Apostle shews Heb. 11. that under the old Covenant the godly were famous for their faith Were those promises of God exhortations of the Prophets and practise of those Worthies spoken of concerning faith and circumcision of the hart more then was comprehended in the Covenant under which Gods people at that time were Thirdly whereas you say the Church of the Gospel doth stand on faith and circumcision of the heart Is your meaning that there is no Church of the Gospel but all that are therein and professed and acknowledged members thereof are indued with faith and circumcision of heart If so experience of the Scripture and all Christian Churches will confute you sith still chaffe is mingled with graine tares with wheat the children of the wicked one with the children of the kingdome Or is your meaning that faith and circumcised hearts is required of all in the Church of the Gospel and is truly in those that are internall and living members of the same This is granted and may be said as truly of the Church of the Iewes and therefore this can make no difference being common to both Fourthly Can you tell what you meane when you say That the old Covenant stood onely by nature and circumcision of the flesh I cannot tell how you are to be interpreted but one of these three waies Either first that this Covenant was grounded on nature Or secondly that it promised onely naturall or temporall blessings Or thirdly that it was made with all and onely the naturall seed of Abraham all which are grosse and notorious errours openly crossing the Scriptures For if you meane that this Covenant was grounded in nature this is false for God chose Abraham and Israel of free grace and love above all other people Iosh 4. Deut. 7.7 c. neither did they differ in nature from others Or secondly if you meane that God onely required of them outward circumcision and cutting off the naturall foreskin and promised only naturall and temporall blessings this opinion is fitter to be abhorred then confuted Or thirdly if you meane that to be of the naturall seed of Abraham and to be circumcised in the flesh was sufficient and necessary for being in that Covenant so that their being in Covenant consisted in being the naturall seed of Abraham this is as false for first Were not many Proselytes joyned with the Israelites in the same Covenant so that to be of Abrahams seed was not necessary Secondly Did not they want circumcision in the wildernesse fourty yeares and yet remaine in Covenant Thirdly Did not Ishmael and Esau grow out of Covenant though the seed of Abraham and so ten Tribes ceased from being Gods people long before the old Covenant was antiquated and did not the Prophets shew that Legall observations were nothing worth without sinceritie Fifthly though the outward cleansings and ceremonies of the Law have ceased and so that outward faederall holinesse be at an end yet there is an outward and faederall holinesse of the new Covenant whereby Christians are distinguished from other people They have their outward Baptisme and the Lords Supper prayer in the Name of Christ alone the Word and profession of the Gospel by which they are distinguished from unbeleevers Act. 2.41.42 There are reckoned up first Baptisme secondly the Apostles Doctrine thirdly Fellowship or Communion with the faithfull fourthly breaking Bread and fifthly Prayers as distinctive markes of the Church by which it then was and to this day is distinguished from all other societies whatsoever 1 Cor. 5.12 There is a distinction expressed of those that were within the Church or Covenant and members of the Courch and those that were without whereof these were not subject to the judgement or censure of the Church those were But how are these distinguished that the Church may neither goe beyond nor neglect her office within her bounds By inward holinesse that none sees but God and each mans owne conscience and therefore cannot be a note of distinction unto men that cannot discern the heart By outward holinesse of life Not so for some of those that were within were guilty of more grosse profanenesse then those that were without as in the same Chap. 1 Cor. 5.1 and 11. Therefore there must be some note of distinction or faederall holinesse by which those that were wicked in heart and life and yet Saints by calling and members of the Church and so under the Churches jurisdiction might be discerned from them that were without and so subjected to the Churches censure 1 Cor. 5.11 12 13. Yet you say further There is now onely the new Covenant which is a covenant of grace and salvation and brings certaine salvation to all those that rightly enter into it which is onely by faith Hence it is said Act. 2.47 That the Lord added to the Church daily such as should be saved Answ It is as true that the old Covenant made with the Iewes was a covenant of grace and salvation which brought certaine salvation to all those that rightly entered into it and that it was onely by faith Heb. 11. And as for the Scripture you cite it is said indeed That the Lord added to the Church such as should be saved But it is not said onely such as should be saved were added to the Church or that all those who were added to the Church were saved You proceed And that the holinesse of children is not meant of any holinesse in relation to any Church-covenant will appeare further by these reasons First that which is an effect of regeneration is not brought to passe by generation though the parents be holy But to be of the covenant or kingdome is the proper effect of regeneration Ioh. 3.3 without which none can see it much lesse be of it or enter into it Therefore it cannot be brought to passe by generation though the parents be holy Answ We say not neither can it follow from our grounds that the children of Christian parents are in covenant with God by generation but by vertue of Gods gracious promise and from the nature of the covenant of grace wherein God is pleased to accept parents together with their children for his Secondly to be of or in the covenant outwardly of which being in covenant we speak and which is sufficient to make an externall member of the Church and give right unto the outward seales you can never prove to be the proper effect of regeneration untill you have proved that all those who were baptized by Iohn the Baptist and the Apostles and so admitted into the covenant as members of the Church were truly regenerate which to hold were to contradict the Scripture Your second reason is this Secondly contradictions cannot be the effect of one and the same covenant in one and the selfe-same respect But for one parent to be a beleever that is of the Church when the other parent is not to produce an holy seed that is in covenant 1 Cor.
of your quotations you doe most grosly God will not hold them guiltlesse that take his name in vaine When you come to us with the same spirit and authoritie as Peter Ananias and Samuel had we will hearken to you Now though what hath beene said in answer to this disputers Arguments against baptizing by sprinkling or infusion and for onely dipping or plunging might suffice yet I will adde something more to what hath been written endeavouring to make it appeare that washing whether it be by dipping or sprinkling is the externall act required in this Sacrament to be used and that sprinkling or infusion is as if not more agreeable to the nature and institution of this Sacrament as dipping or immersion Argument 1. As the word used signifieth washing as hath beene shewed so the thing represented signified and sealed in this Sacrament is set forth in the Scripture by the phrase of washing or cleansing as 1 Cor. 6.11 But ye are washed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but ye are sanctified but yea are iustified c. Now who questions but our justification and sanctification or remission of sinnes together with mortification and vivification are sealed and signified by baptisme c. But these are here called washing So T it 3.5 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 According to his mercy he saved us by the washing of regeneration and renewing of the holy Ghost In the former of which expressions washing if here be not meant baptisme it selfe which to deny I see no reason yet certainely here is meant the thing signified by baptisme which is sufficient for our purpose which way so ever it is taken Heb. 10.22 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Having our bodies washed with cleane water 1 Ioh. 1.7 And the bloud of Iesus Christ his Sonne shall cleanse us from all our sinnes Heb. 9.14 The bloud of Christ shall purge your conscience Now we know washing purging or cleansing may be and commonly is as well by infusion or powring on the thing to be washed as by dipping Common experience testifies so much and Scripture is not silent herein Luk. 7.44 She hath washed my feet with tears viz. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by powring or distilling as the word signifies And though it were granted that in those hot Countries they commonly washed by going downe into the water and being dipped therein whether in ordinary or ceremoniall or sacramentall washing that will no more inforce on us a necessity of observing the same in baptisme now then the example of Christ and his Apostles * Matth. 26.2 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Mar. 14.18 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Luk. 22.14 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Matth. 