untill they shew signes to the contrary God having both reckoned them unto his people and given them all the means of salvation which an Infants age is capable of All this passage is but dictates what or how much of it is true or false hath been considered before only that you say all the other Infants of the world have their visible standing under the prince and in the kingdome of darknesse and consequently whilest others have no hope of their childrens spirituall welfare untill they be called out of that condition If you mean by all other Infants all that are unbaptized though the Infants of Believers in the Church it is a very harsh and uncharitable speech and you oppose those that in dispute against the Papists concerning the necessity of Baptisme to salvation do hold that Infants of Believers are holy and in the Church afore they be baptized and joyn with Lutherans and Papists denying it if you mean only the unbaptized Infants of Infidels what comfort do you give more to believing parents that have their children baptized then belongs to them though their children were not baptized And when you say that all others have no hope of their childrens spirituall welfare if you mean it of believing parents that baptize not their children it is in like manner an uncharitable speech and doth border too neer on the opinion of the necessity of Baptisme for Infants to salvation and when you say these need not have any doubt of their childrens welfare if they die in their infancy if you mean it of parents because their children are baptized you do speak like one that did hold that Baptisme doth conferre gratiam ex opere operato conferre grace by the work done but for ought you can shew out of Scripture a believing parent hath as much ground of hope for his Infant that dies unbaptized as for the baptized and as much reason of doubt concerning the baptized as the unbaptized And therefore what you here speak doth no whit encourage parents to baptize children if it be well weighed except there can be proved an institution and a promise But you say secondly here is much priviledge and benefit to the children when as beside what inward secret work God is pleased to work in them they being members of the Church of Christ have their share in the communion of Saints are remembred at the Throne of grace every day by those that pray for the welfare of the Church and particularly in those prayers which are made for his blessing upon his Ordinances By your parenthesis you intimate some inward secret work God is pleased to work in the Infants baptized by Baptisme If you conceive a bestowing of grace ex opere operato by the work done or baptismall initiall regeneration of the elect supposed to be in the Infants in baptisme notwithstanding till death they live wickedly speak plainly that we may know what you mean and then an answer may be framed to your speâ—ch As for being members of the Church if you meâ—n the invisible Church neither I nor you can affirm or deny it s in Gods bosome alone if you mean the visible you must make a new definition of the visible Church afore Infants baptized will be proved members For their remembring at the Throne of grace daily if you mean it particularly and by name I do not finde that to be in use after Baptisme any more then afore and I think they are remembred by the godly in generall as well afore Baptisme as after and for the praying for Gods blessing upon his Ordinances if Infant-baptisme be not Gods Ordinance this prayer in reference to Infant-baptisme at that time might be better spared You say And lastly it 's no small priviledge to have that seale bestowed on them in their infancy which may afterwards plead when they are growne and come to fulfill the condition When where and how Baptisme should be pleaded as you shew not neither doe I well conceive It is not Baptisme of it selfe that will yeeld a plea of any force either in foro soli in the Court of earth or in foro poli in the Court of heaven but the promise of God and the condition of faith in Christ. And these will be good pleas in prayeâ—s to God and in the court of conscience when Infant-baptisme will stand in no stead The plea of the Apostle will hold Rom. 8.31 32 33 34. which baptisme rightly administred doth strengthen 1 Pet. 3.21 But I never knew any Saint that pleaded his infant-baptisme in such cases YOu say further But if their being capable of the spirituall part must intitle them to the outward signe why then doe we not also admit them to the Sacrament of the Lords Supper which is the seale of the Covenant of grace as well as the Sacrament of Baptisme And this is urged the rather because say they the infants of the Jewes did eate of the Passeover as well as were circumcised Now if our infants have every way as large a priviledge as the infants of the Jewes had then can we not deny them the same priviledge which their infants had and consequently they must partake of the one Sacrament as well as the other This argument is good ad homines against the partie opposite proceeding upon the Paedobaptists hypotheses or suppositions to wit 1. That those to whom the Covenant belongs to them the seale belongs 2. That to the infants of believers the Covenant belongs 3. That the Lords Supper is a seale of the Covenant as well as Baptisme And these are your hypotheses Now then if this be a good argument children are to be baptized because they are in the Covenant and the seale belongs to those in Covenant by the same reason they are to receive the Lords Supper because they are in Covenant and the seale belongs to those in Covenant Now this argument is strengthened from other hypotheses as that the Lords Supper succeeds the Passeover as Baptisme Circumcision but children not of yeares of discretion had the Passeover therefore they are to havâ— the Lords Supper And this is confirmed by the practise and opinion of the Ancients that gave the Lords Supper to infants for 600 yeares after Christ as well as baptisme To this you say I answer that infants are capable of the grace of Baptisme we are sure not sure that they are capable of the grace signed and sealed in the Sacrament of the Lords Supper This answer supposeth that there is grace sealed in the Lords Supper which is not sealed in Baptisme To me that Sacrament that confirmes the covenant of grace confirmes all the promises in it and therefore if Baptisme be the seale of the covenant it seales all the graces and all the promises in it and therefore you are as sure that infants are capable of all graces annexed to the Covenant as of one But you say For both of them are seales of the new Covenant yet it is
