proved unlawfull to repeate Baptisme or for a man that hath beene baptized rightly to be baptized againe and afterward in your third part Sect. 12. you professe you are not satisfied but that both Circumcision might have been and baptisme may be reiterated and here you adde that the Argument used against the repetition of Baptisme are insufficient and that if there were but as much for baptizing of Infants as Acts 19. 5 6. affords for rebaptization the controversie were at an end with you I answer you here clearely discover your itch after new opinions your joyning with the Marcionites and Aetians who allowed it to be done at least thrice I suppose in your next wee shall have your Arguments to prove the lawful fulnesse of it which if you doe I beseech you also to shew how oft it may bee done whether as oft as the Pharisâ—es used to wash at least because your answers here seeme to imply so much whether it may not be repeated as oft as wee should attend upon the preaching of the word or as oft as wee should indeavour to mortifie our corruptions In the meane time I shall tell you some of the reasons which have hitherto satisfied the Orthodox Church in all ages First Baptisme is primarily and properly the Sacrament of our new birth the washing of regeneration which is done but once the Sacrament of our insition into Christ which is done but once the Sacrament of our admission into the new Covenant and partaking of the benefits of it and although many of those benefits and priviledges are repeated and augmented yet we have but one admission to them Secondly in no place where the Institution of it is named is there any mention directly or by consequence of any repeating of it nor any order taken about it whereas in the other Sacrament we have a quotiescunque in the very Institution nor in any of the thousands baptized in the Scripture is there the least hint of any example of rebaptization of such as were rightly baptized no not though some of them had played the Apostates as the Galatians some of the Corinthians and many others And mee thinks this Argument should move you whose principle is that nothing should be done about the Sacraments but what wee have either institution or example for Thirdly Baptisme succeeds Circumcision which was but once administred nor to be administred any more as is cleare to mee not onely from the totall silence of the Scripture but out of Josh 5. 4. c. where the holy Ghost is pleased to give this as a reason why Joshuah Circumcised the Israelites in Gilgall viz. because all the Circumcised were dead intimating that had they been Circumcised already it should not have been done againe Beside by Gods institution it was tied to the eighth day and unlesse you can find another eighth day after the birth beside the first you will never bee able to justifie it from being a breach of the institution Fourthly to this I might adde the uncontradicted custome of all the ancient Church with whom it was numbred among Heresies to reiterate a Baptisme which was acknowledged to be valid Indeed Cyprian and his fellow Bishops baptized such as had formerly been baptized by Hereticks but it was onely because they thought the Baptisme administred by Hereticks not to bee true Baptisme What weight these things have with you I know not the judicious Reader will consider of them But whereas you adde that if you saw but as much for baptizing of Infants as Acts 19. 5. c. affords for rebaptization the controversie were at an end with you give me leave to tell you that I perceive a small Argument would satisfie you if wee could but once gaine your good will As will easily appeare by a serious examination of the sense of that place Act. 19. which it seemes satisfies you for rebaptization I acknowledge Interpreters differ very much concerning the meaning of that Text but none of their expositions doe in any degree favour that opinion that such as were once rightly baptized may be rebaptized which I thus manifest very many Interpreters doe judge that those twelve Disciples were not baptized in that place and they make the fifth Verse when they heard this they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus to bee a part of Pauls speech not of Lukes the Historian and then the sense is this when those twelve men had told Paul that they were baptized with Johns Baptisme Paul tooke upon him to explaine to them what Johns Baptisme was namely that Johns ministry did first exhort men to repentance and then that they should beleeve in Christ who would give all them who beleeved in him the gift of the holy Ghost which after John had sufficiently instructed them in he then baptized them in the name of the Lord Jesus which say they is a paraphrasticall interpretation of this fifth Verse and so Paul having approved the doctrine and Baptisme of John which these twelve Disciples had received hee did not rebaptize them but laid his hands upon them and then the holy Ghost immediatly came upon them Other Interpreters thinke that these words in the fift Vers are the words of Luke the Historian and that these twelve Disciples were then baptized after Paul had done his speech and of these some conceive that these were first baptized by some of Iohns Disciples into Iohns name and not into Christs and so their baptism was a nullity or at least if they were baptized into Christs name yet they were not instructed in the right faith of the Trinity of Jesus Christ his person gifts and offices and so consequently that their faith and Baptisme were deficient in some fundamentall and essentiall things and this way go many of the Fathers and Schoolemen Others thinke they were rightly baptized with John's baptisme and yet were baptized againe by the Apostle Paul because they think that John's baptisme and Christ's did really differ and that the Lord would have them re baptized who were baptized with John's baptisme onely but not them who were baptized with Christs And this way generally goe the Papists now whichsoever of these you take here is no colour of rebaptizing of such who were rightly baptized with Christs baptisme and indeed whoever considers the Text must needs grant that if they were re-baptized it was because of the deficiency of the baptism which they had recieved Paul demands of them Have you received the holy Ghost since you were baptized They answ The holy Ghost what meane you by the holy Ghost wee never so much as heard whether there be an holy Ghost No saith Paul what were you then baptized into what strange kind of baptisme have you received what Doctrine or Faith were you instructed in before your baptisme if you never so much as heard that there is an holy Ghost Doth not this plainly hold forth that if they were re-baptized it was
wife by the husband let them bee what they will which cannot be spoken truly when the Scripture plainely sayes Nothing is pure or holy to the unbeleever as Beza well observes upon this place and though the word beleever be not in the Text yet it is necessarily implyed and therefore some Copies have it in the Margin not onely one old Copy and a Copy of Clermont and the Vulgar Latine so reade it but Augustine also in his book wherein hee expounds the Sermon on the Mount and Tertullian in libro secundo ad uxâ—rem for as Beza rightly observes the question is concerning a beleever what he is to doe with an unbeleever and when he sayes the unbeleeving party is sanctified in or by the other party it plainly implyes the one party sanctifies the other viz. the beleever sanctifies the unbeleever not retro which needed not be said of matrimoniall sanctification as you call it for in that sense both parties were sanctified in themselves not in or by one another marriage being honourable among all and the bed the coitus undefiled Besides there are words which plainly denotate it a little before a brother or sister which are taken for beleevers ver 12. if a brother have an unbeleeving or infidel wife ver 15. a brother or a sister is not in bondage in such a case And if you should say the beleeving party sanctifies the unbeleever not qua beleever but by the Word and prayer I answer this would make the Argument stronger for it is therefore such a sanctification as heathens are not capable of My Third Argument was the Apostles argument had had no strength in it supposing the text were to be interpreted as these men would have it their doubt say they was their marriage was an unlawfull wedlock and so consequently their children bastards and they make the Apostles answer to be were you not lawfull man and wife your children were bastards which kinde of Argument said I were but idem per idem Your answer to this is such a one as I know not what to make of it you say I doe not rightly set downe my Adversaries explication of the Apostle the doubt say you was onely whether they might live in conjugall use but there was no question of their children whether they were legitimate or not they were assured their children were not bastards but legitimate and this the Apostle uses as his medium to prove they might lawfully live together To which I Reply take this for granted which you