to himselfe although he had no right nor reason so to doe So that if they be left to them selves they would prophane them 2 There will be a confusion on the holy things of God and therefore it is that God hath given them lawes and hath committed these to a community of men and hath left it to them according to the rule of rationall charity to judge whom they will admit and to those they do admit to become subject to those Lawes and Rules and live accordingly so as it is committed to them for that purpose to whom and when they please Thus it was in the time of the Law and thus it is in the times of the Gospel and so it shall be to the comming of Christ 1. Thus it was in the time of the Law they must be in covenant the people of the Jewes were taken in from the world and hee gave them lawes he hath not dealt so with any Nation Psalm 147.20 The treasury of his Lawes were committed to them And Romanes 3.1 all the spirituall priviledges were committed to the Jewes What is the priviledge of the Jewes Much every way c. And Jer. 13.11 For as the girdle cleaves to the loynes of a man so have I â—ied to me the whole House of Israel c. But they would not hear that they might be people to God and then have that honour This is the reason in Nehem. 9.38 he speak thus Now because of all this we make a sure covenant and write it and our Princes and our Levitse and our Priests seale unto it Hence it is that all the choyce priviledges are the Legacies of the Jewes And Exodus 12.43 No stranger shall cat thereof And therefore they must be in the compasse of a visible Church Circumcision is the proper name and livery of Gods people Ephes 2.11 You were Gentiles and called uncircumcision of them that were called Circumcision c. and that were the Jewes and they were the people of God to whom it was left to judge of them that were fit to be made parâ—akers of these priviledges 2 It is thus also in the time of the Gospel they must be ingaged in the covenant and the Seales and Officers and Ordinances of the Church are their propriety As for the Officers Christ when he asconded he gave gifts unto men and ordained some to be Apostles and some Prophers c. Hee spake of some part for the whole therefore in an ordinary way it must be a visible Church the invisible do not meet to chuse but the officers are by the choyce of such a people in such a particular Church and God does set them in a particular Church and the Officers are to dispense the things of God to that Church and therefore a Minister without a people is as a husband without a wife And therefore all the sâ—alâ—s must be dispensed by the Officers of the Church and by none else as appointed by God so to do And therefore the treasury of the Church must be dispensed by faithfull men chosen by the Church Acts 6.3 Chuse you men of honest report and full of the holy Ghost c. If they must be so that must order the treasure of the Church much more the seales which are the speciall treasures of the Church they must be men that have gifts chosen the Sacraments are the seales of the Covenant one with another we are all one bread 1 Corinth 10.17 For we that are many are but one bread And if there be no Officers but in the Church and they that be Officers are to administer onely to the Church they must needs be a company gathered in a Church How a man must be fitted to come into a Church belongs not to me now 3 This must continue till the comming of Christ Rom. 11.17 And though some of the branches be broken off and thou being a wild Olive tree wert grafted in for them and made partaker of the root and fatnesse of the Olive tree Where hâ— speakes of unchurching of the Jews and Churching of the Gentiles If the branches be cut off and thou art grafted in and made partakers of the fatnesse of this Olive tree So as the Gentiles are made partakers of the fatnesse of the Olive the Olive tree is the Church and the fatnesse of the Olive tree is the priviledges that appertain thereunto so as alwayes they must be ingrafted into the Church before they can have the priviledges belonging thereunto and this shall be to the end of the world When the Jews are converted they shal come into a Church of God this is the first they shall enter into a Church and then the fatnesse followes to the branches in the Olive Secondly they covenant for their children as well as for themselves Deut. 29.10 You stand this day every one of you before the Lord your God your Children your wives c. which shewes they may receive the covenant When he speaks of the covenant in the breadth of it then he takes in their little ones and therefore parents covenant as well for their litle ones they undertake for all that shall be born of them they are in their parents loynes all of them are under their power and they have authority to impose the law of God upon them So in Genes 17. 10 11. Let every man child be circumcised and this shall be a token between me and you of my covenant every male shall be circumcised This is the cause why Joshua when he was to depart the world said to the people Chuse you whom you will serve but I and my house will serve the Lord. Every believer hath power to bring his children into this covenant it was a speciall prerogative to Abraham Mr Spilsbery saith If this be to every believing Parent as to Abraham then every beleever must be the father of the faithfull as Abraham was But I deny the consequence for it will not follow if we looke at Abraham as a pattern of believers hence the priviledges and covenant are entailed upon Abraham to all the nations of the world visibly to be dispensed to all the nations of the world and they shall know and imitate him and God will save them He is the Father of the faithfull by imitation the covenant is made after Gen. 12. he is called and the root is stated upon him Although there was a covenant with Noah and Shem yet it was stated upon Abraham and not upon them so as the consequence fails But if we look to his personall faith he hath power to his children onely But No Spilsbery in the 14th page 13th 14th lines if it be meant to all his children he conceives he had many children by Keturah Genes 25. c. which he conceives was not within the covenant for they were not partakers of the seales This will follow for Keturah was not worse then Hagar for she was a Concubine as well as Keturah yet Abraham did circumcise
