men therefore they may and ought to receive the outward signe of Baptisme The major proposition that they who are made partakers of the inward grace may not be debarred of the outward signe is undeniable it is Peters argument Acts 10. Can any forbid water that these should not be baptized who have received the holy Ghost as well as wee And againe for as much as God gave them the like gift as he did unto us what was I that I could withstand God And this is so cleare that the most learned of the Anabaptists doe readily grant that if they knew any infant to have received the inward grace they durst not deny them the outward signe and that the particular infants whom Christ took up in his armes and blessed might have been baptized The Question between us is whether the infants of believers universally or indifferently are to be admitted to the Sacrament of Baptisme according to ordinary rule Now I suppose you doe not hold that the infants of believers indifferently have actually the thing signified by Baptisme that is the Holy Ghost union with Christ adoption forgivenesse of sinnes regeneration and everlasting life for then they are all sanctified and are all believers and if this could be proved there would be no question about Paedobaptisme the texts Act. 8.37 Act. 10.47 Act. 11.17 would undeniably prove it and therefore there is no Antipaedobaptist I thinke but will grant your Major That regenerate persons united to Christ whose sins are forgiven adopted persons that have received the Holy Ghost are to be baptized But I conceive though in the laying down the Major you use these phrases who have the thing signified who have the heavenly part and in your Minor are made partakers yet you do not mean in this Assumption actuall having and being made partakers of the inward grace of Baptism concerning which the Antipaedobaptists do so readily grant the Major but a potentiall having or as you after speak being capable of the inward grace and so you use the fallacy of equivocation in the Major having being understood of actuall having and in the Minor of potentiall which makes four terms and so the Syllogisme is naught Or if you do mean in both actuall having you mean it only of some Infants of Believers not of all of whom the Question is and so your conclusion is but particular that some Infants of Believers who are sanctified actually are to be baptized But this will not reach home to your tenet or practice concerning the baptizing of all Infants of Believers in as much as they are the children of Believers without the consideration of actuall faith or sanctification It is true the Lutheranes do teach that Infants have actuall faith and are regenerate in Baptisme and therefore in Colloquio Mompelgarâ—ensi upon the fourth Artic. de Baptismo they put these among the Positions they reject as contrary to the Scripture Non omnes infantes qui baptizantur gratiae Christi participes esse regenerari infantes carere fide nihilominus baptizari that all the Infants which are baptized are not partakers of the grace of Christ and regenerate that Infants want faith and neverthelesse are baptized And I remember when I lived in Oxford there was a book published in English of Baptismal initiall regeneration of elect Infants the Position whereof was opposed as favouring the doctrine of conferring grace by Baptisme ex opere operato by the work wrought and intercision of regeneration sith according to that doctrine a person might have the Spirit initially in infancy and though it could not fall away finally as being an elect person yet might run out in a continued course of sinning grosse and scandalous sins with full consent untill his dying day which doth enervate the urging of that Text 1 John 3.9 against Apostasie of regenerate persons when out of it is proved that raigning sin is not in the regenerate and the like texts which in that Controversie are urged against Arminans With that book Dr. Featley in his late feeble and passionate Tract against Anabaptists and Antiprelatists concurs pag. 67. in these words Nay so farre are they from excluding faith from Infants that are baptized that they believe that all the children of the faithfull who are comprised in the covenant with their fathers and are ordained to eternall life at the very time of their baptisme receive some hidden grace of the Spirit and the seed of faith and holinesse which afterwards bears fruit in some sooner in some later And since I came to London I met with a Book intituled A Christian plea for Infants Baptisme by S.C. who holds positions somewhat like to the Lutherans that though children of believing parents be not all holy and righteous they may degenerate apostatize yet the Infants of believing parents are righteous by imputation are believers and confessors imputatively c. pag. 10. and elsewhere And he hath this passage pag. 3. It is a sure truth that the sins of the parents being forgiven the Lord will not impute the same unto their Infants Originall sin I say taketh no more hold on the Infants then on their parents and touching actuall sin they are as clear as their parents Many more like passages there are in that Book these I mention that you may see what stuffe Paedobaptists do feed the people with But I suppose you do not hold that all Infants of Believers either actually or initially or imputatively are sanctified regenerated adopted justified as knowing how contrary this is to Rom. 9.6 c. to daily experience to the doctrine of Beza and his Collegues at Monâ—pelgart to the reformed Churches of Geneva c. and what advantage it gives to Papists Lutherans Arminians and those that follow the way of Tomson in his Diatribe of which I suppose you are not ignorant and therefore conceiving you orthodox in this point the answer to your Syllogisme is either by shewing it doth not conclude the question if your Minor and