that God commanded the one but no where the other and your self say pag. 84. Our knowledge of the will of Christ is that which is the only direction we are to follow But you adde a second answer which I let passe because it is but a declaration of your own conceits how you conceive a childe may seal the covenant in his infancy telling us that their name is put into the Deed and that a child may seal fiâ—st in infancy and then after agnize it and that God is pleased to seal to Infants while they are such and to accept such a seal as they can give without any proof but only spinning out the simile of a seal as if Gods wayes were like mans wayes or a simile did gâ—â—deare in omnibus a similitude were even in all things only where you say that in the mean time Jesus Christ who is the surety of the covenant and surety of all the covenanters is pleased to be their surety this speech is further to be examined 'T is true Jesus Christ is the surety of a better Testament Heb. 7.12 he is the surety of all the covenanters he doth strike hands and becomes a surety of the whole covenant and of every condition in it take it in the largest sense and this of all both on Gods part and ours as very rightly and excellently Mr. Thomas Goodwin in his Teatise intituled Christ set forth Sect. 3. Chap. 3. And to like purpose Mr. Rutherfurd The triall and triumph of Faith serm 7. But are any other among men covenanters but the elect who are purchased by the blood of the everlasting covenant Heb. 13.20 It is a very inconsiderate boldnesse in you to make every baptized person or at least every baptized Infant of a Believer a covenanter for whom Christ is a surety and one to whom God seals when the Scripture makes Christ the surety only for his redeemed ones as may be gathered out of sundry places in the Epistle to the Hebrews but I doubt not but when you have considered it a little better you will easily espie your error in these dictates and therefore I passe on to the next objection BVt what benefit comes to children by such kinde of sealing as this is it seems then say they by your own confession that this is but a conditionall sealing on Gods part viz. that they own it and ratifie it when they come to age and if they then refuse to stand to it all is then nullified were it noâ— therefore better to deferre iâ— to their yeers of discretion to see whether they will then make it their own voluntary act yea or no. In what sense baptizâ—ng may be called sealing I have above shewed Part. 3. Sect. 12. but I cannot allow of this to say that God seals to every one that is baptized It is true that Baptisme is in its nature a seal of the righteousnesse of faith 1 Pet. 3.21 but yet God doth not seal this to every one that is baptized but only to true believers For what is Gods sealing but the confirming of his promise But God promiseth righteousnesse only to Believers therefore he seals only to Believers As for the sealing by God upon condition persons agnize the covenant it is but a notion the Scripture makes not Gods promise in the covenant of Grace conditionall in that sense For Gods promise is for those he enters into covenant with That he will put his Law in their hearts and in their mindes will write them Heb. 10.16 Nor do I know any but Corvinus in his Examen of Moulins Anatomy chap. 9. sect 6. and the Arminians that do so speak of Gods covenant of Grace as if it were common to the elect and reprobates and conditionall in this sense as if God left it to mens liberty to whom he had sealed to agnize or recognize that sealing or to free themselves if they please and so nullifie all yet so as to afford them a while the favour and priviledge of being in covenant with him as you speak I appeal to them who have been conversant in the writings of the Arminians whether these speeches do not symbolize with their language And therefore this that you make an objection I look on as a frivolous supposing a Chimaera and then disputing about it But yet there are some things I shall take notice of in your answer The question is What benefit to Infants by such a sealing you answer thus This objection lay as strongly against Gods wisedome in requiring the Jews Infants even in their infancy thus to seal and therefore argues no great wisdome or modesty in man who would thus reason with God about his administrations It is true God appointed the male children of Abrahams family to be circumcised and thereby they were bound to keep the whole Law and it were a sinfull presumption to reason with God about it and in like manner if God had appointed Infants to be baptized it would silence all arguings about it though we knew not the reason but how it is to be understood that God required the Jews even in their infancy to seal I do not well understand our sealing to God is believing Joh. 3.33 I do not finde that God required this of the Jews Infants in their infancy nor of our Infants nor was Circumcision it self the Infants duty required by God of the Infant though it were its priviledge it was the parents duty Exod. 