to seal and confirme the Covenant to them that believe but this does not hinder but an unworthy receiver may crosse the end and make it poâ—son to himself He may eat and drinke his own damnation but this does not alter the course of the seal in it self considered if we look at it in the end God and the Church aym at in it for that is to seale to the worthy receiver but by reason of their own sin they alter it and so set a seale to a blank thus it carryes a double sence with it 1. To say it is the end in God or the Church or the work of the sacrament in its own nature to seal up the covenant to unbelievers is a grosse errour the Church of Christ never thinks so but as God and the Church and the sacrament it self ayms it doth not seal to an unbeliever but if this be their meaning to administer the seale to such as are unworthy receivers and if we abuse the sacrament by putting the seal to a blank this God warrants and this the Church does if that be the meaning it is ordinary to themselves to doe it the Anabaptiste doe so themselves and the Church doe warrantably in so doing Carry this with you the Sacrament look what it doth of it self it alwayes seals up the covenant of grace to believers hypocrites receive it to their peril but that the sacrament intends is the same for instance Take a Prentice that is bound for so many years it may be he in his Masters absence gets his Indenture and brings it forth and goes and sets up his trade within two years at last it comes to light and although he have the seal of the Corporation that will doe him no good because he dealt not faithfully nor sincerely in the getting of his Indenture he deprived himself of the benefit so it is here the scope of the Sacrament in the end of it is to seal up the covenant the Church cannot discerne a man may come in a counterfeit manner they put to the seale and give the sacrament to him as to a believer yet he deprives himself of the nature of it and the seal not altered they never set the seal to ablank Now having intrenched our selves by making the doctrine plain we now prepare to meet the Adversary We will now therefore shew Mr. Spilsberyes reasons they be nine in number and because we will not mistake we will read them as they are in the book First There is neither command nor example in the New Testament for the baptising of Infants the summe of his argument is this if there be no command nor example in the New Testament then it is unlawfull Both the parts are false for if there be warrant in the Old Testamâ—nt there is ground enough to setle any mans conscience to doe it for it is too narrow to tie men onely to the New Testament neither have we ground so to doe if we have a warrant in the Old Testament we may be incouraged to doe any thing for the whole rule of God is to be attended and the Old and New are both equall and therefore both together and either of them alone is enough to bear us up in doing any thing we have to performe to God there are many things in the Old Testament that are not so in the New God having regard to the people and time of the Jews that they lived in for they were in their nonage and ready to be taken aside God deals with them as with children new come to schoole he would have them spell out his worship he doth point them with the fescue he builds up the partition wall they were in their weaknes and for this God does it that they might not be led aside therefore in the generall it is false Exod. 12.3 4 When they were to passe out of Egypt see how exact God was to shew them his mind Let every man take unto him a Lamb according to the house of his fathers if the houshâ—ld be to little for the Lamb he shall take his next neighbour c. See how God leads them for the lamb and the number and the persons that must cate which was next his neighbour this God did because the people were raw thus God spels out every tyllable to them and tels them point by point but in the New Testament when he speaks of the Supper of the Lord when the people were able to understand how to come he is not so exact neither is there any example neither is there precept or example in the New Testament that ever a woman should receive the Supper of the Lord yet I hope none will be so void of sence as to say therefore it is unlawfull for women to receive the Supper of the Lord it would be weaknesse of brain and to be forsaken of common sence to say so so although God did so in the time of the Law as to speak to the number of the persons and who they should be yet it is not so in the times of the Gospel but the way is plain in the New Testament and therefore it is miserable weaknesse and so in Leviticus 18. There the Lord speaks of unlawfull marriages for number and nature of them in a large manner but it is not mentioned in the New Testament but when men come to dispute of them they goe to the old Testament Is any such a wiseaker as to say those degrees of marriages are not forbidden now in the new Testament when they be condemned in the old although the new Testament sayes nothing of them when as it is said the land spued out those nations that were before them because of that and God tels them so that they might not be taken aside therewith and God doth not speak of them at all in the new Testament and therefore to say it is unlawfull because it is not commanded or have some example for it in the new Testament it is notoriously false for it is though if we have a warrant out of the old 2 The second part also is false But faith he there is no command nor example in the new Testament For the understanding of it take a case and we will prove that it is false Now to open the thing we must understand in the word we shall find a thing may be said to be found two wayes Either in the letter or included in the sense it is included when what ever by the strength of the Rule or rationall inference can be brought out of the Scripture by necessary circumstance that is Scripture Gen. 2 24. And they shall be one flâ—sh and when Christ speakes of it he saith They two shall be one flesh But it is not so in Genesis Matth. 19 5. And they two shall be one flesh And so Mal. 2 15. And did he not make one And why did he make but one seeing he had abundance of the Spirit He could have made
to baptise although he doe it in a right manner then this may bee something to prove the Church of Rome is not a true Church and although there be baptisme in Rome yet that doth not prove Rome a true Church I doe say that opinion is true that so many hold 5. I say the proposition is false if baptism be administred in a right manner by a faithfull Minister yet that makes not a true Church if an Elder in new England that is rightly called to Office should go among the Indians and baptise In the name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost if the subject should not be baptised there were a sin although the ordinance were rightly administred but this would not follow that the Indians were a true Church although the minister were rightly called yet that does not make them a true Congregation for a true Church is when many believers doe enter into a Covenant to walk together in the fellowship of the Gospel that is a true Church 6. Argument It builds faith upon humane testimony in matters fundamentall so that they have nothing but the bare word of a man for it the frame of the argument is this That practice that builds faith in matters fundamentall upon humane testimony is unlawfull but the baptising of Infants does so and therefore it is unlawfull for he must bring in humane testimony and so the word of men must be in the place of the word of God Because they seem to place much here and the argument is somewhat unwonted therefore give me leave to inlarge Here I will doe two things 1. I will shew you the vanity of the argument 2. I will rip into the bowels of the argument that you may see the feeblenesse of such and how they will melt as dew before the Sun 1. The vanity of the reason and the weaknesse of it appears