it is not lawfull for women to receive the Lords Supper for as much may be sayd for that as for this and against this as that But the consequent is absurd therefore the antecedent is false And this I would wish those women to consider which by reason of the weakenesse of their judgment are aptest to be deceived by those that creep into houses and leade captive silly women laden with sinnes led away with diverse lusts ever learning and never able to come to the knowledg of the truth For if they should yeeld to this perswasion their children must not be baptized in their infancie because the Scripture doth not expressely command it On the same ground they must yeeld that they themselves have nothing to doe with the Supper and so by degrees they may be cheated of all Gods Ordinances and their comforts priviledges and obedience on the same grounds As also I would wish that the foregoing argument may be considered by them who have refused to have their children baptized in infancie and shew what ground they have in Scripture for baptizing them when they come to yeares of discretion I cannot see but they have as great cause to question whether ever their children may be baptized as whether they may baptize them in infancy Let them give an example or command in scripture expresse or by just consequence of a beleeving Father which kept his child unbaptized untill he actually beleeved and then brought him to baptisme And then let them bethinke themselves whether the issue will not be either their posterity must not be baptized at all though they beleeve and repent never so much and so they cast themselves and their children out of Covenant or they must be baptized without warrant or commande for all those examples and commands that are in scripture of faith required in those that should be baptized speake of them who themselves and their parents till that time had not been under the new Covenant Or lastly if they will have those commands and examples for their warrant and applyable to them they and their children must become infidels and persons out of Covenant and deny that ever they were in Covenant before or had received any spirituall and Evangelicall favour that so now at last entering newly into the Covenant of grace by faith and repentance whereunto they professe that they have been hitherto strangers they may receive the Sacrament or pledge of admission into Covenant Which how injurious it would be to Gods grace and their own souls and posteritie if ever they tasted of Gods mercy or were but externally in Covenant let all men judge It is usuall in controversies of this kinde after Scripture proofes and reasons deduced therefrom and grounded thereon to produce the consent and testimony of the Godly and learned whether Ancient or Modern especially the former that were most neere the Primitive purest times And I doubt not if a man had helps and leisure for searching Antiquitie it might be easily shewed that the baptizing of Infants was long in use before Antichrist got to his throne contrary to the opinion of this disputant yea in the Primitive times unlesse Authors be silent in this point because no controvesie then rose above this matter or corrupted But as I have said neither having the books of the Ancients that speak of this subject nor time well to turne over those volumes if I had them I must forbeare Onely let the Reader again take notice of these two first-mentioned and Prime Authors whom A. R. cites for his purpose For as touching Origens giving testimony that baptizing children was a ceremony or tradition of the Church not to examine how truly these words are cited out of the Author which I cannot for the reason aforementioned but to take the words on his trust This testimony shews that in his time who lived but 200. yeares after Christ it was a thing ordinarily practised and as I shewed before in vindicating my third Argument an unquestioned practise from which as an undeniable principle that holy man seemes to prove that Infants of a day old are not free from sinne And let none be offended that it is called a ceremony though that name as it is used for humane traditions beside or contrary to Gods word is odious yet the word may in its proper signification be used for any rite either humane or divine and both Baptisme and the Lords Supper may fitly be called ceremonies now as well as Passeover Circumcision and other Divine Ordinances instituted by God among the Iews Neither let any be troubled at the word Tradition for that is used not onely to note things taken up by men but also for the Doctrine of God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Institutions of the Apostles 1 Cor. 11.2 2 Thess 2.15 And whereas it is said a ceremony or tradition of the Church there is no necessitie that it should be understood that the Church was the Authour thereof but the subject in which it was used and by which it was delivered to posteritie may well be meant by that phrase So Augustine who lived in the fourth Century after Christ calles it a custome as he saith of the Church Which yet