conclusion be understood of actuall having the inward grace and they be particular only If you understand them of actuall having and they be universall then I deny your Minor If your Major be understood of potentiall having I deny it if of actuall and the Minor be of potentiall there be four terms and so the Syllogisme is naught Take away the ambiguity of your terms and the answer is easie But for the proof of your Minor you say thus And for the Assumption or Minor That the Infants of Believers even while they are Infants do receive the inward grace as well as grown men is as plain not only by that speech of the Apostle who saith they are holy but our Saviour saith expresly Mark 10. That to such belongs the Kingdome of God as well as to grown men And whereas some would evade it by saying that the Text saith not To them belongs the kingdome of God but of such is the Kingdome of heaven 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
baptize into the name of the Father Son and Holy Spirit that is with invocation of the name of the Lord as Acts 22.16 Paul is bid arise and be baptized and wash away his sinnes calling on the name of the Lord. Which infants cannot doe with devoting themselves to the service and adherence of the Father Son and holy Spirit which may be gathered from this that Paul said 1 Cor. 13.15 he had baptized none into his name that is he had not caused them in their baptisme to devote or addict themselves to him as their Master but infants cannot so devote themselves to Christ therefore they are not to be baptized according to this institution 4. Christ bids the Apostles presently after baptisme teach them to observe what â—ver he commanded them but infants cannot doe this therefore they are not to be baptized Likewise baptizing infants doth not agree with the primitive practise of John Baptist and the Apostles who required expressions of repentance and faith afore Baptisme Mat. 3.6 Mark 1.5 Luk. 3.10 Acts 2.38 8.12 13.37 9.18 10.47 11.17 18. 16.15.31 32 33. 18.8 19.5.8.22.16 in which places profession of repentance and faith is still made the antecedent to Baptisme but this doth not agree to infants therefore they are not to be baptized Of these arguments you answer onely to the two first from institution and to the last from example to the first from institution you answered before and there I examined your answer part 3. sect 12 13. To the second from institution and to the last from example you make some answer here not denying that the order appointed by Christ is first to teach and then to baptize for that is so manifest that your selfe page 35. doe so paraphrase the words when you say expresse command there is that they should teach the heathen and the Jewes and make them disciples and then baptize them nor by denying that John Baptist and the Apostles required expressions of faith and repentance afore Baptisme nor by denying that the institution of Christ and the Apostles example are our rule in the administring the Sacraments so as that we cannot vary from them without will-worship and prophaning the worship of God by our inventions for that is so confessed a truth that there hath been a great while scarce a Sermon before the Parliament but hath asserted that rule and pressed it on the Parliament and our solemne Covenant supposeth it the Churches of Scotland New-England c. The Sermons in the Citie continually a vow it and urge it and upon this ground former and later reformations are urged But you have two miserable evasions You say I answer First that of Mat. 28. is not the institution of baptisme it was instituted long before to be the seale of the Covenant it 's only an inlargement of their commission whereas before they were onely to goe to the lost sheepe of the house of Israel now they are to goe unto all the world Whereunto I reply 1. If this be not the first institution of baptisme yet it is an institution and the institution of baptisme to us Gentiles and therefore the rule by which Ministers are to baptize there being no other institution that I know of to regulate our practise by but such as is gathered from John Baptist the Apostles practise and sayings 2. If institution or appointment of God must warrant our practise in Gods worship which you once held in the Sermon cited before part 2. sect 9. then you must shew another institution else you cannot acquit paedobaptisme from will-worship and your selfe from breaking the hedge God hath set about the second Commandement But you adde further And beside it is no where said that none were baptized but such as were first taught and what reason wee have to believe the contrary you have before seene Your selfe say presently in the next words It is said indeed that they taught and baptized and no expresse mention of any other then of the baptisme of persons taught and you assigne a reason of it And page 35. your selfe paraphrase the institution Mat. 28.19 Expresse command there is that they should teach the heathen and the Jewes and make them disciples and then baptize them and consequently there is no expresse command for any other and for the reason you have to beleeve that others are to be baptized which are not taught it hath been examined in the weighing your virtuall consequence which is grounded upon such a principle as in time you may see to be a dangerous precipice how ever for the present the great consent of Doctors in the reformed Churches dazzles your eyes for my part I cannot yet discerne but that your grounds for paedobaptisme are worse then the Papists and Ancients who build it on Joh. 3.5 Rom. 5.12 But you yet adde Secondly it is said indeed that they taught and baptized and no expresse mention made of any other but the reason is plaine there was a new Church to be constituted all the Jewes who should receive Christ were to come under another administration You say right therefore none other were to be baptized but taught persons because though the invisible Church of the Gentiles were joyned to the invisible of the Jewes Rom. 11.17 Ephes. 