4.24 You say secondly God hath other ends and uses of applying the seal of the covenant to them who are in covenant with him then their present gain it 's â— homage worship and honour to himself and it behoves us even in that respect to fulfill all righteousnesse when Christ was baptized and circumcised he was as unfit for the Ordinance through his perfection as children through their imperfection being as much above them as children are below them It is true Baptisme is a worship of God but Paedobaptisme for ought yet appears is but a will-worship Christs Baptisme it is true was of a transcendent nature as is said before that children are unfit for the Ordinance is not to be imputed to their imperfection but to the defect of Gods appointment if God did appoint it there would be no doubt of their fitnesse But you adde further 3. I answer The benefit and fruit of it at the present is very much both to the parents and to the children to the parents first whilest God doth thereby honour them to have their children counted to his Church to his Kingdome and Family and to be under his wing and grace whilest all the other Infants in the world have their visible standing under the prince and in the kingdome of darknesse and consequently whilest others have no hope of their childrens spirituall welfare untill they be called out of that condition these need not have any doubt of their childrens welfare if they die in their infancy nor if they live
objection is But we shun to kisse Infantes as uncleane in the first dayes of their birth to this he answers that to the cleane all things are cleane and we ought not to decline the embracing Gods worke The third objection was the Law of circumcision to this he answers that in Circumcision the eighth day was a figure of the resurrection of Christ Which is now accomplished and we are to account now nothing common or uncleane and therefore we are not to account this an impedinent to obtaine grace by Baptisme Then he addes further if any thing could hinder from obtaining of grace greater sinnes should hinder men of yeares from it now if greater sinnes hinder not men of yeares from it but that they when they beleive obtaine forgivenes grace and Baptisme by how much rather is an Infant not to be forbidden who being newly borne hath not sinned except in that being borne carnally according to Adam he hath contracted the contagion of ancient death in his first Nativity who in this respect comes more easily to receive remission of sinnes because not his owne sinnes but anothers are forgiven him So that whereas you say that Cyprian proves that Infants are to be baptized because they are under Originall sinne they neede pardon You may perceive that the argument is rather thus they have lesser sinnes then others they neede lesse pardon then men of growne yeares and therefore there is lesse hinderance in them to come to Gods grace remission of sinnes and Baptisme thus have I considered that famous resolution of a Councel of 66. Bishops which for the nakednes of it I should more willingly have covered were it not that the truth hath so much suffered by the great esteeme that this absurd Epistle hath had in many Ages YOu adde next to Cyprian Augustine who flourished about the yeare 405. according to Perkins 410. according to Vsher and I follow you to consider him next for though Ambrose and Hierome are reckoned somewhat afore him about 30. or 20. yeares yet they lived at the same time and the Authority of Augustine was it which carryed the Baptisme of Infants in the following ages almost without controule as may appeare out of Walafridus Strabo placed by Vsher at the yeare 840. who in his booke De rebus Ecclesiasticis cap. 26. having said â—hat in the first times the grace of Baptisme was wont to be given to them onely who were come to that integrity of minde and body that they could know and understand what profit was to be gotten in Baptisme what is to be confessed and beleived what lastly is to be observed by them that are new borne in Châ—ist confirmes it by Augustines owne confession of himselfe continuing a Catechumenus long afore Baptized But afterwards Christians understanding Originall sinne c. Ne perirent parvuli si sine remedio regenerationis gratiae defungerentur statuerunt eos baptizari in remissionem peccatorum quod S. Augustinus in libro de baptismo parvulorum ostendit Africana testantur Concilia aliorum Patrum documenta quamplurima And then adds how God-fathers and God-mothers were invented and addes one superstitious and impious consequent on it in these words Non autem debet Pater vel mater de fonte suam suscipere sobolem ut sit discretio inter spiritalem generationem carnalem Quod si casu evenerit non habebunt carnalis copulae deniceps adiuvicem consortium qui in communui filio compaternitatis spiritale vinculum susceperant To which I adde that Petrus Cluniacensis placed by Vsher at the yeare 1150. writing to three Bishops of France against Peter de Bruis who denyed Baptisme of Infants sayes of him that he did reject the Authority of the Latine Doctors being himselfe a Latine ignorant of Greeke and after having said recurrit ergo ad scripturas therefore he runnes to the Scriptures he alleageth the examples in the New Testament of Christs curing of persons at the request of others to prove Infants Baptisme by and then adds Quid vos ad ista Ecce non de Augustino sed de Evangelio protuli cui cum maxime vos credere dicatis aut aliorum fide alios tandem posse salvari concedite aut de Evangelio esse quae posui si potestis negate From these passages I gather that as Petrus Cluniacensis urged for paedo-baptisme the authority of Augustine and the Latine Doctors So Peter de Bruis and Henricus appealed to the Scriptures and the Greeke Church Now the reason of Augustines authority was this the Pelagian heresie being