14.19 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 gesture in the Sacrament of the Supper ties us to the same which was leaning and partly lying which was their usuall table gesture then Now the ordinary table gesture which is usuall among us is most fit so the usuall manner of washing amongst us is most fit to be observed in baptisme and that is by powring as well as by dipping But it may be objected That sprinkling a little water doth not so fitly represent the perfect washing away of all our sinnes as dipping or plunging sith here the whole body is washed there onely the face or head onely Answ First the Scripture no where requires the washing of the whole body in baptisme Secondly with as good reason one might plead thus It is most convenient that at the Lords Supper every communicant should receive his belly full of bread and wine and take as long as stomack and head will hold to signifie the full refreshment of the soule with the body and bloud of Christ But who would endure such reasoning These outward elements of Water Bread and Wine are for spirituall use and to signifie spirituall things so that if there be the truth of things the quantitie is not to be respected further then is sufficient for its end namely to represent the spirituall grace and that it be neither so little as not clearely to represent it 2. Pet. 3.21 nor so much as to take off the heart from the spirituall to the corporall thing Not the washing away of the filth of the body in baptisme nor the glutting or satisfying of the naturall appetite in the Lord Supper is to be looked after but the washing and refreshing of the soule which may well be represented by the sprinkling of a little water eating and drinking of a little bread and wine In Circumcision a little skin was cut off Arg. 2 The spirituall grace and invisible act of God upon the soule signified and represented by the outward act of baptisme is oft expressed in Scripture by the phrase of powring and besprinkling and that in great probabilitie if not certainly and unquestionably with allusion to the Sacrament of Baptisme either already administred 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 fudit Infudit affudit profudit perfudit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or to be administred I mean the bloud of Christ and the Spirit of God which are the invisible grace of Baptisme are said to be powred or sprinkled on Gods people Esa 44.3 For I will powre water on him that is thirstie and floods on the dry ground I will powre my Spirit on thy seed and my blessing upon thine off-spring Here the Spirit is said to be powred and this benefit is signified by the type of powring water Ioel 2.28 I will powre out my spirit on all flesh Which promise Peter citing calleth upon the people to repent and receive baptisme as being the signe and seale which God had appointed to represent and exhibite this promised blessing by Ezek. 36.26 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And I will sprinkle upon you cleane water and you shall be cleane This cleane water questionlesse is the blood and spirit of Iesus Christ represented by the water in baptisme Thus we see three severall phrases signifying to sprinkle besprinkle powre If we look into the New Testament we shall find the like phrases Act. 2.17 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I will powre forth my Spirit upon all flesh Heb. 10.22 Having your hearts besprinkled from an evill conscience 1 Pet. 1.2 By the sanctification of the spirit and sprinkling of the bloud of Iesus Christ See Heb. 9. 13. and 14. verses compared together and Heb. 12.24 Now let any one without prejudice consider these Scriptures whether at least some of them speake not in allusion to baptisme and whether they all hold not forth the thing signified in baptisme and whether baptisme be not a lively resemblance and representation of the things here spoken off And then withall let him consider whether the thing exhibited in this Sacrament be ever so fully set forth by dipping and then I leave him to judge whether sprinkling be not as that I say not more agreeable to the nature of this Sacrament as dipping Arg. 3 Thirdly this dousing over
made concerning the thing signified viz. powring his Spirit which promise belonged to them and their children therefore they should receive the signe which God had instituted to signifie it which may seeme the most genuine resolution of the Text. Or secondly This reason may be understood as brought both to the exhortation Repent and be baptized and the promise And you shall receive remission of sinnes and the gift of the holy Ghost for considering that baptisme and the gift of the holy Ghost are correlatives as the signe and thing signified the reason well may that I say not necessarily must be referred to both Or thirdly if we grant that it is immediately referred to the foregoing promise yet it must necessarily be taken as a reason of the exhortation at least mediately for seeing the promise of remission of sinnes and the holy Ghost is brought as a reason to perswade them to be baptized and these words For the promise is to you c. is brought as a confirmation of the promise Causa causae est causa causati and considering that the cause of the cause is the cause of the caused and the reason of the reason is the reason of the thing proved by that reason this For the promise c. must needs be brought as a reason why they should be baptized and so those who bring this as a reason that the Apostle gives why they should be baptized joyning the thing argued and the Argument together and omitting that which was interposed as not pertinent to the purpose are quit from your slander of false alledging Scripture and you convinced to be a false accuser of the brethren The next Objection that you frame I owne not Assenting that it is true that neither these Iewes nor the Gentiles were in Covenant untill they had entred into the same by repentance and faith seeing that the old Covenant was now abrogated and the Gentiles had beene hitherto foreiners so that you will acknowledge that whensoever Iewes or Gentiles should receive the promise by faith and repentance it did not onely belong unto them but also to their children For though it be expressed to the Iews That the promise was to them and their children it is to be understood to hold of the Gentiles also For now the partition wall was removed and the Iewes had no priviledge for their childrens having right unto the promise any more then the children of beleeving Gentiles Thus farre I have digressed in answer to some objections made against the Scripture which was brought for the proofe of my proposition though it might be handled as well in the assumption yet because I have more to say on the assumption I brought these objections under the proposition The summe of the proposition must be remembred to be this Where is right to the spirituall blessing promised in the word and sealed in baptisme there is right to baptisme which stands firme against whatsoever hath beene objected I come to the assumption The places of Scripture quoted to confirme the assumption have beene spoken of before Onely we may consider now First what things are promised in those Scriptures expresly Secondly what is implied Thirdly to whom these promises are made For the first God promiseth to be their teacher yea though they be uncapable of humane discipline They shall not teach one another but they shall all be taught of God Esa 54.13 Ier. 31.34 Againe that he will give yea powre his Spirit and that his Spirit shall be upon them Ioel 2.28 Es 59.21 Secondly under these two expressions yea each of them severally are comprehended all those things that are requisite for our being in Covenant with God and all those spirituall graces that give us right to the seale of entrance as first Regeneration which is the proper and certaine worke of the spirit of sanctification Ioh. 3.5 which spirit of regeneration to be signified by the water of baptisme may appeare by that Scripture Ioh. 3.5 Tit. 3.5 Againe this implies communion with Christ which must needs be by faith actuall or virtuall Ioh. 6.45 Heb. 11.6 For whosoever is taught of God and hath the Spirit of Christ must needs have Christ and so it follows that such have right unto remission of sinnes Thirdly these promises belong unto the children of the Church the sonnes and daughters of the faithfull all of them from the least to the greatest the seede of the faithfull and their seeds seed as may appeare in the Scriptures quoted and here must be comprehended infants as well as others who have right unto the promise by vertue of their parents entering into Covenant with God as Act. 2.39 The Apostle bids them repent and be baptized and so enter into Covenant for the promise saith he is unto you and your children so that there can no reason be given why infants should be excluded from these promises unlesse any one shall say that infants are uncapable of these gifts which this A. R. seemes to hold in many places of his booke which opinion is more worthy detestation then confutation Are not infants capable of sinne Psal 51.5 and therefore of sanctification shall the first Adams disobedience be available to bring guilt and defilement and not Christs obedience to procure remission and sanctification Or is there no remedie for the poore infants of beleeving parents but if they die before they come to the use of reason they must necessarily perish as being born the children of wrath and being uncapable of remedie Or doth this man hold that they are brutes without soule in that he compares baptizing of infants to circumcising of Camels or Asses 2 Part pag. 21. Are not these profane Atheisticall conceits contrary to the promises of God cleare testimonie of Scripture and example as of Iohn the Baptist who was sanctified and moved by the Spirit even in his mothers wombe Quest But what must we then beleeve that all the children of Christians are already indued with the holy Ghost taught of God and sanctified c. so soone as borne or in their infancie Answ It is enough to prove their right to baptisme that they are under the promise and interessed therein by vertue of their parents being at least externally in Covenant so that whether they have already received the Spirit or have a promise thereof it sufficeth to give them a right to the Sacrament As these are bid repent and so come under promise themselves with their children and then be baptized and afterward they shall receive the holy Ghost Quest But must we think that all children of Christian parents that are baptized either have or shall receive the Spirit and so be saved Answ Iohn the Baptist and the Apostles though they were not to beleeve that amongst those multitudes whom they baptized there were none but truely had or should receive the Spirit for it was after proved by the event that many were hypocrites yet they turned away none because by