he might well doe and yet it be a divine ordinance for all Gods ordinances are or should be in custome in the Church But if it were a custome of the Church in Augustines time and a ceremony or tradition of the Church in Origens sure it is strange that it should be brought into use a thousand yeares after Christ as one of his Authours saith and be a devise of Antichrist as he holds For customes are things that have been of long use and ancient standing And whereas some Authours speake of such as were Catechized and instructed by the Church before they were baptized and must give a reason of their faith before they were admitted to Baptisme and that they used to Baptize such at two times of the yeare onely I beleeve it will be apparent to those who looke into these Authours that they speake not of the children of beleeving parents but that those Catechumeni who were first Catechized and then baptized were Pagans who lived in those parts where the Church was which were quite out of Covenant and therefore because God did not so miraculously and suddenly bring such to the faith as in the times of the Apostles some space was required to instruct them in the principles of Religion before they could be judged fit for Baptisme But as I said I may not meddle with the examination of his authorities nor produce any humane authoritie for this seeing it hath been sufficiently confirmed by Arguments drawn from Scripture grounds though it were an easie thing I suppose to beat this Adversary with his own weapon And it might be an usefull worke if some Antiquary would take the pains to turne over the ancient Writers and shew what they have left on record concerning this
speakes as it was taken without the promise and that Covenant which God made with Abraham and as men sought justification by it whether without the promise before Christ or without the Gospell since Christ or whether they sought justification by the Law together with the promise or the Gospell which was not Gods end in giving the Law to his people but mans abuse of it so it brought men into a state of bondage and so the obstinate Iews that thus abuse the Law are cast out as Ishmael and Hagar And as the faithfull were under the discipline and padagogie of the Law they were in a servile condition in comparison of that great freedome from those intolerable burdens of ceremonies and great discomfort and feare accompanying the same which the faithfull have under the Gospel But notwithstanding their bondage they were sonnes and heires and lords of all Gal. 4.1 and so they were under a Covenant of grace though legally administred As for your following discourse wherein you talke your pleasure against Magistrates and Ministers and cry out of the Baptisme of Infants as the greatest delusion and a thing of as dangerous consequence as ever the man of sinne brought into the world and that the greatest maintainers thereof are the greatest deluders and that it is time for you to awake out of your drunken slumber and seek by whom and by what meanes you are so miserablely intosticated as you call it whether by an errour of the Printer or because you are so intoxicated with your drunken slumber that you cannot speake English with much other like raving talke wherein you abuse the Scriptures and shew what manner of spirit you are of Answ I account this wild talke being the evaporations of a giddy braine intoxicated with a drunken slumber whereof you complaine worthy no other answer but this Of every idle word you must give an account at the day of judgment Matt. 12.36 much more of speaking evill of those things you know not railling upon dignities and authorities despising dominions 2 Pet. 2.9.10.11.12 Iud. 4. 8 9. c. and of calling evill good and good evill putting darknesse for light and light for darknesse Es 5.20 Which places of Scripture I would intreate you when you shall awake out of your drunken slumber to consider and seriously ponder So much for the fourth argument and clearing it from exceptions Now I come to the fifth which is of affinity with the former and confounded with it by A. R. and therefore his answers to it mingled with his answers to the former but not the same and therefore we will consider it apart and set downe his answers of any weight and replie to them God willing and this is taken from circumcision 5. Argument If Infants of beleeving parents or parents in Covenant under the old Covenant might and ought to be consecrated unto God and initiated into Covenant by circumcision then Infants of beleeving parents under the new Covenant ought to be consecrated to God and solemnly entred into Covenant by Baptisme But Infants of beleeving parents under the old Covenant might and ought to be consecrated to God and initiated into Covenant by circumcision Gen. 17.10.11 Exod. 12.48 Therefore Infants of beleeving parents under the new Covenant ought to be consecrated unto God and solemnly entred into Covenant by Baptisme For the clearing and confirming of the sequele of the proposition for of the assumption there is no question I will lay downe