generally condemned and Augustines workes being greatly esteemed as being the hammer of the Pelagians the following refuters of Pelagianisme Prosper Fulgentius c. the Councells that did condemne it as those of Carthage Arles Milevis c. did rest altogether on Augustines arguments and often on his words and Augustine in time was accounted one of the foure Doctors of the Chuâ—ch esteemed like the foure Evangelists so that his â—pâ—nion was the rule of the Churches Judgement and the schooles determination as to the great hurt of Gods Church Luther and others have beene of late Now Augustine did very much insist on this argument to prove originall sinne because Infants were baptized for remission of sinnes and therefore in the Councill of Milevis he was adjudged accursed that did deny it But for my part I value Augustines judgement iust at so much as his proofes and reasons weigh which how light they are you may conceive First In that whereas he makes it so Univeâ—sall a tradition his owne baptisme not till above thirty though educated as a Christian by his mother Monica the Baptisme of his sonne Adeodatus at 15. of his friend Alipius if there were no more were enough to pâ—ove that this custome of baptizing infants was not so received as that the Church thought necessary that all children of Christians by profession should be baptized in their infancy And though I conceive with Grotius annot in Mattâ— 19.14 that baptisme of Infants was much more frequented and with greater opinion of necessity in Africa then in Asia or other parts of the world for saith he in the Councells you cannot finde ancienter mention of that custome then the Councell of Carthage Yet I doe very much question whether they did in Africa even in Augustines time baptize children except in danger of death or for the health of body or such like reason I do not finde that they held that Infants must be baptized out of such cases for it is cleare out of sundry of Augustines Tracts as particularly tract 11 in Johan that the order held of distinguishing the Catechumeni and baptized and the use of Catechizing afore baptisme still continued yea and a great while after insomuch that when Petrus Cluniacensis disputed against Peter de Bruis he said only that therâ— had beene none but infants baptized for 300. yeares or almost 500. yeares in Gallia Spaine Germany
Nehemiahs time the children who were born of such marriages were accounted a mungrell kinde whom Nehemiah cursed Now hereupon these Corinthians doubted whether their children as well as their wives were not to be accounted unclean and so to be put away according to thâ—se examples You declared rightly the scope before but the doubt is not rightly put by you The Corinthians had no doubt whether their children were unclean and to be put away for the Apostle argues from the uncleanesâ—e of their children as a thing that appeared absurd to them they tooke it as a common received principle that their childrâ—n werâ— holy as rightly Master Thomas Goodwin at Bow-church And for the occasion of the doubt though I deny not but the Corinthians might know that fact of Ezra 9. and 10. yet that the reading of it was the cause of their doubt I see no evidence oâ— likelihood though Master Blake pag. 12. takes it as granted joyning with the relations Ezra 9. and 10. that resolution Hag. 2.12.13 as the occasion of the doubt and Mr. Thomas Goodwin seemed confident of it that it could be no other upon a supposed agreement of matter and phrase But for matter I see very little agreement the cases being fâ—r different of two persons not under the Law maâ—rying in unbeliefe and of two persons under the Law the one a Iew by profâ—ssion the other a stranger And for phrases excâ—pt the word holy I observe no other phrase used in Ezra which is used by the Apostâ—e not the phrase of unbelieving husband or wife or sanctified to in or by the wife or husband nor the phrase of unclean children and for the tearm holy the Apostle doth not use the phrase holy seed as Ezra doth In my apprersion it is farre more likely that â—â—e â—oubt arose from the Epistle he wrote before to them mentioned 1 Cor. 5.9 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 â— 10 Not to keep company with Fornicators or Idolaters which might occasion the question whether they were then to continue with their unbelieving Yoke fellows But let us examine the Apostles resolution you say To which the Apostle answers no they were not to be put away upon what speciall reason soever that law was in force to thâ— Jews believing Châ—â—stians were not in that condition The unbelieving wife was sanctified in the believing husband quoad hoc so far as to bring forth a holy seed Were it with them as when both of them were unbelievers so that nâ—ither of thâ—m had a prerogative to intitle their children to the covenant of grace thier children would be an unclean progeny Or were the children to bâ— reckoned in the condition of the worser parent so that the unbeliever could contribute more to Paganisme than the believer to Christianity it were so likewise But the case is otherwise the believing husband hath by Gods ordinance a sanctified use of his unbeliâ—ving wife so as by Gods speciall promise made to believers and their seed they were invested in and to the most spirituall end of marriage the continuance of a holy seed wherein the Church is to be propagated to the worlds end And the case is heâ—e in relation to posterity for spirituall priviledges as in other marriages for civill priviledges as suppose a Prince or Noble man marry with a woman of base and mean birth though in generall it be true that the children of those that be base are born base as well as the children of Nobles are borâ— noble yet here the issue hath hâ—nour from the father and it is not accounted base by the basenes of the mother This