their externall confession of sinne and profession of faith and repentance they shewed themselves to be externally in Covenant and so to have right to the outward seale which they therefore administred to one as well as to another So though we are not bound to think that all the children borne of parents in covenant are or shall be sanctified yet because they are outwardly in covenant and under the promise which promise God makes good as seemeth good in his eyes therefore the Minister that is not to judge of the inward worke of sanctification on the heart whether present or future but of the outward estate neither if he could discerne the inward estate might he withhold the outward priviledge from any though wanting inward grace that hath right thereunto by being under covenant outwardly may and ought to administer baptisme to the children of all Christian parents under his charge that requires it so long as by wilfull Apostasie from the faith or just excommunication wherein they obstinately continue they with their children are not discovenanted Obiect If any should object That those promises of the Spirit or Gods teaching c. made to the seed of the faithfull to all both small and great c and the promise made to the faithfull and their children belong onely to the spirituall seed of the Church viz. those that are borne againe in the wombe of the Church Answer I Answer 1. These promises made to the Christian Church are like to that promise made to the Iewish Church Deut. 30.6 And the Lord thy God will circumcise thine heart and the heart of thy seed to love the Lord thy God Now this they were to understand not onely or principally of Proselytes that should be converted to the Church nor onely of their posteritie when they came to the use of reason but even of Infants as may appeare in that God appointed them to circumcise their Infants For circumcision of the flesh was a sign of circumcision of the heart which if infants had not been capable of God would not have commanded the outward signe to have been administred unto them And so these promises made to the Christian Church to their seed to their seeds seed to their children from the least to the greatest appertain to infants in the Christian Church as well as others The universall note being understood De generibus singulorum not de singulis generum as they say of all sorts sexes ages and condition some though every individuall of all sorts be not comprehended therein And therefore Baptisme sealing such promises belongs to Infants in the Christian Church as well as circumcision did in the Iewish Secondly I answer It is absurd to understand these promises onely of the spirituall seed as if they belonged only to the regenerate For what is it to be taught of God and have the Spirit powred but to be converted or regenerated and drawn to Christ so that by this interpretation the meaning of these promises should be this much I will powre my Spirit on whom I have or shall powre my Spirit and they shall be taught of God that are or shall be taught of God It is true God may here well promise a greater measure of the Spirit and illumination where he hath given some measure But withall it is certaine here is promised the Spirit and illumination also to those that are quite destitute and so to such as are not yet the spirituall seed of the Church Thirdly I answer What matter of consolation can this be to beleeving parents if not withstanding their prayer for and religious education of their children none of these or the like promises belong to them but onely to the spirituall seed of the Church that is such as are already converted and declare their conversion by actuall faith What ground of prayer for or hope of the salvation of their children have they more then of the Heathens if this be admitted 2. Argument If Governours of families upon their beleeving and tendring up themselves and theirs to God and Christ were not onely themselves baptized but all the persons in their houshold and which were under their government of what age soever were baptized also so that where there is no mention of preaching to or the beliefe of any but the Governours themselves yet their whole housholds were dedicated unto God in Baptisme Then it is lawfull yea a dutie to Christian parents to tender their children being part of their family unto God in Baptisme and Ministers have good ground yea ingagement for baptizing such But Governours of Families upon their beleeving and tendering up themselves and theirs unto God and Christ were not onely themselves baptized but all the persons in their houshold or which were under their government so that where there is no mention of preaching to or the beliefe of any but the Governours themselves yet their whole housholds were dedicated unto God in Baptisme Act. 16.14 15 and 31 32 33. 1 Cor. 1.6 Therefore it is lawfull yea the dutie for Christian parents or governours of families to tender their infants which are part of their houshold unto God in Baptisme and Ministers ought to baptize such being tendred of their parents The Major needs no confirmation it being granted by all yea by the Adversaries themselves as I conceive taken for an undeniable principle that the Apostles example in baptizing is a sufficient warrant for us and that such are to be admitted to Baptisme now as were admitted by the Apostles For most of their reasoning is grounded hereupon and they hence condemne our baptizing of Infants because say they it is not agreeable to the practise of the Apostles so that that Baptisme which is agreeable to the Baptism of the Apostles is warantable by their own grants and so the sequele standeth firme and good If in the Apostles times whole families of beleeving governours were baptized they ought so now and so consequently the infants of those families which are parts thereof if there be any such For as Abraham and his Family was a pattern unto all such as should enter into the Covenant of grace during the time of circumcision that as he and his Family were circumcised so should all whether of his posteritie or proselytes circumcise all their Males even the babes So those primitive Converts that were the first fruits of the Gentiles and when they beleeved were baptized with their whole families are examples for the beleevers of all Ages to follow in consecrating themselves and theirs to God in Baptism As for the Minor those places of Scripture cited prove it Act. 16.31 32 33. To the Iaylour demanding what he should doe that he might be saved Paul and Sylas answer bidding him beleeve in the Lord Iesus Christ promising that he should be saved and his houshold Teaching that the beleefe of a father or governour of a family is sufficient to bring a whole family that is at his disposing and to be ruled by
him into a state of salvation so farre as that now they are within the Covenant and so consequently have right unto the seale of initiation It is said indeed that they spake the word of the Lord unto him and all that were in the house viz. so many as were capable of instruction But there is no word of the actuall beliefe or repentance by expression word or action of any in the family except onely of the Iaylour himself whose repentance and faith at least initiall is expressed by the effects thereof viz. his humiliation and desire of salvation vers 29. and 30. and more fully by the fruits of them declared vers 33. in taking them the same houre of the night and washing their stripes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and then it is said that he and all his were baptized straight-way Which evidently sheweth that the governours faith and repentance or being within the Covenant doth sufficiently interesse their inferiours that are at their dispose to the Covenant of Grace and so to the Seale of entrance at least if they be not refractary wilfully and stubbornly refusing to be given up to God by their superiours The like may be said of Stephanus his family 1 Cor. 1.16 But most cleare and expresse is the example of Lydia Act. 16.14 15. When the Lord had opened her heart to attend to those things that were spoken of Paul she was baptized and her houshold Not a word spoken of preaching to or actuall faith and repentance of the rest So that it is apparent that as upon Abrahams faith and repentance and interest in God his whole Family whether those that were born in the house or those that were bought with money yea even his infants of eight dayes old had so farre interest in God that upon his tendring them up unto God according to his gracious appointment now they had right unto the Seal of Circumcision after God had once instituted it so Christian governours of families or parents by their faith and repentance are meanes of bringing salvation to their families and interessing those that are under them to God and Christ so farre as that they have right unto Baptisme at least except they stubbornly refuse the Seale and reject the Covenant A. R. To this Argument especially the Scriptures brought to confirme the assumption you answer There might be no Infants there viz. in those families which were baptized and my negative say you is as good as your affirmative Answer This toucheth not the force of mine Argument which hath shewed that upon parents or governours of families receiving the Gospel their families were accepted unto Baptisme their superiours tendring them thereunto Whether Infants or not there is no exception of Infants or others But you say your Negative is as good as our Affirmative without proofe and that you bring Scripture for your negative as Act. 18.8 which Scripture maketh nothing against us For first if Crispus beleeved in the Lord with all his Family it doth not follow that these families which we mentioned had none but actuall beleevers in them before they were baptized Secondly Crispus may be said to beleeve he and his houshold and so to be baptized though they were not all indued with actuall faith as Abrahams Family was a Family of beleevers even the whole Family when the Seale of the righteousnesse by faith had been set upon all the Males