two or three considerations First that the old and new covenant were one and the same for substance Abraham Moses David and all the faithfull before Christ were under the same Covenant that all the faithfull since Christ are under For since Adams fall there hath been but one way of salvation common to all that have been saved which way is revealed and exhibited only in the Covenant of grace as hath been partly shewed before see Rev. 13.8 14.6 Heb. 11. through the Chapter and 13.8 Hath been demonstrated by the godly learned and must be needs acknowledged by all that will without prejudice consider that Exod. 34.6.7 first God considered as a mercifu l Father a gratious long-suffering God abundant in goodnesse and truth Ezeh 16. is the Authour of the old Covenant as well as the new secondly Iosh 24. Exod. 33.19 That man considered as a miserable sinner yet weary of sinne desiring mercy professing and promising repentance faith and obedience Eph. 1.12 upon his being received into this Covenant is the other Covenantier or confederate in the old aswell as in the new Thirdly 1. Cor. 10.4 that Christ is the Mediatour in both being the Lambe slaine from the foundation of the world Gen. 3.15 Ioh. 8. Ps 110. Exod. 34.7 the promised seed who brake the serpents head whose day Abraham seeing rejoyced A priest for ever after the order of Melchisedek Fourthly that the principall good things promised in both were pardon of sinnes Ps 32.1.2 adoption sanctification perseverance and eternall salvation Fiftly Gen. 15.6 that the condition required is repentance faith and obedience in the old Covenant aswell as the new Sixtly that the end in both is the same Act. 15.10.11 to wit the glory of Gods rich mercie in powring spirituall temporall and eternall blessings upon his people And seventhly that the summe of the Covenant is the same viz Rom. 4. Exod. 19.5 6. Deut. 4.29 30. 10.16.19 11.22 I will be thy God and thou shalt be my people All which are undenyably the same in the old Covenant and new So that considering they agree in Author Object Mediator Good things promised Duties required End Effects in a word in Matter Forme and Definition there can be no essentiall difference Only they differ in some Accidents As there the Covenant was made in Christ to come Here in Christ already come There with a few people and after Abrahams or at least Moses his time only with the house of Israel and those that should joyne therewith Here with more even with all nations Then dispensed by darker prophesies and more obscure sacraments sacrifices and ceremonies or types now by cleare revelation and plaine or open ordinances without the vaile of shadowes types and darke ceremonies Then grace was more dimly scantly and with mixture of legall slavery ordinarily bestowed now more plainly plentifully comfortably and freely all which are but circumstantiall or graduall differences Secondly when the new Covenant succeeded the old then Baptisme succeeded in the place of circumcision as the Lords Supper in stead of the Passeover Exod. 12 48. Rom. 4.11 1 Cor. 12.13 Act. 22.16 Col. 2.11 12. I say Baptisme succeeded in the roome of circumcision and is to us of the same use that circumcision was to the Iewes to wit a signe of entrance into the Church a seale of the righteousnesse of faith which comprehends remission of sinnes Baptisme of the spirit and circumcision of the heart
as in the first or of providence as in the later is the principall thing whereon the power and the authoritie of the Minister doth depend And then the lesse principall are the ordination and choyce of them by such as are the Ministers and people of God by profession though something Antichristian or otherwise sinfull may cleave unto them in regard of their qualities or stations And lastly the expression of the end for which they were ordained viz. to administer the holy things of God By which two latter viz. the outward calling and the manifestation of the end the hearts of Gods people may be assured of Christs inward calling so farre as that they may be confident that whiles they discharge the duties of Ministers it shall not be without efficacie for their good if they be not wanting to themselves Answer 5 Fifthly as Paul proveth his Apostleship when it was questioned amongst the Corinthians by occasion of the whisperings of the false apostles who could not otherwise insinuate themselves into the favour of the Corinthians but by traducing Paul and bringing him out of favour with them as no Apostle of Christ which hath beene ever the guise of false Teachers which practise is too rife now adayes As I say Paul proves his Apostleship amongst other arguments from Gods blessing upon his ministery Are not you my worke in the Lord 2 Cor. 9.1 2. If I be not an Apostle unto others yet doubtlesse I am unto you for the seale of mine Apostleship are ye in the Lord Which must needs be a good argument both because the Apostle used it who would not bring a weake and non-concluding argument and also because as God will not blesse any Ordinances but his owne to work repentance faith