thus That practice that builds faith upon humane testimony in matters fundamentall no other wayes then God doth allow and the word warrants is not unlawfull but the baptizing of Infants does not build them no otherwise tâ—â—â— Gods word dos allow in the like case as in circumcision for that was a scale of the same covenant to them that this is to us it is clear that was a scale of the righâ—eousnesse of faith to them and so is this to us and is as fundamentall as baptisme to us a fundamentall of faith those that were circumcised in the law in their infancy as Infants must prove it by their parents it is plain and therefore if any man will charge God with want of wisdome or want of care how shall a childe satisle another but by bare testimony humane every man would condemn this as hellish blasphemy this is enough to dash the argument now we will search into the secrets of the argument and we will doe two things 1. By way of explicition of some passages in the reason 2. We will make application in the first you here of matters fundamentall in that we must know three things First Matters fundamentall touching faith that there is one God in three persons Eather Son and Holy Ghost and Christ the son of the Virgine Mary is the Saviour of the world and that God by his spirit does bring his children to know himself and bring them to his Son and that his Saints are justified by Faith these are fundamentall Secondly there are matters flow from these if God by his spirit make a sinner believe then there is not free-will and that we are justified by the active and passive obed once of Christ and if we have title to the covenant then we have title to the seals 3. Some matters annexed are circumstantiall as receiving the seals in this manner there is a matter of faith and matter of fact faith in matters to be believed or works of mercy matters to be believed or or done are contained to the Scriptures but for matter of fact that is to such a man by name is not contained in the Scriptures Faith comes by hearing and is contained in the scriptures but that such a a man did heare at Hurford the scriptures doe give no testimony that this man by name at this time and place is not contained in the scriptures 3. That a mans faith may be built upon the word and it rest upon the word or that is contained in the word the conclusion must be in the word but the other part in a mans selfe to build our faith on the word is enough if one proposition be in the word and the other hee may finde by experience carry these along with you and you will see the weâ—knes of the Argument we will shew you the Application in three things 1. Children when they doe survive may receive the benefit of baptisme by faith built upon the word of God and not upon humane reason they may receive the benefit of their faith built upon the word thus instanced whosoever doe or have received baptisme by the appointment of God to them God on his part hath sealed up the covenant to them but children have so received and therefore they have the covenant sealed on Gods part to them and therefore they may have the comfort of it that they have received it on Gods part every man that by Gods order hath the seale God seales to him then children by the order of the Gospel have received the seale of the Covenant so both are true but how doth it appear that a childe hath received it that is not to be required in the scriptures but in practice not in the Gospel nor is required in the cause for it is enough that the proposition or conclusion be in the scriptures that this is true I will give you severall instances Thus it is a truth That all children must honour their father and mother and therefore every childe must honour his Parents but how shall the childe know that this man is his Father or this woman his Mother the common testimony is enough to the childe for to give them obedience of faith although it be not set down in the scriptures that this or that man or woman is his parent and so in Leviticus The Unkle must not marry his Neece for that was a sin for all such marriages is unlawfull but how shall this woman know this was her Unkle The constant report of men is enough in this cause And remember you keep holy the Sabbath day this was the seventh day from the Creation to the Jews and the eighth day to us but how should they know which was the seventh day Abraham living so long after the beginning of the world and it was not written in the word which was the seventh day so that it must be by witnesse and so this is enough for the conclusion is of faith So for the benefit of baptizing of Infants the testimony of them that lived when I was baptized is enough to settle me 2. Men of years
is a threefold holinesse 1. Imputative in Christ to his servants 2. Inherent in his servants 3. There is a relative holinesse which is that I have disputed off therefore his exposition is short and his reason is short and worse the 22. page and the 4. line What ever does truly inright a man to God inrights him to holinesse all must be saved or fall away I wonder such things should fall from a mans pen but that God hath some speciall hand in it For had not Israel right to the Ordinances and had not Judas right to the Passeover and Symon Magus to Baptism and had not all the Nation of the Jews the Apostle tels us they were all Baptised in the Cloud and in the Sea did they not partake of such priviledgesfor the kinde as the Church of Corinth had not better the Apostle bids them take heed for the Israelites had the same priviledges for kinde as they had and were made partakers of them and yet they had no right to heaven but many of them were shut out I say therefore have not all the Jews right to the priviledges The seven Churches of Asia they were baptized and as they had it in all Churches so they had right to Baptisme and all the holy things that were in any Church and the Church was bound to give them to them Now whether all these had not right common sense will tell us and yet among these there might be many that had not true saving grace We may ask a question concerning that in Matth. 