2.14 15 16. by faith of the Gospel as Ephes. 3.6 it is expounded yet the outward estate of the Church is new and as you say even the Jewes who should receive Christ were to come under a new administration even those who were Jewes by nature and not proselytes were to be baptized as uncleane persons contrary to their former administration in which they were onely circumcised and this is a plaine evidence that the administration of Circumcision is not the administration under which wee are now but that it did belong to that administration which is now abolished which is enough to overthrow all your virtuall consequence from circumcision to baptisme and consequently all the former dispute of your first argument in which circumcision of infants is indeed the alone prop of baptizing infants As for that which you adde And their infants were to come in onely in their right This overthrows your second argument for that is grounded upon this that infants of believers and particularly infants of believing Jewes such as those are supposed to be Mark 10.14 were partakers of the inward grace of baptisme and if so they came in by their own right But that one mans right to baptisme should give another right to baptisme is a position that the Scripture doth not deliver and inwraps sundry errors which I now omit because it comes in onely upon the by But you goe on And the heathen nations who were to be converted to Christ were yet without the covenant of grace and their children could have no right untill themselves were brought in and therefore no marvaile though both John and Christs disciples and Apostles did teach before they baptized
But here is no mention of our Infants graffing in Answ. We must not teach the Lord to speake but with reverence search out his meaning there is no mention made of the casting out of the Jewish Infants neither here nor elsewhere when he speakes of taking away the Kingdome of God from them and giving it to the Gentiles who would bring forth fruit no mention of the Infants of the one or of the other but the one and the other for these outward dispensations are comprehended in their parents as the branches in the root the infants of the godly in their parents according to the tenor of his mercy the infants of the wicked in their parents according to the tenor of his justice There are sundry things in this passage you would have to be marked that deserve indeed to be marked but with an Obeliske not with an Asteriske as 1. That you oppose personall inherent holinesse to derivative as inconsistent The truth is the holinesse the Apostle speaks of is first in respect of Gods Election holinesse personall and inherent in Gods intention He hath chosen us that we should be holy Ephes. 1.4 Secondly it is also holinesse derivative or descending not from any Ancestors but from Abraham not barely as a naturall father but as a spirituall father or Father of the faithfull and so derived from the Covenant of grace which passed in his name to him and his seed And lastly it shall be inherent actually being communicated by the Spirit of God when they shall be actually called But this is such a kinde of holinesse as is more then you mean to wit not only an adherent or relative holinesse which they have by enjoying outward Ordinances but also inherent by faith whereby they aâ—e holy as the root that is Abraham the father of the faithfull 2. Whereas you make it the case of any believers to be a holy root to their posterity especially in the following words when you say The infants both of the Jews and Gentiles for these outward dispensations are comprehended in their parents as the branch in the root the infants of the godly in their parents according to the tenor of his mercy the infants of the wicked in their parents according to the tenor of his justice Master Blake pag. 8. more plainly The branches of Ancestors are roots of posterity being made a holy branch in reference to their issue they now become a holy root This is not true for in the Apostles resemblance Abraham only is a holy root or at most Abraham Isaac and Iacob in whose names the Covenant runs No other man though a believer is the father of the faithfull but Abraham And the body of believers is compared to the Olive and each believer to a branch that partakes of the root and fatness of the Olive tree not in outward dispensations only as you speak but also in saving graces which is mainly here intended I remember Master Thomas Goodwin who hath handled this matter of Paeâ—obaptisme by spinning out similitudes and conjectures fit indeed for the common people that are more taken with resemblances then Syllogismes rather then with close arguments indeavoured to infer a kinde of promise of deriving holinesse from believers to their posterity out of the similitude of an Olive and its branches compared with Psal. 128.3 c. but it is dangerous to strain similitudes beyond that likenesse the Holy Ghost makes It is a tedious thing to Auditors that look for arguments to be deluded with similitudes and conjectures 3. Whereas you alluding to the words of the Apostle v. 28. that the Jews were beloved for their fathers sake carry it as if this were true of any believing parents the Apostle meanes it of those fathers only in whose names the Covenant was made especially Abraham called the friend of God Jam. 2.23 and the father of the faithfull Rom. 4.11 and in reference to the promises made to them they are beloved and therefore it is added ver 29. For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance Lastly you say That the infants of the wicked for these outward dispensations are comprehended in their parents according to the tenor of Gods justice