and holinesse so neither will he blesse any Ministery but his owne Ministery so through the mercy of God our Ministers have a sufficient answer for all that shall examine them concerning their ministery The Conversion Humiliation Reformation Faith Consolation heavenly Ioy and Holinesse which God thereby hath wrought in thousands of soules to his everlasting glory be it spoken evince them to be the Ministers of Christ whose worke and seale so many faithfull soules are and prove that all those which goe about to perswade the people that they are Antichristian ministers are slanderers 2 Cor. 9.13 14 15. Like those false Apostles of which Paul speaks deceitfull workers transforming themselves into the Apostles of Christ and no marvell for Satan himselfe is transformed into an Angel of light Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed into the Ministers of righteousnesse whose end shall be according to their workes Or like those deceivers which had so bewitched the Galatians Gal. 4.14 15 16 17 18. that whereas they had received the Apostle as an Angel of God even as Christ Iesus c. yet after a while accounted him their enemie because he told them the truth whom they zealously affected but not well desiring to separate those Galatians from the Apostles that they might have all their affection But I will leave such deceivers and those which are deceived by them if they doe not truely repent to the judgement of him on whose Ministers they raile knowing that he who hath so farre honoured their faithfull labours will vindicate them in his due time from all those contumelious aspersions wherewith on all sides they are laden if they continue faithfully and resolutely doing his worke notwithstanding all oppositions Your reasoning that you falsely say the Non-conformists have taught you is idle Did the Non-conformists ever call midwives Antichristian ministers midwives were never capable of ministerial functions nor called to the ministerie by the ordination of Ministers nor choyce or acceptation of the people neither have they any ministeriall power from Christ But our Ministers have although there have beene some disorder or defect in the externall exhibition of this power through the fault of men which yet probably was nothing so great as was the disorder among the Iewes in calling the Scribes and Pharisees whose ministerie notwithstanding our Saviour enjoynes the people to use To an Objection which you bring in of our Ministers That they received their office of Bishops as Elders not as Lord Bishops You answer That if our Bishops be lawfull Elders they must be Elders chosen by a true Church which is a Congregation constituted of beleevers and Saints by calling Act. 2.41 1 Cor. 1.2 Phil. 1.7 Rom. 1.7 8. To which your Answer I reply First If you speake of Bishops being lawfull Elders so as to be right Ministers in all circumstances and particulars of their station and calling so that there needs no reformation we doe not plead for them as lawfull Elders in that sense as knowing that some evill adhereth unto their Ministery which being removed they become lawfull Ministers But so farre we hold them lawfull Elders as that their calling of Ministers Preaching administring of Sacraments when done for the substance according to the rule of Gods word are not meere nullities nor prophanations of Gods Ordinances to Gods people or Ministers that make use of them but may be and oft are effectuall for their good so that if these Bishops will cast away that which being Antichristian adhereth unto them Act. 20.28 1 Pet. 5.2 and faithfully discharge the office of Elders and Ministers of Iesus Christ faithfully feeding the flock of God they are to be imbraced as Christs Ministers and that without any new Ordination Rev. 2.3 as may appeare Revel 2. and 3. Chapters where the Angels or Ministers which had left their first love Rev. 2.13 14. had them which held the doctrine of Balaam which taught Balak to cast a stumbling-block before the children of Israel Rev. 2.20 to eate things offered to idols and to commit fornication and had them which held the doctrine of the Nicolaitans which Christ hated yea which suffered the woman Iezabel which called her selfe a Prophetesse to teach and deceive Christs servants c. Rev. 3.15 Those which had a name to live and yet were dead whose workes were not perfect such as were neither hot nor cold but luke-warme Such I say are still called Angels bidden repent and doe their first workes with a promise at last implied that they shall keep their stations of Angels And this is sufficient to warrant unto us Matth. 23.1 2 3 c. per totum the acts which they doe as Ministers The Scribes and Pharisees had many corruptions in Christs time and so had the Priests both before and in Christs time adhering to their function and those very grosse yet was not their ministery vaine to those which according to Christs appointment made use of it Now to your position That they must be Elders chosen by a true Church which is a congregation of beleevers That I may know your meaning I would demand of you First Whether you mean that