3.6 when Jerusalem and all Judea sent to John to be baptized there came the Scribes and Pharisecs and Publicans and Souldiers and Luke 3. it is said they were baptized confâ—ssing their sinnes Whether Mr Spilsbery think all these had right to glory if he be put to it I am perswaded his heart would faile him to say they had and yet they were baptized of him that was the fore-runner of Christ and the Disciple of Christ and was sent of Christ In a word there is a federall holinesse men may have that shall never have glory But those that have an inward right those have right to glory Nay a man cannot have an inward right but he hath right to glory And here you may learn to see those reasons carry not common sense with them Carry this along with you I will learn you to make use of this that federall holinesse is not saving grace offensive and defensive 1 If this be saving grace a man may fall away from this but saving and covenanting grace cannot be lost He that beleeves shall be saved It doth not suppose that he that hath this federall grace hath right alway to the blood of Christ infallibly Hence it followes a man is not bound to beleeve that every man that hath it shall be saved This will answer a fourfold cavill of Mr Spilsbery in page 27. line 17. Hence followes a foure-fold absurdity to say Infants have right to Baptisme 1 If Infants have an interest to grace then men may fall from grace 2 Then the covenant of grace may be to vile persons and a man may have the outward covenant and not be ingrafred into Christ 3 This will bring in universall redemption no federall grace does make a man redeemed it dashes this 4 It makes us believe an untruth for Ishmael he did perish but he may have federall grace and this is the holinesse meant here Now to the second thing what is the explication of the words there are three things to be considered in the place 1 Of whom the Apostle speaks 2 Of what he speaks 3 What is the fittest sense of the Argument And when we have this we shall see the plain meaning 1. Of whom the Apostle speakes If you look into the 12th verse he saith To the rest speak I and not the Lord c. What are these Rest you will find in the tenth verse you may observe two things 1. To them that are married Let not the wife be put away except it be for adultery And those the Lord speakes to Matth. 19. as if the Apostle had said that case hath already been opened and spoken unto by the Lord Christ in that place If a man take a distast against his wife he may not give her a bill of divorce nor put her away for that although formerly they might doe it but it is unlawfull now Christ had spoken plainly to that therefore I will not speak to it But to the rest that is those that were married Infidels he takes that for granted that they were not converted before they were married but they were both Infidels and the one is converted and the other left to these I speak in the 13 14 15. verses concerning these Christ hath not spoken he hath not expressed himself in this case but I speake to that I have the Spirit of God these are the parties both unbelievers and one of them is converted 2. Of what hee speakes the state of the question the one is converted the other is not the unbelieving party hinders the work of the believing party the question is whether they should continue that commerce between them there being so much opposition whether they may doe it without prejudice to the conscience of the believing party in that ordinance of God or may they have the pure use of marriage His answer is It is a matter of duty if she will yet remain it is a duty enjoyned of God Mark the Apostles question not whether they may marry an unbeliever that is not here spoken of but it is taken for granted they were both unbelievers and now one is converted whether he or she may continue the answer is Yes he may must Thus you see of what he speaks not of making marriages but of coÌ„tinuing of theÌ„ This he proves he reasons froÌ„ the effect If the unbelieving party be sanctified by the believing party in that which belongs to the use of Marriage then they may coÌ„tinue but so they are and that is no prejudice to that ordinance of marriage If a believer may have a sanctified use of an unbeliever then they may abide but so they may the unbelever is sanctified to that use by the believer the meaning is that the unbeliefe of the party cannot so out-bid the faith of the believer as to pollute the conscience or faith of the party but that faith the believer hath through Christ he shall have a sanctified use of to his own conscience and the spirituall use of marriage for that was to beget a holy seed to God and it is made holy in the believer not in himselfe But the unbelieving husband he hath not a sanctified use of marriage neither in his own conscience nor in his faith but in the believing wife in vertue of that power closing with Christ they have a sanctified use of marriage and in marriage and may attain the right end of marriage The
they so their children the same sinne in their nature but they had an interest in the meanes to help them and God had ingaged himselfe to them in Church-promises I will cause them to walk in my wayes that is the Church should not grow wild because they had meanes and God had ingaged himselfe to them Hence they were free Burgesses and hence comes it that the posterity of the Jewes are called the Naturall Branches so as the child of a Jew though sinfull and have no beliefe by birth yet he was within the compasse of the Church and so God was ingaged to doe him good as he sees fit by nature and goneration because he came of Abraham he falls under God and God takes him in his naturall condition and so he comes under the means to be brought home to God Thus we see the Gentiles are wild because they were not under Gods tilling nor was he ingaged to doe them good and so he ran wild Now to the true Olive in way of opposition they were the Jewes not by way of sinne but because they were under the hand of God and so they had an interest in the meanes of grace Now the Jewes though they were wicked yet they were not wild but they were under Gods hand ordering them and hence they were preserved under his hand This is the meaning of the Prophets you may referre them to this Isai 5.1 2. The Lord had a Vineyard and he planted it and fenced it and made a wine-presse in it And in the seventh verse And what could I have done more for my Vineyard Here you may see what care and skill God did use towards them 1. He secures his Vineyard and therefore he hedges it and makes a wall about it and uses all the wayes of preservation he can 2. By way of prevention and therefore he removes those things that might anoy it by gathering out the stones and bryers out of it 3. He laies in provision he plants it with choice plants and built a Wine-presse in it and what could he have done more in outward means Now he did not thus to the Gentiles they grew wilde he did not take that pains with them so Jeremiah 2.21 Yea I planted thee a noble Vine whose plants were all naturall c. That is as a Vine planted on purpose by the gardiner it was not a wilde one in regard of God and his promises as he had made them a Church so all should before their good Rom. 11.24 They were ingrafted into the true Olive and originally planted by the dresser that as the wilde Olive grows in the wildernesse so the good Olives are planted by the Vine-dresser therefore you may see what he speaks further of the Vine Esay 5 7. Surely the Vineyard of the Lord of hosts is the men of Israel and the men of Iudah are his pleasant plants or as the word signifies the people of Gods imbracements that is to apply a mans self pleasingly to another with loving imbracements that is the word the Lord out of his good pleasure and tender pitty did take the people of the Jews into his imbracements he took them into the Arms of his imbracements of the covenants and into the arms of his compassion so he doth to every Congregation to this day in this regard they are planted into the true Olive Deut 7.7 The Lord did not choose you because you were more in number but because he loved you and Ezekiel 24.23 24.29 I will raise up for them a plant of renown c. See what affection he carried