I intreat you to consider whether this speech do not symbolize with the tenet of Arminius in his Antiperkins on the fourth Crimination and in the end of his Treatise where he maketh the cause why the posterity of some people have not the Gospel to be their forefathers fault in refusing it Against which you may see what Doctor Twisse opposeth in both places and Moulin in his Anatomy of Arminianisme cap. 9. And thus it may appeare that you have very much darkened this illustrious Scripture by applying that holinesse and insition to outward dispensations only in the visible Church which is meant of saving graces into the invisible by faith and made every believer a like root to his posterity with Abraham to his seed I Am now come to your principall hold you say And yet plainer if plainer may be is the speech of the Apostle in 1. Cor. 7.14 The unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband else were your children uncleane but now they are holy By the way Because you acknowledge in the Margin page 24. that signifies to as well as in and you conceive it may be here read in or to as well as by and though our translators following the vulgar read by yet Beza dislikes that reading it might have done well in the citing of this text by you to have given some hint of that varietie But to follow you You say the plain scope and meaning thereof is this The believing Corinthians amongst other cases of Conscience which they had sent to the Apostle for his resolution of had written this for one whether it were lawfull for them who were converted still to retaine their Infidell wives or husbands You doe rightly here expresse the scope of the Apostle but you make another scope page 25. when you say We must attend the Apostles scope which is to shew that the children would be unholy if the faith or believership of one of the parents could not remove the barre which lies in the other being an unbeliever against the producing a holy seed which I shall shew in its place not to be the scope of the place but only this which you first give You then say their doubt seemes to arise from the Law of God which was in force to the Nation of the Jews God had not only forbidden such marriages to his people but in Ezra's time they put away not onely their wives but all the children that were borne of them as not belonging to the Common-wealth of Israel and it was done according to the Law and that Law was not a particular Edict which they did agree upon but according to the standing Law of Moses which that word there used signifieth and in
consâ—quent on fornication and lawfull generation And the words of the Apostle 2 Cor. 7.1 opposing filthinesse of the flesh to holinesse makes me conceive you were mistaken in your speech when you say In that opposition uncleanesse is alwayes taken in a sacred sense And when you say that Holinesse is alwayes taken for a separation of persons and things from common to sacred uses Me thinks you might have considered that 1 Thes. 4 3. the holy Ghost saith thus This is the will of God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 your holinesse i.e. saith Beza that you abstain from fornication Now abstinence from fornication you will not say is separation from common to sacred uses And when the Apostle saith 1 Cor. 7.34 that she may be holy in body is it not meant that she may be chaste You go on Even the meats and drinks of believers sanctified to them serve for a religious end and use to refresh them who are the temples of the Holy Ghost Is it a religious end and use to refresh them who are the temples of the Holy Ghost Then the godly in eating and drinking do an act of religion because they refâ—esh themselves It is true when their meats are sanctified to them they use them religiously but not because they refresh their bodies which are the temples of the Holy Ghost but because they use them with the word and prayer If refreshing the temple of the Holy Ghost be a religiouâ— use and end then the inordinate eating of a godly man or the feeding of a godly man by a prophane person is a religious use and end You adde So that they have not only a lawfull but a holy use of their meat and drink which unbelievers have not to whom yet their meat and drink is civilly lawfull This is true but how this proves that unclean may not be taken for bastard and holy for legitimate I see not You go on And whereas some say 1 Thes. 4.3 4.5 that Chastity a morall vertue found among heathens is called bâ— the name of Sanctification Let every one possesse his vessell not in the lust of concupiscence but in sanctification and honour I answer Chastity among heathens is never called sanctâ—fication but among believers it may be called so being a part of the new creation a branch of their sanctification wrought by the spirit of God a part of the inward adorning of the temple of the holy Ghost But this is buâ— a shift for why may not an unbeliever he said as wâ—ll to possesse his vessâ—ll in holines is to be sanctified Bâ—sides are not sanctification and cleannesse and honour all one in these passages And doth not the Apostle say Heb. 13.4 that Marriage is honourable among all even Infidels and the bed undâ—filed And though the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 holinesse be not found among the heathen writers as being so farre as I can finde a word used only among Ecclesiasticall writers yet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used for câ—stâ—moniam servo I preserve chastity as Stephanus in his Thesaurus â—bserves out of Demosthenes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 where a Priest of Bacâ—hus speaks thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I am holy and pure fâ—om the company of man And the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 chaste to be chaste to make chaste chastity comming from the same