therein although they did not all actually beleeve You adde the example of the Iaylour Act. 16.31 32 c. Answer We have already sufficiently considered what is contained in vers 31 32 33. viz. though Paul and Silas preached the word unto all in the family viz that were capable of instruction yet the faith and repentance of none but of the Iaylour himselfe is manifested But you say He and all his houshold beleeved in God as it is vers 34. Answ If you looke into the Originall you shall finde that that verse makes nothing for your purpose It is word for word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And he rejoyced with all his house having beleeved in God or when he had beleeved in God But because the English cannot so fully and clearely give the sense of the place it may be noted 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 having beleeved being the Masculine gender and singular number as the Grammarians speake cannot be referred to that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 alone or taken with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the keeper So that the sense should be the whole house beleeved or the Iaylour and the whole house beleeved I say the words cannot beare this sense as the skilfull in the language may easily see and therefore in the translation beleeving or rather having beleeved in God is to be read within a parenthesis so that those words with his whole family is to be referred onely to the word rejoyced Thus And rejoyced beleeving or having beleeved in God with all his house So that though our Translatours did well render the words yet the want of observing the parenthesis causeth the words at the first sight otherwise to sound then indeed they do to those that looke on the Originall Laetatus est cum omni domo credens Deo So Arias Montanus But under correction and with submission to better judgements if I might be so bold I conceive it might be rendered more agreeably to the signification of the words the scope of the place and for the avoyding of ambiguitie And having beleeved in God he rejoyced exulted or testified his joy openly by outward actions in all his family or through his house or all his house over For 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 beleeving and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 rejoyced are both the singular number and so have reference to one alone viz. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Iaylour 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 rendred with all his house is an adverbe and so according to the ordinary use of that part of speech is referred to the verbe to shew how the thing was done not by whom Beside the scope of the place seemes to favour this Interpretation for it is said in the words before that he brought them into the house and set meat before them or made them a feast so that he expressed his rejoycing in his whole house by making a solemn feast in all the family as it were celebrating that night as his spirituall birth-dayes solemnitie Now you come to compare that Scripture mentioned which you apprehend to speake of whole families beleeving before they were baptized with these that speake of baptizing families where yet none are said to beleeve save the heads and thence you gather That it cannot be reasonably imagined but that the Apostle did baptize these families according to commission c. and those other places which are more silent must be expounded by this which is more plain and not this by those Answ First No question the Apostle baptized according to commission but that their
this holinesse or unholinesse of children proceeds not from the holinesse or unholinesse of parents but from the lawfull or unlawfull conjunction of parents in the begetting of children for the Apostle in this place speakes of all men universally Answ Let any indifferent man judge whether this be not an uncleane illegitimate and spurious interpretation of and drawing conclusions from the Scripture For first What comfort or resolution had this beene in the scrupulous parent to tell him that his children were holy that is legitimate and no bastards but legitimates because they were begotten in lawfull matrimony that had beene contracted before conversion whereas by your interpretation of these Scriptures if they had continued still unconverted both of them their children had beene as holy that is legitimate and no bastards Secondly how can this place Marriage is honourable in all c. and the bed undefiled be understood of all men universally as you say viz. unbeleevers as well as beleevers Tit. 1.15 When the Apostle saith Vnto the pure all things are pure but unto them that are defiled and unbeleeving is nothing pure but even their mind and conscience is defiled how can the marriage bed then be undefiled to such It is evident therefore that we make not the Spirit of God contradict it selfe that the universall note all men is to be restrained to the subject matter viz. all sorts of beleevers for to such he wrote of what qualitie condition or calling soever Thirdly But I pray you see and if you will not let others consider how all this while in interpreting this Scripture 1 Cor. 7.14 and wresting wiredrawing and pulling in as it were obtorto collo other Scriptures which you would force to favour your interpretation you have directly and manifestly contradicted the Apostle and corrupted the Text. The Apostle tells the beleeving yoke-fellows that their children are holy though their yoke-fellows were unbeleevers because they are sanctified to them viz. by their faith you say therefore the children are holy because their matrimonie was lawfull If the Apostles meaning were that which you would have it he should have said You were lawfully married therefore are your children holy But he saith The unbeleever is sanctified by or to the beleever else were your children uncleane let their marriage be never so lawfull Paul gathers the holinesse of children from grounds peculiar to the faithfull viz. the faith and being in covenant at least of one of the parents shewing plainly that were it not for this the children must needs be uncleane You would draw it from grounds common to Infidels viz. lawfull matrimony affirming that whosoever is borne of parents though infidels lawfully married is holy in the Apostles sense Thus when men set themselves to maintain errours they are not afraid nor ashamed plainly to contradict the Spirit of God You have somewhat further which you call an objection It seems then that the holines here of the children ariseth not from the holinesse or faith of the parents but meerly from the lawfull marriage and conjunction of the parents and then you answer It is even so and goe on to repeat what you have said and adde such like stuffe not worth reading Answ It is even false though you dictate it as è cathedra or è tripode and a manifest contradicting of plain Scripture as hath beene before demonstrated Your two next objections doe not concern us and therefore I passe them by Yet one more objection you bring us in making Have the children of beleevers no more priviledge then the children of Heathens Turks and Infidels you answer In respect of the Covenant of grace and salvation none at all and bring those Scriptures Ioh. 3.7 8. Act. 10.34 35. to shew that the Covenant of grace cometh not by any naturall birth but by a new birth Onely their priviledge you say is in respect of the meanes of salvation for beleeving parents may be a means to bring their children to the knowledge and faith of Christ Answ What Christian heart doth not abhorre this assertion as being directly contrary to the tenour of Gods Covenant Gen. 17. of which more hereafter and repugnant to Gods gracious promises frequently inculcated in Scripture Exod. 20.5 6. Act. 2.39 Esa 59.21 Doth not this strike at a maine pillar of a Christians comfort grounded on those precious promises so that by this tenet if the children of Christian parents die before they be capable of the outward meanes of salvation or their parents be taken from them before they come to yeares of discretion they must be parted with as the children of Turkes or Infidels as being out of the state of salvation as being in a lost and hopelesse condition as having no right to the Covenant notwithstanding all the gracious promises that God hath made to the faithfull to be their God and the God of their seed to shew mercy to their posteritie even to thousands that the promises doe belong unto them and their children that his word and Spirit shall abide on their seed and their seeds seed Let men judge whether the father of lies can speake more contradictorily to Scripture for the extenuating of Gods rich grace and dashing the comfort of Gods people Thus have I vindicated the ground of my third argument Yet notwithstanding all shifts we see this truth remaines firme that the children of Christian parents are faederally holy and members of the Church and so have right to the seale of admission into the Church 4. Arg. 4. Arg. To those that are in Covenant with God the Sacrament or seale which God hath instituted to represent and seale admission into Covenant is to be administred Gen. 17.10 11. Exod. 12.48 But children of beleeving parents are in Covenant with God Gen. 17.7 Exod. 12.48 Esa 59.21 Therefore children of beleeving parents are to be admitted to the seale of entrance into the Covenant which now is baptisme in the time of the Gospel For the confirmation and explication of the former proposition I conceive it is hardly questioned but that when God hath made a Covenant with his people and appointed a seale to signifie and represent admission into the same then the seale or signe belongs to those which have entred into Covenant under what kinde of administration soever the Covenant be dispensed So Philip reasons If thou beleeve with all thine heart thou maist be baptized So Peter Can any one forbid water that these should not be baptized c. For actuall faith at least in profession was necessary to those that at first entered into the new covenant and received the sign or seale thereof to wit baptisme as well as it was necessary to Abraham who entered first into the old Covenant which was sealed by Circumcision though actuall faith was not required of his posteritie as necessarie to their being in Covenant Neither for ought that I see doth the Adversarie deny this proposition Yet if it be questioned it is fully