to them then what they are called thus shall they know that I am with them he will make them glorious the sum is when God is pleased out of his love to take a people to himself and ingage himself to them for their good that people is a true Olive and so of a person or children of such parents under them are said to be naturall branches so we may see their excellency above others 4. How holinesse is derived from the root to the branches the words themselves carry it privily if the one then other for the root hath a cause and means to carry holinesse to the branches now the grace of sanctification is not conveyed what sap is in the root the same is in the branches the things whence the comparison is taken is from the first fruits in the time of the Law Levit 23.17 It was unlawfull for them to take the fruits of the ground untill they had first brought the two loaves to offer them a Wave-Offering unto the Lord but when they had done that then the whole lump was sanctified he had a sanctified use of it and it did signifie peace and purity of Conscience that was the means by Gods Institution the root in nature is the cause of the sap that is conveyed to the branches the scope is one so that in that is signified Abraham was the root and first fruits if he were good and walked in fear and love and so became holy to the Lord so were his posterity by a covenant made with Abraham here let me vary with you Abraham is taken into covenant with God and so to be consecrated to God and therefore federally holy his children are in covenant as well as he so they in the same set apart they partake of the same thus the holinesse does not issue from hence as they are born the sons of Adam nor that they were born Jews no further then a bate Jew or the Propagation of a Jew if God had not taken them into covenant and engaged himself unto them no more then the Gentiles he engaged himself to them and they to him or else they had not been holy Hence it is because they renounce the promises of God they lost their federall holines Now mark hence is the ground of this holines it is federall God took him into covenant and his children and that of free-favour therefore he may choose and leave Hence they become holy the lump of them because of their father being in the covenant and he chose him because he loved him their parents did covenant Abraham entred into covenant and that he did because he chose them and he chose them because he loved them and he loved them because he would love them and therefore he did chose them and because he chose them therefore he did enter into covenant with them their parents were holy because he chose them and entred into a covenant with them and with their children by their fathers covenants now you see how it is communicated being boâ—â— of parents that are in covenant with God and God with them this is the pedigree of the text now you may see what is said to the contrary by Mr. Spilâ—bery First He sayes by first fruits and lumps the elect are to be considered in believing it set forth such as are in Christ according to which you may see 17. page 9 lines from
in the wayes of God with a consciencious performance of it because they are in the compasse of the covenant they are so farre able to put forth this The Soribes and Pharisees they made profession of their faith and they did expresse a readinesse and willingnesse so to doâ— and so they came to John to bee baptized as if they should have said Command and we will doe it and follow it conscientiously And Acts 8.13 Then Simon himselfe believed also and was baptized c. There was a large discovery to say I believe An Acts 2.31 Repent and be baptized c. This is the outward profession of men of yeares that is required of them but it is not required of Infants for those are grounds of rationall charity those are not among infants for that were to require impossibilities and contradictions the first part is evident but they are as sure grounds to children as to parents we will make it good in 3 things all follow from the former proposition 1 Because of the covenant on their parts believing parents enter first into the covenant personally for themselves and their children Deut. 29.11 You your wives and your little ones 2 In regard of Gods acceptance be accepts of both and doth avouch them both to be his and he adopts them both in the same bond at the same time they are accepted of God There is a twofold adoption the one is internall and spirituall and God dispenses this in a various manner in his own wil as to accept the father somtime and the sonne sometime and sometime the one and sometime the other as he pleases so wicked Ahaz had good Hâ—zâ—kiah and good Josiah had a wicked sonne so it was in the Kings of Israel and so we see the accepting of God wise Solomon had foolish Rehoboaâ— these are internall but there is an externall adoption and that to Fathers and Children so we see holinesse is not by generation but by covenant with the Father and therefore to say that holinesse is by generation it is a dreame Amos 3.2 You onely have I known of all the Nations of the earth c. And Deut. 4.23 Take heed to your selves lest you â—â—â—get the covenant of the Lord your God which he made with you c. And Rom. 9.4 who are Israelites to whom pertaine the adoption and the glory and the covenant c. they were all adopted externally and also in covenant but in the internall there is variety of dispensation of that as God pleases 3 There is like federall holinesse belongs to the father and the son 1 Corinth 7. All these we have made good heretofore and cleared the coast by making them good against all opposition Is the father in covenant so is the sonne Is the father holy so is the sonne it is as sure to the one as to the other that is the reason God speaking in those places of the Gentiles as to the Jews he speakes indifferently of both Matth. 21.43 The Gospel shall be taken from you and shall be given to a Nation that will bring forth the fruits thereof And Acts 13.46 You put away the word of God and therefore we turn to the Gentiles So as they have the same mark and observe when they were separate from the Jewâ—s then they are said to be Aliens from the Common-wealth of Israel Ephes 2.12 So as the Gentiles were not free Burgesses But now the case is altered Ephes 2.19 You are no more strangers and forraignors but Citizens with the Saints c. Now the Gospel is come to the Gentiles now they are no more forraigners but free Denizens There be three phrases there Ephes 3.6 he speaks of the Gentiles that they were fellow-heires of the same body and of the same promises they were heires of the same Corporation and they had the benefit of the promises Rom. 11.17 They were partakers of the Root and fatnesse of the Olive c. When the Jewes were broken of the Gentiles were grafted in and made partakers of the same fatnesse it was sent abroad to them as well as to the Jewes Hence I will reason severally before I passe 1. That they that have as sure ground by rationall charity ought to have them but they are as sure to children as to parents therefore they should have them and we in rationall charity should dispence them to both 