I take to be the plain meaning of the Apostles answer And must your Readers thinke you take it on your word without shewing that the tearms are so used else where or connexion of the words or the analysis of the text lead you to it But it is necessary that I discusse this matter more fully then by returning a bare denyall to a bare affirmation Concerning the answer verse 13. there is no difference all the diffâ—rence is concerning the reason of the resolution delivered ver 14. and the meaning of it There are these terms doubtfull 1. What is meant by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the wife and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the husband 2. What is meant by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is sanctified 3. What is meant by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 unclean 4. What by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 holy It is agreed that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may be read in to or by It is agreed that to be sanctified hath many senses and tâ—at the sense wherein sanctification is taken for renovation of mind is not here meant for so an unbeliever is not sanctified and the speech is in sensu composito in a compound sense to be understood An unbeliever though an unbeliever is sanctified Nor is it true of any kind of Ceremoniall sanctification or sanctification for enjoying religious ordinances for such could not agree to an unbeliever Therefore there remain only two senses the one of an instrumentall sanctification as Mr. Goodwin cals it for the begetting a holy seed The other of matrimoniall sanctification whereby the one is enjoyed as a chaste yoke-fellow by another without fornication The former of these your words intimate you imbrace when you say the unbelieving wife was sanctified in the believing husband quoad hoc so far as to bring forth a holy seed But against this are these reasons 1. This could not have resolved the doubt in the case of those who by age could not be sanctified to this end or by reason of accidentall inability for generation they might depart each from other notwithstanding this reason whereas the Apostles resolution is of all husbands and wives The unbelieving husband is sanctified that is every unbelieving husband is sanctified If meant of Instrumentall sanctification it were true only of those that are apt for generation yea that do actuâ—lly generate whereas the Apostles determination is concerning any husband or wife that were of different religion 2. If the Apostle by being sanctified meant instrumentally sanctified to beget a holy seed then the reason had been thus You may live together for you may beget a holy seed And so their consciences should have been resolved of their present lawfull living together from a future event which was uncertain It had been taken from a thing contingent that might be or not be whereas the resolution is by a reason taken from a thing certain a thing present or past and therefore he useth the preterperfect tense 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hath been sanctified yea in probability he speaks of a sanctification even when both were unbelievers for he saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 twice in the preterperfect tense and he mentions the unbelieving distinctly but the believer without the expression of his or her faith under the title of husband or wife and saith your children indiscriminatim without difference as well
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
have the promise therefore they have the seal in Abraham though they never are nor may be sealed in their own persons You go on and the Jewes received it not as a Nation but as a Church as a people separated from the world and taken into covenant with God If you take as with reduplication it is true that neither the Jewes received circumcision as a Nation for then every nation should receive it nor as a Church or people separated from the world and taken into covenant with God for then every Church or people separated from the world and taken into covenant with God should receive circumcision which is false but they received it as appointed them from God under this formall reason and no other But what is all this to the answering the objection That it was not the seal of the spirituall part of the Covenant of Grace to all circumcised persons and that circumcision was appointed to persons not under the Covenant of Grace and that the reason why persons were circumcised was not because they were under the covenant of Grace but only Gods appointment But you yet adde It is true indeed that circumcision bound them who received it to conform to that manner of administration of the covenant which was carried much by a way of temporall blessings and punishments they being types of spirituall things It is right which you grant that circumcision bound them who received it to conform to that manner of administration of the covenant but then it is to be considered that circumcision was a part of this administration and that though temporall blessings as of the land of Canaan and rest in it were shadows of the rest of Gods people and so in a sort of administrations of the covenant of Grace yet they were also part of the things promised in the covenant made to Abraham and when you say circumcision bound them who received it to conform to that manner of administration of the covenant which was carried much by a way of temporall blessings and punishments it is hard to shew in what sense they were bound to conform to temporall blessings and punishments they were bound to conform to the sacrifices and offerings and washings c. For these were their acts to be done by them but how they were bound to conform to the administration by temporall blessings and punishments it is hard