fancies of your owne braine that you have vented before I will not think it burdensom to answer you though in some things the same for substance that hath been said before That you say viz. the Iewish Church-state and old Covenant being constituted upon nature and the naturall seed of Abraham Answ I pray you can you tell what you meane when you say that the Iewes Church-state was constituted upon nature and the naturall seed of Abraham I am sure you speake not according to Scripture that I say not nor according to sense or reason As far as I can apprehend when you say it was built upon nature If you have any meaning in these words and doe not let them fall from you at randome it must be understood either first that nature was the ground cause of this covenant or secondly that naturall blessings were onely bestowed in this covenant or thirdly that this covenant was made onely with the naturall children of Abraham all which are manifestly false For first if your meaning be that this covenant was grounded on nature so that nature was the cause of it you must either meane the nature of God as contradistinguish't to his will and good pleasure or the nature of Abraham The nature of God was not the cause of it for what God doth by nature his nature being the cause he doth eternally necessarily unchangeably so as he cannot but doe it as to know himselfe and all things knowable to love himselfe Or if you meane that the nature of Abraham was the ground of this covenant it is as false for there was nothing in Abraham by nature that put difference between him and others Deut. 7. Iosh 24. Rom. 4. Or if you meane God onely bestowed temporall blessings in this covenant that is palpably and execrably false also God was their God in the old covenant circumcised their heart to love him feare him and obey him and trust in him he gave remission of sinnes and sanctification under that Covenant which were not naturall blessings Or thirdly if you meane that that Covenant was made with Abrahams naturall posteritie there is no appearance of truth in it for bond-men and those that were bought with money and Proselytes of any nation or stock whatsoever were admitted into this Covenant Gen. 17. Exod. 12. You adde This to wit the Christian Church-state upon grace and the spirituall seed of Abraham Answ So was the old Covenant to use your phrase constituted on grace Gods free favour was the cause of it and the graces of the Spirit bestowed as truly under it though not so plentifully and clearely as now as these phrases expresse Gen. 17. Deut. 30. Mal. 2.5 I am God all-sufficient I will be thy God I will circumcise thy heart and the heart of thy seed to love the Lord thy God c. My Covenant was with him of life and peace Secondly if you meane by the spirituall seed of Abraham Iesus Christ the seed of the woman that was to breake the Serpents head Gen. 3. Joh. 8. Rev. 13. 1 Tim. 2. in whom the Covevant was made with our first parents fallen at the seeing of whose day Abraham rejoyced in whom God promises that all the Nations of the earth should be blessed the old Covenant was made with Abraham in him who is the Lambe slaine from the foundation of the world who is the onely Mediatour between God and man and by whom alone Abraham and all the faithfull have had communion with God You adde That therefore termed Israel according to the flesh and of the circumcision of the flesh this Israel according to the spirit and of the circumcision of the heart Rom. 2.28 29. 4 6 7 8. Col. 2.11 Answ No such thing appeareth in those Scriptures Take heed how you falsifie Gods word would you perswade men that God gave not circumcision of heart under the old Covenant that because all were not right Israelites that were Abrahams seed therefore none were that because he is not a Iew that is one outwardly therefore none under the old covenant were inwardly Iews because true Christians are circumcised with a circumcision without hands therefore the Iewes were not circumcised but onely with hands not spiritually Let any man examine those Scriptures and see whether from thē it can be gathered that all under the old covenant had onely circumcision of the flesh and that all under the new covenant have circumcision of the spirit It will appeare to any judicious Reader that here are two or three notorious falsehoods with a grosse perverting of Scripture in this short sentence The first That the Iewish Church-state or old covenant is called Israel according to the flesh or circumcision of the flesh but the Gospel-state Israel according to the spirit or the circumcision of the heart wherein are infolded more untruths then one Secondly that therefore they are so called because that was constituted on the naturall seed of Abraham c. The abuse of Scripture appeares that these Scriptures neither prove the antecedent nor sequele nor consequent neither make any thing for his purpose as if it would not be overtedious to stand upon and needlesse to any men of judgement might be shewed But such uttering of falshoods and then propping them with Scriptures to abuse the simple is ordinary almost in every page and sometimes frequent in one page as may appeare by the answer though I have not said so much in expresse words before neither should have said so now but that I consider such is the weaknesse of some Readers that what they read if Scripture be brought for proofe thereof though never so impertinently abusively and perversely they thinke it must goe for currant Thirdly that you say a state of bondmen or servants so as in that state an heire or beleever differed nothing from a servant though he were lord of all c. Gal. 4.7 Answ That under the Old Testament the Church of the Iews was an heire yea lord of all though in regard of its infancie and immaturitie nothing differing from a servant as being held under the tutourship of the Law this I say is sufficient to prove that the Church of the Iewes and the Christian Church is one and the same for substance and under the same Covenant in all essentialls For all know that a sonne and heire is the same for substance and in person at three yeares old and at thirty though altered in some accidentall priviledges at riper yeares And hence your fancie of the Iewish Church being constituted on nature is quite overthrowne For if the Iewish Church was heire and lord of all beleevers were then children though in minoritie and under tutourship How were they children not by nature for Christ onely is the Sonne of God by nature therefore by grace and so they were under a Covenant of Grace Thus powerfull is the word of truth to overthrow those errours that ignorant men would abuse and force it
to maintaine and yet you are not afraid nor ashamed to father this errour upon Christ himselfe and would force his words to the Iewes to sound this way Ioh. 8.31 And among other your toyes that you would fasten on him which are not worth the examining unlesse a man had more time then he knew how well to bestow you bring him in speaking thus in the conclusion of your paraphrase that you make on his words to the Iewes You see then how that Covenant of Circumcision made with Abraham and you his naturall seed was to be an everlasting Covenant in your flesh to wit in me that was to come of your flesh Gen. 17.13 Answ First is not this notorious presumption to father such a fancy as this on Christ to call the flesh of the Iews fore-skinne Christ himselfe for that by the flesh in which Gods covenant was is meant the fore-skin wherein God set the signe and seale of his covenant is apparent by comparing the 10 11 12. verses of Gen. 17. together Secondly If that were an everlasting Covenant which God made with Abraham and the Israelites and made with them in Christ though Christ was not that flesh in which circumcision was made both which you grant here and the Scripture plentifully proveth then certainly was the covenant made with the Iewes and with us all one for substance seeing they and we have one Mediatour and seeing the old dispensation of the covenant is abrogated how was that an everlasting covenant but as the same covenant is perpetuated now in the Evangelicall dispensation of it But you will have Christ give this reason that by the flesh wherein the covenant of circumcision was to be is meant Christ because Christ was to come of their flesh Answ Was he so Was Christ to come of the flesh of strangers and Proselytes or of all the posteritie of Abraham which had the covenant in the flesh Did Christ come of the flesh of all that were circumcised which must needs follow on this conceit What prodigious opinions doth this mans braine conceive and father on Christ After you come as you say to shut up all thus That it is apparent that infants of Christian parents cannot warrantably be baptized untill they manifest and declare their faith by profession as is apparent first from the doctrine and practise of Iohn Matth. 3.6.8 9. Mar. 1.4 Secondly of Christ and his Apostles Ioh. 3 22. compared with 4.1 2. Act. 2.38.41 and 8.12.36 37. Thirdly by the tenour of the commission Mat. 28.29 Mar. 16.15 16. Answ No su h thing is apparent from these Scriptures as is first sufficiently shewed by the foregoing reasons Secondly by the fore examination of those Scriptures and grounds you build upon Thirdly in none of those places doe you finde baptisme so restrained to those that professe the faith that it should be lawfull for none else to have it Fourthly I adde if abusing the Scriptures and inventing and avouching new and monstrous errours may make your opinion for which you plead to be apparent truth then indeed you have made appparent what you say otherwise not Fiftly though in mine answer to that Scripture Matth. 