2 I reason thus Those that are ingraâ—ted into the same covenant with the Jewes and are partakers of the same fatnesse as large as the Jewes did they are essentially begotten into the same Olive But so are the Gentiles for what the Jewes had the Gentiles have if in the same Olive God will give the same extent to them as to the Jewes 3 That which appertaines to the covenant as the covenant that must belong to all those that the covenant appertaines unto as that which belongs to a Corporation as a Corporation it belongs to all that are of that Corporation and all have a share in the same But it belongs to the covenant as the covenant to in title Infants to the seale because they belong to the covenant therefore they must needs have the seale In Gen. 17.7 God will establish his covenant with Abraham and his seed and in the ninth verse they shall keep his covenant and therefore he must keep the seale of the covenant and this is the seale of the covenant Every man child among you shall be circumcised because I will be thy God thou shalt keep the seale of my covenant he does not mention expresly what ever seal of my covenant thou shalt keep but this is the seale Thou shalt circumcise every man child so he appoints one that he may keep that and if I appoint another keep that what ever sâ—alâ— I appoint Now I come to the fourth thing to be handled 4 Whether the Church may not lawfully sometimes administer the seale of the covenant to such as sinfully receive the same Answ Thâ— Church may warrantably dispense the seales of the covenant to such as many â—â—â—es doe receive them sinfully and unworthily and doe sinfully 〈◊〉 so doâ—â—g There is a double unworthines one is open that appeares comâ—n outwardly when the wickednesse of mens hearts appeare in thâ—â—â— lives such should be cast out from the Church and the Church hath not allowance to retain them nor to dispense ordinances to them they are scandalous 1 Corinth 5.5 It is heard certainly there is fornication and such fornication as is not named among the Gentiles c. and they had not proceeded against them and therfore the Spirit of God reproves them sharply and does charge the Church with sinne for not doing it In Rev. 2.18 The Church of Thyatira is reproved because they suffered the woman Jezebel to prevaile shee carried the day against the Officers to beare with her sinfully 2 There is an unworthinesse that appeares not to the eye of men close hearted hypocrites which deceive themselves and
others those that carry it so cunningly that no eye â—â—n see them they are so cunning their sin is inward so secretly conveyed so cunningly from the eye of the Brethren or the Officers of the Church in this case they cannot know it and therefore they cannot consure it nor proceed against them but they are unblameable in the Churches eye In this case the Church hath warrant from God to dispence them to such though they doe sinfully in receiving yet the Church doth warrantably in giving it unto them as the Apostle said For this cause many are sicke among you and weak c. They may be secret and come cat and drink their own damnation and the Church in no fault because she proceeds not against them because she knowes them not But now the difficulty growes and for this cause I speake it They say this is to abuse Gods Ordinance and set the seale to a blanke in Baptisme Here may be comfort in both but thus they argue They are not in Christ therefore they abuse the ordinance and set the seale to a blank for Baptisme is a seale and therefore they abuse God and them The argument they may think strong but it is weak and false 1 It is exceeding weak for it doth not hurt the cause of baptizing of children it is of no value to hurt the baptizing of children For if it must not be administred to Infants because it is the putting of a seale to a blank then it must not be administred to men of yeares for there are hundreds of those that are men of yeares that are close and grosâ—e hypocrites that never had any communion with Christ and yet they are in the Church and the Church cannot hold them back For instance Rev. 3.1.4 in the first it is said They had a name to live and are dead and in the fourth verse There were but a few names which had not defiled their garments and yet they were all baptized for they came in and were all baptized and yet they were most of them nought Now they set a seale to a blank the Apostles themselves there were but a few did walk with Christ they were dead in sin the most of them the most were so when the Apostles planted the Church outwardly they appeared to have some good in them but many were naught that the Apostles themselves did baptize and it must be so of necessity because in the Church there are many hypocrites although they be Saints in the appearance of men so as the Church cannot discern them and in this case it is warrantable to give them the Sacrament and Christ gives allowance so to doe and therefore if that be to abuse the Sacrament then we must say Christ gave us allowance so to doe provided they be close hearted and keep themselves so and the like may be said of the Supper of the Lord there bee thousands of hypocrites in the church on earth that the church doth not know those that appeare holy prove to be rotten When we baptize men of yeares we must goe by the judgement of charity and so there is hope in children it is by charity and yet it is no abuse of the Sacrament it may be so and so the argument comes to nothing So for setting of the seal to a blank Simon Magus was baptized and yet he was in the gall of bitternesse and therefore upon this ground there must be no Sacrament given at all to any and so it is weak 2 We say it is false that it is the abuse of a Sacrament if we give it to them if they be secret that the Church cannot perceive them they have warrant to give it them and therefore they doe not abuse it we will make this clear 1. It is false for the Church is bound to give it to such for the Church must judge of the persons fitnes or else she goes blindefold the Church in her officers and the rest must judge and then she is in her way they should pray the Lord to purge out the old leaven that she may be a pure lump and those that be unworthy the congregation must remove them but they must first judge thâ—m 2. The judgement of the Church must passâ— according to those things that come into view according to experience and practice as our Saviour saith by their fruits you shall know them it is the royalty of God to try the heart of man but man is to see the working as it appears outwardly Matth. 7.16 By their fruits you shall know them the sap is seen in the fruit of the tree of things seen we judge but secret things belong to God Deutr. 