say and if I want not common sense you plainely and fully answer your selfe for if they were out of all doubt that their children were not bastards then it was not possible for them to doubt whether their owne marriage were lawfull take this to be his Argument your children are legitimate this you all grant Ergo your marriage is lawfull of which you doubt Risum teneatis amici they received the one as a supposed principle that their children were lawfully begotten which could not be but in a lawfull wedlock yet had not light enough to know that their wedlock was a lawfull wedlock if they doubted not of the latter how could they of the former My Fourth Argument was according to this interpretation the Apostles answer could no way have reached to the quiâ—ting of their consciences their doubt was whether they were not to put away their wives and children as not belonging to God as being a seed whom God would not owne among his people and this answer could never have quieted their consciences to tell them their marriage was lawfull and their children legitimate To which you answer this Argument is grounded on a mistake the question was not say you about putting away of their Wives and children as not belonging to God but something else I Reply but if it be not grounded upon a mistake and that as Beza sayes Paut is not here arguing about civill policy but arguing a case of conscience Whether because of the idolatry of the wife or husband Religion did not require they should be put away because God would not have his holy seed mingled with them then by your owne confession the Argument stands good which whether it will not be made out shall God willing by and by appeare These foure Arguments I used before and whether the first three be not already vindicated let the Reader judge the fourth comes to be made good afterward when I come to confirme the interpretation which I made of it I shall briefly adde foure other Arguments to shew that this Text cannot be interpreted as you would have it First you say The unbeleeving husband is sanctified by the wife and sanctification you here take for chastity which is a most incongruous speech to say that the one party makes the other chaste if he or she were not unchast how are they made chaste by the husband or wife and if they bee unchaste how doth this make them chaste marriage is then honourable or chaste when the bed is undefiled this Argument is onely from the unseemlinesse of the expression Secondly my second I take from your own words pag. 73. Where you say The sanctification of the unbeleever here is such a sanctification as is parallel with that 1 Tim. 4. 5. where the creatures are sanctified to the pure by the word and prayer therefore there must be more meant then the Heathens are capable of therefore another sanctification then matrimoniall sanctification for that the heathens had if therefore this must be such a sanctification as that place in Timothy meanes it must be a sanctification peculiar onely to beleevers Thirdly yet a third Argument I take from your owne words you have endeavoured though in vaine to shew that bastards may be called uncleane and holy may be called chaste but you doe not and I beleeve you cannot produce out of the Scripture the least shew of a proofe that holinesse signifies legitimation you are holy id est you are lawfully begotten if you can pray let us have it in the next sure I am that place Mal. 2. 15. That man might seeke a holy seed or rather a seed of God will give you no help for though a seed of God in that place might be interpreted as M. Calvin would have it for legitimate because as he sayes that uses to be called Divine which is excellent a legitimate seed is in comparison of spurious yet this is nothing to holinesse The word in the Hebrew there used is not a holy seed but a seed of God an eminent or an excellent seed as all eminent or notable things use to be called great Armies are called the Armies of God great and high hills are called the hills of God great and tall trees are called the trees of God so that take a seed of God in that place for a legitimate seed yet there is nothing to prove that holinesse may signifie legitimation though for
A DEFENCE OF INFANT-BAPTISM IN Answer to two Treatises and an Appendix to them concerning it Lately published by Mr. Jo. Tombes Wherein that Controversie is fully discussed the ancient and generally received use of it from the Apostles dayes untill the Anabaptists sprung up in Germany manifested The Arguments for it from the holy Scriptures maintained and the objections against it answered By Steven Marshall B. D. Minister of the Gospell at Finchingfield in Essex The promise is made to you and to your Children Acts 2. 39. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Greg. Naztanzenus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Basilius Magnus Hoc viz. infantium baptisma Ecclesia semper habuit semper tenuit hoc à majorum fide accepit hoc usque in finem perseveranter custodit August Printed at London by Ric. Cotes for Steven Bowtell and are to bee sold at his Shop at the Bible in Popes-head Alley 1646. TO THE Reverend Assembly of Divines and Commissioners of the Church of Scotland now sitting at Westminster Reverend Sirs WHereas all of you in generall are concerned and some of you particularly named in the Booke I deal with the world might happily have expected a joint endeavour where there was a common interest That I therefore whilst you are otherwise fully employed should undertake this taske I desire may not bee imputed by you or any to an over weening conceipt of mine own abilities for had it fallen to some of your lots I should have hoped the Church of Christ might have reaped more fruit then it is like to doe by my poore and weake endeavours But my personall ingagement to assert that truth of God which I had held forth in a Printed Sermon which my Learned Antagonist passing by other bookes written by other men on the same argument was pleased to single out to combate with and to lay out his strength upon hath called me forth to stand up in this controversie not as your Champion but as an affectionate friend to the truth which we are all called upon earnestly to contend for in which conflict as I cannot but feare that you will easily discover my weaknesse so I cannot but hope that you will not finde me either so foiled by mine adversary or deserted by God whose cause I plead as not to have sufficiently answered that booke which hath obtained to bee called in Print The strongest Shield and Buckler wherewith that cause was ever protected but in Salem God of old brake both Sword and Shield and if he hath done the like now the weake hand which hee hath made use of serveth onely to point at that mightie arme of his which hath gotten himselfe the victory Truth triumph and the Churches peace I have had in mine eye and have desired to carry meeknesse and love even to him whose opinion I fight with all along in my heart and pen what ever measure my former writing met with from him I have endeavored to looke upon his with a neither bloodshot nor loftie eye passion blinds the one and pride makes the other oft-times overlook that truth which a lowly eye seeth clearly at a nearer distance sure I am the wrath of man worketh not the righteousnesse of God whilst the meeke hee will guide in judgement and teach his way VVhat herein God hath inabled me to doe I willingly submit to the Churches censure and humbly present to you not as any way worthy of you but onely as a publick testimony of my reverence and gratitude for all the refreshings of spirit and that abundance of spirituall grace I have found from the hand of God whilst I have had the happinesse to sit among you for a yet more plentifull effusion whereof upon you to the happy setling at length of these distracted Churches in truth and peace is the prayer of Your unworthy brother and servant in the Lords work Steven Marshall Aprill 2. 1646. A Table of Scriptures vindicated and explained Gen. 17. 9. 10 14 p. 92. Deut. 30. 6. p. 128. Deut. â—3 2. vindicated p. 149 Esay 19. 24. explained 210. Esay 44. 2. p. 128 Esay 59. 21. p. 128. Malac. 2. 15. vindicated p. 156 Mat. 18. explained and answered p. 209 226 c. Mar. 10. vindicated p. 221 John 15. 2. p. 138. Acts 2. 38 39. vindicated p. 124. Proves Infant-baptisme by consequence p. 218. Acts 15. 10. explained and vindicated p. 217. Acts 19. 5. 6. vindicated p. 69. Rom. 11. 6. vindicated p. 134. 1 Cor 7. 14. vindicated p. 145 153 154 157 c. maintained against p. 148. Verse 17 p. 161. ver 34. vindicated p. 151. 1 Cor. 10. 3 4. explained p. 199. 2 Cor. 3. 10. vindicated 188. Gal. 3. 27 28. opened p. 189. Ephes 6. 1 2. explained p. 200. Coloss 2. 8 9 10. vindicated p. 169 174. Heb. 8. vindicated 188. 1 Tim. 4. 