root with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 holy whether 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to reverence or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to admire as Grammarians conceive are used for holinesse and chastity very frequently both in Scripture and in all sorts of Greek writers So that what you say that holy cannot be taken for legitimate but must be taken for persons admissible into the Church Iâ— is so farre from being true that notwithstanding any thing you have said yet that sense both may and must be if the Apostles reasoning be good But you assault it with a second Argument Secondly this being so had this been the meaning Else were your children uncleane but now they aâ—e holy Else had your children been bastards but now they are legiâ—imate The Apostles answer had not been true because if then one of the parents had not been a believer and so by being a believer sanctified his unbelieving wife their children must have been bastards whereas we know their children had been legitimate being borne in lawfull wedlock though neither of the parents had been a believer Marriage being a Second Table-duty is lawfull though not sanctified to Pagans as well as to Christians and the legitimaâ—ion or illegitimation of the issue depends not upon the faith but upon the marriage of the parents Let the marriage be lawfull and the issue is legitimate whether one or both or neither of the parents be believers or infidels Take but away lawfull marriage betwixt the man and the woman and the issue is illegitimate whether one or both or neither of the parents are believers or infidels Withall if the children of heathens be bastards and the marriage of heathens no mâ—rriage then there is no adultery among heathâ—ns and so the seventh Commandement is altogether vain in the words of it as to them This is indeed the principall reason that hath prevailed with many to interpret this passage of federall holinesse not of matrimoniall because they conceive here is a priviledge ascribed to the believing wife or husband in respect of the faith of the one person not common to such with infidels Whereas the holinesse here expressed is not from the quality of faith but from the relation of husband and wife For that onely was agreeable to the Apostles purpose to assure them that in the disparity of religion they might live together still because the unbeliever though an unbeliever notwithstanding his infidelity is and hath been still lawfully injoyed and sanctified to his wife So that the force of the Apostles reason is taken from the lawfulnesse of marriage amongst infidels This was so plaine to Chamier tom 4. Panstr Cathol lib. 5. cap. 10. sect 63. that he writes thus Hoc argumento excluditur ea sanctitas quam nonnulli praetulerunt ab educatione nam ab ista peniâ—ùs delumbatur argumentum Apostoli Haec enim incerta est nôrunt enim omnes docet experientia neque omnes viros lucrifieri quod etiam innuit Apostolus neque omnes liberos obsecundarâ— sanctae educationi Praeterea si qui obsecundent tamen hic effectus est accidentalis non autem ex ipsius matrimonii naturâ And this is confirmed that the sanctification of the husband and the holinesse of the children comes from the nature of marriage because the Apostle when he speaks of the unbelieving party names him or her under the terme of unbelieving husband or wife because the doubt was of the unbeliever in respect of his unbeliefe but when he speakes of the believing party how ever the vulgar Latine thrusts in believing twice and one old copy Beza found that had in the Margin
not be a holy seed unlesse the faith or believership of the other parent could remove this barre You made the scope at first right to resolve them whether they might lawfully retain their Infidell wives or husbands but the scope you now give is but a meer figment not the Apostles You say now this can have no place of an argument in any case where one of the parents is not an Infidel I know not what you mean in this passage unlesse it be you would answer thus the Apostles scope is otherwise then the objector takes it therefore he can make no argument nor objection and so I need not make any answer which is a kinde of answering I am not acquainted with You go on But this was not the case amongst the Jews Hagar and Thamar and the concubines however sinfull in those acts yet themselves were Believers belonging to the Covenant of God and that barre lay not against their children as it did in the unbelieving wife This passage is indeed a grant of the Minor in the objection that children may be federally holy where the one parent is not sanctified to the other and that the Major is true which rests on this that the children could not be holy unlesse one parent were sanctified to the other you will not deny it you do your self frame the force of the Apostles reason thus both pag. 19. when you say were it with them as when both of them were unbelievers their children would be an unclean progeny and pag. 21. when you say the Apostles answer had not been true because then if one of the parents had not been sanctified to his unbelieving wife their children must have been bastards In these and other passages you acknowledge the force of the Apostles reason to consist in this that holinesse of the children is here meant which could not be unlesse one of the parents were sanctified to the other wherefore the conclusion stands good that the holinesse here is not federall holinesse But you adde 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a wise remedy Indeed if a believing man or woman should adulterously beget a child upon a Pagan or Heathen or unbeliever there this objection deserves to be further weighed but here it comes not within the compâ—sse of the Apostles argument This is just nihil ad rhombum nothing to the point as if you