aswell as there was in the Church of the Iewes Neither doth your long discourse or many abused scriptures prove any thing to the contrary To repeat what was said before Whence was the Church of the Corinthians holy or a Congreation of saints sith there were so many really profane and carnall amongst them but from federall holynesse by which they were distinguished from them that were without though some in the Church were more notorious for vice then those that were without whence were the Hebrews called holy brethren but because they were partakers of the heavenly calling though some were so fastned to the Ceremonies Heb 3.2 and inclined to backsliding that the Apostle useth sharp and severe language towards them ch 6.10 and 12 How is it said that they had been sanctified by the blood of the Covenant that afterwards trampled on the Sonne of God by apostasy accounting the blood of the Covenant profane and doing despite to the spirit of grace if men may not in the state of the Gospell have a federall holynesse without inward holynesse that accompanies the new creature and saving faith So 1 Pet. 2.9.10 the Apostle calls the Christians to whom he wrote a chosen generation a royall priesthood an holy nation a peculiar people a people of God that had obtained mercy Must we think that all these to whom Peter wrote were undoubtedly indued with true faith and holynesse that accompanies the new creature so that there was no hypocrite amongst them that we have no ground for How then are these glorious titles bestowed upon them all By vertue doubtlesse of Gods calling and their outward accepting of Gods Covenant though there was but a part only amongst those Churches to whom these clogies properly belonged for there were tares among the wheate You goe on and say If it be objected that in respect of justification it viz federall holynesse availeth nothing but to baptisme it may to which you answer That which availes to justification and salvation doth according to the rule only availe to baptisme For if thou beleevest with all thy heart thou art justified Rom. 10.10 shalt be saved Acts 16.31 and maiest be baptized upon the same and no other grounds Act 8.37 Answ If the same be the rule or ground for justification and salvation and for baptisme then must Ministers have no rule for baptisme unlesse they can know the heart as God who justifies and saves and so consequently the baptizer must either be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the knower of the heart that is God alone Act 1.24 or baptize beside or without rule that is unlawfully for the true holynesse that accompanies the new creature and saving faith is known to none but God and the spirit of man which is in him 1. Cor. 2.11 You proceed bringing us in objecting and saying that all that were baptized by the Apostles themselves were not saved therefore what you answered to our objection viz. that that availes to baptisme which availes to justification and salvation is not so To this you answer by distinguishing between the rule which is infallible the judgments of men which are fallible and may be deceived in applying the rule yet it followes not but that the rule being of God is still as infallible as God himselfe For all that beleeve shall be saved which is true as God himself is true but all who are judged by beleevers to be beleevers doe not beleeve and therefore are not saved This failing therefore is not in the rule but in their judgements that are but men Answ To what purpose is it to say this is an infallible and eternall rule Whosoever beleeves shall be saved unlesse you prove the other that is in question viz. that saving faith is the only rule of Baptisme and that none might be baptized but they that did actually beleeve with the faith that accompanies the new creature and that this rule is true as God is true which yet I conceive you will not be so bold as to say which unlesse you say you say nothing to purpose For hence it would follow that all whom Iohn and the Disciples c. regularly baptized had true faith and consequently were saved that they failed yea were rash and presumptuous and sinned grievously as going beyond commission when they baptized any hypocrite that such an one after he came to repentance must necessarily be baptized againe for his former baptisme was applied beside the rule and so was a false baptisme Yea if faith be the rule both of baptisme and justification alike it will follow that as all and only beleevers were justified and all and only the justified were beleevers So all and only the faithfull must be baptized and all and only the baptized are faithfull and consequently whosoever is baptized is a beleever and a justified person and whosoever is not baptized is neither beleever nor justified But to leave these absurd consequences that necessarily follow upon your absurd opinion It is evident that God never appointed saving faith to be the rule of baptisme by which his Ministers should be directed in administring baptisme For it is impossible for a Minister to