5. vindicated p. 152. INFANT BAPTISME NO LATE INNOVATION But cleared to bee as Ancient as is pretended SIR I Received your Book about the time mentioned by your self which when I had read over and thereby perceived how meane an esteem you had not onely of my Sermon but of all other things extant in defence of Infant-Baptisme and indeed of all Men whose judgement differs from your owne and how highly you value your own performance in this piece I concluded you would have no rest in your spirit untill it saw the light and the rather because you so earnestly presse mee To call in to my assistance all the rest who are ingaged in this Cause that so you might have an adversary fit to deale with that as a mighty man you might incounter with an Host But when after some friendly conference with you you declared to me that if you might enjoy liberty to exercise your Ministery in some place where you should not be put upon the practice of baptizing of Infants you could yea and intimated to me that you would keepe this Opinion private to your selfe provided onely that if any should preach in your Pulpit for the Baptizing of them you should take your self bound in the same place to preach against it otherwise Mens preaching or printing abroad should be no provocation to you In hope whereof my self endeavoured to help you in to the place where now you are desiring the Church might not lose the benefit of those good gifts which God hath bestowed upon you And thereupon I tooke no further thought of any present Examination of your large Treatise having my hands full of other employments because I verily thought you would have sate quietly down preached Christ kept your Opinion to your self and not have any further appeared especially at this time to increase the flame of our Divisions and confusions But since you think it necessary to deprive the Infants of Beleevers of that which wee conceive to bee their glorious priviledge yea and looke upon all other endeavours of Reformation as things which will come to nothing till this opinion of yours prevaile so dearely
answer that Anabaptist I should answer him silentio contemptu for why should I not since in that very place of my Sacraments part 1. p. 78 79. where I confute those Schismaticks he snatches my words from their own defence My words are I confesse my selfe unconvinced by any demonstration of Scripture for Paedo-Baptisme meaning by any positive Text what is that to helpe him Except I thought there were no other arguments to evince it Now what I thinke of that my next words shew pag. 77. lin 4 5 6 7. I need not transcribe them In a mord this I say though I know 〈◊〉 yet that is no argument for the non-Baptizing of Infants since so many Scriptures are sufficiently convincing for it Therefore this want of a positive Text must no more exclude Insants c. then the like reason should disanull a Christian Sabbath or Women-kind not to be partakers of the Supper The quoting of mine own Text were enough 6. If Mr. Ball cut the sinewes of the Argument from Circumcision to Baptisme himself was very much mistaken in his owne meaning and intentions who in the very same place alledged by you uses the same Argument makes the parallel to lie in the same things which my Sermon doth you might have done well to have informed the Reader so much when you used his authority to overthrow that Argument his words are these Circumcision and Baptisme are both Sacraments of Divine institution and so they argree in the substance of the things signified the Persons to whom they are to be administred and the order of administration if the right proportion be observed as Circumcision sealed the entrance into the Covenant the righteousnesse of Faith and Circumcision of the heart so doth Baptisme much more clearly as Abraham and his Houshold and the Infants of beleeving Jewes were to bee Circumcised so the faithfull their families and their seed are to be baptized Circumcision was to bee but once applyed by Gods appointment and the same holds in Baptisme according to the will and good pleasure of God Seventhly I perceive you glory much that Musculus hath deserted 1 Cor. 7. 14. as an impertinent proofe for baptizing of Infants and you repeat it at least three or foure times in your book and I observe through out your whole Treatise that when any Authour joynes with you in any particular you improve his authority to the utmost which makes me conceive that it would be a great glory to you to be able to prove a consent of Learned men to concur with you in your way And therefore I cannot but wonder that you should so much slight and undervalue the Judgements of Fathers and Councells Harmonies and Confessions of whole Churches when they differ from you As for Musculus whether he changed his Judgement upon 1 Cor. 7. on good grounds shall be examined in due place In the meane time I informe the Reader that in the same place Musculus acknowledges that there are Arguments enough and sufficiently strong to prove baptizing of Infants though this 1 Cor. 7. be left out And if Musculus Opinion sway in the one I hope it 's not to bee rejected in the other Eightly whether Dignum tanto tulit hic promissor hiatn whether your roast be answerable to your great boast Whether your Arguments and Answers will make good this high charge that Paedo-Baptisme is an Innovation maintained upon dangerous principles c. we proceed now to examine And first wee shall inquire concerning the Historicall part Whether Paedo-Baptisme as it is now taught be but a late Innovation whether it bee not as anoient as is pretended Because many of the Anabaptists shame not to say That the Ancients especially the Greek Church rejected Infant-Baptisme for many hundred yeares I said in the beginning of my Sermon that the Christian Church hath been in the possession of it for the space of 1500 years and upward and named a few testimonies out of the Greeke and Latine Fathers in little more then one page to make this good no wayes intending to make the weight of the Question to hang in any degree upon humane testimonies or consent of authority but onely upon the evidence of the Word upon this you have bestowed two or three sheets of your book and as if all Antiquity run on your fiâ—e you confidently affirme 1. As much may bee said for Episcopacy keeping of Faster the religious use of the Crosse 2. That my highest Testimonies reach not so high 3. That being rightly weighed they make rather against the present Doctrine and practice then for it 4. That there are many evidences which doe as strongly prove that from the beginning it was not so and therefore is but an Innovation The first of these you suppose so cleare to Scholars that it is needlesse for you to bring any proofe the other three you undertake to make good in your subsequent discourse Truly Sir your undertaking is very high and confident and I shall diligently weigh with what strength you perform it and shall therefore more fully inquire into the practice of Antiquity in this point then else I should have judged convenient to doe As for that which you tooke for granted That there are plaine testimonies for Episcopacy the Religious use of the Crosse c. before any testimonies can be produced for the baptizing of Infants pardon mee that I forbear to beleeve you till you have made it good I have already alledged some and shall now God willing alledge more testimonies to prove that in the Judgement of the Ancients the baptizing of Infants was received in all ages and from the very Apostles as a divine Institution I read no such thing for Episcopacy as a distinct order from Presbytery your selfe may read in Dr. Reynolds his Epistle to Sir Francis Knolls that in the Judgement of Ambrose Chrysostome Augustine Theodoret Theophylact Oecumenius Primasius Sedulius Gregorius and many other that Bishops and Presbyters were all one by divine Institution and that Ecclesiasticall constitution made the difference between them Much lesse doe I read among them that the Religious use of the Crosse was received in all ages and that as a divine Institution If you can make it out that these things were so you will do a very acceptable service to the Papists Anabaptists Prelaticall Party who no doubt will return you hearty thanks if your evidence be correspondent to your confidence If you cannot you should doe well to revoke this bold assertion In the meane time I shall examine your Examen of the Antiquity produced to make good the practice of the Ancient Church in Paedo-Baptisme The first whereof was taken from Justine Martyr Your first exception put in against this testimony is concerning the year in which he lived I said 150 thereupon you charge me with overlashing because I affirmed the Church had been in possession of the priviledge of baptizing Infants 1500 yeares and upwards Yet my