had said I will not answer the objection which is made but if you make it thus or thus I will answer it and thus I have at last gotten your chief hold which you had best manned but in the close you quitted it You adde as over-measure certain Reasons 1. From Gods will which were enough if you could prove it 2. From Gods honour in which you say so iâ— iâ— with the Lord he having left all the rest of the world to be visibly the Devils kingdome will not for his own glories sake permit the Devill to come and lay visible claim to the sons and daughters begotten by those who are the children of the most High which speech if true well fare Cain and Cham and Ismael and Esau and innumerable others whom the Devill hath had visible claime to by their works and profession 3. For the comfort and duty of these who are in covenant with him Indeed it were a very great comfort if you could make it good which you say but we must be content with that comfort God is pleased to give and not for our comfort speak that of God which is not true You say you have been the larger upon those two first conclusions because indeed the proving of these gains the whole cause and so I have been the larger in answering as conceiving by loosing these you loose the cause You say The most learned of the Anabaptists do professe that if they knew a child to be holy they would baptize it It is likely they that said or professed so did declare in what sense and for what reason they so spake But because these are but Rhetoricall passages I leave them and passe to your third Conclusion which you â—hus expresse THe Lord hath appointed and ordained a Sacrament or Seal of initiation to be administred unto them who enter into covenant with him Circumcision for the time of that administration which was before Christs incarnation Baâ—tisme since the time of his incarnation Thâ— conclusion as you here set it down may be granted that the Lord hath appointed and 〈…〉 a Sacrament or Seal of initiation to be administred to them that enter into covenant with him circumcision for the time of that administration which was before Christs incarnation Baptisme since the time of his incarnation But this is not all you would have granted for it would stand you in no stead and therefore in stead of it pag. 33. in the Repetition you put this conclusion for your third that our Baptisme succeeds in the room and use of their Circumcision and your meaning is that it so succeeds that the command of circumcising Infants should be virtually a command to baptize Infants as you expresse your self pag. 35. Now this I deny That which you alledge for this is First the agreement that is between Cicumcision and Baptisme Secondly the Text Col. 2.8 9 10 11 12. I shall examine both and consider whether they fit your purpose You confesse they differ in the outward Elements and that is enough to shew that the command for the one is not a command for the other except the Holy Ghost do so interpret it But you say they agree in five or six particulars The first that they are both of them the same Sacrament for the spirituall part which is to be granted but with its due allowance For though Baptisme signifie in part the same thing that Circumcision did namely sanctification by the spirit justification and salvation by Jesus Christ and faith in him yet it is true that there is a vast difference betwixt them because Circumcision signified these things as to be from Christ to come and therefore it was a sign of the promise of Christ to come from Isaac but Baptisme signifies these things in the name of Christ already manifested in the flesh crucified buried and risen again And because Circumcision did signifie Christ to come out of Isaac therefore it did also confirm all the promises that were made to Abrahams naturall Posterity concerning their multiplying their bringing out of Egypt their settling in the Land of Canaan and the yoak of the Law of Moses which was to be in force till Faith came that is till Christ was manifested in the flesh Gal. 3.19.23 24 25. Gal. 5.2 3. The second agreement you make is that both are appointed to be distinguishing signes betwixt Gods people and the Devils people This must be also warily understood for though it be true they are both dâ—stinguishing signes yet not so but that they may be Gods people who were not circumcised nor are baptized God had
as Mr. Mather in answer to Mr. Herle or that there must be an imparity in the Clergy and so Bishops above Presbyters as the Prelates Bilson Davenâ—nt Dâ—terminat Quest. 42. and others were wont to argue or that a Doctor in Divinity may be a Justice of Peace because Eli and Samuel were Judges as the Prelaticall Doctors or that there must be a Pope because there was an High Priest as Bellarmine and the Papists If the consequence be not good in the one neither is it in the other You say in the next words that the Lords Supper succeeds in the room of the Passeover This I confesse goes current but the Scripture doth not say so that I know The Scripture expresly saith that Christ our Passeover was sacrificed for us 1 Cor. 5.7 It iâ— true the Lords Supper was appointed after the Paschal Supper but it is but our collection that thereby the Lord would make an end of the Passeover and substitute the other in its room In other places we rather finde the Lords Supper to answer the Manna and the Rock or water out of the Rock in the Wildernesse 1 Cor. 10.3 4. It is true the Apostle 1 Cor. 10.16 17. argues from the eating of the sacrifices to the eating of the Lords Supper But that was not only from the Passeover but from the rest of the peace-offerings as well as it yea from the Heathens feasts upon their sacrifices It is true 1 Cor. 5.8 we are required to keep the feast and the allusion is to the Paschal Supper but whether the keeping the feast be meant of the Lords Supper or as Beza paraphraseth