to understand sith they were Gods acts not theirs You adde but no man can ever shew that any were to receive the Sacrament of Circumcision in relation to those outward things only or to them at all further then they were administrations of the Covenant of Grace The truth is no man was to receive the Sacrament of Circumcision in relation to these outward things only or to them at all either as they were temporall blessings or types of spirituall things and so as you speak administrations of the covenant of Grace but in this respect only and for this reason and no other because God had so commanded though I deny not circumcised persons were by faith to look on the covenant of Grace through these administrations yet the reason of being circumcised was barely Gods command so that if you abstract Gods command notwithstanding the covenant or any other administration of it they were not to be circumcised You go on Sure I am the proselytes and their children could not be circumcised in any relation at all to the temporall blessings of the land of Canaan as they were temporall because notwithstanding their circumcision they were not capable of receiving or purchasing any inheritance at all in the land sojourne they might as other strangers also did but the inheritance of the land no not one foot of it could ever be alienated from the severall Tribes to whom it was distributed as their Possession by the most High For all the land was divided into twelve Tribes and they were not any one of them allowed to sell their lands longer then till the yeer of Jubilee Lev. 25. v. 3. c. Yea I mâ—y boldly sâ—y that their circumcision was so far from sealing to them the outward good things of the land that it occasioned and tyed them to a greater expence of their temporall blessings by their long and frequent and chargeable journyes to worship at Jerusalem This which you say may be granted and the thing which you would prove by it That they which received circumcision did not receive it in relation only to these outward things yet this overthrows not this Proposition That the covenant made with Abraham had promises of temporall blessings and that some were to be circumcised who had no part in the covenant of Grace You adde And as for what was alledged concerning Ishmael the Answer is easie God indeed there declares that Isaac should be the Type of Christ and that the covenant of Grace should be established and continue in his family yet both Ishmael and the rest of Abrahams family were really taken into covenant untill afterwards by apostasie they discovenanted themselves as also did Esau afterwards though he were the son of Isaac in whose family God had promised the covenant should continue When you say that Ishmael was really taken into the covenant meaning of Grace mentioned in a few words before you oppose both the Apostle Rom. 9.7 8. Gal. 4.28 29. as I have shewed before and Gods own speech Gen. 17.19 20. To which I may adde that Isaac and Jacob only are said to be coheirs with Abraham of the same promise Heb. 11.9 And when you say that he and Esau were discovenanted by apostasie you plainly deliver apostasie from the covenant of Grace which I will not call in you Arminianisme but in others it would and that justly be so censured But you will say you mean that Ishmael and Esau were Abrahams seed by profession and outward cleaving to the covenant as you speak pag. 14. But this is not to be taken into the covenant of Grace really as you speak for taking really into the covenant of Grace is Gods act either of election or promise or some act executing either of these but profession and outward cleaving to the covenant is mans act and therefore how to salve your speech I know not As for the objection I see not that you have answered it but that still it stands good that persons were to be circumcised who were not in the covenant of Grace that Ishmael was appointed to be circumcised though it were declared Gods covenant did not belong to him and therefore the reason of circumcising persons was not the covenant of Grace but only the will and command of God to have it so Your fifth Conclusion followes FIfthly and lastly the priviledges of Believers under this last and best administration of the covenant of Grace are many wayes inlarged made more honourable and comfortable then ever they were in the time of the Jews administration This Conclusion with its Explication and
they are grown men nor any example where ever that was done will any man therefore say that Christian women are not to be partakers of the Lords Supper I think none will be so absurd as to affirm it If it be said though these things be not expresly and in terminis in the new Testament yet they are there virtually and by undeniable consequence I confesse it is true You do in this perioch give two instances of practice warranted by command or example gathered by consequence in the new Testament in the positive worship of the Sacraments to wit womens receiving the Lords Supper and the baptizing of children of Believers when grown persons which you grant are virtually and by undeniable consequence in the new Testament though not expresly and in terminis in terms Now this thing you need not have proved I readily grant it that what ever in positive worship is commanded in the new Testament though it be not in formall terms commanded yet if it may be gathered by virtuall consequence ought to be done Neverthelesse I observe First that you do well expresse the institution of Christ Matth. 