existence of the duty but the Covenant of grace is the motive to it 4. Whereas you alledge concerning Melchisedeck Lot Job we find no such thing that they either received this seale of circumcision or were tyed to it I reply it 's very hard for you to prove that Melchisedeck was then alive and had he been alive he was of an higher Order and above that Paedagogie Or in what age of the world Job lived though hee bee thought to be of the posterity of Esau and so might have a right to it even in your sense as descending lineally from Abraham however this is a meere negative Argument in matter of fact which your self know to bee of no validity Negative arguments from Scripture are good in matters of faith I am not bound to beleeve this or that unlesse it be found in the Scriptures but they are not good in matter of fact this or that fact is not recorded in the Scripture therefore I am bound to beleeve it was not done is no good consequence A non scripto ad non factum non valet consequentia No Scripture saith they were circumcised though very good Authors thinke that Lot and Iob were circumcised nor doth any Scripture say they were not circumcised As to that you say of Infants under eight dayes old and of all the females in Abrahams family I answer to that of Infants there was a peculiar exemption of them by God himself whether for any typicall reason or in regard they were not fit in nature to undergoe so sharp a paine as was to bee indured in Circumcision before the seventh and criticall day was past or whether for any other cause I dispute not it is sufficient God forbad them to have the seale till they were eight dayes old For the women they were not subjectum capax circumcisionis there was in them a naturall impediment against it therfore could not be injoyned them and suppose some men among them or some who turned proselytes to them had not had a praeputium as some sort of Eunuchs this Ordinance had not reached them whether the wisdome of God purposely chose a signe that Women might not be capable of receiving it for some typicall use as some conjecture I cannot tell it is sufficient that they were not capable of it were exempted from it by God himselfe so that if you please to state the generall Proposition as you needs must That all who since Abrahams time are foederati or covenanters with God must by Gods own appointment receive the seale of admission into covenant unlesse they be either uncapable of it or are exempted by a particular dispensation This proposition will indure all the shock of your arguments and remain unmovable Next you reply to my answer concerning Women among the Jews I said they were circumcised in the males this you cast away with scorne affirming it to be an easie answer because it 's easie to bee answered Indeed Sir you answer it as easily as he who undertooke to answer Bellarmine in one word and said Bellarmine thou lyest so you it is an insufficient answer to take away the exception against the proposition and that you might have a little matter to worke upon you goe to another part of my Sermon and thence you fetch the word virtually with which you make your selfe merry putting my proposition into severall shapes and formes and in one form you say it concludes not the thing in question in another it hath 4 termes in another the major is false Wheras my plaine meaning was and is that the women being uncapable of it in their own person because of their sex wherein was a naturall impediment as to this Sacrament God imposed it onely upon the Males and yet the women were not esteemed as uncircumcised being as Divines use to expresse in this point viris annexae in iis censerentur qui familiarum capita debebant esse and whether this will not be justified we shall presently inquire But first give me leave to observe by the way how you pinch me with a point of law That no man can be said virtually to have that by his Proxie or Atturney which he might not actually receive himself in his own person I question whether this be good law but I am confident it is bad Divinity sure we sin'd virtually in Adam yet we could not actually though that sin of Adam be ours by imputation The sun is virtually hot yet Philosophers say it 's not actually And the Jews of old offered to God such things by the hands of the Priests who were their Proxies in that work which they might not offer in their own persons yea and received such things by the hand of the high Priest who bare their names in the most holy place which they might not receive in their owne persons immediately and the Saints now in this world do virtually and quoad effectum juris receive some such priviledges in Christ their Advocate who in their right is at Gods right hand which here they are not capable of receiving immediately in their own persons I also obiter desire you to remember this expression of yours That it had beene a sinne for a child to have been circumcised after the eighth day was past And try how you will reconcile this with an opinion of yours delivered elsewhere viz. That circumcision might bee administred oftner then once surely those other times must be after the first eighth day The other fault you note in my argument is That I conclude of a signe of the Covenant indefinitely and not of Baptisme onely whereas the Lords Supper is also a signe of the Covenant which yet you thinke I will say is not to bee delivered to them because not appointed for them I answer I clearely in my Sermon shewed this Proposition onely to be meant of the initiall sign and not of the other and I am confident your self who durst baptize an Infant known to you to be regenerate durst not yet give the other Sacrament to it because more is required to make one capable of that Sacrament then is required to make them capable of Baptisme a regenerate Infant you thinke is capable of this but besides regeneration I am sure you will grant That an examination of a mans selfe and an ability to discernâ— the Lords body is required to make one capable of that Now let us see how you avoid my proofes That the Women were circumcised in the men My first was That the whole house of Israel are in the Scripture said to be circumcised You answer That by the whole house of Israel must not be meant all but the major part or the most confiderable part But Sir doe you imagine that any of your judicious Readers can be satisfied with this answer when you know well enough that the Circumcision is put for the Church and people of God in opposition to the uncircumcised that is
saving grace to Infants the Seale is set to a blank for give mee leave but to put the same case first for the Infants of the Jewes was the seale put to a blanke with them or had they all promises of saving graces Secondly let mee put the same case in growne men who make an externall visible profession and thereupon are admitted to baptisme can any man say that all the saving graces of the Covenant or the spirituall part of it is promised to all visible professors is it not abundantly knowne that in all ages even in the best times even in the Apostles times multitudes were baptized to whom God yet never gave saving graces and therefore never promised them for had hee made a promise hee would have performed it But I shall desire you a little to consider the nature of a Sacrament in what sense it is a seale and then you neede stumble at this no longer these three things are necessarily to be distinguished first the truth of the thing signified in a Sacrament and secondly my interest in that thing And thirdly my obligation to doe what is required in or by that Sacrament I say therefore that in every Sacrament the truth of the Covenant in it selfe and all the promises of it are sealed to be Yea and Amen Jesus Christ became a Minister of the circumcision to confirme the promises made unto the Fathers so to every one who is admitted to partake of Baptisme according to the rule which God hath given to his Church to administer that Sacrament there is sealed the truth of all the promises of the Gospel that they are all true in Christ and that whoever partakes of Christ shall partake of all these saving promises this is sealed absolutely in Baptisme but as to the second which is interesse meum or the receivers interest in that spirituall part of the Covenant that is sealed to no receiver absolutely but conditionally in this particular all Sacraments are but signa conditionalia conditionall seales sealing the spirituall part of the Covenant to the receiver upon condition that hee performe the spirituall condition of the Covenant thus our Divines use to answer the Papists thus Doctor Ames answers to Bellarmine when Bellarmine disputing against our doctrines that Sacraments are seales alledges then they are falsely applyed ostentimes hee answers to Bellarmine Sacraments are conditionall Seales and therefore not seales to us but upon condition Now for the third thing the obligation which is put upon the receiver a bond or the for him to performe who is admitted to receive the Sacrament this third I say is also absolute all Circumcised and Baptized persons did or doe stand absolutely ingaged to performe the conditions required on their part and therefore all circumcised persons were by the circumcision oblieged to keepe the Law that is that legall and typicall administration of the Covenant which was then in force and Infants among the rest were bound to this though they had no understanding of the Covenant or that administration of the Covenant when this Seale was administred to them Now then since in Baptisme there is first an absolute Seale of the truth of the Covenant of grace in it selfe a conditionall seale of the receivers interest in the Covenant and an absolute obligation upon the receiver to make good the Covenant on his