28.29 I hope sufficient hath been said to answer all other Scriptures of that kind yet because some put great confidence in that Mar. 16.15.16 for this opinion though it be the same for substance with the other Mar. 16.15 16. I will adde a little in this place though happily the same for substance that hath beene said The words of Christ are these Go ye into all the world and preach the Gospel unto every creature He that beleeveth and is baptized shall be saved he that beleeveth not shall be damned To make it appeare that nothing can be gathered to confirme the adversaries opinion note these foure things First Here our Saviour doth not forbid his Disciples to baptize any that want actuall faith or confine baptisme to beleevers or expressely shew who should be baptized and who not onely he shews who should by saved viz. those that beleeve and were baptized and who should be damned viz. those that beleeved not so that it is strange that men should promise to themselves any patronage for Anabaptisme from this place Secondly If any should say that though here it be not expressed that beleevers onely are to be baptized yet it may be hence gathered and is implied from the order and connexion of the words He that beleeveth and is baptized so that men must beleeve before they be baptized I adde secondly That no such thing can be necessarily implied by the series of the words which I prove by this very Text. First it would by as good consequence follow that none ought or can preach the Gospel be meanes of working faith baptize or helpe toward salvation but those who have received Apostolicall authoritie and gifts to goe into all the world and preach unto every creature for the connexion and order is alike but no man will yeeld this consequence Secondly by as good and better consequence you might gather that none shall be saved but those that beleeve and are baptized which is false for whatsoever you hold I conceive that none but those that are given over to strong delusions will hold that all the children of Christian parents that die before they come to actuall faith must remedilesly perish and as for the absolute necessitie of baptisme to salvation if with the Papists you hold it will easily be confuted from this Scripture shewing that not want of baptisme where it cannot be had and is not wilfully contemned but unbeleefe condemneth Yet there is as good reason for these inferences from this place as for that you would imply hence Or thirdly that nothing but unbeliefe can be the ground of damnation might as well be concluded hence as that nothing but faith can be the ground of baptisme whereas not onely unbeleife but every sinne is damnable and without repentance will bring damnation Thirdly I answer to this Scripture that though it were granted that the Apostles who were to gather a Church out the unbeleeving world and take them into Covenant that were out of Covenant might not baptize any but those who by professing faith tooke hold of the covenant from which before they were aliens and their families who were now received into covenant with them yet it doth not follow that the children of parents in covenant and so in Covenant themselves should be denied baptisme though they want actuall faith for there is not the same reason of a Church gathered and to be gathered as that latter part He that beleeveth not shall be damned if it be understood of actuall faith must be restrained to the present time and matter for to those that were out of Covenant actuall faith was necessary to bring them and theirs within covenant So that the Gentiles to whom the Apostles were to preach must of necessity actually beleeve else they could not
which are the things signified in Baptisme Insomuch that the Apostle puts circumcision without hands in puting off the body of sinnes c. and buriall with Christ in Baptisme c. for one and the same thing implying that though we now want outward circumcision with hands yet we have inward circumcision without hands signified and sealed in Baptisme to so many as have Christ And so though the beleeving Iewes before Christ wanted the outward sacrament of Baptisme yet they were inwardly partakers of Baptisme without hands in remission of sinnes and mortification sealed by circumcision aswell as we So then if by being buried with Christ in Baptisme we are partakers of circumcision without hands It appeares that Baptisme is of the same use to us that circumcision was to the Iewes whereof one particular among the rest was to be a signe of entring into the Church or Covenant as may be seen in the generall use of both the Sacraments and which our Saviour it may seem would in speciall teach us by his example in that at the eight day he was circumcised as a professed Member of the Iewish Church but after when he would set up the new Covenant or Christian Church he was initiated thereinto by Baptisme So that though in some things circumcision and baptisme differ as first in the ourward ceremonies Secondly in regard of the sexes to which applyed for circumcision was applied only to males the females being uncapale and so being received into Covenant in or with the males whereas Baptisme is applied to both sexes being both alike capable of it Thirdly in the exact determinate time required in the one viz circumcision tied to the eight day but left free and undetermined in the other so that it be done as speedily as conveniently may be after the party is apprehended and acknowledged to be within the Covenant and so to have right to the sacrament And fourthly in the adjuncts or effects Circumcision with spilling of blood Baptisme without blood because the true blood of the Covenant is shed and therefore no more to be shadowed by bloody sacrifices or sacraments as aforetime Yet they agree in the maine end and use Circumcision and Baptisme being signes of entrance into the Church as the Passeover and the Supper signes of continuance and so consequently circumcision and Baptisme to be applied to those that were but newly in Covenant as to Infants of beleevers and infidels newly converted the other to be used by them that had attained to some growth Those to be applied but once to one person as signifying our spirituall birth which is but once but these often to be used as signifying spirituall nourishment and growth which must be often and continuall untill we come to perfection though we bee not bound to the distinct times in using Baptisme and the Lords Supper that were appointed for circumcision and the Passeover viz. the eight day from the birth for the one or the foureteenth day of the first moneth yearely for the other Thirdly consider that Gods bounty and grace on the one side or mans dutie and obligation on the other side is nothing diminished or straitned in the time of the New Testament in comparison of what was under the Old but rather much increased and inlarged in respect of manifestation more abundantly to Christians then Iewes as the whole course of the Scripture shews So that if God was pleased graciously to accept into covenant parents together with their children then and to become the God of the little infants as well as of the parents and to set the seale of the covenant upon the infants for the confirmation of faith and comfort of the parents for the time present and of the children for the future when they should come to understanding And if he were then pleased to binde parents to offer and dedicate their children unto him by the seale of entrance into covenant much more he vouchsafeth the former and requireth the latter now under the Gospel To this you answer A. R. God commanded Abraham to circumcise all the males in his house and every male childe at eight dayes old as well he that was borne in the house as he that was bought with mony of any stranger that was not of his seed Now it was both right and equall that Abraham should doe herein as God commanded him and it had beene sinfull in him to have done otherwise more or lesse And so likewise it is meet for us to doe as God hath commanded us to doe and no otherwise And afterwards to omit repetitions of the same things and some objections and answers which you make that either concerne us not or have beene sufficiently answered already you say we must baptize infants when we are commanded to doe it and not before notwithstanding their being capable of baptisme with all its significations Answer Ans It was shewed before that the restraining of circumcision to males and tying of it to the eighth day were accidentall and peculiar to circumcision as being the seale and sacrament of entrance into the old covenant whereas some things are essentiall and common to the seales of entrance in both covenants And therefore though the argument hold not from one Sacrament to another in those things that are accidentall and proper to the one yet it holds from one to another in those things that are common and essentiall as we justly maintaine against our adversaries the Papists that every Sacrament is a seale of the covenant of grace or of the righteousnesse of faith because circumcision was so to which you seeme to assent calling Baptisme a pledge of remission of sinnes though the name of pledge or seale be not expresly given to other sacraments in scripture Now we learne by the Israelites frequent using of the Passeover that the Sacrament of the Lords Supper is oft not once onely as Baptisme to be received by Christians though otherwise we have no expresse clear command for the oft receiving of it howbeit we be not restrained to one in the yeare onely nor to the time of Passeover nor to the use of unleavened bread and such things as were proper to the Passeover so though we doe not in baptisme observe the same ceremonie nor precise time nor sex that was peculiar to circumcision yet we justly gather that baptisme belongs to such persons for age viz. Infants though there were no expresse command in Scripture for it and that upon the grounds aforementioned Secondly Gods command to Abraham as he was the father of the faithfull is sufficient warrant for our actions though we have no speciall command for the same set downe in the New Testament much lesse brought to us by any speciall revelation as to Abraham even when in regard of some speciall acts and many circumstances we may not doe as Abraham did yet by vertue of Gods commandement to Abraham we are bound to doe that which is analogicall thereunto Gen. 17.1