28.19 when you say expresse command there is that they should teach the Heathen and the Jews and make them Disciples and then baptize them of which I may make further use afterwards Secondly that when you say there is no expresse command no example in all the new Testament where women received the Sacrament of the Lords Supper you imply there is for males Now herein you Mr. Vines and Mr. Blake and generally others follow Zwinglius whose conceit this was if he were not the first inventor And Mr. Blake expresseth himself thus pag. 22. No particular president more then for this of Infant-baptisme But I pray you tell me is not that 1 Cor. 11.28 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Let a man examine himself and so let him eat of that bread and drink of that cup an expresse command in formall terms And doth not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 comprehend both Sexes When the Apostle sayes vers 23. I delivered unto you that which I received from the Lord was not that a command and that to the whole Church women as well as men when he saith 1 Cor. 10.17 We being many are one bread and one body for we are all partakers of that one bread and are not women as well of the body as men And if so here is an expresse example in formall terms for womens receiving the Lords Supper The like may be said of 1 Cor. 12.13 Acts 20.7 unlesse you will say that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 himself all Disciples comprehend not women because they are of the Masculine Gender which from you that have learned that Logica non curat sexum Logick regards not sex and that hundreds of places there be where the Masculine Gender is put the matter so requiring it for both Sexes I do not suspect And for your other instance as I do not remember any brings it but your self so it is as little to the purpose as the other For that which you say that there is no expresse command that the children of Believers should be baptized when they are grown men It is true except they professe the faith but there is an expresse command as your self grant to baptize Disciples and so to baptize the childe of a Believer that professeth the faith not otherwise so that these your instances are brought to prove that which is not denied and yet the instances are impertinent to prove it You say further So have we virtually and by undenyable consequence sufficient evidence for the baptizing of children both commands and examples This assertion is full if you mean by children Infant-children of Believers prove this and you need prove no more But your fetching such a compasse about makes me imagine your attempt will prove but a Parturiunt montes the mountains bring forth especially when your proof is but from Analogy concerning which the rule holds as Mr. Bowles in his Sermon on Joh. 2.17 Allegorica Theologia unlesse the Lord himself make the application non est argumentativa Allegoricall Divinity is not argumentative but it is fit you should be heard You say For first you have Gods command to Abraham as he was the father of all covenanters that he should seal his children with the seal of the covenant I grant we have Gods command to Abraham who is indeed called the Father of the faithfull no where that I know the father of all covenanters to circumcise his males of eight dayes old and I deny not but that this was a seal that is a confirming signe of the covenant God made with Abraham whence Gods covenant was said to be in their flesh Gen. 17.13 and 't is called the covenant of circumcision Act. 7.8 But you have need of the Philosophers stone to turn this into a command to baptize Infants of Believers which you thus attempt You tell us Now this truth all our Divines defend against the Papists that all Gods commands and institutions about the Sacraments of the Jews binde us as much as they did them in all things which belong to the substance of the Covenant and were not accidentall unto them This is your foundation for your undeniable consequence it had need then be very undeniable and so you conceive it because it is a truâ—h all our Divines defend against the Papists But this is no undeniable Axiome that what all the Protestant Divines defend against the Papists must be truth undeniable I do not think all the Divines in the Assembly will subscribe to it I for my part do disclaim it I give that honour only to the Holy Scripture and have learned from Art 21. of the Church of England that Generall Councels have erred and may erre and consequently all the Divines in the world And one Paphnutius is to be heard against a whole Oecumenicall Councel sometimes And for this which you call a truth all our Divines defend against the Papists I marvell how you can averre it unlesse you had read them all which I think neither you nor any one else hath and for this Maxime I question whether any one leading Author have delivered that which you charge all our Divines with because you direct not where they deliver it it is in vain for me to make search it were to seek a needle in a bottle of hay but I will examine whether it be truth or no. You suppose that there are commâ—nds of God about the Sacraments of the Jews which is granted But then let me tell you I do not assent to this that Circumcision and the Passeover are all the ordinary Sacraments of the Jews I do approve of the words of R. C. that is as I learn from Mr. Selden de anno civili veter Judae c. 2. Mr. Ralph Cudworth of Cambridge whom he there commends in that book of his which is of the true notion of the Lords Supper chap.