part is there any reason that you should say that the seale is put to a blank where the spirituall part or saving grace is not partaked of What you further say here that by Abraham who is the father of the faithfull is meant Abrahams person and not every beleever that it was a personall priviledge to Abraham and not a common priviledge to beleevers as beleevers which thing you repeate very often it shall bee considered in a more proper place So that you having thus wholly mistaken my sense and undertaken to dispute against a sense which I never owned I may therefore passe over your six arguments which you bring to confute this sense which you have set downe I joyne with you that it is an errour to say that all Infants of beleevers indefinitely are under the saving graces of the Covenant for although I finde abundance of promises in the Scripture of Gods giving saving graces unto the posteritie of his people and that experience â—eacheth us that God uses to continue his Church in their posteritie and that Gods election lies more among their seed then among others yet neither to Jew nor Gentile was the Covenant so made at any time that the spirituall part and grace of the Covenant should bee conferred upon them all it is sufficient to mee that they may have a visible standing in the Church partake of the outward priviledges of the Church and bee trained up under that discipline or administration of the Covenant which God uses to make effectuall to salvation in the meane time all of them to bee visible members as well as their parents and some of them invisible as well as some of their parents And therefore although in some of your fix reasons there are divers expressions which I cannot swallow yet I shall not here stay upon them but examine them when you bring them elsewhere to dispute against mee as here you doe not onely give mee leave to touch upon the last of your fix arguments because in some sense it militates against my Thesis Is this were true say you that the Covenant of grace is a birthright priviledge then the children of beleevers are the children of grace by nature then Christians are borne Christians not made Christians if the child of a Christian be borne a Christian as the child of a Turke is borne a Turke and if so how are they borne the children of wrath as well as others I answer According to the sense which I owne I maintaine this assertion to bee true that the child of a Christian is borne a Christian it is his birthright to bee so esteemed I meane to bee reputed within the Covenant of grace or a member of the visible Church our I am sure it was so the child of a Iew was borne a Iew and it was his birthright to bee an Israelite a visible member of the Church of Israel and the Apostle Paul stuck not to use the word Iewes by nature Gal. 2. 15. We who are Iewes by nature and not 〈◊〉 of the â—â—â—tiles â—ee there opposes the naturall priviledge of the members of the Church to the condition of the heathens and Rom. 11. hee calls the whole nation of the Iewes the naturall branches of the Olive tree because they were the visible Church of God Will you say of them also how were they then the children of wrath by nature I answer doe but consider the Apostles distinction Rom. 2. last betwixt a Jew in propatulo in facievisibilis ecclesiae a Jew without and a Jew in abscondito a Jew within and your objection is answered in the first
you and your children so many of them as the Lord shall call viz. you and your children have hitherto been an holy seed But now if you beleeve in Christ your selves your children shall bee in no better condition then the rest of the Pagan world but if afterward any of them or any of the heathen shall beleeve and be baptized their particular persons shall be taken into Covenant but their Children still left out this said I would not have been a very comfortable Argument to perswade them to come in in relation to the good of their children To this your answer is that this witlesse descant followes not on the applying the restriction in the end of the verse to them their children and all that are afarre off and that which I burden my adversaries Tenet with of putting beleevers Infants out of the Covenant into the condition of Pagans children is a Coâ—cysme answered before But Sir bee it witlesse or witty they must owne it whose it is and I perceive you can more easily put it off with a scoffe then give it a solid answer and it is a thorne which will not so easily bee plucked out of your side the strength of it is Peter could not have used this as an Argument to perswade them to come under this administration of the Covenant whereof Baptisme was a seale from the benefit which should come to their children if your interpretation bee true because by this their children should be in a worse condition in relation to the Covenant then they were before all grant in the former they were included you say in this latter you know no more promise for them then for the children of 〈…〉 How then could this argument be fit to be used tel me I pray you suppose a man held some Farm or Office under some great man and that in his Grant or Patent there were some apparent priviledges or benefits included concerning his posterity If now the Lord of whom hee held it should offer him a new Grant in which his children should be expressely left out and no more priviledges for them then for meere strangers could an Argument bee taken from the benefit that should come to his Children to perswade him to give up his former and accept this latter Grant I thinke not And whereas you call that expression of putting of the children of beleevers into the same state with the children of Turks a Coccysme which you have answered before I pardon your scornfull expression you doe but kick at that which bites you it is a truth which you have no cause to delight to heare of you have answered it indeed by granting the truth of it as the Reader may plainly see in my Answer to your 10 Section of the second Part and to Sect. 3. of this part Whereas I further said in my Sermon except in relation to the Covenant there was no occasion to name their children it bad been sufficient to have said a promise is made to as many as the Lord shall call You answer Their children indeed are named in relation to the Covenant But there was another reason then that which I alledge not onely their imprecation Matth. 27. 25. but especially because Christ was first sent to the Jews and their children Acts 3. 26. I Reply but this reason which you alledge affords no Argument for them now to beleeve and repent from any benefit should come to their posterity by vertue of that promise I will bee thy God and the God of thy seed To close this Section you say The Antipadobaptists have hence a good Argument against baptizing of Infants because Poter required of such as were in Covenant repentance before baptisms I answer just as good an one as because Abraham was in Covenant and an actuall beleever and justified by the faith he had in uncircumcision and received it as a seal of the righteousnesse of faith therefore all these must go before Circumcision and because all who turned Proselytes to the Jews must first make profession of their faith therefore none may bee circumcised but such as they are But more of this when we consider this Argument in your Exercitation Next let us try whether your successe bee any better against the next Text of Scripture which I brought to prove this Conclusion viz. Rom. 11. 16. c. where I said The Apostles scope was to shew that we Gentiles have now the same graffing into the true Olive which the Jewes formerly had and our present graffing in is answerable to their present casting out and their taking in at the latter end of the World shall bee the same graffing in though more gloriously as ours is now and it is apparent that at their first graffing in they and their chiâ—dren were taken in at their casting out they and their children were broken off and when they shall be taken in again at the end of the world they and their children shall be taken in together and all this by vertue of the Covenant Ero Deus tuus c. Which is the same to us and to them we and they making up the Church of God In your Examen of this Argument you still proceed in your old method first to cast scorne upon it as such an obscure Argument That none but a Diver of Delos can fetch up the meaning of it and indeed should you not pretend difficulties you could have no colour to bring in so many imaginary senses thereby to darken an Argument which is the second branch of your Artifice As whether this ingraffing be meant of the visible or invisible Church by faith or profession of saith certain by reason of election or Covenant of grace made to them or probable and likely because for the most part it happens so c. Alas Sir why doe you thus strip your selfe to dive under the water when the sense swims upon the top Look how the Jewes were Gods people so are the Churches of the Gentiles looke how the Jewes children were graffed in so are our children we are taken in in stead of them who were cast out and become one visible kingdom of Christ with the rest of them who kept their station this is the plaine sense of my Argument Now if you please but to apply all your imaginary senses to the Jews and their children and say if they and their children were graffed in together was it into the visible or invisible Church was it by faith or the profession of faith was it certain or probable Doe you not thinke your Reader would smile at the vanity of these questions When you have set downe your senses next you thus proceed the thing that is to be proved is That all the infants of every beleever are in the Covenant of Free grace in Christ and by vertue thereof to bee baptized into the Communi of the visible Church No Sir the thing to bee proved from this Text is That our infants have