it totam vitam in justitia integritate consumamus let us spend our whole life in justice and integrity or something else sub judice lis est is a controversie undetermined But let it be granted that the Lords Supper imitates I will not say succeeds into the room of the Jewish Passeover for that was a sacrifice and Christ offered is only in stead of it the Paschal Supper which because of the time and the form of words used in the institution and such like circumstances is very probable and therefore there is great Analogy between them yet he that should argue therefore we must receive the Lords Supper with unleavened bread as the Papists or that the bread and wine must be first consecrated on an Altar as was the Paschal Lamb or that the Lords Supper is not to be administred but in a Church gathered after the Church-way as the Elders of New-England in answer to the nine Positions or that we must keep an Easter and then have the Lords Supper as in ancient and later times hath been conceived you would reject these things as ill gathered and perhaps call them superstitious But whether these and more like to them do not as well follow as baptizing of Infants from circumcision of Infants because of their Analogy I leave to your self to consider You adde And this our Lord himself taught us by his own example who was circumcised as a professed member of the Church of the Jews and when he set up the new Christian Church he would be initiated into it by the Sacrament of Baptisme It is confessed that Christ was circumcised and baptized but that it was to teach us by his example either your conclusion or the agreements between Baptisme and Circumcision which you set down or that which next goes before your speech the succession of the Lords Supper to the Passeover remains yet to be proved much more that which you drive at that there is such a parity or rather identity between Baptisme and Circumcision that the command to circumcise Infants is a command to baptize Infants The circumcision of Christ was undoubtedly as his presenting in the Temple and the offering for him to accomplish the Law under which it pleased him to be made of a woman Gal. 4.4 5. and it had a spirituall use to assure our circumcision in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh Col. 2.11 This is certain we have cleare Scripture for it if you shall shew the like Scriptures for the inferences you make from Christs circumcision I shall imbrace them with both arms The Baptisme of Christ was that Christ might fulfill all righteousnesse Mat. 3.15 But how to expound this speech hath not a little difficulty Various conjectures there are about the meaning of it this seems to me most likely that righteousnesse is there taken for that which was appointed by God either in secret instructions or some particular Prophecy from God But then if it be asked why God did appoint it this seems most likely sith it is plain that this was the time of Christs anointing with the Spirit as appears Luke 4.18 that Baptisme was used to signifie his anointing by the Spirit for his great function he was then to enter on which me thinks the story it self and the speech of Peter Acts 10.37 38. do evince That which you say That being to set up the new Christian Church he would be initiated into it by the Sacrament of Baptisme seems not probable partly because Christ did not set up in his own dayes on earth a visible Church Discipline and Worship distinct from the Jewish partly because his Baptisme was of a far higher nature then our Baptisme Who was anointed with the oyl of gladnesse above his fellows Heb. 1.9 and therefore his Baptisme was of a transcendent nature above ours But if it were granted that Christs Baptisme were to teach us that he that is a member of the Church must be initiated by baptisme it will rather disadvantage your cause then advantage it sith Christ who was the holy One of God and the Angel of the Covenant and the seed of Abraham in whom all the nations of the earth should be blessed to whom the promises were made in whom the Covenant was confirmed Gal. 3.16 17. yet was not baptized till he began to be about thirty yeers of age Luke 3.23 So that you see how little help you have from your parities or Christs example to prove a like reason of circumcising and baptizing Infants But you have yet another string to your bow out of Col. 2.11 12. I will follow you to try the strength of that also You say of this conclusion there iâ— no great doubt but becâ—use some of the Anabaptists do deny the Sâ—crament of Baptisme to succeed into the room place and use of Circumcision be pleased to observe how plain the Apostle makes it Col. 2.8 9 10 11 12. It is necessary that I should first consider in what sense your Position is to be taken before I examine your proof for it The thing that you say the Apostle makes plain is that the Sacrament of Baptisme doth succeed in the room place and use of Circumcision Succession properly notes a coming after another as we say Kings succeed one another High priests one after another To speak exactly Baptisme