know infallibly whether another savingly beleeveth and so whether he may baptize him according to the rule if faith be the rule That cannot be a rule to us to worke by which we must necessarily be ignorant of God never ordained such an uncertaine yea incomprehensible rule for his servants to worke by You proceed But in baptizing of Infants the case is farre otherwise yea quite contrary who will or can faile in judging an Infant to be an Infant Answ There is no more danger of failing in judging an Infant to be an Infant then in judging a man to be a man But there may be failing in judging an Infant to be truly and really holy and in Covenant though all the children of Christian parents are called holy aswell as there might be failing in judging this or that man in the Corinthian Church to be a saint indeed though the whole Church were called saints For as the Apostles did according to the rule of charity judge men to be beleevers and so baptized them when they made a profession of faith and did not manifestly discover the contrary though afterwards many proved otherwise So we are to judge Infants of Christian parents to be holy and so within Covenant and to be baptized because Gods word testifies that they are holy and neither your shifts and sophisticall evasions nor all the policie of Satan can disprove it though afterwards some of them are proved to have been only outwardly not inwardly in Covenant Here you bring in some authours testifying that baptisme of children is but a tradition a custome of the Church invented by the Pope c. Which testimonies I cannot for the present examine as not being furnished with the bookes of the authours Though if one should cast away so much time as to follow you
be saved But this must not be extended to all persons and times for then it should follow that no child of Christian parents dying before yeares of discretion and actuall faith could be saved which is directly contrary to those Scriptures that shew that God will be a God to the faithfull and their seed will shew mercy to thousands of their posteritie to the childrens children of those that keepe covenant Psal 10â— 1â— 18. that the promise is to the faithfull and their children that their children are holy and such places before cited which will not suffer any one that beleeves Gods word to hold that the children of the faithfull dying in their minoritie must unavoidably be damned all of them Fourthly I adde for answer to this Scripture that infants of Christian parents as they are within the covenant and are holy so they may be said to have a virtuall faith or that which is analogicall thereto that giveth them right to baptisme as much as the converted heathens profession for being in covenant with God and being holy cannot be conceived to be without answerable faith or somewhat equivalent At last you having triumphantly concluded your dispute come to shew your disciples what they may see by what you have taught them I will examine a few of your words Say you By this we may partly see the grosse mistake of all such great clarks of our times which confound those two Covenants of Law and Gospell and make them both as one in substance and different only in circumstance as in administration only or degrees the one more darke the other more light whereas indeed they are no lesse different then old and new works and faith the administration of condemnation and the administration of righteousnesse or then the letter killing and the spirit giving life 2. Cor. 3.6.7.8.9 or then a state of bondage and a state of sonnes Gal. 4.21 Answ Yes we may see what you inferre as we may see false shapes by false glasses or one falshood by another Secondly may not ignorant phantasticks possiblely fall into grosse errours assoone as great clarks Thirdly as for the differences that you put between the Covenant of the Law and of the Gospell as you call them First we grant that the Covenant which God made with the Iewish and that which he made with the Christian Church differ as old and new But this is too narrow a difference to make them diverse in substance as he that was of old a child is a new become a man yet differs not in substance from what he was but is the same person God gave that old commandement to the Iewes Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thy selfe Lev. 19.18 Christ saith to his Disciples A new commandment I give unto you that you love one another Ioh. 13.34 Must these commandements needs differ in substance or must they be accused of grosse mistake that hold that these commandements agree in substance as being the same The Apostle Iohn 1. Ioh. 2.7 saith he writes no new commandement but the old yet vers 8. he saith he writes a new commandement Will you say That great clark Iohn was grossely mistaken in saying that he wrote no new commandement but an old and yet presently saying he wrote an old commandement Because in your conceit old and new so farre differ that the same thing cannot be said to be old and new though in different respects and in regard of some circumstances Secondly In your