of generations that feare him and visit the sins of parents upon their children may wee not say truly when God cast out the nation of the Jewes from being his people that for their sins he gave the Bill of Divorce to them and to their children that they should no longer be his people in Covenant as they were in time past and yet his grace remain free I spake expressely of outward administration of the Covenant That when Parents are taken into Covenant their children also with them have a visible right and when God gives a bill of divorce from a visible Church standing for to true beleevers hee never gives any their children are cast out with them as appeares in the Jewes at this day is this to symbolise with Arminius or doth Doctor Twisse or Moulin or any other of our Orthodox writers gainesay this I appeale to every learned Reader to judge But é regione I desire you to shew how you will avoyd symholizing with the Arminians who indeavor to prove falling away from true grace and holinesse from this 11. of the Romans because the branches were broken off when you with them say the graffing into the Olive here is meant of true beleevers graffed into the invisible Church yet of the branches growing in or graffed into this Olive it is expresly said some were broken off and others will fare no better if they beleeve not Bert us in his relation of the conference at the Hague urges this very place to prove that it is possâ—ble for the Saints to fall away from grace because we are advised to take warning by the Jewes Example who were broken off for their unbeleefe I know that you thinke not that true beleevers may fall away but how you will avoid the Argument interpreting this place as you doe I professe I cannot tell And now I leave it to every judicious Reader whether you or I have darkned this Scripture whether you in saying this Text is meant of the invisible Church onely and the graffing in is by election and faith or I who say the rejecting is of the Jewes from being of the visible Church and ingraffing is meant of the taking in of the Churches of the Gentiles to bee the visible Church kingdome and people of God in their roomes whether in a word I who interpret it of such a growing in the Olive or ingraffing into it as may endure a breaking off and yet none fall from saving grace who once had it or you who make such a graffing in as that if any branches bee broken off it must necessarily follow that branches may bee rent off from the invisible Church and fall away from inward holinesse have interpreted this Text most agreeable to the Analogy of faith and the Apostles scope and to conclude let the Reader also judge whether this Text notwithstanding all your indeavors remaine not still in my hands as one of my strong holds to defend this conclusion That the obildron of beleevers new have the same right to the Covenant with their Parents as the children of the Jewes had with their Parents Now say you you are come to my principall hold 1 Cor. 7. 14. I perceive at first you thinke there is some strength in it for you have brought a huge army against it and drawne a long line about it raised abundance of batteries and in a very long discourse say something almost to every sentence of mine concerning this Scripture and after all your shot is spent you cry Io triumphus I have got your chiefe hold which you had best manned Truely Sir you speake like 〈…〉 qui diffâ—aviâ— omnes 〈◊〉 Gurgu 〈◊〉 But the best is all the ground is not yours that you walke over nor every man killed that you shoot at I have no feare that your great swelling words will give any satisfaction to your judicious Readers wee will come to what you have done and try what strength there is in this long Section and that I may make my answer to it as briefe as is possible I shall bring all the matter of your discourse to three heads First such things as wherein you and I doe agree and must necessarily agree Secondly such things as wherein whether wee agree or disagree it matters not much to the point in controversie these two I shall but touch upon Thirdly such things wherein wee differ and which really concerne the controversie betwixt us And these things God willing wee will try out hand to hand First wee agree that sanctified may have many senses and that of those many two onely are applicable in this place either the matrimoniall sanctification which you insist upon viz. Chastitie in the wife and husband or lawfull matrimony between them and legitimation of the children Or else Instrumentall sanctification in the husband and wife and federall holinesse in the children which I insist upon Wee agree also secondly that iâ— may signifie by as well as in Wee further agree thirdly that the seepe and meaning of the Text is that the Corinthians having writ for the Apostles resolution whether it were lawfull for them who were converted still to retaine their Infidell wives or husbands the Apostle here resolves that case upon the affirmative And I will further agree with you fourthly that these words else were your Children uncleane c. are a medium or argument whereby the Apostle proves the former sentence the unbeleeving husband is sanctified in the wife c. I yet further agree fiftly that all the places which you cite out of the learned Chamier are Orthodox and clearely prove that for which hee brings them viz. That sanctification cannot bee understood of the conversion of the unbeleever through the diligence of the beleever page 73. And that the Argument is not fetched from a contingent thing pag. 74. And that holinesse is not meant of ceremoniall holinesse which sense was ascribed to Augustine pag. 76. And that the holinesse of Children here is not that which they receive from their education pag. 75. And I am sure you must agree with mee sixtly that in all these testimonies you have cited out of Chamier there is not one word against my Interpretation or for the Justification of yours yea and I know also that you will agree with mee seventhly that the learned Chamier in a large dispute doth confute your interpretation and vindicate my interpretation as the onely true and proper meaning of this Text even in that very place where you quote him And therefore I know the Reader will agree with mee whether you doe or no that you doe but abuse your Author and Reader both in making a flourish with Chamiers name nothing to the purpose and thereby would make the Reader conceive Chamier to bee of your side when hee is point-blanke against you I yet further agree with you eighthly that some Interpreters both antient and moderne doe interpret this Text as you doe and I am
have named baptisme but that he meant to shew baptisme was now to Christians in the room of circumcision to the Jewes You say baptisme is named because it is one of the meanes by which Christians come to have communion with Christ and to be compleat in him which was the thing the Apostle intended in the 12. verse And therefore faith is joyned with it they being the two speciall means whereby we have our communion with Christ to which you adde Gal. 5. 25 26. Rom. 6. 3 4. But is not this the same sense with mine who have hitherto undertaken to justifie that though our compleatnesse be in Christ onely who is now exhibited and no longer to bee sought in the types and shadows of the Jewish administrations to which manner of administrations Circumcision did oblige them yet Baptism is now the seal of our initiation and a meanes to apply this Covenant to us as Circumcision was to them though the manner of their administration be wholly ceased If I have not taken you right make a syllogisme and make all Logick quake before your mighty consequence Baptisme is named because it is one of the meanes of Christians being exempted from the Schoolmaster and come to be ingraffed into Christ and to bee compleat in him therefore it doth not succeed in the roome and place of Circumcision nay rather it therefore doth I pray you put together these words Ye are compleat in Christ in whom ye are also circumcised being buryed with him in baptisme and see if it speake not this plainely that baptisme succeeds into the use of Circumcision surely it hence appeares Circumcision and Baptisme are nearer of kin then you would make them In the close of this Section according to your wonted manner you triumph and tell me that you have at last waded through this conclusion and the text Col. 2. 