with some difference Baptisme properly seales the entrance into it the Lords Supper properly the growth nourishment and augmentation of it Baptisme for our birth the Lords Supper for our food Now infants may be borne againe while they are infants have their originall sin pardoned be united to Christ have his image stampt upon them but concerning the exercise of these graces and the augmentation of them in infants while they are infants the Scripture is altogether silent You spake somewhat to like purpose before which I examined part 3. sect 15. To me it is yet as a paradoxe that Baptisme seales properly the entrance into the Covenant and the Lords Supper the growth nourishment and augmentation of it If you make the entrance at remission of sins justification or mortification the Lords Supper that seales Christs death seales the entrance into the Covenant Mat. 26.28 And for Baptisme it seales dying with Christ and rising with Christ Rom. 6.3 4 5. Gal. 3.27 Col. 2.12 1 Pet. 3.21 and therefore not onely the first worke of conversion but also after-growth and exercise of holinesse And the Lords Supper signifies the same receiving the Spirit which Baptisme doth 1 Cor. 12.13 And according â—o the doctrine of Protestants Baptisme seales as well the pardon of other sins as of originall sin And so Peter Acts 2.38 and Ananias Act. 22.16 And therefore this difference you put is a difference which the Scripture makes not that I say nothing of your strange phraseology of the growth nourishment and augmentation of the Covenant But you say And what is said concerning the infants of the Jewes eating the Passeover to which our Sacrament of the Lords Supper doth succeed there is no such thing mentioned in the Book of God It is said indeed that the severall families were to eate their Lambe if the houshold were not too little for it and that when their children should aske them what that service meant they should instruct them about the meaning of it but no word injoyning nor any example witnessing thaâ— their little children did eate of it The Commands were that all the males should thrice a yeare appeare before the Lord one of which was the Passeover Exod. 23.17 Exod. 34.23 Deut. 16.16 And at that time there was no other food to be eaten but the unleavened bread and the paschall Supper Therefore those males that could eate though not come to yeares of discretion fit to receive the Lords Supper yet were to eate the Passeover Ainsworth notes on Exod. 12.26 So both the outward rite and the meaning of it was to be taught to their children Touching whom the Jewes hold from the Law in Exod. 23.14.17 Deut. 16.14.16 that every child that could hold his Father by the hand and goe up from Jerusalem gates to the mountaine of the Temple his Father was bound to cause him to goe up and appeare before God with him to the end he might catechize him in the Commandements And who sow as bound to appeare was bound to keep the feast Maimâ—ny in Hagigah Chap. 2. sect 3 4. Also they say A childe that is able to eate a marsell of bread they catechize him in the Commandements and give him to eate so much as an Olive of the unleavened bread Maimony Treatise of leaven and unleavened bread c. 6. sect 10. But you say If they say as some of them doe that those little ones who were able to enquire concerning the meaning of that service and capable to receive instruction about it did eate of the Passeover with their parents I answer although the Scripture speaks nothing of their eating yet if that be granted it is no prejudice to us because the Gospel prohibites not such young ones from the Lords Supper who are able to examine themselves and discerne the Lords body True but children that were to appeare at the Passeover and to partake of it were many of them such as might be instructed concerning the meaning of that service and yet too young to examine themselves or to discerne the Lords body so that if the Lords Supper succeed the Passeover and a rule may be drawne from the Passeover to the Lords Supper children unable to examine themselves may be admitted to the Lords Supper THe rest of your Sermon is application which being not argumentative I shall let it passe Onely whereas you charge Anabaptists with a rash and bloudy sentence condemning infants as out of the state of grace condemning all the infants of the whole Church of Christ as having nothing to doe with the Covenant of grace and then tragically aggravate this thing as parallel or rather exceeding the cruelty of Herod and Hazael in slaying and dashing the infants of Israel against the wall till you produce some testimonies of those you call Anabaptists so determining I shall take it to be but a false accusation and a fruit of passion not of holy zeale For the thing it selfe I have shewed part 2. sect 10. that it doth not follow on the doctrine of Antipaedobaptisme and I conceive that if to be in the Covenant of grace be rightly explained to wit so as to signifie the having of the promise of justification and salvation by Christ Jesus besides which I know not any other Evangelicall Covenant of grace your selfe will be found to exclude them from the covenant of grace as much as they As they dare not say that this or that particular infant of a believer is in the covenant of grace that is certainly elected justified and to be saved so neither dare you Your owne words are pag. 48. Charitie being not tyed to conclude certainly of any of them because they ought to know that all are not Israel who are of Israel and that many are called but few are chosen If you should you would gainsay the Apostle Rom. 9.6 7 8. And on the other side as you will not say they are damned so neither will they I am perswaded but suspending any sentence concerning this or that in particular leave them to God who is the soveraigne Lord both of them and us THus have I at last in the middest of many wants distractions discouragements and temptations with the assistence of God who hath never failed me to him be the praise examined your Sermon and thereby shewed that it doth not satisfie and how little reason you had to say in your Epistle I am assured that it is Gods truth which I have preached and which he will blesse Notwithstanding which confidence I presume you will see cause to consider more exactly of this matter upon the reading of this answer I dare not thinke any otherwise of you then as of one who loves and seekes the truth Nor doe I know any reason why you should conceive that I have taken this paines for any ends crosse to the finding of truth My reall intention in this worke is to discover truth and to doe what is meete for mee in my calling towards