by Christ and the Spirit of Grace Ergò Elect infants that die unbaptized have faith by ordinary meanes of faith And thus you see that all is trash on your side and meere jugling and you can as well maintaine your cause as your title to the Crowne of England Anabaptist And thus we have runne over your chiefest arguments at briefe as we could We desire you would not take it offensively from us that we have beene so tedious in writing unto you for we could have beene larger in many things but that we were fearefull of tediousnesse And if there be any thing wherein we are mistaken we desire information and we desire to submit to the judgement of judicious and reasonable men whether your reasons be not answered If you can overthrow clearely by the Word of God these answers we will cry peccavi if you cannot we expect according to your former promises that you should cry peccavi Answer You have runne over my arguments indeed but you have not refuted any one of them They all stand unmoveable as Mount Zion and the glory of the Lord is upon them And as for your tediousnesse that 's not so offensive unto me as your absurd reasonings And for your mistakes I have shewed them unto you for your information And if you will submit to judicious and reasonable men so will I And for this cause I have published this Treatise And whether I have dealt unfaithfully with Gods holy Word either in my Sermons or in this mine Answer to your Objections I leave to the censure of the godly learned And if you or any of your side can say any thing more that is materiall against the point of Paedo-baptisme I shall by Gods helpe give you such satisfaction whereby you through Gods blessing shall be able to see that they were from the Devill and not from Christ that led you into this way of re-baptizing Anabaptist And thus we desire the Lord to adde his blessing to our weake endeavours as to perswade your hearts to embrace every truth of Jesus Christ that as yet you oppose and so likewise for our selves And thus we commend all to the disposing of Almighty God in whom we rest Answer Your meaning is perhaps that I doe oppose the way of the Anabaptists and stand for Paedo-baptisme and that herein I oppose a truth of Christ Jesus If your meaning be this your prayer is impious and a taking of Gods Name in vaine And you pray unto God to blesse your wicked endeavours in going about to perswade my heart to embrace not a truth but a lye This proves evidently that God is patient and that the Devill is impudent And is this the good stuffe that you would have to be read before the whole Congregation at Cranham as you desire in your Postscript Your desire is more then granted you desired to have it as publike as Cranham and I have made it as publike as England It s now in a faire way to be read at London at Yorke at Exceter at Bristoll at Gloucester at Worcester and where not as God shall direct it And I hope my brethren will make it knowne to more Congregations than Cranham for the information of Gods people in the truth I hope that was your end in desiring leave to have it read to the whole Congregation at Cranham and not revenge on me for keeping wavering soules of that Congregation from running into Severne after you But now to your three Questions which you subjoyne as an appendix to your exceptions 1. You demand What expresse warrant we have in Scripture for the baptizing of Infants Unto this we say that the question savours more of curiosity than of conscience But seeing you may make bold as you say to propound this question unto me and desire me to answer you punctually by the Scripture or not at all I make bold to urge you with one argument and desire you to answer me either by Scripture or Right reason Thus I argue in expresse answer to your demand and quaere All persons knowne to be under the Covenant of Grace are to have the Covenant put under the initiall seale unto them by expresse warrant of Scripture But all infants of Christians are knowne to be under the Covenant of Grace Ergo All infants of Christians are to have the Covenant of Grace put under the initiall seale unto them by expresse warrant of Scripture Deny this Syllogisme or deny either proposition if you can The major I presume you will not deny The minor is as undenyable But if Lambes blasphemy must passe for orthodox with you that you will contradict Thus therefore I make it good If all Christian parents are under the Covenant of Grace then all infants of Christian parents are under the Covenant of Grace But all Christian parents are under the Covenant of Grace Ergo All Infants of Christian parents are under the Covenant of Grace Haply you will deny the sequell of the major proposition but therein you will but shew your ignorance and irrationall stupiditie For sequela ab indivisis est valida Thus then I make it good viz. If the Covenant of Grace joynes parents and children together as inseparable and immediate companions then if all Christian parents are under the Covenant of Grace all Infants of Christian parents are under the Covenant of Grace all Infants of Christian parents are under the Covenant of Grace also But the Covenant of Grace joynes parents and children together as inseparable and immediate companions saying I will be thy God and the God of thy seed Ergo If all Christian parents are under the Covenant of Grace then all infants of Christian parents are under the Covenant of Grace also And now answer or give over your fooleries nay sacrilegious practices and impious dissolution of Gods holy Covenant with his people and their seed A wickednesse haply not so well seene of you whom subtile heads seduce with good words and faire speeches the very method of the Devils agents Rom. 16.17 18. And thus we have shaken your triumphall argument with which you have mis-led many an honest heart the more is the pity And it may be just with God to scourge this Nation for our too much connivence at you High offences deserve sharper censures And to forbeare correction is to dishonour Gods image in Superiours and to throw downe Authority for Sedition to trample upon If your way must stand adieu Religion and let us all turne Atheists And so much for answer to your first quaere 2. Your second question is What Infants doe receive in Baptisme Which question as propounded by an Anabaptist implyes this blasphemy viz. That Infants receive no benefit by baptisme But unto this quaere we say that Infants of Christians by baptisme have the Covenant put under seale unto them as their native priviledge The Covenant under which they were borne makes them holy by birth And Baptisme under