12. 10. the misunderstanding of which hath been the ignis faruis foolish fire which hath led men out of the way in this matter into bags Truly Sir were these scorns of being led by foolish fire into bogs c cast upon my selfe onely it were nothing but when they are thus cast in the faces of all Divines ancient and modern all Harmonies and Confessions except onely a handfull of upstart Anabaptists as if they were all such simple ones that an ignis fatuus a fooles fire might lead them into any bogs I can hardly forbeare to tell you it is an argument of an arrogant Spirit There is also in the end of your booke a short discourse upon this Text which I read over to see if there were any thing which might weaken my Argument or strengthen your exceptions but in it I finde not any one sentence that hurts me or helps you only some of those things which you call dictates bold assertions some of them contrary to the plain Text of Scripture all of them magisterially set down with out proof as circumcision was not a token of the Covenant to the Iews children which is contrary to the very Text Gen. 17. That the promises of the Covenant were not the reason that they were circumcised Yet any Reader may see that the Covenant is there set downe as the reason why they should bee circumcised That the Jews children were not therefore in covenant because they were Abrahams naturall seed that beleevers children are not in covenant because beleevers children and divers other Conclusions of the same nature which are already answered and therefore I shall not stay the Reader any whit about them Hitherto I have followed you foot by foot because the gaining or losing the cause depends upon these former conclusions the samenesse of the Covenant both to Jews and Centiles the sâ—menesse of our Infants right to the Covenant with theirs and baptisme succeeding circumcision as to the use of an initiall seale to them who are in Covenant In that which remaines I shall more contract the matter of your large Discourseâ— partly because many things in it are upon by-matters partly because that which is materiall is but the repetition of that which hath been answered already My fourth Conclusion was That by Gods owne expresse order Infants as well as growne men were in the time of the Iewes to be initiated and sealed with the signe of circumcision whether Jews by nature or Proselytes of the Gentiles one law was for them all if they receive the covenant they and their children were circumcised This Conclusion you grant to be true onely because you wil say somewhat to every thing you answer First That it is as certain that this expresse order of God is now repealed very true and you might have added That by his order likewise Baptisme succeeds in the room of it I added whereas some alledge Though circumcision was to be applyed to their Infants yet it was not as a seale of the spirituall part of the Covenant but as a Nationall badge or seale of some temporall and earthly blessings and priviledges as of the right to the land of Canaan c. and that Ishmael though he was circumcised for some temporall respects was not thereby brought under the Covenant c. You answer they who thus object speake the truth and here you referre to your Latine Paper I reply to my understanding you here speake pure Anabaptisme indeed just like the Anabaptists in Germany who say The Covenant which circumcision sealed was a carnall covenant and that when God commanded the Israelites to circumcise their children wee are not to understand that he obliged them to have their hearts circumcised nor aimed at any thing which touched the inward man that the condition required by God in circumcision cannot bee drawne to a spirituall businesse that the circumcised by circumcision were not bound to looke for salvation by Jesus Christ how very neare are you come to these carnall conceits of the German Anabaptists which have been a thousand times confuted by our Orthodox Divines yet you bring not one shadow of a proofe for what you say onely you alledge Ishmael had no part in the covenant the covâ—nant was to bee establisted with Isaac and not with Ishmael c. But I have made it abundantly cleare that not onely Ishmael and Esau but missions of Jacobs seed did never partake of the spirituall graces of the Covenant yet were reckoned by circumcision to belong to the Covenant and were obliged to seeke after the spirituall part of it and whereas you say when Ishmael was circumcised Abraham understood the promise was not intended for Ishmael but for Isaac that Ishmael onely was to have a share in some temporall blessings I answer supposing that were true you have given a very good instance to prove that some may receive the outward signe of the Covenant and have a visible standing in the Church though hee who administers the Seale might by revelation know that the inward grace is wanting Secondly I answer how doe you prove
the Sabbath thou shalt rest the seventh day that is thou shalt rest the seventh day from the Creation while the Lord continues that day to be his Sabbath and thou shalt rest the first day of the week when the Lord chooses that to be his Sabbath in like manner I say of the Sacrament of Baptisme To this you answer You referre your selfe to what you have before declared Part 2. Sect. 8. And thither also I referre the Reader where I have vindicated this answer from you I further adde you neither there nor here deny this Argument from a consequence to be sufficient for practise of some things in the Worship of God which are not expresly laid downe in the New Testament onely you adde here I forget the marke at which I shoot the Sabbath or Lords day being not to be reckoned among the Iews Sacraments I reply first I might as well reckon the seventh day from the Creation among the Jews Sacraments as you may say the Jewes had as many Sacraments as Ceremonies Secondly I never numbred the Sabbath amongst Sacraments but because the Sabbath belongs to the instituted Worship of God as well as the Sacrament and requires its institution to bee at least as cleare as this about Infant-Baptisme which touches but a circumstance of age this Argument from the one to the other will appeare to the impartiall Reader to bee too strong for you to answer Next follows the blow which will tumble downe all if your selfe may be believed Mark Reader how heavie a one it is I said when God made the Covenant with Abraham and promised for his part to be the God of him and his seed what God promised to Abraham we claime our part in it as the children of Abraham and what God required on Abrahams part for the substance of obedience wee stand charged with as well as Abraham to beleeve to love the Lord with all our heart to walke before God in uprightnesse to instruct and bring up our Children for God not for our selves nor for the Devill to teach them to worship God according to his revealed will to traine them up under Ordinances and Institutions of Gods owne appointment All these things God commanded Abraham and wee by vertue of that Covenant being Covenanters with Abraham stand bound to all these duties though there were no expresse reviving these Commandements in any part of the New Testament and therefore consequently that command of God to Abraham which bound his seed of the Jews to traine up their children in that manner of Worship which was then in force binds beleevers now to traine up their children in conformity to such Ordinances as are now in force To all this you answer supposing I meane the spirituall part of the Covenant to be that which God promised to Abraham and the persons claiming to bee beleevers this passage you grant to bee true beâ—ause these are morâ—ll duties Well then the deadly blow is not yet given I meane this which you suppose and I meane more then this I meane that what Abraham might claime as an invisible beleever we may claime as invisible beleevers what he might claime as a visible beleever or Professor wee claime the same as visible Professors and so what he stood obliged unto as a visible beleever or professor the same are wee obliged to I meane all this and you say nothing against it but the next passage is that which kills all I said and the same command which enjoyned Abraham to seal his children with the seal of the Covenant enjoyns us to seal ours with the seale of the Covenant and that command of God which expresly bound Abraham to seal his with the sign of circumcision which was the Sacrament then in force pro tempore for the time doth vertually bind us to seale ours with the sign of Baptisme which is the Sacrament now in force and succeeds into the room of the other by his owne appointment Your answer is This Consequence is inferred from a Judaizing principle without Scripture proving either principle or Conclusion whereas you have brought ten Arguments out of the Scripture against it and that the meaning of the Concluclusion must be that we are still bound to circumcise that our males must be circumcised at the eighth day that by no rule of Divinity Logick Grammar or Rhetorique any man can construe