Gen. 17.23 Gen. 22. Gen. 18.19 For example God commanded Abraham to walke before him and be perfect This binds us as well as Abraham though Abrahams circumcision of himselfe and his family his purpose and endevour to offer up his sonne Isaac his commanding and teaching his children and houshold not onely in morall duties but also ceremoniall in respect of circumcision and sacrifices were parts of his walking before God and being upright yet we may not imitate him in those very particulars But in those duties required in the New Testament which are analogicall and proportionable to these as giving up our selves and ours unto God in the use of those Ordinances which he for the present hath appointed in denying our selves in our dearest comforts and bringing up our children in feare and information of the Lord. And so whereas God promiseth to Abraham to be his shield and exceeding great reward and his All-sufficient God we may apply these promises to our selves though our condition be not the same in all things with Abrahams though we be not in danger of having the nations to rise up against us for rescuing Lot c. So God promiseth to be God to Abraham and his seed and requires that he should lay hold on the promise by faith not onely for himselfe but also for his children and so give up his children unto God in circumcision which is a ground sufficient for Christian parents to lay hold on the promise of God for themselves and their children give them up to God God in baptisme notwithstanding some circumstances wherein the promise and command made to Abraham differ from them as they are applied unto us So God gave a command and a promise unto Ioshua I will be with thee Josh 1.5.6 to the 9. I will not faile thee nor forsake thee Be strong and of a good courage c. This promise and command we may and ought to apply to our selves in any worke that God calls us unto as if it had beene made unto us in particular Heb. 13.5 Though we be never made Captaines of hosts to goe against Canaanites or take possession of a promised land or be types of Christ the true and reall Ioshua or Iesus all which were peculiar to that Worthy yet the command and promise concern us as well as him as the Apostle in that place sheweth Else if you will not grant that we are bound to beleeve promises and obey commands made to Abraham or some other speciall persons unlesse we observe all circumstances and particular actions in obeying the command and jumpe with their estate in every particular qualification in receiving the promises you will deny that we have any thing to doe with any command or promise of God and so go about to overturne all the consolation of the faithfull and discharge them of all their dutie But seeing none I hope is so foolish as to follow such absurdities we may safely hold notwithstanding what you object that Abrahams promise for his children and command to circumcise them is a good ground for Christian parents to lay hold on the covenant for their children and to present them to God in baptisme Thirdly whereas you say As Abraham did what God commanded him so must we doe as he commandeth us and again we must baptize infants when we are commanded and not before Answ I hope your meaning is not that we must have immediate revelation from God as Abraham had for if untill then we sit still we shall never obey nor beleeve Otherwise so many as are the children of Abraham acknowledge themselves bound by Gods command to him to give up himselfe and his children unto God to doe the like though they have no new revelation from God neither are bound to observe all circumstances that Abraham was You bring us in objecting God gave to infants circumcision which was a signe or seale of the righteousnesse of faith and regeneration Gen. 17.11 Rom. 4.11 and we know God gave no lying signe nor sealeth a covenant to any persons that are not therein Therefore infants are in the covenant have faith and regeneration and so ought to be baptized now as well as circumcised then To which you answer It is true God gives no lying sign nor sealeth to any persons that they are in covenant when they are not and therefore seeing that Ishmael was circumcised after that God had declared and made it knowne that he was not in covenant Gen. 17.18 19 20 21. it must follow that circumcision was not by God ordained nor by Abraham understood to be to the persons circumcised a seale of their being in covenant and much lesse of their being in the faith and regeneration Wherefore Gen. 17.11 Rom. 14.11 which this objection is grounded upon of necessitie must be understood as it is applied by the Apostle to wit that circumcision received both upon himselfe and his seed was to him and to them a signe and seale that righteousnesse should be by faith Rom. 4. vers 3.11 12. to 24. Answ God doth not declare there Gen. 17.18 19. and cited by you nor any where else that Ishmael was not in covenant for though the covenant was established with Isaac so that he and his posteritie should continue in covenant untill the promised seed should come of his posteritie yet Ishmael was outwardly in covenant Gen. 17.10 11 12 13 14.23.25 untill he discovenanted himselfe Secondly whether is it fit that we should beleeve you or God himselfe speaking Gen. 17. and Paul interpreting that place Rom. 4. who had the mind of Christ and the Spirit of God you say that circumcision was not ordained by God nor understood by Abraham to be to the person circumcised a seale of their being in covenant much lesse of their being in the faith and regeneration though we say not that it was so God saith Gen. 17.10 11. This is my Covenant which ye shall keepe between me and you and thy seed after thee every manchilde among you shall be circumcised and you shall circumcise the fore-skinne of your flesh and it shall be a token of the Covenant betwixt me and you And Paul saith that Abraham received the signe of circumcision a seale of the righteousnesse of faith c. Let men judge whether of these two parties testimonies is more worthy credit Thirdly It is not to be questioned but those Scriptures Gen. 17.7 Rom. 14.11 must be understood as the Apostle applieth them But so farre is the Apostles application there from excluding or denying our interpretation of those Scriptures viz. that God ordained and Abraham understood circumcision to be a seal of their being in Covenant and so a seale of faith and regeneration to those that worthily used it that the Apostles application presupposeth this and therefore gathers because circumcision was a signe of the Covenant and a seale of the righteousnesse of faith that righteousnesse comes by faith not by workes Fourthly If the same was not the
use of circumcision to Abraham and his posteritie for the substance to wit to be a signe of their being in covenant and seale of the righteousnesse of faith in your opinion why doe you not shew the difference of Abrahams circumcision and theirs If you say it was to Abraham a seale of his faith righteousnesse and regeneration that he had already to them of that which they were to have I answer this is but a circumstantiall difference and gives what we desire and maintaine If you say that many who were circumcised were never justified by faith or regenerated this was mans abuse and fault who being received into such a Covenant wherein God promised to be his God and was ready to performe his promise yet would not performe the conditions required in the covenant For if some that received circumcision were never internally in Covenant nor indued with the righteousnesse of faith that hinders not but that circumcision was a signe of their being outwardly received into that covenant wherein God was ready to bestow faith and regeneration if through their owne default they did not deprive themselves thereof Besides if there was not the same use of circumcision to Abraham and his children circumcised by Gods appointment How doe you say in your Preface to the Reader That baptisme is an undoubted pledge from God of the free pardon and remission of sinnes to the right subjects thereof sith it may with as good reason be said though it were so in our Saviours time yet it is not so now as you seeme to beare men in hand Though circumcision was a seale of the righteousnesse of faith and a signe of the covenant between God and him to Abraham yet it was not so to his posteritie though they were the right subjects thereof whom God had appointed to be circumcised But if you rightly gather that Baptisme is an undoubted pledge of the pardon of sinne to the right subjects thereof now because it was so to those which were first baptized we may as well gather that circumcision was a signe of the Covenant and seale of the righteousnesse of faith to those infants which by Gods appointment received it as it was to Abraham Hitherto of those Arguments of ours whereunto this Disputant answers As for the other Arguments and Objections which he brings and answers I shall leave them to defend them that owne them I will adde briefly one or two Arguments more 4. Arg. Arg. 6. If the baptizing of Infants born of Christian parents or parents within the new covenant be not according to the rule of Gods word then there is no rule or warrant in the Scripture for baptizing the posteritie of beleevers under the New covenant at all and so consequently the children of beleevers must not be baptized at all neither young nor old for we must do nothing without Scripture warrant But that the posteritie of Christian parents ought not to be baptized at all is most absurd and false as I think will be acknowledged of all that beare the names of Christians For how can it be supposed that the faith and Christianity of the parents should be so prejudiciall to the children as to deprive them of the pledge of the remission of sinnes though they repent and beleeve when yet the posteritie of Infidels may be baptized upon their faith and repentance Therefore the Antecedent must needs be false viz. that the baptizing of infants of Christian parents is not according to the rule of the word and consequently the contradictory thereto true viz. that the baptizing of infants borne of parents in covenant is according to the rule The Assumption I conceive needs no proofe seeing Christ hath appointed that the Sacraments of the New Testament should be perpetuall to the end of the world Matth. 