est tale Scriptuâ— esse â—jus Authoris 〈◊〉 nomen prefâ—rt Rivet tractâ—t de Patrum Authâ—rit cap 14. Consuetudo tamen Man is Ecâ—lesia in baptizandis parvulis nequaquam sperâ—enda est neque ullo modo superflua deputanda nec omnino credenda nisi Apostolica esset traditio Augustin lib. 10. cap. 23. de Genesi § 6. Of the Testimonies of Gregory Nazianzen and the Greeke Church Lib. 2. heresi 47 vel 67. §. 7. Of the testimony of Cyprian §. 8. Of the testimony of Augustine August tâ—m 1. Confess lib. 1. c. 11 Sigâ—abar signo Cruâ—is ejus conâ—iâ—bâ—r ejus saâ—e jam inde ab uteâ—o matris mâ—ae quae multum speravit in te And then followes how being young and falling sick he desired and his mother thought to have him baptized but upon his recovery it was differred Rivet tract de Patrum authoritate c. 9. Augustinus aeternis flammis adjudicat Infantes fine baptismo morientes· §. 9. Of the testimonies of Hierom and Ambrose §. 10. Oâ— the valiâ—ity of proof by these testimonies and of the evidences that Infant-baptism is an innovation Chamier panstr Cathol to 4. l. 5. c. 15. §. 19. Denique hunc morem quis non videt ejus temporis â—sse cum vix milâ—esimus quisque baptâ—zabatur non adultus in Catechumenis diligenter exercitus H. Hamond A practicall Catech l. 1. §. 3. pag. 23. And those other fundamentals of faith which all men were instructed in anciently before they were permitted to be baptized §. 1. Of the fitnes of placing the Narration of miscarriages of opposers of Paedobaptisâ—e §. 2. Of the opposers of Infant-baptisme afore Baltazar § 3. Of Baltazar Pacimontanâ—◠§. 4. Of rebaptizing § 5. Of the Anabaptists in Germanie and the Antiprelatists in England §. 6. Of Anabaptists opposing Magistracy §. 7. Of the hindering of refoâ—mation by Anabaptisme §. 8. The Antipaedobaptists principle overthrows not the Lords day the Paedobaptists principle reduceth Judaisme and Popish Ceremonies and addes to the Gospell Vid. Rainold Confer with Hart c. 8. §. 4. §. 9. Of the evill of separating from the Ministry and Communion of Christians by reason of this opinion §. 10. Of the condition into which the opinion of Anti-paedobaptisme puts the infants of believers of originall sin salvation out of the Church and Covenant of grace §. 1. Of the connexion between the covenant and the seale §. 2. Of the first conclusion concerning the identity of the Covenant of grace fâ—r substâ—nce to Jews and Gâ—ntiles §. 3. Of the meaning of the second Conclusion The answer of the Assembly of Divines to the reasons of the 7 dissenting brâ—thren p. 48 praecog 1. The whole Churâ—h of Christ is but one made up of the collection and aggregation of all who are called out of the world by the preaching of the Word to professe the faith of Christ §. 4. That the Covenant of grace is not made to believers and their seed Twisse vind Grat. cont Armin. lib. 1. pa. 1. digr 7. Hujus autem promissionis Gen. 17.7 8. fides confestim apparet in discrimen adâ—uci ex rejectione Judaeorum exclusione eorundem ex foedâ—re Dei cum fint ex Abrahamo sâ—cundum carnem prosminati sic inquit apparet primas rerum facies intuentibus Walae cont Corvin cap. 15. pag. 377. Apostolus ostendit ideo verbum foederis divinarum promissionum Israelitis factarum non excidere aut irritum fieri licet magna Judaeorum pars esset incredula quia promissiones illae foedâ—ris factae sunt a Deo non iis proprie qui ex semine Abrahami secundum carnem erant orituri sed iis qui secundum electionâ—m gratuitam Abrahami familiae ex vi diâ—ina promissionis erant inserendi The new Annotations on the Bible Annot. on Rom. 9.8 The children of the flesh c Not all they who are carnally born of Abraham by the course of nature are the children of God to whom the promise of grace was made but the childâ—en of promise that is those who were born by vertue of the promise those who by Gods speciall grace were adopted as Isaac by a speciall and singular promise was begot by Abraham they only are accounted for thaâ— seed mentioned in the Covenant I will be thy God and the God of thy seed Estius annot ad Gen. 17.7 Colligit hinc Calvinus â—o ipso quo quis est semen Abrahae ad cum pertinere prâ—missionem Abrahae factam sed responsio manifesta prâ—missionem illam de benedictione spirituali intellectam non ad carnale semen Abrahaemi pertinere sed ad spirituale quemadmodum eam ipse Apostolus interpretatâ—â— est Rom. 4 9. Si enim carnale semen intelligas jam ad neminem ex gentibus illa promissio pertinebit sed ad solos ex Abraham Isaac secundum carnem genitos Paraeus Comment in Mat. 3.9 Docet quoque promissiones Dei non alligatas esse carnali origini sed pertinere tantum ad posteros fideles spirituales Non enim sunt filii Abrahae qui secundum carnem sunt ex Abraham sed qui secundum spiritum Ainsworth ann on Gâ—n 12.7 Thy seed That is to all the children of promise the elect who only are couâ—ted Abrahams seed Rom. 9.7 8. and in Christ are heirs by promise as well the Gentiles as the Jews Gal. 3.26.28.29 Ames Coron art 5. cap. 2. Seminis etiam inculcatio solos electos efficaciter vocatos notari docet Apostolo sic hunc titulum interprâ—tante Rom. 9.8 Gal. 3.16 4.28 §. 5. It is not in Gods church like other kingdomes Cotton Way of the Churches of Christ in N.E. c. 4. §. 6. Infants cannot claim right unto baptisme but in the right of one of their parents or both Where neither of the parents can claim right to the â—ords supper there thâ—ir Infants cannâ—t claim right to Baptisme Aâ— therefore we do not receive an heâ—â—hen to the fellowship of the supper nor their seed to Baptism so neither dare we receive an excommunicate person who is to us an heathen to the Lords supper or his children to Baptisme But after â— 7 §. 2. Or where either of the parents have made such profession Or it may be consiâ—ered alâ—o whether the children may not be baptized where either the grand-father or grand-mother have made suâ—h profâ—ssion and are still living to undertake for the Christian education of the child For it may be coâ—ceived where there is a stipulation of the Covenant on Gods part anâ— a restipulation on maâ—s part there may be an obligation of the Covenant on both parts Gen. 17.7 Or if these saile what hindereth but that if the parâ—nts will deâ—â—gne their infant to be educated in the house of any goâ—ly member of the Church the child may be lawfully baptized in the right of its household governour according to the proportion of the Law Gen 17.12 13. §. 6. Of the Texts which are Act.