Infants right unto Baptisme why then do you not administer the Lords supper unto them also Answ Because the Lords Supper belongs onely unto such as can spiritually examine themselves and discerne the Lords body 1 Cor. 11.27 28 29. Now the summe of all is this viz. Children of Christian parents are holy by vertue of Gods holy Covenant in their infancie and therefore to be Baptised in their infancie Or thus more largely viz. Whensoever persons appeare unto the Church under the Gospell to be holy by vertue of Gods holy Covenant then the Church is to baptize such persons But Infants of Christians even in their infancie are persons that appeare unto the Church under the Gospell to be holy by vertue of Gods holy Covenant Ergo The Church under the Gospell is to Baptize infants of Christians in their infancie Quaest But how do Infants of Christians appeare unto the Church under the Gospell to be holy prove that say they and we have done Sol. I answer that persons may appeare to be holy unto the Church under the Gospell two wayes viz. 1. Sensitively by their words and pious actions and and this is the only way that the Anabaptists do know for they are altogether led by sense and thus Infants of Christians neither do nor can appeare unto the Church under the Gospell to be holy 2. Oraculously by vertue of a Divine Oracle and thus children of Christians appeare unto the Church under the Gospel to be holy The Holy Ghost hath engraven this Oracle 1 Cor. 7.14 upon such children And such children do utter this Oracle in the circumcised eares of all understanding Christians though Anabaptists heare no such voyce And let these suffice for our first ground Reason 2 Secondly Infants of Christians are to be baptized in their infancie because they are subjects capable of it Now that they are subjects capable of this initiall seale in their infancie appeares conspicuously by Gods expresse command that the infants of Jews their proselytes should be circumcised in their infancie If they had not beene subject a capable of it God would not have commanded it but God did command it and therefore they were subjects capable of it And these infants were not therefore capable because of Gods Covenant with Abraham and their Fathers which were sealed unto God by Circumcision and in Covenant with him For the Text saith not Thou shalt keepe My command therefore but thou shalt keepe My Covenant therefore thou and thy seed after thee in their generations Gen. 17.9 implying that this command had reference to the Covenant and was part of it For here God is to be considered as God in covenant with His people and all his commands are branches of His Covenant all grounded upon His free grace in Jesus Christ and therefore in the next verse viz. v. 10. Hee calls Circumcision by the name of His Covenant saying This is my Covenant which ye shall keepe betweene Mee and you and thy seed after thee every man-child among you shall be circumcised And to put the matter out of all doubt that Circumcision is called by the name of the Covenant the Lord speakes expresly afterwards saying And My Covenant shall be in your flesh v. 13. to teach us that the Covenant made infants capable of the seale and not Gods meere Mandamus as our abstracting Anabaptists play with notions And so they will consider God here in His absolute prerogative and not as in Covenant with this people Whereas the Seale can be nothing but a confirmation of the promises of Grace unto such as have the promises made unto them So then the promises of grace made these infants capable of having the promises confirmed unto them by Gods initiall seale Now what seale should be authentique in Heaven and seale up divine promises unto persons under the promises or in covenant with God that depended upon Gods institution Now God instituted Circumcision and commanded it to be imprinted on the flesh of his people in covenant as the proper subjects capable of the same So that the command that the Anabaptists talke of so much are the words of institution it being Gods prerogative incommunicable to institute Sacramentall signes because He onely can make them effectuall to supernaturall ends and give the things signified thereby Now Circumcision did bind the circumcised to the obedience of the whole Law Gal. 5.3 And this obligation was laid on very Infants before they could have any knowledge of the Law And againe Circumcision is a seale of the righteousnesse of faith in the Messias Rom. 4.11 And this seale was imprinted on very infants before they could have any actuall faith or knowledge of righteousnesse And unto this obedience and faith the Covenant under which they were borne had bound them though the initiall seale had beene denyed them Such an Anabaptisticall wickednesse could not have put these infants into the condition of aliens The Covenant it selfe would have bound them to faith and obedience And the Covenant it selfe would have made them capable of Gods saving mercy though the initiall seale had beene denyed them Such an Anabaptisticall cruelty could not have blockt up heaven against them Consider this you stout Champions for Hell which do what in you lyes to make Gods Covenant of free grace void and of none effect unto his people And to stop the course of Gods mercy unto the soules of men Well the being of infants in covenant under the Law made them capable of Circumcision the initiall seale of the Covenant To be in covenant then with God makes a man capable of the initiall seale in infancie according to the ministration of Christ under which he is borne i.e. whether the ministration be of Christ to be exhibited in the flesh or of Christ already exhibited in the flesh The substance is the same The Covenant is nothing but Christ ministred Whether it be mans Saviour to come that is ministred as to the Jewes and their proselytes in types or mans Saviour already come be ministred as to Christians without types in cleare demonstrations in the ordinances of Grace yet it is the same Saviour Jesus Christ The same yesterday to day and for ever Heb. 13.9 i.e. In the Ordinances of Grace in times past present and to come nothing hath beene is or shall be ministred for the eternall salvation of the soule but Jesus Christ The Covenant now and formerly with Jewes is the same in relation to the eternall welfare of the soule For 1. The foundation of the Covenant is the same as Gods free eternall and unchangeable love to his elect 2. The occasion of the covenant the same as mans misery by his fall in the loynes of Adam of which this Covenant of Grace is a pregnant and mercifull remedy 3. The Author is the same as God gracious mercifull flow to anger pardoning iniquity c. 4. The thing promised is the same as Christ the Redeemer and Saviour of mankind 5. The spirituall eflicacie