28.19.20 1 Cor. 11.26 to those that should be in Covenant For the confirmation then of the proposition and making cleare its consequence Consider first there is no command example or other testimony in Scripture can be given to shew that the children of testimony in Scripture can be given to shew that the children of beleeving parents should be kept from baptisme untill they could in their owne persons actually repent beleeve and make confession of their faith But still when parents were converted to the faith and baptized their whole families were baptized with them Neither is there any word concerning the posteritie of Christian parents who were borne of them being in covenant to have been baptized in riper yeares Secondly those commands and examples of baptizing them that repented beleeved and professed the faith are all of such as had before been out of the New covenant and were come of parents that had never been under the covenant of the Gospel and therefore with lesse reason can be applied to the posteritie of Christian parents when they come to yeares of discretion then when they were infants For those examples and commands shew that so soone as one is in covenant with God in the time of the Gospel he hath right unto baptisme Neither can it without sinne to God and injurie to the person be denied to him but ought to be administred so soone as it may conveniently be had And therefore as they that had beene out of covenant before so soone as they had repented and beleeved at least professed so much which was necessary to their being taken into covenant ought to be baptized as soone as might be conveniently Act. 8.36 37 38. Act. 10.47 Act. 22.16 and might not without injurie be hindred by others or sinne in themselves neglect it So the children of Christian parents being in covenant as hath beene proved and cannot be denied with any shew of truth that I say not without blasphemy cannot without injurie be denied baptisme so soone as it may expediently be administred to them This Argument for more evidence and clearenesse may be propounded thus The posteritie of beleevers either must be baptized in their infancie or when they are able to make a profession of faith and do it really or they must not be baptized at all But to hold that they should not be baptized at all but that all the children of beleevers should be debarred baptisme though they prove never so godly is absurd and wicked that they should be baptized onely when they come to yeares of discretion and make profession of faith and repentance there is no warrant in Scripture neither by command practise or otherwise as hath been shewed Therefore they are to be baptized in infancie Arg. 7. If Christian women that are under the new covenant have right to the Sacrament of the Lords Supper and may and ought to be admitted thereunto neither can without great injurie be detained therefrom notwithstanding their sexe though there be no cleare expresse direct and immediate command or example in the Scripture for the same then may and ought infants of Christian parents being in covenant to be admitted to
the Sacrament of Baptisme neither can without great injurie be debarred there from notwithstanding their age though there were not any clear expresse direct immediat command for the same But Christian women have right to the Sacrament of the Lords Supper and may and ought to be admitted thereunto neither can without great injurie be detained therefrom notwithstanding their sexe though there be no cleare expresse direct and immediate command in Scripture for womens being received to the Sacrament of the Lords Supper Therefore may and ought infants of Christian parents being in covenant to be admitted to the sacrament of baptisme neither can without great injurie be debarred therefrom notwithstanding their age though there were not any clear expresse direct and immediate command or example in the scripture for the same For confirmation of the sequele in the major or first proposition note First there is as much cause to question womens title to the Lords Supper in regard of their female sex as there is cause of questioning childrens baptisme because of their infant age especially considering the female was deprived of one Sacrament in the old covenant and there is no more if so much spoken in Scripture for womens being admitted to that then for infants being admitted to this Secondly whatsoever can be said or gathered by good consequence from Scripture for Christian women receiving the Lords Supper the same as much or more may as truly and by as cleare consequence be said for the baptizing of infants of Christian parents Are Christian women of some standing and continuance in the covenant of grace and so have title to the seale and Sacrament that signifies growth in grace and continuance in Christ No lesse are infants of Christian parents entred into the covenant of grace by vertue of the covenant made with their parents as hath been proved and will not be denied I thinke by any that cares and knows what he saith and so have title to the seal of admission or entrance into covenant Have they at least in judgement of charitie right to the thing signified in the Lords Supper viz. Christ his body and bloud with all the benefits of his death and passion No lesse have these in the like judgement of charitie right to the thing signified in baptisme viz. the Bloud and Spirit of Christ pardon of sinne and regeneration Were they being the inferiour sexe comprehended under the superiour sexe of men in the command Why might not these as well being inferiours in age and wholly at their parents dispose be comprehended under the command of baptizing the parents Were they never forbidden nor excepted or exempted from the Lords Supper though not expressely commanded to receive it The same may be said concerning childrens baptizing Have women need of the Eucharist to strengthen faith and quicken them to obedience as well as men so have infants need of baptisme to confirme faith in Gods gracious covenant and incite to obedience their parents for the present and themselves for the future Is it more then probable that although at the first institution of the Lords Supper there were no women because Christ had none present but onely his owne family and peculiar flock of his Disciples who were all men yet Act. 2.42 if breaking bread unquestionably signifie the use of the Sacrament there and Act. 20.7 and 1 Cor. 11. when mention is made of the Lords Supper there were women though it is not expressed No lesse probably may it be gathered that in those families that were baptized there were some children In a word were women admitted to eate of the sacrifices and sacrament of Passeover in the time of the old covenant among the Iewes It is known that infants were received to the Sacrment of circumcision in the old Covenant likewise So that I see no reason why the one should be questionable when the other is not called into question For the Assumption or minor proposition it hath two things in it to be confirmed first that there is no direct expresse immediate command or example in the Scripture for women receiving the Sacrament of the Lords Supper more then for childrens being baptized This is easily proved by turning over to all those places of Scripture that speak of the Lords Supper which are not many Mat. 26.26 27 28. Mar. 14.22 c. Luk. 22.19 c. Act. 2.22 20.7 1 Cor. 10. 11. neither do I remember any other places that speake expresly of this Sacrament in all which places is no mention of women The second part of the assumption is that notwithstanding this is not expressed in so many words in Scripture that beleeving women shold receive the sacramēt of the Lords Supper yet that they may ought to be admitted neither can without injury be debarred which is so universally for ought I know acknowledged that I never heard it questioned And he that should question it might seeme worthy of detestation or contempt rather then answer or disputation It may be confirmed by such grounds as were intimated in my confirmation of the proposition And my reason why I say this is an unquestionable truth Beleeving women have right to the Lords Supper aswell as men that by Scripture warrant is the received maxime in Divinity that what is contained in Scripture in expresse words or may be gathered from the Scripture by just consequence hath sufficient warrant from Gods word and is a matter of faith Or as it is expressed by some thus A scripture commandeth promiseth or threatneth whatsoever is contained in it though not expressed and that is contained in it which may justly and truly be gathered from it though by never so many consequences or inferences Now I hope none questions but that it may by just and undenyable consequences be proved that beleeving women aswell as men ought to receive the Supper and so it hath been proved that children ought to be baptized otherwise if we will not admit that we have sufficient scripture warrant not only for that which is expresly set downe in scripture but also for whatsoever by just consequence is or may be deduced therefrom we shall deprive our selves of all or most Scripture-promises or priviledges and exempt our selves of all or most commands Seeing what is set downe in the Scripture is not spoken immediatly and expressely to us in particular but only by just consequence or inference is derivable and appliable unto us And therefore let those that either out of ignorance and scruple or wilfulnesse and prophanenesse think that there is warrant or obligation for nothing to be done as an act of faith and obedience but what is set downe or they are commanded expressely and clearely in the scripture in so many words take heed they doe not at once deny to God all obedience and to their soules all comfort in the promises This last argument may be summed up briefly thus If it be not warrantable for children to be baptized then
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