this Command Cut off the foreskin of the males upon the eighth day that is let a Preacher of the Gospel baptize young Infants male or female by as good Consequence I might say thou art Peter and upon this rock Ergo the Pope is Monarch of the Church or arise Peter kill and eate Ergo the Pope may deprive Princes So then the dinâ— of your mortall blow lyes in this that you magisterially call it a Judaizing principle that you have brought ten Arguments to prove that Moses Ceremonies Rites do not bind Christian men but that they are all abrogated substance and circumstance whole and part that this vertuall consequence from the command of Circumcision to baptism cannot be made good either by Divinity or Logick but sure if this be all you can say against it the Consequent and Conclusion will easily recover of this wound When I said but just now That Gods Command to Abraham and the Jews to traine up their children in that manner of Worship which was then in force binds us now to traine up our children in conformity to such Ordinances as are now in force You granted this rule was true if meant of beleevers I pray what difference is there betwixt this consequence and that especially it being cleare in the Scripture that Baptisme succeeds Circumcision as the initiall seale of the Covenant and our children have the same right with theirs to bee reckoned to the Covenant if it be a good consequent That because Abraham was bound to traine up his Children in conformity to those institutions which were then in force because their children had right to be so trained up therefore we are bound to traine up our children in conformity to the present institutions because our children have right to be so trained up is not this other consequence I say as good That because God commanded Abraham to administer to his children the seale of admission into Covenant because his children were to be accounted to belong to that administration we are to doe the like to our children now because they belong to this administration I say further because Abraham and the Jews were to traine up their children to celebrate the seventh day of the week to be Gods Sabbath we therefore are bound by vertue of that Commandment to traine up ours to keep the first day of the weeke as Gods Sabbath which consequence your self grant to be good though the thing be a part of instituted Worship and no expresse command or example of it in the new Testament I appeale to al Divinity Logick whether this consequence
them best capable of the specious answers you bring unto them but I like not that an enemy should have the ordering of the Forces which hee meanes to fight against you must give us leave to choose our own weapons and Marshall our own Forces and then you may try your skill and valour against them Doctor Homes hath made his Annotations upon all the arguments which you have produced according to your owne method Mr. Geree hath chosen out onely those arguments which carry most evidence and not troubled himselfe to examine every thing for my part I humbly conceive that Infant-baptisme is not to be fetched from any one of these grounds singly but is built upon the identity of the Covenant Infants right to the Covenant and the initiall seale and consequently though one Text may be a sufficient medium or Argument to prove some one or two of them yet to make the evidence full these groundâ— must not be separated one from another but necessary recourse must be had to them all and if all your Arguments doe overthrow any one of them either the Covenants being the same in substance or infants right to the Covenant or the Lords appointing an initiall seale to bee administred to all who are reputed belonging to the Covenant I shall readily yeeld the cause as I have often told you All the trouble I shal put the Reader to about this your first Argument or rather your answer to Arguments shal be to point him to such places in my book where you have already prest the same things and I have given an answer to them The first Argument from Gen. 17. hath beene examined Part 3. Sect. 1 2. and elswhere The second argument taken from Baptism succeeding into the room of Circumcision and Coloss 2. 11 12 c. is examined Part 3. Sect. 9. The third argument from the priviledges of beleevers under the New Testament is examined Part 3. Sect. 11. 7. The fourth argument from Acts 2. â—8 is fully examined Part 3. Sect. 6. The fifth argument from 1 Cor. 7. 14. is examined Part 3. Sect. 8. The sixth argument from Mark 10. 14. Matth. 19. c. which also you put into severall shapes is examined Part 3. Sect. 15. The seventh argument from Acts 16. and severall other places which speake of baptizing of housholds is examined Part 3. Sect 14. And in these severall places you have pressed whatever is of any seeming weight in this your Exercitation and added many other things which the reader shall finde to bee examined in the places which I have pointed to besides in severall other places of my Booke where you have again and again repeated many of the same things The other seven arguments as you call them I looke not upon as arguments and therefore will not meddle with them some of the Scriptures mentioned in them as Exod. 20. 6. 1 Pet. 2. 9. c. so farre as they have any use in this controversie are also considered of here and there in my Book as the Reader may observe Your second Argument against Infant Baptisme is fetcht from Mat. 28. 19. That which agrees not with the Lords institution of Baptisme that is deservedly doubtfull But the rite of Infant-baptisme agrees not with the Lords institution of Baptism Ergo. This argument hath received its full examination Part 3. Sect. 13. and Part 4. Sect. 1. whither I refer the Reader as not willing to trouble him with needlesse repetition of the same things Your third Argument is taken from the practice of the Apostles and John the Baptist and runs thus That tenet and practice which being put Baptism cannot be administred as John Baptist and the Apostles did administer it agrees not with the practice of John Baptist and the Apostles But the tenet and practice of Infant-Baptisme being put Baptisme cannot bee administred as Jo. Baptist and the Apostles administred iâ— Ergo c. This you goe about to prove because John and the Apostles baptized none but such as confessed sinnes they required shewes of faith and repentance in all whom they baptized This Argument relates wholly to matter of fact wherein you put your selfe to prove a negative and therefore the argument can prove nothing unlesse you can produce some one place at least out of the Scripture wherein it is said no Infant was baptized by them or no other then such as you have mentioned but what you have here said about it is fully considered Part. 3. Sect. 13. especially Part 4. Sect. 1. These three Arguments which alone deserve to bee called if yet the first may be so called are fully examined in the places above-mentioned the rest of your arguments are so wholly inconsequent that I wonder you should think them worthy or fit to face an Assembly of Divines and expect that they should joyne their strength together to frame an answer to them when as I verily thinke they may all bee routed by the running pen of an ordinary Clerke in a few houres Your fourth is taken from the next age after the Apostles and stands thus in your book Because Infant-baptisme cannot be proved that it was inforce or use in the next age after the Apostles Ergo the tenet and practice of it is doubtfull The major you say is manifest of it selfe for the minor you alledge Vives and Strabo and say you it is confirmed by examining of places brought to that purpose by continuing questions to the parties baptized in ages following and other tokens from Councells and Ecclesiasticall writers I answer First to your Major which you say is manifest of its selfe I judge to bee most false and a most dangerous position is every tenet and practice doubtfull which cannot be proved by historicall evidence to have been received and practiced in that age whereof we have so few Records the procession of the holy Ghost the propagation of originall sinne and many other Tenets I beleeve you will neither find mentioned in that age nor the next How would you have laughed at such a conclusion set downe by another And secondly for your Minor I answer 1. There were no Councells at all assembled in that age next to the Apostles And 2. as for Ecclesiasticall Writers I wish you would name them I beleeve you will find very few Writers of credit in that age whose legitimate workes are transmitted to posterity Thirdly how do Vives and Strabo know what was done in the ages next the Apostles when the eldest of them lived almost 800 years after that age the authority and skill of these two men hath been sufficiently spoken to Part 1. Sect. 2. Fourthly I wonder how the questions propounded in ages following to the baptized doe prove that Infant-Baptisme was not in use in the age next after the Apostles Your fifth argument runs thus That which in succeeding ages in which it was in use was in force first as a Tradition not written Secondly out