29.29 3. Those that are secret that are received by the judgement of the Church directed by a rule of discerning the Church hath free and full warant from God if she go as far as she can she hath full warrant from God to dispence the ordinances to them suppose hypocrites be there and such as be counterfeit yet if she go as far as a rule will allow her she is not bound to know the heart but by the expressions in life and conversation if there be nothing against them she hath full warrant men may abuse the ordinance but she doth not abuse it for it is her duty Christ saith he had chosen twelve and one is a Devill he knew it as God that he was a Devill and should betray him he was acted by Satan and he know it as God yet John 13 14.18 he cates the Passover with Judas and it is thought he did cat the Supper but if he did not he tâ—lls what the Church may doe nay what she must doe in that behalf according to a rule if he had appeared before Christ would have dealt with him accordingly but because it did not appear therefore he was received 4. The seals so administred unto such persons if they look at Gods institution or the scope of the administration of the Church it is the end of the sacrament or seale and according to the proper work â—hat proceeds from the nature of it for the nature of it is onely to the worthy receiver it doth and will seal up the covenant of grace to them that worthily receive it if we look at it in it self it is to seale up and confirme to the worthy receiver it doth and will seal up the covenant of grace and it doth it and not failes to them that are fit Gods means used in Gods manner never faile of Gods end 5. No unworthy receiver may so farr crosse the end of a sacrament as that which is a seal of confirmation being rightly used through his sin may be a means to agravate his condemnation by reason of his abuse of it he may so harden himself as he may increase his sin and so his curse mark this the sacrament in the end and work of the nature of it as a sacrament it onely does seale and it intends
three or foure women for one man but â—â—at he would learn to keep one to one therefore he did it When Christ had to deal with the Sadduces he tels them They erre not knowing the Scriptures Matth. 22 31. He proves the resurrection by this God is the God of Abraham of Isaac and of Jacob he is not the God of the dead but of the living Now if you look on the words of the promise To be their God there is no word of the resurrection spoken of but only it is necessarily included in the covenant with Abraham when they were dead they lived with him and because whole Abraham had the promise therefore Abrahams body must live again Therefore this is Scripture although the letter be not there at must be so there from the strength of dispute The body must rise and every one that believes shall be saved Sarah and Thomas and John believing shall be saved though it be not sâ—â—d so in the letter their names are not named yet it followes that Sarah or Thomas or John believing shall be saved But some of them deny this and he doth seem to deny it also but that he dare not in plain words do it because that would be so grosse men would stop their noses at it But he hath some such expressiâ— for he saith The old Testament hath it commanded and so the ten commandoments forbid all sin and command all duties although they be not named the second commandement forbids all false worship that is spoken of in the Scriptures Now to apply our selves to the baptizing of Infants there be texts that it is to be inferred from although it be not expressed in so many words For we may as well reason that no woman should receive the Sacrament because there is no expresse word for it but in the Rules of the Gospel it is inferred I will make it appeare if there be as sure grounds for the title of children to the Sacrament as to the parents then they may be made partakers of it as well as the parents but so there is and therefore they may Are the parents in covenant So are the children 1 Corinth 7.14 and Rom. 11.16 of which we have formerly spoken and shewed the title is the same to the seales and so we see both the parts of his Argument are false Argument 2. It is a high contempt put upon Christ to force an unnaturall wife upon him one that is impure he being a pure and spirituall husband for where there is one in the Spirit there is twenty in the flesh This is the frame of the Argument To force a Spouse upon Christ that is naturall he being spirituall is a contempt But to baptize infants is to force a Spouse upon Christ that is naturall and therefore it is a contempt to him because that in the Church children are founded upon naturall birth The first part is granted the second part is false To force a naturall spouse upon Christ is unlawfull that is granted But the second part is false and the Argument is worse that the baptizing of Infants make a godlesse Church For first that children are gracelesse none can prove if they be gracelesse if they die in their infancy they must perish for they are out of Christ but they dare not affirm that themselves it hath been proved that God hath provided a portion of glory for infants and it is certain that all that are elect infants that die in their infancy God doth work faith in their hearts and therefore it is grosly false and the weaknesse of it appeares thus Our children in the time of the Gospel are the same with them among the Jewes and God did joyn them to Christ as he does now there is the same reason now as then 2 The baptizing of Infants doth not make them members of the Church for they are members before they be baptized and baptisme doth but seale up the covenant unto them for baptisme supposes they if in the body first and the proof of it is more grosse then the other he he will dispute it he must prove it because such a Church is founded upon naturall birth all children of believers are by nature the children of wrath that they come to have an interest in the covenant it is not by birth but by their parents covenanting with God he does it as he sees fit it doth not come by birth or propagation but by vertue of the covenant with the parents and God does it as hee sees fit so it is a grosse mistake Now gather it up children are federally holy because they come of holy parents they are holy because of the covenant which they receive God brought them in because he loved them and he loved them because he loved them and because he loved them he chose them and because he chose them he brought them into covenant and therefore meerly of grace So that men are or will be blind if they doe not see this 3 It is a practice that doth overthrow the body of Christ or the Temple of God and so a Nation may be corrupted and may make the godly a scorn and contempt The Argument lies thus That which destroyes the Body or Church of Christ that is unlawfull But the baptizing of infants does destroy the Body or Church of Christ and therefore it is unlawfull for it will make a nationall and carnall Church He sayes so we may say it is not so and our saying is as good as his But I say the first part is true but that baptizing of infants makes a nationall Church that I deny for it will not follow but the prerogative of a nationall Church did belong onely to the Jewes and there fore it had nationall ordinances they were to meet three times a yeare before the Lord and they had nationall Officers the High Priest and all the males were bound to appeare three times a yeare so all was nationall but now it is not so but they are particular to particular churches and particular ordinances and particular officers the Pastor and Teacher is or ought to be in their own congregation and though children are baptized they are made members of a particular congregation And besides a Nationall church in it selfe does not destroy the body of Christ For that which God hath appointed for his church that doth not destroy the church for then God may be said to destroy the church but that were blasphemy to say so But now all are in a particular church And the second part is as false that it brings in gracelesse members into the church for the baptizing of infants is no cause of it for that does not make them but seales up the meanes of grace to them as God sayes they are under his wing What could I have done more for them Deut. 6.18 God brings them into manuring he hath them in his hands as plants of his embracing in the means of grace if they bring