second and third difference you how great a Clark soever are grossely mistaken in calling the old Covenant made with the Iewes a Covenant of works and a Covenant of nature Where finde you the Scripture calling it so Will you perswade men that Abraham Isaac and Iacob Moses David and the faithfull before Christ where without faith and grace That either they were saved by works and nature for you will allow them to be under no covenant but works nature you exclude them from faith and grace or else to have perished remedilesly The one whereof must needs follow upon your tenet But of this we have heard before this your opinion is so absurd and unchristian that it deserves rather to be abhorred then confuted Thirdly whereas you call the old Covenant the administration of condemnation and a killing letter wherein you would have it contrary to the Gospell as being the administration of righteousnesse and spirit giving life and bring that Scripture 2. Cor. 3.6.7.8 9. I Answer First there is no such thing proved by that Scripture that the old covenant was the administration of condemnation and a killing letter Secondly neither can any such thing be conceived unlesse we shall say that all which were under the old Covenant were condemned and killed destitute of righteousnesse and life and that God made a Covenant with his people to kill and condemne them which will necessarily follow upon that tenet which were blasphemy Thirdly the Apostle indeed calleth the law which was an addition to the covenant of promise a killing letter the administration of condemnation not as it was given and intended by God primarily who gave it primarily and properly to humble that stubborne people drive them to the promise and exercise them in obedience and to be taken along with not apart from the promise and to traine them up for draw them to and direct them how to walke in Christ which is the end of the Law not to drive them from Christ But as it was in it selfe considered without the promise and without Christ so it was a killing letter and the ministrie of condemnation and as it was misunderstood and abused by false-teachers hypocrites and Iusticiaries who before the comming of Christ forsaking the promise and since his comming forsaking the Gospell both which held forth Christ in whom alone righteousnesse is to be sought or at least mingling the Law and Gospell together in point of justification sought righteousnesse by the works of the Law either alone or with the Gospell to them it became a killing letter And the addition of the Law to the promise was a testimony and an occasion of greater condemnation to such as they who abused it sought righteousnesse in it Rom. 7.12.14 Gal. 3.21 24. and made their boast of it but were not humbled nor driven to Christ thereby though in it selfe the Law was spirituall holy and good not contrary but subordinate to the promise As the Gospell is an occasion of greater condemnation even to those that are externally under the Covenant of the Gospell who abuse it 2. Cor. 2.16 Heb. 10.29 Iud. 1.4 Yet will it not hence follow that the Covenant of the Gospell or new Covenant is the ministry of condemnation though it turne to the greater condemnation of some for their abuse of it Fourthly As for your last difference that a state of bondage this a state of sonnes Answ T is true the Law given on mount Sinai for of that the Apostle
tenets practise and worship and not take them up meerely of custome because they are generally received But it is not safe for people to leave the Ministery of the word and hearken to none but those that wil humour them in their opiniōs say as they say It is an argument that peoples opinions and practises are workes of darknesse when they refuse to come to the light to have them tryed How miserably may Satan and his instruments abuse silly soules if they can perswade them to come into no company but such where they may be confirmed in their errours I would intreat such to take heede lest being drawn to renounce their Baptisme received in infancie which is the drift of these men by perswading them that it is no Baptisme and keeping their Children unbaptized they cast themselves and their posterity out of Covenant reject God the Father Sonne and Holy Ghost to whom they were consecrated in Baptisme by their parents and so cast away their Christianity their soules and salvation all at once and not onely their owne but their posterities too It cannot but bee very offensive to God whereas he hath offered himselfe to be our God from our infancy and taken us into his family having made the promise and covenant to our parents and us their children and sealed the same Covenant to us and really bestowed on us at least some of us and is ready to bestow on us all if we be not wanting to our selves what was in Baptisme sealed namely remission of sinnes regeneration and the spirit of adoptions if all this notwithstanding we shall hearken to the enemy of Gods glorious grace and our soules greatest comfort perswading us that neither wee were in Covenant with God in our infancy by