infants into the congregation they bring them under the meanes and God ingages himselfe unto them The reason the Gentiles grew wild they wanted meanes Pagans of Pagans God takes no care of them And besides will any say circumcision of infants was the cause to make gracelesse members our baptisme is the same 4 Because it is a ground of ignorance and error to hold people in blindnesse and make people thinke Baptisme is necessary to salvation The Argument is this That which is the cause of ignorance and error and to hold the people in blindnesse that is unlawfull But the baptizing of infants is the cause of all this and therefore it is unlawfull A thing may be said to be a cause of a thing two wayes 1 When out of its own nature or out of the action from it intending or as corrupt counsell to lead them to evill are the cause of sinne thus to doe out of intendment to give bad counsell is the cause of sinne 2 Though of themselves they be good and the intendment be good yet meeting with a corrupt heart it makes him doe contrary this is beyond the scope of the thing it causes evill without a cause the Gospel is the cause of contention thus as Luke 12.51 I came not to send peace but rather debate c. It is a cause of conversion to one but meeting with a corrupt heart it causes contention but that is beyond the scope of the Gospel And so Rom. 7.15 For I allow not of what I do for what I would do I do not but what I would not do that I doe c. And therefore as I have said formerly a wicked servant will be worse in the best family for it inrages corruption because it meets with a corrupt heart so the baptizing of infants may be a cause of stumbling to some because they do not see and so it may be a cause of evill to such 2 Because it is a cause of error and keeps men in blindnee These are meer words if men by ignorance or carelesnes cannot or will not see if the Pastor be carelesse and there be thousands doe not know it the fault is their blindnesse For looke at the nature of this Ordinance where it is taught they shall not be kept in blindnesse that appeares thus The laying forth of the extent of this ordinance is not to keep men from the understanding of it or to keep them in blindnesse but to inform them by this being taught it layes forth the nature of baptisme it containes all that men of years have taught them and no more what they teach men of yeares that are to be baptized they say all that and more then that they teach according to God I may appeale whether the opening of the nature of this Ordinance have not let in light to this ordinance 2 That it keeps them in error and makes them simply perswaded of the necessity of baptisme to salvation it is their own fault if it be so and not in the ordinance that leads them to it Circumcision in the old Law was to be on the eighth day can any body say there lay a necessity of salvation upon circumcision God did enjoyn them to circumcise them then the parents shall see it and the nature of the thing and therefore we should keep from such conceits It is a seale and does suppose the party is in covenant they not having or having does not make it that it cannot be deceived Lastly I know no judicious Divine that teaches of Baptisme but will teach Baptisme is not necessary to salvation if any wilfully mistake his blood be upon his own head 5 It lifts up the state of Antichrist by granting him this so chief a Corner-stone and makes the Church of Rome a true Church for where true Baptisme is there is a true Church This is the substance of the Argument That practice that upholds the state of Antichrist is sinfull But the baptising of infants upholds the state of Antichrist and makes the church of Rome a true church therefore the baptizing of infants is sinfull I answer in the generall this reaches not the cause in hand For our question is not whether baptisme in the church of Rome be true or not but whether it belawfull in a church that is gathered and well ordered according to Christ and therefore that he speakes here reaches not the cause If hee condemn baptizing of Infants upon that ground he must condemne men of yeares also For doe but turn the Tables that practice does uphold Antichrist by the baptizing of men of yeares in Rome for where true baptisme is there is a true church that does confirme Antichrist as well as this for it is equall the one as well as the other if the baptizing of men of yeares then infants one is as well to be looked at as the other and one makes a true Church as well as the other So as if that be an Argument there must be no baptizing at all neither of the one nor the other and so there come in many absurdities 3. The argument prevailes not at all neither for the baptising of men of years nor children for to prove Rome to be a true Church for Rome being a true Church does not depend on this cause but this conclusion is because baptisme in Rome is true whether it be of men of years or Infants for where true baptisme is there is a true Church take it as they use it but whether it be according to God that they should be baptised or not then it does not make that a true Church there is no man can inferre it from that if it be lawfull to baptize Infants in Rome is it therefore a true Church Baptisme may be true in a true Church but it may be so abused that it may not be lawfull after that manner the fault is not that they are baptized but it is done by an heretick or a man not approved Thus imagine a Priest in Rome or Germany should baptize one I the name of the Father and not the Son or Holy Ghost that baptisme is unlawfull And now suppose that it were lawful for any to baptize then it is lawfull for a Midwife to baptize but it is not lawfull for her to baptize although she baptize right for the matter In the name of the Father and Son and Holy Ghost because she hath no true call to it she is not in Office so to do but the question is whether it be lawfull to be done in a lawfull manner 4. Many have held one of these opinions and have denyed the other children men of years may be baptized so it be not in an hereticall Church but if it be it is unlawfull say some so says Cyprian and some others were of this opinion that baptisme was lawfull for men of years if it were not done by a Heretick if this be granted that Cyprian faith that it is unlawfull for an Heretick