vertue of the Covenant made with our parents neither our children in any better condition then the children of Turkes and Pagans untill the time of actuall faith If we set so little by Gods ancient mercies conveyed to our parents and us successively for many generations according to his mercifull promise and covenant let us take heede lest wee provoke him to cast us off and give us over to strong delusions because we have followed lying vanities and forsaken our owne mercies Secondly seeing the children of the faithfull have right to the promises of those blessings which are sealed in Baptisme and not onely the beleeving Governours of families themselves but also the whole families were baptized the children of the faithfull are holy within covenant and have right to Baptisme as well as infants in the Iewish Church had right to Circumcision upon which and the like grounds it hath beene proved that they ought to be baptized This should call upon Christian parents that have or shall dedicate their children to God in Baptisme and all the posterity of the faithfull that have beene consecrated to God in their infancy by Baptisme both highly to esteeme this priviledge and ancient faederall mercy of God so that they doe not suffer themselves to bee cheated of it by impostors And so thankfully holily and fruitfully to use it that it may be a meanes to strengthen their faith and confirme them in the assurance of Gods love and a speciall spurre to holinesse and curbe to restraine from profanenesse and by all meanes take heede of so abusing it that it should be an occasion of Gods dishonor by causing this holy ordinance to be blasphemed the offence stumbling of others and their own greater condemnation And this they should the rather look unto First because so many Christians by profession bring their children to baptisme meerly of custom neither regarding the grounds on which nor the end for which nor the manner how they ought to do this neither considering the mercies which God offers to them and their children in this sacred ordinance nor yet the duties whereunto they and their children are herein obliged as if Gods ordinances whereunto he cals us the priviledges which he bestowes on us and the duties whereunto he bindes us were but matters of fashion or sport And in like manner many when they come to yeares of discretion no more regard their baptisme then a trifle hardly so much as inquiring why they were baptized Secondly because as the Apostle said of circumcision Rom. 2.25 that it became no circumcision if men kept not the Law so may I say Baptisme becomes no baptisme to those which walke not according to the Gospel Let us not thinke that the meere worke done makes us sufficient Christians If men perswade themselves they may live ignorantly profanely and carnally and yet hope to be saved because they have been baptized let them read 1 Cor. 10. vers 1. to the 12. for confutation of their errour and discovery of the dangerousnesse and damnablenesse of that opinion Thirdly as the name of God was blasphemed by the Gentiles through the vicious lives of the Iews Rom. 2.24 who were by circumcision consecrated to God and made his people by profession so is God and Christ blasphemed and this holy Ordinance of Baptisme spoken evill of by occasion of the wickednesse of many that have beene baptized For not to speake of the blasphemy of Turkes Pagans and Papists cast upon the Christian Religion for the profanenesse of Protestants doe not we heare that some hence make bold to speak evill of the Baptisme of Children as if it were the cause of all profanenesse and impietie that is in the Church which though it be a most false calumnie and I know not how it can be excused from blasphemy For are not many of those that were baptized in infancie pious wise and garcious Chrstians How can baptisme then in infancie be the cause of profanenesse seeing where the cause is it produceth the effect Were not there among the Iewes as many profane ignorant and disordered persons as among us shall men say that circumcising their children in infancie was the cause of it that were plaine blasphemie Was there not notorious profanenesse in the Primitive Church as among the Corinthians c. Was baptisme whether of infants which yet I thinke they will not say or of professours of faith and repentance the cause of it This imputation a Christian eare will abhorre Is not the word of God a savour of death and occasion of hardning to some the Sacrament of the Lords Supper an occasion to some of temporall and spirituall judgements Yet what Christian dare say that these are the causes of sinnes in the Church Yet I say though this be a false and wicked imputation that the baptizing of infants is the cause of evils in the Church let them looke to it that give occasion of such blasphemy Fourthly all Christians should be stirred up the rather to make a good improvement of this priviledge of Christian parents in having God not onely for their God but also for the God of their children and so of the baptizing of their children because we see Satan